DALLAS, Sept. 18, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Daniel Charest, founding partner of Burns Charest LLP, has been named "Attorney of the Year" in the Lone Star State for 2020 by Texas Lawyer. The honor underscores the breadth of success Charest has achieved for his clients during the past 18 months and the importance of those cases in the Texas legal landscape.

Earlier this month Mr. Charest was recognized among 26 "Winning Litigators" for 2020 by the National Law Journal.

As part of the Texas Lawyer virtual ceremony on Sept. 17, Charest was particularly recognized for his work as lead trial counsel in securing a landmark win for Houston-area property owners before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The court held that the United States is liable for flooding and property damage caused by the Army Corps of Engineers' management of Houston-area reservoirs during Hurricane Harvey in 2017. The ruling allows more than 10,000 property owners to recover significant flood-damage compensation for their Fifth Amendment taking claims.

"No one achieves a successful outcome for clients without the support of a great team of other attorneys and staff, so I share this award with everyone at Burns Charest and the co-counsel we have worked with during the past 18 months," said Charest in accepting the award.

Among other significant victories, in July 2019 Charest worked on a litigation team that obtained an international arbitration ruling in favor of the firm's client, Dallas-based Kosmos Energy. The January 2019 arbitration in London secured deep-water drilling rights off the coast of Africa and resulted in a multimillion-dollar award. In addition to the London arbitration, Charest led related litigation involving subsidiaries in Houston.

Charest also served as co-lead counsel in reaching a $52 million settlement on behalf of a multistate class alleging that Facebook failed to properly support and care for content moderators, who frequently suffer psychological damage from monitoring violent and unlawful activity posted on Facebook. In addition to significant injunctive relief, the May 2020 settlement provides class members funding for diagnosis and treatment.

Burns Charest represents clients in large, complex class actions; antitrust cases; oil and gas royalty disputes; environmental pollution cases; mass torts; and asbestos exposure claims. The firm has offices in Dallas and New Orleans. To learn more, visit http://www.burnscharest.com.

Media Contact:Barry Pound 800-559-4534[emailprotected]

SOURCE Burns Charest

https://www.burnscharest.com

Go here to read the rest:

Daniel Charest Named 'Attorney of the Year' by Texas Lawyer - PRNewswire

Sharron Cohen in 1973 was known as Sharron Frontiero, a young U.S. Air Force lieutenant in Montgomery, whose sex discrimination lawsuit became the first case Ruth Bader Ginsburg ever argued before the Supreme Court.

That case, Frontiero v. Richardson, became a landmark decision, Reckon reports. Its considered the first successful sex discrimination case filed against the federal government and altered the legal landscape for future gender equity cases.

Her superiors at nearby Maxwell Air Force Base, where she worked as a physical therapist, repeatedly refused to grant her the housing allowance and medical benefits automatically given to married male service members.

That meant she made less in wages than men of equal rank. Instead, the Air Force insisted she had to prove that her husband depended on her for half his living expenses, a stipulation not required of men.

Cohen grew up in a workingclass family and put herself through school, becoming one of the first in her family to graduate from college. Her husband, Joseph, whom she married in 1969, was still a student. The full housing allowance would be a significant financial help.

A lawsuit filed of her behalf by the founders of the Southern Poverty Law Center was unsuccessful. The ACLU and its new Womens Rights Project division heard about the case and asked to be involved. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on Jan. 17, 1973.

Four months later, the court ruled 8-1 that the Air Force policy violated Cohens rights. Specifically, the courts majority found it violated the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment, which says the federal government can deprive no one of life, liberty or property without due process of the law.

Cohen wasnt in court when the decision was handed down; she didnt realize she could attend. By then, she had moved on with her life. She and Joseph divorced. She retired from the Air Force after four years, remarried and had a son, Nathan. She and David Cohen, her husband of more than 40 years, now live in Massachusetts and enjoy spending time outdoors and with their grandchildren and family.

Cohen still identifies as deeply, deeply feminist and worries about the coming political battle over the filling of Ginsburgs seat, and what it might mean for the issues she cares about.

It scares me as much as it scares a lot of people, she said. And it isnt worthy of her legacy. She didnt owe us anything. She gave everything.

Originally posted here:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and an Alabama Air Force officer opened doors for women everywhere in 1973 - AL.com

In 1970, a young Air Force lieutenant, Sharron Frontiero, walked into my fledgling law firm in Montgomery, Alabama, which would one year later become the Southern Poverty Law Center. She was being denied the same housing benefits for married couples that were automatically provided to her male counterparts in the armed forces.

We filed a discrimination complaint in federal district court on her behalf, and within a couple of years, I found myself arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court that female members of the armed forces should be granted, under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the same rights as men.

During that formative experience, I fortuitously came into the orbit of and quickly came to know and admire the director of the Womens Rights Project of the ACLU, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To make a long story short, the ACLU filed anamicus(friend of the court) brief with the Supreme Court, and I authorized Justice Ginsburg to use part of my oral argument before the Court. We secured an 8-1 landmark decision.

What I remember most was not the argument, but the quick-witted humor and sheer brilliance of Justice Ginsburg. The evening before the argument, I had dinner with her and her late husband, Martin. We hardly discussed the case, but rather had wonderful conversations about issues completely unrelated to the law. I will never forget just how enjoyable that evening was. As a 29-year-old kid who was scared to death about what was in store the following day, it actually helped calm my nerves.

