Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the White House Conference on Gang Violence Prevention and Crime Control

Washington, D.C.
Monday, August 24, 2009

Good morning. Thank you Tino Cuellar, Alan Hoffman, Cecilia Munoz, and Representative Scott for opening today’s conference. And I’d like to thank all of you who are in this room on a hot day in late August, for being here. I know that many of you have taken time out of your end-of-summer plans to be with us because you recognize the importance of building partnerships in public safety and of working together on a national level to combat criminal gangs and violence in American communities.

You, our mayors and police chiefs in this room, are innovators in the administration of justice. You are the people who work to make changes on the front-lines. You are constantly refining your approach to crime. You know what works, and what doesn’t work, to make our neighborhoods and communities safer. You field-test new strategies and you prove that solutions are possible to some of our most challenging crime problems.

Much of your success is attributable to your sensitivity to the specific needs of the communities you serve, and to your ability to understand what works in a given context. Indeed, crime-fighting is more than anything a local pursuit, and we all know that there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all answer to the problem of crime. What works in Chicago may not work in Bismarck. So why come together in a gathering like this one?

I believe that, ultimately, we cannot get smart on crime in isolation. A rational, data-driven, evidence-based, smart approach to crime – the kind of approach that this Administration is dedicated to pursuing and supporting – must be part of a partnership in public safety. It requires the exchange and evaluation of experiences, and exposure to new ideas. That is what brings us together today.

I want to get us started on the day’s work by noting five principles that have guided my own approach to combating crime in my time as Attorney General and before. 1. Innovate. 2. Devise evidence-based strategies. 3. Show results. 4. Learn from peers. 5. Collaborate.

It is in the spirit of these principles that, for example, I have asked attorneys throughout the Department of Justice to conduct a comprehensive, evidence-based review of federal sentencing and corrections policy. The group is examining the federal sentencing guidelines, the Department’s charging and sentencing advocacy practices, mandatory minimums, crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparities, and other possible racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing. The group is also studying alternatives to incarceration, and strategies that help reduce recidivism when former offenders re-enter society.

In my view, the same principles behind that effort can also guide us in building successful partnerships in public safety.

Let me start with the first and perhaps most important principle. We need to make sure we regularly pursue innovation. Without abandoning what does work, we need to be courageous about developing and implementing new ideas. Throughout the day, you will hear from local officials who have been willing to think and act “outside the box,” to great success.

One example is an ongoing effort in High Point, North Carolina, to disrupt drug markets. It is a model developed by David Kennedy whereby law enforcement officials target the most violent offenders for prosecution, then go to lower-level, non-violent offenders and say, “This is what will happen to you if you don’t get your act straight.”

Here is an example of how this has worked in practice there. Police officers will round up young dealers, show videotapes of them dealing drugs, and let them know that their cases are being prepared for indictment, which of course would mean hard time in prison. These young dealers are then presented with a choice – they can stay on track for prison or, if they are willing to change their ways, there is help for them in the form of things like mentoring and job training. The message is clear: you have a chance to do the right thing. And the results have been just as clear: violent crime in High Point has dropped 57 percent in the target area. This strategy appears to have changed the relationship between law enforcement and residents, and it may have broken what seemed like a fixed cycle of drugs, crime and lives cut short.

I saw another, quite different, innovative approach to crime-fighting in Los Angeles last month, when I visited the Summer Night Lights program run by Mayor Villaraigosa’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development. Summer Night Lights, in partnership with community organizations, offers safe and healthy alternatives to crime and delinquency at night. It literally turns the lights on in parks where crimes often occur, and offers recreational, educational, and artistic activities instead. The program is an example of innovation upon innovation. The Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention helped fund a pilot “Gang Reduction and Youth Development Zone” in the Boyle Heights area of East Los Angeles, and the City of Los Angeles reported that this program helped reduce gang violence in that area by 40 percent. Now the city runs “zones” across the city and Summer Night Lights in 15 sites at zones.

Second, we need to develop evidence-based strategies for criminal law enforcement. This means moving beyond useless labels and instead embracing science and data as the foundations of policy. This is how we get past the traditional model of reacting to crime after it occurs, and shift instead to a preventive stance. “Hot spots” policing is a prime example of how this works. We can use data to map where criminal activity is concentrated and focus law enforcement resources in those areas. Research from our National Institute of Justice shows that even areas near targeted “hot spots” see reductions in crime.

