The federal government has reached an agreement with a New York school district accused of ignoring complaints that other students were harassing a teenager because he acted effeminate.

Suit marked the first time since Clinton DOJ interpreted Title IX to protect LGBT students (file photo by Ryan J. Reilly).

The student was teased and harassed by his classmates because he displayed feminine characteristics, according to the lawsuit, which alleged that school authorities did not do enough to intervene.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Mohawk Central School District will write a $50,000 check to a trust fund for the student and a $25,000 check for lawyers’ fees to the New York Civil Liberties Union.

The school district also will pay for counseling sessions for the student and retain a discrimination prevention expert to review the policies in place.

The settlement is not an admission of liability, but in a joint statement, the district and DOJ said they hoped it could “serve as a model for other school districts confronting the issues of bullying and intolerance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other gender non-conforming students.”

When Justice Department lawyers joined the case in January, it marked the first time since President Bill Clinton was in office that DOJ lawyers argued that the protections against sex discrimination in Title IX apply to gender identity as well.

The government said it had “authority to intervene to seek relief from denials of equal protection if the matter is certified as a matter of general public importance,” as certified by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez.

UPDATED: “All students have the right to go to school without fearing harassment based on sex, including stereotypes about appropriate gender behavior,” Perez said in a statement released Tuesday. “Such conduct has no place in our schools, and the Justice Department looks forward to working with the District and the NYCLU to ensure that all students enjoy educational opportunities without discrimination or harassment.”

The settlement is embedded below.

JL Approved Settlement Order 3.29.10

Department of Justice

Click here for the indictment.

Suspected terrorist Najibullah Zazi has begun working with prosecutors and possibly will agree to a plea agreement, according to two officials familiar with the investigation, The Associated Press reports. Zazi in September 2009 was charged with planning to bomb a New York City target with homemade explosives. He reportedly has had contact with a senior al-Qaeda member.

The AP reports that Zazi’s guilty plea could come as early as today. Zazi reportedly has volunteered information during a recent meeting, known as a proffer session, with his attorney William Stampur and federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Eastern District of New York. Proffer sessions often occur when a defendant has started working with prosecutor in an effort to get a plea deal, the AP reports.

Zazi has reportedly told prosecutors he was armed with bomb-making components while on his way to New York City but got rid of them en route, AP reported. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Marshall Miller.

According to the AP, while a guilty plea would be important, the information Zazi could provide to investigators regarding co-conspirators in the U.S. and Pakistan might be more valuable. In addition, according to AP, Zazi’s willingness to cooperate with prosecutors suggests they hope to bring charges against other suspects in the Zazi case and possibly other terror probes.

The cooperation between Zazi and federal prosecutors adds weight to the argument made by federal prosecutors that terrorist suspects should be tried in civilian courts, as prosecutors are able to persuade defendants to provide prosecutors with reliable information without coercion, the AP reports.

Loretta Lynch (Hogan & Hartson)

Loretta E. Lynch (Harvard College, Harvard Law School) is nominated to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. She would replace Roslynn R. Mauskopf, who served as the district’s head prosecutor from 2002 to 2007. Mauskopf resigned after President Bush nominated her to a judgeship in the district. The district’s current interim U.S. Attorney is Benton J. Campbell.

Her vitals:

• Born in Greensboro, N.C., in 1959.
• Has been a partner at Hogan & Hartson LLP in New York since January 2002.
• Worked in the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York from 1990-2001. She was U.S. Attorney from June 1999 to May 2001, Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney from May 1998 to May 1999,  Deputy Chief and Chief of the Long Island Division from September 1993  to April 1998, Chief of Intake & Arraignments and Deputy Chief of General Crimes from September 1992 to August 1993 and an Assistant U.S. Attorney from March 1990 to May 1999.
• Was an adjunct professor at St. John’s University School of Law during the fall 2000 semester.
• Was a partner at Ujamaa Investment Group from October 1994  to January 1998.
• Worked as a litigation associate at Cahill Gordon & Reindel in New York from September 1984 to February 1990.
• Has tried 13 cases to verdict, including one at Cahill Gordon and 12 at the U.S. Attorney’s office.

Click here for her full Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire.

UPDATE: On her Senate Judiciary financial disclosure she reported assets of $1,456,900 mostly in securities and liabilities of $287,000 for a net worth of $1,169,900.

On her Office of Government Ethics financial disclosure  Lynch reported her law partnership income of $686,000 for 2008 and most of 2009.

Richard S. Hartunian (Georgetown University, Albany Law School) is nominated to replace Glenn T. Suddaby as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York. Suddaby resigned in 2008 when he became a federal judge. Hartunian is currently the interim U.S. Attorney.