Justice Ginsburg argued and won another four cases on gender equality before the Court.And from her first term as a justice, she made it her mission to guarantee equal protection and open doors for women and other marginalized communities across the nation. She was a deeply principled person who demonstrated great courage and convictionthroughouther entire legal career a championof womens rights, reproductive justice,civil rights and workers rights.

Her grace and steely determination never wavered, even in defeat. "Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time," she famously said.

Indeed, some of her most memorable and impactful work came in the form ofdissenting opinions. InShelby County v. Holder, the 2013 Supreme Court ruling that effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the majority had been shortsighted. Getting rid of the requirement for federal preclearance of voting law changes in certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination, she argued, was like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

And her dissent in a workplace pay discrimination case ultimately led to the passage of theLilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Given the transformative figure she always was, and the inspirational icon she eventually became, Justice Ginsburg will be sorely missed by all who knew her and knew of her.

Now, its our turn to show up with that same courage and conviction. In honor of her extraordinary contributions to our democracy, we must redouble our commitment to continuing RGBs mission of achieving justice and equity for all.

Joseph J. Levin, Jr., a native of Montgomery, Alabama, is co-founder and board member emeritus of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Read this article:

Courage and Conviction: We must redouble our commitment to continuing Justice Ginsburg's mission of achieving justice and equity for all - Southern...

When the government uses civil asset forfeiture laws to steal the property of innocent people, it often backs down upon encountering unexpected resistance, as bullies tend to do. But as Gerardo Serrano's experience with legalized larceny illustrates, those victories do not necessarily help other people who find themselves in the same Kafkaesque situation.

Five years ago, Serrano was on his way to visit his cousin in Mexico when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in Eagle Pass, Texas, found a magazine containing five .380-caliber rounds in the center console of his pickup truck. Serrano, a U.S. citizen with a Kentucky concealed-carry permit, said he did not realize the magazine was in the vehicle and offered to leave it behind as he continued on his journey. But as far as the CBP agents were concerned, those five cartridges made Serrano an international arms smuggler. Although he was never charged with a crime, the agents seized the truck, a 2014 Ford F-250.

After Serrano paid a $3,800 cash bond for the privilege of trying to get his truck back, two years went by without a hearing. Then in October 2017, a month after the Institute for Justice helped him file a lawsuit arguing that the government's forfeiture practices violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process, CBP suddenly decided to return his vehicle, which the government had never officially tried to keep. Serrano continued to pursue his lawsuit, which aimed to qualify as a class action, because he wanted to stop this sort of thing from happening again. A federal judge shot him down two years ago, and yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed that Serrano had failed to state a due process claim.

That conclusion is astonishing when you consider the options that Serrano confronted after CBP took his truck. The notice that the agency sent him 10 days after the seizure explained that he could do one of six things:

1. He could file a "remission petition" begging the same agency that took his truck to give it back instead of selling it and keeping the money.

2. He could submit an "offer in compromise," agreeing to pay the government part of his truck's value in exchange for its return.

3. He could "abandon any interest in the property," letting the government keep it.

4. He could "request court action and have his case referred to the U.S. Attorney for institution of judicial forfeiture proceedings."

5. He could "do nothing," leading to the same result as Option 3.

6. He could "offer to substitute release of the seized property on payment," meaning he would get the truck back after paying the government its full market value.

Serrano's only realistic hope of getting his truck back without succumbing to government extortion was Option 4, which was the one he picked. Yet he waited two years as the government dragged its feet, neither returning the truck nor filing a forfeiture complaint that Serrano could then challenge. In fact, Serrano never got that opportunity, since CBP evidently decided that proceeding with the forfeiture was not worth the effort, expense, legal risk, and bad publicity. Call that Option 7.

After surveying this confusing, intimidating, infuriating, expensive, and time-consuming process, the Fifth Circuit concluded that nothing was amiss.

The three-judge panel conceded that "the seizure of a vehicle implicates an important private interest," which weighed in Serrano's favor. But it deemed "the risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest" to be "minimal," because of all "the remedial procedures"every one of them rigged in the government's favorthat theoretically "permit a claimant to contest the deprivation of his vehicle."

The third factor that the appeals court considered, guided by the 1976 Supreme Court case Mathews v. Eldridge, was "the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail." That factor, the panel concluded, favored the government.

"We cannot ignore the context of the underlying seizure," the court said. "The Government's interest in preventing the unlawful exportation of munitions, drugs, and other contraband is significant."

You might think that the relevant "context" in this case was that Serrano lost his truck simply because he forgot about the five handgun rounds he had left in the center console. Although CBP claimed "the truck was used in an attempt to illegally export munitions from the United States, in violation of federal law," it is obvious that Serrano, who never even crossed the border with his "munitions" and offered to leave them behind when he realized his mistake, was not involved in any such activity. Serrano was never charged with violating federal law, and neither was his truck, since the government did not actually file a forfeiture complaint. Given the situation, the 5th Circuit's invocation of the government's interest in preventing international arms smuggling is comical.

The judges also noted that "a significant administrative burden would be placed on the Government if it was required to provide prompt post-seizure hearings in every vehicle seizure." Due process undeniably imposes a burden on the government; that is the whole point. If the government is worried about that burden, maybe it should stop stealing people's stuff on the slightest pretext.

The Institute for Justice says it will appeal the 5th Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court. "When the government takes someone's property, the owners should have an opportunity to challenge the seizure in court immediately, not wait days, months, or, as in Gerardo's case, even years," said Institute for Justice attorney Anya Bidwell. "The Supreme Court has already said that there must be a prompt hearing when you're arrested. It also requires pre-seizure hearings for real estate. It makes no sense for the Fifth Circuit to hold that a car is somehow different and you are not entitled to quickly see a judge and contest its seizure."