The NYPD’s Real Time Crime Center, under Ray Kelly’s leadership, is another example of smart, data-driven prevention. In America’s largest city, officers and detectives use data-mining technology to quickly provide investigators in the field with information about the crime scene. For example, the Center uses satellite imaging and mapping techniques to point officers to the locations where suspects are likely to flee. This helps to neutralize some of the advantages that criminals may have over law enforcement, and it goes a long way toward preventing crime.

A third principle follows from the last one: we must show results. This means taking innovative programs and new evidence-based strategies, and evaluating them honestly. We have a robust evaluation agenda in our National Institute of Justice, but it’s also incumbent upon local officials to demonstrate that the approaches they have adopted are working. Evaluating results should be undertaken with serious investigative intent, not just as a cursory exercise to satisfy a funding authority. And in rigorous evaluations, we can extrapolate general lessons from the program under study. For example, from an evaluation of CeaseFire-Chicago, we learned the value of a public health approach to public safety. And we learned that targeting a small, high-risk population can have significant, broader benefits.

My fourth principle is what I call peer-to-peer learning. To really get smart on crime, we should learn from each others’ experiences – failures as well as successes. That happens in I like this conference. In fact, this conference is part of an ongoing conversation that this Administration began this spring with our partners in public safety. Back in April, we convened a Law Enforcement Summit to identify key priorities and to examine lessons learned from ongoing initiatives. That was not an academic exercise – we have already used what we learned at that summit in tangible ways, to formulate decisions about resources and strategies in partnership with state, local and tribal law enforcement.

We held a similar meeting in July with our colleagues in the Department of Homeland Security and other partners. We discussed how best to continue support for fusion centers and improve information sharing, while emphasizing the importance of privacy and civil liberty protections. Like the Law Enforcement Summit, we are using that feedback to guide our decision-making.

Moreover, a commitment to learning also means looking to non-traditional crime fighters. I have often thought that crime fighters exist outside the law enforcement community as it is typically strictly-defined. Their ranks include public health officials, educators and people who work on labor and other social issues. Many of you already recognize this, and some of your most successful initiatives have involved working with your counterparts across state and local government.

This brings us to my fifth and final principle: collaboration. After we innovate, after we develop data-driven strategies to combat crime, after we show results and learn from each other, we need to collaborate to ensure that our successes are sustained, magnified and replicated across the country. In this, the Department of Justice has a particular responsibility.

This Administration has been working from day one to provide law enforcement officials with the resources they need to do their jobs effectively. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act alone, we have awarded more than 2 billion dollars through the Office of Justice Programs and a billion dollars through the COPS office already. But we have been careful to make sure that we are doing more than just moving money out the door. We must match resources effectively with local needs, and we can only do that by making decisions in true partnership with localities. Moreover, a true federal-local partnership in public safety must go beyond funding decisions.

It also means a commitment on the part of the federal government to be active in your efforts and you in ours. It means federal law enforcement participation in state and local task forces and your inclusion in ours. It means leveraging federal participation in areas where state, local, tribal and federal officials can and should work together. And it means helping these officials get their hands on data and research and other information that will help them to do their jobs better. It means taking what we know, and what we learn from each other, and making sure we all put it to good use.

Let us do that today. Let us learn from each other and then put what we learn to good use. I have no doubt that together, in partnership, we will develop law enforcement programs that are sophisticated, contemporary, effective, and, simply, smart. And, together, we can have a positive impact on the lives of the American people. Thank you.

Domestic Violence Screening Study in Yesterday’s Journal of the American Medical Association Is Misleading. Fails to Note Benefits of Comprehensive Interventions, Experts Say

News Release                                                              Contact:  Lisa Lederer, Luci Manning

August 5, 2009                                                               202/371-1999

SAN FRANCISCO, CA –  The nation’s leading domestic violence prevention agency, which runs the National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence (funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), today cautioned against reading the findings of a study published in yesterday’s Journal of the American Medical Association as a definitive rejection of screening for intimate partner violence in health care settings.  Calling the negative conclusions about screening unjustified and noting problems with the study’s design and implementation, leaders at the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) warned that failure to continue and enhance programs that screen patients for domestic violence will cost lives.