His vitals:

• Born in Evanston, Ill., in 1961.
• Has worked in the district’s U.S. Attorney’s office since 1993. Has served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney. Is currently an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorney and Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Coordinator.
• Worked as an assistant district attorney in Albany, N.Y., from 1990 to 1997.
• Was a partner at Hartunian and Clark in Albany from 1990 to 1997.
• Was an associate attorney at Devine, Piedmont and Rutnik in Albany from 1987 to 1990.
• Was an employee/manager at Skyview Star Supermarket, the family grocery business, in Latham, N.Y., from 1976 to 1990.
• Has tried approximately 60 criminal cases to verdict and served as sole or lead counsel in all of those cases. Also has tried at least two civil cases to verdict.
• Has assets valued at $3.3 million, including four properties he owns, in part or full, valued at $1.25 million. He has no liabilities.

Click here for his full Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has released questionnaires for an additional five U.S. Attorney nominees. Information from their Office of Government Ethics disclosures will be added as it becomes available.

• Sally Quillian Yates, Northern District of Georgia
• Anne M. Tompkins, Western District of North Carolina
• William J. Hochul, Jr., Western District of New York
• Andre Birotte Jr., Central District of California
• William N. Nettles, District of South Carolina

William Hochul leaving the Buffalo court house in 2002 after bail hearings for the "Lackawana Six." (Getty Images)

William J. Hochul Jr. (University of Notre Dame, State University of New York at Buffalo) is nominated to replace Terrance P. Flynn as the Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York. Flynn resigned in January 2009 to join the private sector.

Click here for his full Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire.

On his Office of Government Ethics disclosure form, Hochul reports earning $2,306 from his job at Hilbert College. His filing does not report any liabilities.

UPDATE: On his Senate Judiciary financial disclosure, Hochul reports assets of $3.4 million mostly from $1.8 million cash on hand and in banks and his personal and vacation residences valued at a combined $885,000. He reports no liabilities.

U.S. Attorney-in-waiting Richard S. Hartunian (Georgetown University, Albany Law School) was sworn in as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York yesterday, The Troy Record reports.

President Barack Obama nominated the veteran prosecutor on Dec. 23 to fill the post. The last Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney in the district was Glenn T. Suddaby, who served from 2002 until 2008, when he became a federal judge.

Norman A. Mordue, chief judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, administered the oath of office. At the same time, Mordue swore in Andrew T. Baxter, the district’s former acting and interim U.S. Attorney, as a U.S. magistrate judge.

Baxter became acting U.S. Attorney on Sept. 5, 2008, following Suddaby’s resignation. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder then named Baxter interim U.S. Attorney on April 3, 2009.

REMARKS AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

ERIC HOLDER BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Nov. 18, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C.

When I appeared before this committee in January for my confirmation hearing, I laid out several goals for my time as Attorney General: to protect the security of the American people, restore the integrity of the Department of Justice, reinvigorate the Department’s traditional mission, and most of all, to make decisions based on the facts and the law, with no regard for politics. In my first oversight hearing in June, I described my early approach to these issues.

Five months later, we are deeply immersed in the challenges of the day, moving forward to make good on my promises to the committee and the president’s promises to the American people.

First and foremost, we are working day and night to protect the American people. Due to the vigilance of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, we have uncovered and averted a number of serious threats to domestic and international security. Recent arrests in New York, Chicago, Springfield, and Dallas, are evidence of our success in identifying nascent plots and stopping would-be attackers before they strike.

Violence can still occur, however, as evidenced by the recent tragic shootings at Fort Hood. We mourn the deaths of 13 brave Americans, including Dr. Libardo Caraveo, a psychologist with the Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons who had been recalled to active duty. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is working diligently to help gather evidence that will be used by military prosecutors in the upcoming trial of the individual who is alleged to have committed this heinous act.

We are also seeking to learn from this incident to prevent its reoccurrence. Future dangerousness is notoriously difficult to predict. The president has ordered a full review to determine if there was more that could have been done to prevent the tragedy that unfolded in Texas two weeks ago. We have briefed the chairman and ranking member of this committee and other congressional leaders on our efforts, and will continue to keep Congress abreast of this review.

My written statement addresses a number of other issues before the Department, but I would like to use the rest of the time allotted to me today to address a topic that I know is on many of your minds – my decision last week to refer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others for prosecution in federal courts for their participation in the 9/11 plot.

As I said on Friday, I knew this decision would be controversial. This was a tough call, and reasonable people can disagree with my conclusion that these individuals should be tried in federal court rather than a military commission.

The 9/11 attacks were both an act of war and a violation of our federal criminal law, and they could have been prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions. Courts and commissions are both essential tools in our fight against terrorism. Therefore, at the outset of my review of these cases, I had no preconceived views as to the merits of either venue, and in fact on the same day that I sent these five defendants to federal court, I referred five others to be tried in military commissions. I am a prosecutor, and as a prosecutor my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case in the best forum.