Read more:

Surveying the Federal Government's Kafkaesque System of Legalized Larceny, the 5th Circuit Sees No Due Process Problem - Reason

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 54 died Friday of complications from cancer. Serving on the Supreme Court since 1993, Ginsburg was one of Cornells most notable alumnae, recently transformed into a liberal cultural icon, commonly known as Notorious RBG to her following. She was 87 and passed away in her home in Washington, surrounded by family.

The second woman appointed to the countrys highest court, Ginsburg attributed many of her lifes influences to her experiences at Cornell when she returned to Ithaca in 2014, according to a 2014 University press release: Her writing was influenced by English professor Vladimir Nabokov, her respect for the first and fifth amendment was cultivated by her college research and even her husband, Marty Ginsburg 53, was a Cornellian, too.

After graduating from Cornell, Ginsburg attended Harvard Law School as one of nine female attendees before transferring to Columbia Law School, according to her Oyez profile. In 1959, she graduated first in her class.

Aside from her demonstrated academic excellence, Ginsburg also worked as a law clerk, professor and worked for the Womens Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union before beginning her tenure after her appointment by President Clinton.

The notorious RBG, as she is known to her contemporary fans, was respected across the aisle and was famously friends with late Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative judge.

Recently, the Justice has re-emerged into the spotlight. In 2018, two large films the documentary RBG by CNN Films and the movie On the Basis of Sex were released, highlighting her life. Merchandise ranging from stickers to earrings are sold with her likeness.

On campus, many groups still expressed ties to the esteemed Cornellian over the years. When the alumna fell and fractured her ribs in November 2018, students on campus created a cheeky Point to the sky and yell GET WELL SOON RBG. event in support, The Sun reported. Judicial collars worn by Ginsburg were on display in the Women Empowered: Fashions From the Frontline exhibit in December 2018, The Sun reported.

Much of her support stems from the progressive views that the Justice held, and the steady liberal stances she held. Some of her most notable court writings involved womens rights for abortion and equal pay.

With her death at age 87, Ginsburg leaves the court with five conservative and three liberal justices remaining, and another seat open for another nomination by President Donald Trump. This nominee, if confirmed, will be Trumps third pick for the bench.

The last nomination process which confirmed Justice Brett Kavanaugh was criticized by Ginsburg as a highly partisan show, according to the Washington Times.

According to the Chicago Sun Times, when asked when there would be enough female justices on the Supreme Court, Ginsburg the second female supreme court justice and a feminist known for her calculated legal arguments and stepwise progressiveness replied: when there are nine.

Here is the original post:

Cornellian Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg '54 Dies at 87 - Cornell University The Cornell Daily Sun

SAN JOSE A court Thursday rejected a defense bid to disqualify Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosens office from prosecuting a corruption case involving concealed-gun permits issued by the sheriffs office.

Superior Court Judge Eric Geffon handed down the ruling after a hearing in a San Jose courtroom, and soon after denied a defense motion to seal now-public transcripts of the grand jury proceedings in the case.

Joe Wall, attorney for South Bay litigator and political fundraiser Christopher Schumb, argued in a motion filed last month that his clients friendship past financial support for Rosen and plans to call on Rosen as a defense witness posed an insurmountable conflict of interest.

Rosen had repeatedly said the state Attorney Generals office deemed there was no conflict. Ultimately, Geffon sided with deputy attorney general Sharon Loughner in court to oppose recusal in deciding that emails illustrating the friendship between Rosen and Schumb were not sufficient grounds to disqualify Rosens office.

I dont believe the evidence before the court supports a finding of a conflict of interest, Geffon said.

In court filings, Rosen downplayed his relationship with Schumb. He also stated that he returned $1,500 in campaign contributions from him in August 2019 after his office served a search warrant on Schumb and made him a formal subject of a conspiracy and bribery investigation, that culminated in him being indicted along with three other defendants: sheriffs Capt. James Jensen, attorney Harpaul Nahal and gun-maker Michael Nichols.

Walls disqualification motion was accompanied by a trove of emails between Schumb and Rosen, and sometimes Chief Assistant District Attorney Jay Boyarsky, showing a chummy relationship and references to Schumbs fundraising for Rosens re-election. Rosen did acknowledge 125 personal emails involving Schumb between 2015 and 2019, but noted in his filing that they had one email in 2019, seemingly to indicate their contact had tapered off by the time Schumb came under investigation.

Thank you and Jill again for opening up your home and hosting a lovely event for my re-election, Rosen writes to Schumb in a June 29, 2013 email with the subject line Just Getting Started. I appreciate it very much. Youre a good and generous person. In a May 22, 2016 email, Rosen wrote to Schumb: Thank you very much for all your advice, counsel support and encouragement. Im very glad that youre in my corner.

As recently as February 2018 two months before Schumb is alleged to have taken part in the alleged crimes Rosen was writing to Schumb seeking advice for repairing an heirloom Swiss watch.

For Mr. Rosen to deny there was a friendship defies logic. Its absurd, Wall said in court Thursday. His role in this case taints our criminal-justice system All were asking for is a fair playing field.

Loughners central argument was that even substantiating a friendship between the two did not meet the standard for a conflict warranting disqualification from a case, asserting that the application of recusal law has mostly involved scenarios where a DA previously represented a criminal defendant or had a connection or affiliation with a crime victim.