The new study, by researchers at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, set out to examine the effectiveness of screening for intimate partner violence in preventing repeat violence and improving quality of life.  However, since both the intervention and control groups were both asked about abuse using the same self-administered written survey, the study only measured the difference when positive results were communicated to clinicians vs. when clinicians were not given this information

In the study, if a woman in the “screened” group reported intimate partner violence (IPV), the information was given to her clinician before her visit.  Whether the clinician used – or ignored – that information was not monitored in a uniform manner.  In fact, according to women who were questioned immediately after their visits, fewer than half the “screened” women discussed violence with their clinicians.  Nonetheless, all the abused women in the study who completed the assessment and received an information card showed some improvement in repeat violence and quality of life, and none reported harms from screening.

“To say that this study does not support screening is misleading at best, since both groups were screened identically and offered the same information card with referrals,” said FVPF President Esta Soler.  “We need to continue screening, and to train health care providers so they know how to help if a patient discloses domestic violence and how to connect abused patients to skilled service providers who can provide support.  This study did not examine the impact of that kind of intervention at all.  Furthermore, it is most disturbing that authors downplayed some of their own important findings that actually support screening.”  The study found statistically significant improvements in psychological quality of life and depression for patients whose providers were told that that they reported domestic violence and it found no harms associated with screening.  Unfortunately, a large proportion (more than 40 percent) of the women were lost to follow-up and when this was taken into account in post hoc testing, the differences in quality of life and depression disappeared.

“At a time when, on average, three women are murdered each day by their husbands or boyfriends, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that women in the United States experience two million injuries from domestic violence each year, we should be using every tool at our disposal to identify and help victims of domestic violence,” added FVPF Director of Health Lisa James. “It is critical to understand that both groups in this study were screened, both groups were offered referral cards, and researchers failed to study or report on whether and how clinicians talked to the victims of violence about abuse, its impact on health and how to get help.  It is especially disappointing that this study emphasized the negative and ignored some positive findings, in order to conclude there is not sufficient evidence to support screening and assessment in health care settings.”

An editorial in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association concludes:  “Specific interventions to prevent the recurrence of abuse for women at risk of violence should be implemented and rigorously tested” without further delay so we can truly understand the impact of health interventions in the lives of women.

“If we are to save the lives of victims of domestic violence, the commentary above is right.  We need funding so we can further evaluate the interventions clinicians use following screening.  It would be a costly mistake to abandon this kind of intervention,” Soler said.

#     #     #     #

The Family Violence Prevention Fund works to end violence against women and children around the world, because every person has the right to live free of violence. More information is available at www.endabuse.org.

Domestic Violence Lethality Assessment

Lethality assessment is the attempt to identify the circumstances when a batterer is most dangerous by evaluating the batterer’s beliefs and patterns of violence, coercion, and control. The following information was developed by Barbara J. Hart, Esq. In Assessing Whether Batterer’s Will Kill. The assessment looks at a number of predictors. The underlying assumption is the higher the number of predictors, the higher the potential for the batterer to commit a homicide or engage in potentially lethal behaviors.

Predictors of Lethality Include:

• Threats of suicide or homicide including killing himself, the victim, children or relatives.
• Fantasies of homicide or suicide in the guise of fantasizing “who, how, when and/or where to kill.”
• Weapons owned by the perpetrator who has threatened to used them or has used them in the past (the use of guns is a strong predictor of homicide).
• Feelings of “ownership” of the victim.
• “Centrality” to the victim (idolizing and extreme dependence).
• Separation from the victim (this is an extremely dangerous time when perpetrators make the decision to kill).
• Dangerous behavior increases in degree with little regard for legal or social consequences.
• Hostage-taking
• Depression
• Repeated calls to the police.

Lethality assessments are more an art than a science and cannot be considered precise by any means. They are not a tool for certain prediction, but rather one for risk assessment and safety planning or intervention. Social service providers should error on the side of caution and inform their clients that any abuser can potentially be lethal.

