The Supreme Court hears arguments on Tuesday in a dispute over a Mexican familys ability to sue a U.S. Border Patrol officer who killed their son in a cross-border incident. Both governments filed briefs in the case, on opposite sides of the dispute.

Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, 15, died in 2010 as he stood on Mexican soil by a border officer who fired his gun while on United States soil in Texas. The agent claimed Hernandez and others were throwing rocks at him as he was attempting to detain an illegal immigration suspect; the family says Hernandez was playing a game with his friends at the border location between El Paso and Juarez.

Hernandezs family sued the agent for damages, but in 2015 the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court said the family had no standing to sue because the teen was a Mexican citizen and not protected by the Fifth Amendment under its Due Process clause or by the Fourth Amendment. The full appeals court had unanimously ruled in favor of the agent.

The Supreme Court took the appeal in October 2016 and it also added a question about determining if the parents had a constitutional right to sue a Border Patrol officer.

The controversy will likely get its share of new attention because of the political situation involving the new Trump administration in Washington and its stance on immigration and Mexico.

However, the federal government brief in this case was filed by the Obama administration and it supports Jesus Mesa, Jr., the border agent. Among the arguments made by the Justice Department was that courts werent the proper location to settle a dispute that could involve foreign policy considerations, and that allowing such lawsuits would allow U.S. military and intelligence agencies to be sued for injuries incurred abroad.

The government of Mexicos brief argues that Mexico has a responsibility to maintain control over its territory and to look after the well-being of its nationals. It is a priority for Mexico to see that the United States has provided adequate means to hold the agents accountable and to compensate the victims.

In 2015, Constitution Daily Supreme Court correspondent Lyle Denniston explained to our readers the core constitutional issue in this case.

Overseas, or offshore, application of the rights spelled out in the Constitution was dealt a major setback in 1990, when the Supreme Court ruled that a Mexican national who was being held prisoner inside the United States had no Fourth Amendment right to challenge a search of his home in Mexico by a joint investigative team from the two countries, Denniston said, referring to a case called United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.

Even a quarter-century later, however, just what that decision actually means about extraterritorial reach for the Constitution remains a matter of considerable debate. The main opinion said that constitutional rights do not apply outside the country to an individual who had no voluntary links to the United States. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy supplied a necessary fifth vote to make a majority in that case, and his separate opinion suggested that he thought that the specific context of each case might actually make the difference in the analysis.

Then, Justice Kennedy wrote a major opinion for the Court in Boumediene v. Bush in 2008 extending the constitutional right of habeas corpus to the foreign nationals that the U.S. was then holding (and scores of whom it still holds) at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

That opinion, if understood to apply beyond the specific factual situation of the detainees at Guantanamo, would appear to stand for the proposition that the extraterritorial application of the Constitutions guarantee of rights depends upon objective factors and practical concerns (as Kennedy put it in the opinion), rather than the nearly categorical approach of the Verdugo-Urquidez decision in 1990, Denniston explained.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

The Interactive Constitution: The Presidents constitutional powers

Waiting for Gorsuch? Supreme Court finally schedules last major case

New version of Trump immigration order coming

Link:

US-Mexico border shooting case at Supreme Court today - Yahoo News

Black History encapsulates more than a month. This new daily series will take a look at some lesser known events and people in the world.

The story of Shirley Chisholm.

As the Civil Rights movement dispersed around the nation, Georgia had its fair share of history. Take the Heart of Atlanta Motel Incorporateds case against the United States. The Supreme Court had recently passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which says racial discrimination in public places was unconstitutional.

But the motel refused to rent rooms to black customers.

Moreton Rolleston, the owner, took the case to court citing the Fifth Amendment (he said it went against his right to choose patrons for his business), the Thirteenth Amendment (involuntary servitude), and he added that Congress was going over their control over the interstate commerce (now known as the Commerce Clause).

Congress immediately came back with their own case. They referenced his Fifth Amendment right saying that it does not hinder regulation of interstate commerce. It countered the Thirteenth Amendment with the explanation that it was specifically for slavery and the negative effects of it. And, finally, Congress said its power under the Commerce Clause related to proper sleeping circumstances for blacks traveling on the interstate.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia took Congresss side in December 1964. The court won; Congress could use power granted to it by the Constitutions Commerce Clause to force privately owned businesses to follow the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The nation successfully fought against discrimination.