Were still waiting to hear what the conflict is in this case, Loughner said in court. There has to be an actual likelihood of unfair treatment All were hearing is theres a conflict because theres a conflict. They simply say they have a relationship.

Wall sparred briefly with Loughner and Deputy District Attorney John Chase, head of the offices public integrity unit that led the corruption probe, over an internal DA memo Rosen shared with Schumb involving his 2013 conflict with the county over time-off benefits critics said shielded his top prosecutors from county-wide pay cuts. Wall held that up as proof of Schumbs status as a personal adviser to Rosen and of attorney-client privilege that further proved a conflict. Rosen refuted in a filing that he ever sought Schumb as legal counsel.

Harry Stern, Jensens attorney, bolstered the disqualification effort with a motion alleging in part that Rosens office leaked grand jury transcripts and other confidential information about the indictment to the Metro Silicon Valley newspaper, which the DA has credited with the initial tip that spurred the gun-permit probe. In his motion, Stern alleged that the DA did so to shape public opinion and taint a potential jury pool.

Sterns backing for this claim was circumstantial, premised on the idea that only a small number of people would be privy to minute details of the grand jury proceedings such as Sheriff Laurie Smiths demeanor when she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and a motive to leak them. He asked that the transcripts, which became public Aug. 31, be re-sealed. Rosen, Boyarsky and the two prosecutors who presented before the grand jury all submitted near-identical filings attesting that they did not share any grand jury information outside the public announcement of the indictment.

In denying the re-sealing motion, Geffon said he took the issue of a possible leak seriously, but stopped short of granting Sterns request that he make a judicial order asking the AGs office to start an investigation.

The state of evidence here is neutral, and speculative, Geffon said, adding that he rejected the idea that only the DA had a motive to leak the information. The leak was more about embarrassing the sheriff than prejudicing the defendants.

After Geffons denial, Stern signaled his intent to take the matter to the Sixth District Court of Appeal.

I think this is such a weighty matter that it necessitates that kind of an objective review, Stern said. I have to follow that to the end.

In his motion, Wall further argued thatpast acrimony between Rosen and Smiths over access to recordings of jail inmate calls added to the necessity of changing prosecutors. In a filing responding to that contention, Chase wrote that the jail-call issue had been resolved by the time a search warrant was sought for Schumb.

Schumb, Nahal, Nichols and Jensen are scheduled to return to court next week to continue their arraignment. All four were indicted on felony conspiracy and bribery charges that allege they plotted with Christian West, former CEO of the executive security firm AS Solution, and AS manager Martin Nielsen to get the firm up to a dozen concealed-carry permits for their agents in exchange for $90,000 in donations to committees supporting Sheriff Laurie Smith and her 2018 re-election campaign.

When the four indicted defendants first appeared in court together Aug. 31, West pleaded guilty to two conspiracy counts, on the agreement they are downgraded to misdemeanors for his cooperation with prosecutors. Nielsen and another AS manager testified before a criminal grand jury that they both were in line for similar consideration.

After Geffons decision Thursday, Rosens office released a statement that it will continue to fairly and fully prosecute this case.

Here is the original post:

Judge rejects bid to oust Santa Clara County DA from concealed-gun permit corruption case - East Bay Times

Margaret Elliott, a mathematics instructor at Washington University explains the solution to a problem during an evening broadcast aimed at college students on KETC-TV in March 1957. Most of the station's daytime programming was aimed at students in elementary and high schools, and evening broadcasts were aimed at adults. The station didn't begin broadcasting 24 hours each day until 1991. (Jack Gould/Post-Dispatch)

Sonny Fox, the "Finder," plays a guitar during a rehearsal at the studio shortly before the first broadcast. At right is Martin Quigley, station manager (KETC-TV archives)

Trustees of the St. Louis Educational Television Commission gather for the station's first broadcast at 9 p.m. Sept. 20, 1954. In the front row are (from left) Raymond Witcoff, Mrs. J. Wesley McAfee and Arthur Compton, commission chairman. In back (from left) are James Singer; St. Louis schools superintendent Philip Hickey; the Rev. Paul Reinert, president of St. Louis University; Malcolm Martin; William Akin and James Douglas. Compton spoke moments later during the broadcast. (Post-Dispatch)

Students at Dewey School, 6746 Clayton Avenue, watch an educational show on KETC-TV in December 1960 under the eye of their teacher, Anne Johns. KETC broadcast programs during school hours on science, spelling, reading and other subjects. (Louis Phillips/Post-Dispatch)

Steven Bloomer, the second "Finder" on KETC-TV, leads children along a platform at Union Station for their train excursion to Hannibal, Mo., on May 4, 1956. Bloomer replaced Sonny Fox, the station's original Finder. Bloomer's program took students, often literally, to places of interest. (William Dyviniak/Post-Dispatch).