Soo Tribe Woman Sentenced to Prison for Knife Assault

For Immediate Release July 22, 2009

United States Attorney’s Office Western District of Michigan Contact: (616) 456-2404

MARQUETTE, MI—Lorraine Marie Smith, 45, of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, a member of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, was sentenced to 27 months in federal prison for assault with a dangerous weapon, U.S. Attorney Donald A. Davis announced today. In addition to the prison term, Senior U.S. District Judge R. Allan Edgar ordered Smith to serve three years of supervised release following her release from prison, to pay a $100 special assessment, and to have no further contact with the victim. Smith pleaded guilty to a federal indictment charging her with assault with a dangerous weapon on January 20, 2009. The charge stemmed from an incident occurring on Bay Mills Indian Community lands in November 2008 during which Smith stabbed her boyfriend in the back with a 12-inch carving knife during the course of an argument. U.S. Attorney Davis commended the Bay Mills Tribal Police and the Chippewa County Sheriff Department as well as the FBI for their work in this case. This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul D. Lochner.

13 Steps to an Abusive Man’s Process of Change

1. Admit fully to his history of psychological, sexual, and physical abusiveness toward any current or past partners whom he abused. Denial and minimizing need to stop, including discrediting your memory of what happened. He can’t change if he is continuing to cover-up, to others or to himself, important parts of what he has done.

2. Acknowledge that the abuse was wrong, unconditionally. he needs to identify the justifications he has tended to use, including the various ways that he may have blamed you, and to talk in detail about why his behaviors were unacceptable without slipping back into defending them.

3. Acknowledge that his behavior was a choice, not a loss of control. For example, he needs to recognize that there is a moment during each incident at which he gives himself permission to become abuisive and that he chooses how far to let himself go.

4. Recognize the effects his abuse has had on you on your children, and show empathy for those. He needs to talk in detail about the short-and-long term impact that his abuse has had, including fear, loss of trust, anger, and loss of freedom and other rights. And he needs to do this without reverting to feeling sorry for himself or talking about how hard the experience has been for him.

5. Identify in detail his pattern of controlling behaviors and entitled attitudes. He needs to speak is detail about the day-to-day tactics of abuse he has used. Equally important, he must be able to identify his underlying beliefs and values that have driven those behaviors, such as considering himself entitled to constant attention, looking down on you as inferior, or believing that men aren’t responsible for their actions if “provoked” by a partner.

6. Develop respectful behaviors and attitudes to replace the abusive ones he is stopping. You can look for examples such as improving how well he listens to you during conflicts and at other times, carrying his weight of household responsibilities and child care, and supporting your independence. He has to demonstrate that he has to come to accept the fact that you have rights and that they are equal to his.

7. Reevaluate his distorted image of you, replacing it with a more positive and empathetic view. He has to recognize that he has had mental habits of focusing on and exaggerating his grievances against you and his perceptions of your weaknesses and to begin instead to compliment you and pay attention to strengths and abilities.

8. Make amends for the damage he has done. He has to develop a sense that he has a debt to you and to your children as a result of his abusiveness. He can start to make up somewhat for his actions by being consistently kind and supportive, putting his own needs on the back burner for a couple of years, talking with people whom he has mislead in regard to the abuse and admitting to them that he lied, paying for objects that he has damaged, and many other steps related to cleaning up the emotional and literal messes that his behaviors have caused. (At the same time, he needs to accept that he may never be able to fully compensate you.)

9. Accept the consequences of his actions. He should stop whining about, or blaming you for, problems that are the result of his abuse, such as your loss of desire to be sexual with him, the children’s tendency to prefer you, or the fact that he is on probation.

10. Commit to not repeating his abusive behaviors and honor that commitment. He should not place any conditions on his his improvement, such as saying that he won’t call you names as long as you don’t raise your voice to him. If he does backslide, he cannot justify his abusive behaviors by saying, “But I’ve done great for five months; you can’t expect me to be perfect,” as if a good period earned him chips to spend on occasional abuse.

11. Accept the need to give up his privileges and do so. This means saying good-bye to double standards. to flirting with other women, to taking off with his friends all week-end while you look after the children, and to being allowed to express anger while you are not.