I studied this issue extensively. I consulted the Secretary of Defense. I heard from prosecutors from my Department and from the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions. I spoke to victims on both sides of the question. I asked a lot of questions and weighed every alternative. And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court.

I know there are members of this committee, and members of the public, who have strong feelings on both sides. There are some who disagree with the decision to try the alleged Cole bomber and several others in a military commission, just as there are some who disagree with prosecuting the 9/11 plotters in federal court.

Despite these disagreements, I hope we can have an open, honest, and informed discussion about that decision today, and as part of that discussion, I would like to clear up some of the misinformation that I have seen since Friday.

First, we know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing it for years. There are more than 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in Bureau of Prisons custody, including those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the attacks on our embassies in Africa. Our courts have a long history of handling these cases, and no district has a longer history than the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. I have talked to Mayor Bloomberg of New York, and both he and the Police Commissioner Ray Kelly believe that we can safely hold these trials in New York.

Second, we can protect classified material during trial. The Classified Information Procedures Act, or CIPA, establishes strict rules and procedures for the use of classified information at trial, and we have used it to protect classified information in a range of terrorism cases. In fact, the standards recently adopted by Congress to govern the use of classified information in military commissions are derived from the very CIPA rules that we use in federal court.

Third, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have in military commissions. Before the commissions last year, he declared the proceedings an “inquisition,” condemned his own attorneys and our Constitution, and professed his desire to become a martyr. Those proceedings were heavily covered in the media, yet few complained at the time that his rants threatened the fabric of our democracy.

Judges in federal court have firm control over the conduct of defendants and other participants in their courtrooms, and when the 9/11 conspirators are brought to trial, I have every confidence that the presiding judge will ensure appropriate decorum. And if KSM makes the same statements he made in his military commission proceedings, I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is. I’m not scared of what KSM will have to say at trial – and no one else needs to be either.

Fourth, there is nothing common about the treatment the alleged 9/11 conspirators will receive. In fact, I expect to direct prosecutors to seek the ultimate and most uncommon penalty for these heinous crimes. And I expect that they will be held in custody under Special Administrative Measures reserved for the most dangerous criminals.

Finally, there are some who have said this decision means that we have reverted to a pre-9/11 mentality, or that we don’t realize this nation is at war. Three weeks ago, I had the honor of joining the President at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer of the remains of eighteen Americans, including three DEA agents, who lost their lives to the war in Afghanistan. The brave soldiers and agents carried home on that plane gave their lives to defend this country and its values, and we owe it to them to do everything we can to carry on the work for which they sacrificed.

I know that we are at war.

I know that we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and our civilians on the streets here at home. I have personally witnessed that somber fact in the faces of the families who have lost loved ones abroad, and I have seen it in the daily intelligence stream I review each day. Those who suggest otherwise are simply wrong.

Prosecuting the 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we are at war. We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power – civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and others – to win. We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.

We will also use every instrument of our national power to bring to justice those responsible for terrorist attacks against our people. For eight years, justice has been delayed for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It has been delayed even further for the victims of the attack on the USS Cole. No longer. No more delays. It is time, it is past time, to act. By bringing prosecutions in both our courts and military commissions, by seeking the death penalty, by holding these terrorists responsible for their actions, we are finally taking ultimate steps toward justice. That is why I made this decision.

In making this and every other decision I have made as Attorney General, my paramount concern is the safety of the American people and the preservation of American values. I am confident this decision meets those goals, and that it will withstand the judgment of history.

Thank you.

Lanny Breuer (USDOJ)

Justice Department Criminal Division chief Lanny Breuer on Thursday told Reuters that the acquittal earlier this week of two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers will not deter the department from prosecuting fraud cases in the future. On Tuesday, a New York jury acquitted Matthew Tannin on charges of conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud. And Ralph Cioffi was found not guilty of the same charges and an additional charge of insider trading.

The U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York had alleged that Tannin and Cioffi misled investors about the risks involved in the subprime mortgage market. Reuters reports that the trial “was seen as a test case for prosecuting people for their alleged roles in the financial crisis and some have questioned whether the acquittals would give the department pause in pursuing such cases.”

Breuer told Reuters, “When the laws and the facts dictate that we should bring charges we will, and we will ultimately always abide by the judgment and verdict of the jury,” adding, “I don’t think it’s a setback. We have to be vigilant and move forward and we’ll do just that.”

Glen Donath, a former Senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Fraud and Public Corruption Section of the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, told Reuters that the Tannin-Cioffi case was difficult to make because of how quickly the markets change. Donath, now a partner at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, told Reuters, “The fact that these two guys had a negative view of the subprime market at a particular point in time is close to meaningless in terms of how they viewed a particular trading opportunity at another moment,” adding, “The government had a herculean task of proving intent in this case and didn’t seem to come close to meeting that burden.”