Students from Dessalines School, 1745 Hadley Street, parade through their neighborhood just north of downtown on Sept. 23, 1953, in support of fundraising for KETC-TV. Organizers had hoped to be on the air by then, but the original cost estimates were optimistic. (Edward J. Burkhardt/Post-Dispatch)

Mrs. Clarence Meeker (right), a volunteer for KETC-TV, receives a donation from Mrs. Thomas Weaks, 5224 Delmar Boulevard, during a door-knocking drive on Sept. 24, 1953, to raise money for the station. The drive raised about $105,000. (Post-Dispatch)

Residents gather in the KETC-TV studio on April 5, 1957, for a live group discussion of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ran Lincoln, seated at the desk in the middle, served as moderator. The discussion was part of the station's Free Assembly series. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, among other rights. (Post-Dispatch)

Students took part in a fundraising drive to keep KETC-TV on the air in June 1955. The station broadcast during part of school days and for two or three hours in the evening. It regularly ran short of money until it began the membership drives that continue today. The student representatives were gathered outside the station office, Millbrook and Big Bend boulevards at Washington University, to draw attention to the station's needs. They are, from left, Ann Hoeller, James Newcombe, Andrew Schwartz and Dennis Birke, all of Flynn Park School in University City; Stancil Cooper Jr., John Reichman and Stephen Schwartz, all of Hanley Junior High in University City; Robert Desloge of Our Lady of Lourdes Grade School in Clayton; and Victor Weisskopf of Flynn Park School. (Lloyd Spainhower/Post-Dispatch)

KETC's first office and studio were in a gymnasium in McMillan Hall at Washington University until a permanent home could be built at Big Bend and Millbrook boulevards. Arthur Baer, early and major booster of the station, financed constuction of the new building, which was named in honor of his parents, Julius and Freda Baer. Arthur Baer was president of Stix, Baer & Fuller, a department store in St. Louis. (Post-Dispatch)

St. Louis Mayor Joseph Darst (upper left, standing) addresses educators from 18 states who gathered in January 1952 at St. Louis City Hall to discuss creating local educational television stations. The mayor's own committee led to forming the St. Louis Educational Television Commission, creator and namesake of KETC-TV, Channel 9. KETC's first broadcast was on the evening of Sept. 20, 1954. (Lester Linck/Post-Dispatch)

Sonny Fox, known as the Finder in the early days of KETC-TV, shows one of the station's cameras in July 1954 to children in the summer day camp at Hamilton School, 5851 Westminster Place. The station had broadcast some closed-circuit programs the previous school year and was preparing to go on the air in September. The station's first studio was in a gymnasium in McMillan Hall at Washington University. Fox was the "Finder" because he traveled the area in a Corvette searching for stories of interest to young people. (Buel White/Post-Dispatch)

UNIVERSITY CITY Eight men and a woman, all prominent residents, gathered on the temporary set at Washington University. As hot lights glared for the live camera, a voice told viewers, "You are watching KETC."

Public television made its debut in St. Louis at 9 p.m. Sept. 20, 1954, with a one-hour show. Seated among the introductory VIPs was Arthur Compton, chairman of the St. Louis Educational Television Commission, who called the station "a powerful means of education. It doesn't use books, it uses pictures and sound."

It had taken more than two years of planning and fund-raising to put KETC on the air.

Work began in earnest in April 1952, when the Federal Communications Commission announced it would take applications for 2,051 new TV stations across the country. Six were to be for St. Louis, including Channel 9, designated "non-commercial."

Back then, St. Louis had one station KSD-TV (Channel 5), owned by the Post-Dispatch and on the air since 1947. A TV set cost a whopping $200, the equivalent of more than $1,600 today. For more perspective, women's cotton dresses were $4, chicken was 53 cents per pound and typists started at $160 per month.

St. Louis Mayor Joseph Darst pushed to form the local commission, led by Compton, the chancellor of Washington University. Other members included the Rev. Paul Reinert, president of St. Louis University, and city schools Superintendent Philip Hickey. The Ford Foundation and Arthur Baer, a local department store owner, made hefty donations, and 21 area school districts kicked in money. Call letters "KETC" stood for Educational Television Commission, although the group's first choice had been KNOW. The goal was to begin broadcasting in 1953.

Read the rest here:

Sept. 20, 1954: Channel 9 hits the airwaves in St. Louis - STLtoday.com

Jeffrey Deskovic speaking in Davis last year at the Annual Vanguard Event

Looking back will feature reprints of articles that Jeff previously wrote while a columnist at The Westchester Guardian, which encompass topics that are applicable here in CA as well as across the country and not simply applicable to NY.

By Jeffrey Deskovic

The phrase never again, although identified with the cause of European Jews, millions of whom were exterminated under the Nazi German regime, is, in a broader sense, identified with the notion that never again would the world watch while an aggressor nation invaded weaker nations, conquering them, and slaughtering a people while the rest of the world watched and did nothing, not wanting to get involved, because of the sacrifice that intervention and involvement would entail. In my usage of the phrase, however, I mean that never again, insofar as it lies within my power and ability, should anyone else ever be wrongfully convicted and go through what I did. Certainly, in any case, it should never happen through the flaws that are known at this time to exist. We need to have a better review mechanism in place so that if a wrongful conviction does occur, it will not take 16 years to correct.

I do not believe that wrongful convictions will ever be totally eliminated. But, I do believe that the frequency with which they occur can be, and should be, significantly reduced, and that the flaws in our criminal justice system that we know exist can be corrected.

Collectively, we must insist that the injustices that presently exist be eliminated. No one engaged in the struggle may withdraw until they have done all that they can do, and then some, no matter that it will entail sacrifice and the diverting of some energies, resources, and focus from ones pursuit of individual happiness. How can anybody be at peace while others suffer? Additionally, a lesson of war, reiterated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is that injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere. Perhaps today you are not personally affected, but how long will it be before you are? Can anyone be certain that they will never be? Evil never stops on its own, it must be confronted and defeated.