12. Accept that overcoming abusiveness is likely to be a life long process. He at no time can claim that his work is done by saying to you, “I’ve changed but you haven’t,”  or complain that he is sick of hearing about the abuse and control and that “it’s time to get past all that.” He needs to come to terms with the fact that he will probably need to be working on his issues for good and that you may feel the effects of what he has done for many years.

13. Be willing to be accountable for his actions, both past and future. His attitude that he is above reproach has to be replaced by willingness to accept feedback and criticism, to be honest about any backsliding, and to be answerable for what he does and how it affects you and your children.

Author: Lundy Bancroft Why Does He Do That?

Help for Victim Providers OVC Web Forum

1. What’s the timeframe to conduct the forensic interview? 2. Is the forensic interview only for the victims with penetration sexual assault vs. overclothing touching? 3. Why are the Tribal Police not referring the SA cases quicker to the CI to conduct the forensic interview. 4. I’ve attempted to push the cases for children that have advanced communication skills for forensic interview before starting play therapy. 5. Why are the BIE school not taking firm actions on child perpetrators and allowing the victims to withdraw from school? 6. Are there any difference in children with disability that are SA as far as forensic interviewing?
1.	Hollie Strand
	1. The timeframe we have is pretty open. We can interview the victim shortly after the assault/abuse or many years later. 2. The interview is not limited to cases with specific disclosures such as penetration. In many cases we are unaware of the full scope of the abuse until the child discloses the details of the abuse in the interview. Some children initially disclose over-the-clothes touching and then disclose penetration in the interview. 4. I am unsure the policies and procedures for your jurisdiction. Out here we have the local Tribal Police, BIA, and FBI who all work cases. Sometimes the process of identifying the right agency appropriate for the case or which agencies will be working together on a case can creates time lapse in when a child discloses and when a child is interviewed. 4. We interview children starting at 36 months. Some children are able to be interviewed at that time, some even before 36 months. However some children at not able to be interviewed at 36 months dues to lack of the level of expressive and receptive language skills needed to comprehend and answer questions. In those cases we recommend play therapy and try to interview approximately 3-6 months later. 5. I am not the reason for this. It might be a good topic to introduce at a school board meeting. 6. As an interviewer I try to keep my questions at the developmental age of the child. So if I am interviewing a 13 year old with the developmental age of a 6 year old, I would ask questions structured for a 6 year old. I try to do everything I can to make the interview environment and questions consistent with the childs level of development. PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK ON THE SIDE BAR FOR MORE INFORMATION

Child Sexual Assault Myths and Facts

WCADV Beth Balo

• MYTH: Child Sexual Assault is most often committed by strangers.
• FACT: Over 90% of child sexual assault victims know their abuser.
• MYTH: Child Sexual Assault is a rare occurrence.
• FACT: 1 in 4 females and 1 in 7 males will be sexually assaulted before the age of 18.
• MYTH: The average age of the onset of child sexual assault is 6-8 years of age.
• FACT: The average age of sexual assault to a boy is 4.
• FACT: The average age of trafficking a child is 9
• MYTH: You can tell a sex offender be looking at him/her.
• FACT: Sex offenders come from all walks of life, can be male or female, all age groups.

FRIGHTENING NUMBERS

• CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 12 COMPRISE 46% OF THE CASES OF FORCIBLE RAPE IN THE UNITED STATES EACH YEAR.
• 88% of the incidents of child sexual assault go UNREPORTED.
• The FBI reports that only 2% of reported child sexual assault cases are false.

ALWAYS…ALWAYS….BELIEVE THE CHILD FIRST!

Child Sexual Assault

By: Beth Ballo Prevention Specialist Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Wisconsin Child Sexual Assault Laws

• First Degree Sexual Assault
• A. Sexual contact or intercourse with a person not yet 13, and causes great bodily harm.
• B. Has sexual intercourse with a person who has not yet attained the age of 12.
• C. Has sexual intercourse with a person less than 16 by use or threat of force or violence.