WXIA

Bessie Coleman takes to the skies | Black History Moment of the Day

WXIA

Ace pilots fly for freedom and become top shooters | Black History Moment of the Day

WXIA

Dancing through the Harlem Renaissance | Black History Moment of the Day

WXIA

Betty Boop: Historical Black Icon? | Black History Moment of the Day

WXIA

Cicely Tyson breaks down the television barrier | Black History Moment of the Day

Go here to read the rest:

The Supreme Court fights for the weary black interstate traveler ... - 11alive.com

TAMPA With a criminal investigation hanging over him, former Public Transportation Commission chief Kyle Cockream repeatedly pleaded the Fifth Amendment during a deposition Monday into whether public records were deleted from agency cell phones.

A judge ordered Cockream to appear at the deposition as part of a public records lawsuit filed against the agency that regulates for-hire transportation in Hillsborough County. He turned up, but on advice from his attorney Michael Carey, refused to answer questions from Andrea Mogensen, a Sarasota lawyer who sued the PTC to obtain copies of text messages that Cockream sent to owners of taxicab and limousine-rental firms.

"He pled the Fifth to basically every question that I asked," Mogensen said. "Obviously that's very disappointing. Our objective is to recover the public records."

The Fifth Amendment privilege allows a witness to decline to answer questions if the answers might incriminate him. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has opened a criminal investigation into whether PTC officials deliberately deleted public records, a misdemeanor under state law.

A forensic investigator hired to extract text messages for the public records lawsuit found that seven agency phones and Cockream's personal cell phone were reset on Oct. 8, a process that wipes them clean. A PTC invoice shows that the agency on Oct. 12 paid $2,994 to Valrico tech firm Data Specialist Group for work they did on the phones that was detailed as "Mobile device data recovery."

Cockream, who stepped down as executive director in December, could not be reached for comment. In a recent hearing, his attorney said Cockream was not trying to hide records but hired the tech firm to back up the data on the phones.

The mising data may shed light on a controversial period during which the PTC was accused of colluding with the cab industry against the rideshare companies Uber and Lyft.

Contact Christopher O'Donnell at codonnell@tampabay.com or (813) 226-3446. Follow @codonnell_Times.

View post:

Former PTC chief Cockream pleads the Fifth Amendment over missing public records - TBO.com

Chicago Sun-Times

Fearing US prosecution, Heather Mack takes the Fifth Chicago Sun-Times The 21-year-old Chicagoan, imprisoned in Indonesia, made the claim as she asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a legal battle scheduled to return to a Cook County courtroom Friday. She said she would continue to do so until ...

Link:

Fearing US prosecution, Heather Mack takes the Fifth - Chicago Sun-Times

KATHMANDU, Feb 15:The Conscious Citizen Group has demanded the scrapping of 'Fifth Amendment' of National Parks and Wildlife Protection Bill endorsed by the Legislature-Parliament arguing it was not in favour of preservation of wildlife.

At a press conference organized here on Tuesday, group campaigner Amod Dahal claimed that the fifth amendment to the wildlife protection bill endorsed by the parliament has curtailed the right of wildlife to survive in a free and natural environment.

Environment activists including Niraj Gautam, Shristi Singh Shrestha and Sangeeta Sapkota stressed the need to prohibit the establishment of factories, hotel, restaurant and transport in and around national parks acknowledging the right of animals to have a free life.

The Clause 9(2) of the amended bill has the provision that wildlife species can be provided to any individual, agency, users committee, local body and organization for study or research. Likewise, Clause 15 (E) has specified that the wildlife can be offered as gift to foreign nations.

Since the amended bills have these provisions against the concept of wildlife protection, it would affect the campaign of wildlife protection.

Myagdi's musk deer in search of suitable habitat

Musk deer living in the mountain forests of Myagdi have started migrating to other areas due to increasing temperature and human activities.

Forest areas in Mudi, Lulang, Gurja, Kuinemangale, Dana and Muna VDCs are known as major habitats of musk deer. But with the rising temperature in the highland caused by climate change, human encroachment on forest areas and lack of sufficient diet, these herbivores animals have started leaving home grounds in search of suitable habitats, according to Babiyachaur-based Area Forest Office Chief and environmentalist Chandramani Sapkota.

This wildlife species prefers to live in a cold and peaceful atmosphere.

Musk deer is considered as one of the rare wildlife species in the world and Myagdi's musk deer have started migrating to the Dhorpatan Wildlife Reserve and forests in Dolpa, Rukum and Mustang in search of proper home and food, locals said. RSS

See the original post:

My Republica - Call to scrap fifth amendment to Wildlife Protection Bill - Republica

TAMPA With a criminal investigation hanging over him, former Public Transportation Commission chief Kyle Cockream repeatedly pleaded the Fifth Amendment during a deposition Monday into whether public records were deleted from agency cell phones.