We know, based on the evidence of the slaughter in Rwanda, Bosnia, and now in Darfur, that the world, once again, failed in its promise. Can we do better in this matter? I am committed to combating wrongful convictions, but I know that I cannot be successful by myself. Everyone must do their part, do the little bit that they can. Below are listed changes that must be made in the system, to ensure that others do not suffer in the same way that I did, along with a rationale supporting each proposed change.

Will you, yes you, join me by contacting Governor Spitzer, Attorney General Cuomo, Speaker Silver, and Senate Majority Leader Bruno, in asking that these legislative changes be advocated and enacted? Or, will you wait, doing nothing, until eventually, like Pearl Harbor, the problem comes home directly to you and you find yourself, or a loved one, wrongfully arrested and convicted?

Changes

The ultimate goal is to bring about legislative changes. Below are the changes I am advocating. Having been through the system, I know all too well where the cracks in it lie, both from what I experienced first-hand, and from my studies on wrongful convictions, which I was forced to become well-versed in back when I was incarcerated and took to studying in a desperate effort to find something that I could emulate so that I too could be exonerated.

You know, it is common that when we adopt new laws, we frequently name them after the person whose suffering inspired them, thus both honoring them and ensuring that neither they nor what they went through will ever be forgotten. Hence the appellations, for example, of Jennas law which pertains to sentencing repeated violent offenders and The Kirk Bloodsworth Innocence Protection Act, whose aim was to protect innocent defendants but which wound up getting watered down before being passed.

Naturally, I would be honored if a bill containing my proposed changes were named after me. However, instead of it containing my first name, and thus being named Jeffreys Law, I would much prefer it be known as Deskovics Law, thus making it easier for those who certainly will come after me to discover who I was and what I went through. Not for vanitys sake, mind you, but because I would never want people to forget what happened to me; that the awareness is brought home that a wrongful arrest and conviction can happen to anyone, at any time, through a wide variety of possible ways, even above and beyond a coerced, false confession.It is through this awareness that I would hope that a sense of alarm will be triggered in the minds of the People, followed by actions, efforts, and a never rest-type of determination until concrete changes are achieved, lowering the possibility of a wrongful conviction, and making it safer for everybody. Nobody should ever go through an unjust prison sentence as I did, much less have to endure that injustice for 16 years before exoneration.

NEVER AGAIN.

All interrogations must be videotaped

Videotaping interrogations would enable there to be a complete record of what was said, when, and in what context. It would also prevent police officers from omitting those unpleasant little details that they would rather the world not know about. Similarly, some officers would refrain from some abusive tactics because they would know that the tape is playing. Videotaping would enable interrogations to be more easily reviewed by courts, juries, false confession experts. Additionally, the police practice, sometimes unintentionally engaged in, that involves providing suspects with intimate details of a crime in the course of interrogating them, then ascribing those details to the suspect, claiming that only the killer would have know them, would be seriously curtailed. Conversely, police interrogators would be more protected from false allegations of coercion.

To be sure, videotaping interrogations is not a panacea, for the tape does not show what was said or done prior to the tape being turned on, nor what happened once it was turned off. Yet it is always better to have some measure of protection, even if it is not total, rather than none at all. Of course, all videotaped interrogations must begin with the clear and unmistakable issuance of complete Miranda warnings to the suspect, thus insuring that whatever statement is made was voluntary and knowing and that the individual interrogated was aware that he had the right to remain silent, that any statement he made might be used against him, that he had the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed.

Other tactics which are known to produce false confessions and therefore wrongful convictions must be outlawed.

According to The Innocence Project, with respect to DNA exonerations, false confessions have been the cause of 25% of wrongful convictions. There needs to be many changes made in order to reduce the risk of false confessions. Below are specific tactics which are currently in use which produce false confessions, and which should be absolutely banned:

Lengthy Interrogations

The treatise False Interrogations In The Post DNA World by Drizin and Leo, discussing cases of false confessions obtained following lengthy interrogations, declares, More than 80% of the false confessors were interrogated for more than six hours, and 50% of the false confessors were interrogated for more than twelve hours. Interrogation-induced false confessions tend to be correlated with lengthy interrogations in which the innocent suspects resistance is worn down, coercive techniques are used, and the suspect is made to feel hopeless, regardless of his innocence.

Threats

Threats result in false confessions. When physical harm is threatened, either explicitly, via literal verbiage, or implicitly, then physical self-preservation at any cost becomes the goal. Threats of being overcharged or a longer prison sentence are posed, along with the similar game of we already know it is you, so you are going away whether you admit it or not. How is it going to look for you if you dont admit it?

Claiming to have evidence that doesnt exist

This tactic results in false confessions because like threats, it conveys the futility of maintaining innocence. It is important to understand that this doesnt happen in a vacuum, meaning all at once. Rather, we are speaking about a period of time, during which innocent suspects are worn down by psychological tactics, food deprivation, and lack of supportive people present to boost morale. Once a futile mindset has been established, the goal of the accused becomes since I am going to be arrested anyway, I dont want to make it worse than what it already is.

Use of the polygraph

Polygraph machine use has been linked to the obtaining of false confessions. There is a consensus in the scientific community that the polygraph, also called a lie detector, is not reliable. The premise of the test is that a person who is lying will become nervous and therefore their pulse rate, their respiration and other physiological indicators will change significantly. The pulse

rate is the primary measurement. It has been established that the test is inaccurate because frightened but innocent people often fail the tests because their fear causes their pulse rate to go up (See Psychology Today, an article by Lykken, March 1975, pp56-60).