( Class A Felony Mandatory Arrest Minimum=25 yrs)

• Second degree Sexual Assault:
• Anyone who has sexual contact with or intercourse with a person who has not reached age 16.
• Sexual intercourse with a child 16 or older.
• Engaging in repeat acts of sexual assault with the same child.
• Incest with a child.
• Sexual Assault of a child by a school staff person or a person who volunteers or works with children.
• Child Enticement
• Causing a child to listen to or view sexual activity.
• Sexual Assault of a child for prosititution.
• Sexual Assault of a child placed in substitute care.
• Exposing genitals or pubic area.
• Female genital mutilation.

Examples of Child Sexual Assault

• Obscene phone calls
• Internet Solicitation
• Exposure to pornography
• Exposure to Sexual Acts
• Voyeurism
• Photographing a child in sexual poses
• Touching a child’s genitals; making a child touch someone else’s genitals. (inside and outside of clothing)
  

The Mystery

Authored By Lundy Bancroft
Book Title: WHY DOES HE DO THAT?

LISTEN TO THE VOICES OF THESE WOMEN:
He’s two different people. I feel like I’m living with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
He really doesn’t mean to hurt me. He loses control.
Everyone else think’s he’s great. I don’t know what it is about me that set’s him off.
He’s fine when he’s sober. But when he’s drunk, watch out.
I feel like he’s never happy with anything I do.
He’s scared me a few times, but never touches the children. He’s a great father.
He calls me disgusting names, and then an hour later he wants sex. I don’t get it.
He messes up my mind sometimes.
The thing is, he really understands me.
Why does he do that?
These are the words of women who are describing their anxiety and inner conflict about their relationships. Each of these women knows that something is wrong-very wrong-but she can’t put her finger on what it is. Every time she thinks she’s got her partner figured out, that she finally understands what is bothering him, something new happens, something changes. The pieces refuse to fit together.
Each of these women is trying to make sense out of the roller-coaster ride that her relationship has become.

Searcher “Do abusers love their victims?”

This is my response to the searcher who ask the above.
Abusers are MASTERS of deception,
“All deception in the course of life is indeed nothing else but a lie reduced to practice, and falsehood passing from words into things.”
Author: Robert Southey, manipulation, “For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, who art as black as hell, as dark as night.”
Author: William Shakespeare, and the only love they feel is for themselves and their property.
HOW CAN YOU LOVE THE THING YOU COVET AND AT THE SAME TIME BEGRUDGE THEIR HUMANITY?
What do I mean by humanity…..the gifts bestowed you by your creator….your gift of sight that views beauty in another human being or creation, the gift of touch that makes you spontaneously reach out to touch another human being, the gift of scent or the gift of sound. He/she is with out fault but you may have many, it is human to have fault is it not?

THE DEFINITION OF LOVE.
by Andrew Marvell

I.
MY Love is of a birth as rare
As ’tis, for object, strange and high ;
It was begotten by Despair,
Upon Impossibility.

II.
Magnanimous Despair alone
Could show me so divine a thing,
Where feeble hope could ne’er have flown,
But vainly flapped its tinsel wing.

III.
And yet I quickly might arrive
Where my extended soul is fixed ;
But Fate does iron wedges drive,
And always crowds itself betwixt.

IV.
For Fate with jealous eye does see
Two perfect loves, nor lets them close ;
Their union would her ruin be,
And her tyrannic power depose.

V.
And therefore her decrees of steel
Us as the distant poles have placed,
(Though Love’s whole world on us doth wheel),
Not by themselves to be embraced,

VI.
Unless the giddy heaven fall,
And earth some new convulsion tear.
And, us to join, the world should all
Be cramp’d into a planisphere.

VII.
As lines, so love’s oblique, may well
Themselves in every angle greet :
But ours, so truly parallel,
Though infinite, can never meet.

VIII.
Therefore the love which us doth bind,
But Fate so enviously debars,
Is the conjunction of the mind,
And opposition of the stars.

Source:
Marvell, Andrew. The Poems of Andrew Marvell.
G. A. Aitken, Ed. London: Lawrence & Bullen, 1892. 73-74.

PROPERTY HAS NO HUMAN VALUE!

This is an interesting quote it is uncanny that most abusers deny that they are abusive.
“It is twice the pleasure to deceive the deceiver.”
Author: Jean De La Fontaine