The purpose of falsely telling a suspect that they failed the test is to employ it as a psychological weapon to convey the idea that the maintenance of ones innocence is futile, we already know that it is you, dont make it worse on yourself than it already is by lying to us. Use of the polygraph should be disallowed because in any case, the polygraph is not accurate, and it has been repeatedly shown that police are perfectly willing to misuse it, leading to wrongful convictions.

It is unfortunate but, nevertheless true, that most often once juries either learn or get the impression, rightly or wrongly, directly or indirectly, that a defendant has failed a polygraph, they often rely upon this to the exclusion of all else, placing a disproportionate amount of weight where no weight should be placed at all.

Having already proven itself to be an unreliable method from which many wrongful convictions have been obtained, we should outlaw the use of polygraphs to improve the reliability of results obtained in the courtroom. In my own Appellate Brief, page 12, testimony is referenced by the polygraphist that When unable to say Deskovic failed the first test, he administered two more, and told him you told me within yourself that you did it. I just want you to tell me from your mouth that you did it.. The polygraph was utilized to obtain the coerced, false confession. My case is by no means an isolated example.

Interrogation Of Those Who Are Mentally Retarded Or Have Other Psychological Problems Without A lawyer Should Be Banned

The reason for this is that often a hallmark of the behavior of the mentally ill is their desire to please others. It becomes obvious that police want a confession, and, in an effort to please them, the mentally ill provide false confessions. Consider the case of Earl Washington. Earl had an IQ of 68, and, as his case profile on the Innocence Projects website states, psychological analyses stated that to compensate for his disability Washington would politely defer to any authority figure he came into contact with. He gave police concessions to five different crimes. Four of them were discounted as unreliable. Somehow one of them was seen as reliable and he was prosecuted based upon it. Earl was convicted in Virginia of capital murder and rape and sentenced to death. He came within 9 days of being executed. Ultimately he was cleared by DNA, after serving 17 years, 10 of them on death row.

In New York Doug Warney served 10 years for a murder and rape which DNA later proved that he did not commit. He was interrogated for 12 hours. He, too, had mental health issues, and an eighth grade education. There was no law in place to prevent police from questioning him without a lawyer present, and he therefore gave a false confession which caused him to needlessly spend 10 years in prison. Prosecutors originally attempted to convict him for a capital murder charge for which he would then be eligible for the death penalty.

There Should Be A Pre-Trial Hearing In Which False Confession Experts Review all Alleged Confessions for Truthfulness Prior to a Confession Being Allowed as Evidence

Presently there is no pre-trial hearing whose purpose it is to determine truthfulness. The only pre-trial hearing that exists right now with respect to alleged confessions is a Huntley Hearing, in which the focus is on whether or not a confession was made knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily, whether the Miranda Warnings were issued, and whether Fifth Amendment rights were violated. This is not sufficient protection to innocents, because normally no matter how horrendous the circumstances were under which the confession was procured, judges routinely allow them in as evidence and juries regularly convict.

A hearing is needed to determine truthfulness, and this review should be

made by those trained in this field, namely, false confession experts. By analogy, when it comes to identification testimony, before eyewitness testimony is allowed in as evidence at a trial, its reliability must first be passed upon in a pre-trial hearing, to ensure accuracy, because when that type of evidence is allowed in it presents a serious obstacle to be overcome.

Thus, the hearing is a type of protective screening method to try to prevent wrongful convictions. Such protection is also needed in the area of confessions. On page 950 of the Drizin and Leo study, it is pointed out, In cases of wrongful conviction in our sample, 80% (35/44) of the false confessors received prison sentences of longer than ten years.

While the length of sentence may not be surprising in light of the severity of the crimes for which they were convicted, this finding underscores the potential risk of putting a false confession before a trier of fact even though the defendant is factually innocent. On page 953 of the study they further point out, The safeguards built into the criminal justice system failed to prevent wrongful prosecution and conviction, lengthy incarceration, and, in some instances, years on death row.

To further underscore the risk and need for such a hearing, I quote another section of the treatise, which declares, 81% of the false confessors who chose to take their case to trial were wrongfully convicted. In other words, approximately four out of every five innocent individuals who chose to take their case which was typically based on nothing more than a confession that was subsequently proven false, were wrongfully convicted! Clearly, additional protections are needed. This measure will add another layer, another barrier of protection between the innocent and wrongful conviction.

Jeffrey Deskovic, JD, MA, is an internationally recognized wrongful conviction expert and founder of The Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation for Justice, which has freed 7 wrongfully convicted people and helped pass 3 laws aimed at preventing wrongful conviction. Jeff is an advisoryboard member of It Could Happen To You, which has chapters in CA, NY, and PA. He serves on the Global Advisory Council for Restorative Justice International, and is a sometimes co-host and co-producer of the show, 360 Degrees of Success. Jeff was exonerated after 16 years in prison-from age 17-32- before DNA exonerated him and identified the actual perpetrator. A short documentary about his life is entitled Conviction, and there episode 1 of his story in Virtual Reality is called, Once Upon A Time In Peekskill. Jeff has a Masters Degree from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, with his thesis written on wrongful conviction causes and reforms needed to address them, and a law degree from the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University.

To sign up for our new newsletter Everyday Injustice https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Read the rest here:

Looking Back: Never Again Part 1 - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Oracle won the bid for TikTok in the United States sector, beating out big competitors like Microsoft.

Because Microsoft shared a similar audience to TikTok and was planning to partner with Walmart, Microsoft was widely seen as the likeliest American company to acquire [TikTok].Because Oracle has a history of collaborating with the US government, this partnership is a strategic move given the Chinese opposition undercurrents in the White House, wrote Scott Nover of Adweek.

Oracles partnership with TikTok is ambiguous. The agreement states that ByteDance and Oracle will become technology partners, with Oracle will assuming management of user data in the US. Negotiations are underway for Oracle to take stake in TikToks US operations.

This arrangement would not be wholesale sell of the company, however. In fact, today Chinas state broadcaster CGTN has said that ByteDance does not plan on selling to Microsoft or Oracle or any U.S. buyers for that matter, said TechCrunch.

ByteDance recently sued the US government over Trumps executive order from Aug 6, claiming that the order violated their first and fifth amendment rights. The case is still ongoing. If TikTok doesnt find another buyer by September 20th, the US government has threatened to shut down the service.

Broadband provider Century Link is legally changing its name to Lumen Technologies, or Lumen.

Lumen CEO Jeff Storey and other company officials said that Lumen plans to lead enterprises through the fourth industrial revolution by providing global technology infrastructure, as well as business solutions and services.

The broadband providers is rebranding itself as worldwide fiber network providing adaptive networking, edge cloud and information technology, connected security, and communications and collaboration.

Lumen also plans to launch a product it is dubbing quantum fiber, which it says is a fully digital platformfor delivering fiber-based products and services to residents and small businesses. The company will continue to supply fiber to residential areas and small businesses through traditional networks.

While there is no set date for the satisfaction of all legal and regulatory requirements of the name change, Century Links stock sticker will officially change from CTL to LUMN on Friday.

In the Unwired Planet v. Huawei, the United Kingdoms supreme court held that in certain circumstances, the nations courts may decide the worldwide licensing terms of standard-essential patents and may impose an injunction on use of those patents if those terms are not honored, according to a blog post of Michael Rosen of the American Enterprise Institute.

In the UK, industry groups establish a technical standard and decide what patents are covered by that standard. The owners are then required to licence those patents out as guided by the so called-FRAND principles (free, reasonable and non-discriminatory).

In this case, Unwired acquired essential 2G, 3G, and 4G patents from Ericsson and sued Huawei for infringement. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute imposed the FRAND obligation on the owners of the essential patents.

Huawei had infringed on Unwireds patents, according to a lower court ruling. Huawei appealed the decision, arguing that FRAND-terms only covered UK patents. But the supreme court instead held that the ETSI agreement was intended to have international effect.

Courts in other nations including China and Germany may determine that they too have the ability to set the terms of a global FRAND license between SEP-holders and implementers, said attorneys at Norton Rose Fulbright. That could encourage others to race to their preferred jurisdiction to resolve future FRAND disputes.

The rest is here:

Oracle as the New TikTok Boss, Century Link Rebrands Itself Lumen, Litigating 5G Patents in the UK - BroadbandBreakfast.com

Earlier this year, a survivor of sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein filed a lawsuit claiming the financier and his alleged accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed her for sex in the '90s starting when she was 14. The woman, referred to as Jane Doe, also claimed Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump at Mar-A-Lago and asked the future president, This is a good one, right? (Doe did not accuse Trump of any misconduct.)

On Monday, a federal judge put Does lawsuit on hold pending the resolution of Maxwells criminal trial, scheduled for July 12, 2021. Maxwell, who is a defendant in Does suit, is facing a slew of charges related to Epsteins underage sex ring.

U.S. District Judge Debra Freeman ruled Does litigation would result in undue prejudice for the British socialite. Should discovery in the civil action proceed, Maxwell would be forced to decide whether to defend herself by making pretrial disclosures and giving deposition testimony (which could be used against her in the criminal case) or to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (which would protect her in the criminal case, but which could well result in an adverse inference being drawn against her in the civil case), Freeman noted in her order.

Days before the ruling, federal prosecutors submitted a letter arguing a complete stay of this civil action will serve the public interest of preserving the integrity of the criminal prosecution against Maxwell. They said Maxwells indictment contains allegations that overlap with those mentioned in Does complaint.

As we reported, Doe was the last holdout against Epsteins estate. She had chosen to continue her litigation despite what her lawyers described as pressure from the estates co-executors, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, to stay her case and pursue a claim with the victims compensation fund instead. (Survivors are not required to pause their litigation until they accept an offer from the fund.)

Before Does case was interrupted, her lawyers tried to schedule depositions for Maxwell, Indyke, and Kahn. Does attorney Robert Glassman has previously stated Indyke, Epsteins longtime personal lawyer, has firsthand knowledge of Epsteins relationship with Doe and even acted on [Epsteins] behalf to communicate with [Doe] on several occasions.

In late August, Glassman fought to keep Does case active, arguing in a letter that continuing the litigation was in the publics interest.

The continuation of this last remaining civil avenue can furnish the public with critical information as to defendant Maxwell's well known criminal enterprise, how it was operated and all those involved, Glassman wrote to Freeman. A stay of the civil proceedings would provide what defendant Maxwell has sought for yearsconcealing her heinous acts from public view.

Delaying Does case, Glassman added, would simply delay long overdue justice for his client.

For too long Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell skirted the consequences of their vile acts. Sadly, defendant Maxwells seeking a stay is consistent with her decades-long routine of resisting accountability for sexually abusing minors.

See the original post:

Lawsuit of Epstein Victim Who Says He Introduced Her to Trump Put on Hold - The Daily Beast