A judge ordered Cockream to appear at the deposition as part of a public records lawsuit filed against the agency that regulates for-hire transportation in Hillsborough County. He turned up, but on advice from his attorney Michael Carey, refused to answer questions from Andrea Mogensen, a Sarasota lawyer who sued the PTC to obtain copies of text messages that Cockream sent to owners of taxicab and limousine-rental firms.

"He pled the Fifth to basically every question that I asked," Mogensen said. "Obviously that's very disappointing. Our objective is to recover the public records."

The Fifth Amendment privilege allows a witness to decline to answer questions if the answers might incriminate him. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has opened a criminal investigation into whether PTC officials deliberately deleted public records, a misdemeanor under state law.

A forensic investigator hired to extract text messages for the public records lawsuit found that seven agency phones and Cockream's personal cell phone were reset on Oct. 8, a process that wipes them clean. A PTC invoice shows that the agency on Oct. 12 paid $2,994 to Valrico tech firm Data Specialist Group for work they did on the phones that was detailed as "Mobile device data recovery."

Cockream, who stepped down as executive director in December, could not be reached for comment. In a recent hearing, his attorney said Cockream was not trying to hide records but hired the tech firm to back up the data on the phones.

The mising data may shed light on a controversial period during which the PTC was accused of colluding with the cab industry against the rideshare companies Uber and Lyft.

Contact Christopher O'Donnell at codonnell@tampabay.com or (813) 226-3446. Follow @codonnell_Times.

Former PTC chief Cockream pleads the Fifth Amendment over missing public records 02/14/17 [Last modified: Monday, February 13, 2017 9:22pm] Photo reprints | Article reprints

Read more from the original source:

Former PTC chief Cockream pleads the Fifth Amendment over missing public records - Tampabay.com

On February 9th the political drama of President Trumps executive order took an old turn when his opponents translated a political fight into a constitutional question and thus dragged the courts into the ring of battle. This is nothing new. But I will leave discussion of that political truth for another day.

President Trump issued an executive order stopping immigration from seven specific countries. He did so under a federal statute - 8 USC 1182(f) which states:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants.

A limitation on that power is noted in 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A) which states, regarding the granting of visas,

no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the persons race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

The case was before the Ninth Circuit on appeal by the government asking for an emergency stay on the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that was granted by the District Court Washington. To prevail, the government had to establish that it was likely to prevail on the merits. The merits should have been based on sections 1182 and 1152.

It is a legal maxim that if a government action can be held lawful or unlawful based on statutory interpretation, the constitution is not to be invoked. In its brief the Trump Administration asserted that the executive order was lawful under section 1182, and the states of Washington and Michigan, in part, argued that the executive order violated section 1152. The stated goal of the executive order was, to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals and pursuant to that goal, I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from [Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Iran] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days. The state response was that the suspension was a vainly disguised ban on all Muslims; which is prohibited under section 1152.

The problem is that the Ninth Circuit opinion bypassed this argument entirely. There was no mention of either statute or the legal arguments that they provide either side.

The court bypassed the true legal dispute and engaged in the Fifth Amendment arguments that Washington and Michigan asserted, in part, because they had a weak argument standing on section 1152 alone. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause protects a persons right to life, liberty and property and prevents the government from taking it without a hearing.

The opinion asserted that under the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause, the executive order violated the rights of legal residents, citizens and aliens who wish to return to the United States and travel from the United States. The Government, in its papers and at oral argument, asserted that the application of the order to the first two groups was an error in application and would no longer apply to them. That should have made the entire issue regarding the order and its application to legal aliens and citizens moot! But the court held that since the order was applied to citizens and legal aliens in the first two days of the order and there was no official proclamation from the President himself preventing such application, the court could not take the word of a legal memo from the White House Legal Counsel that similar application would not occur in the future. As such, the executive order violated the Fifth Amendment.

To make a long story short, there is no Fifth Amendment right for people who are not citizens or legal residents to assert in the first place, and in the second, aliens who are not in the United States have no right to a visa. The Fifth Amendment applies to those who have property rights in the United States. That property right exists by being physically present, having legal status or being a citizen. It is true that illegal aliens have a right to a hearing once in the United States, but that is only to determine if they are illegal and should be removed. It does not create a right for travel, and the right to a hearing does not translate into a right to come to the United States from another country. To get around this the court held that aliens who have contracted with the state universities to come into the United States as students or teachers have created a Fifth Amendment Due Process property right to travel, that the state governments can defend on the aliens behalf.

Since the government could not prove, to the Ninths satisfaction, that it would prevail on the due process claim because it could not prove people from the seven countries were a threat, they were not entitled to an emergency stay of the TRO.

The Government lost because it was held to a due process test, not to whether its executive order could be supported under section 1182. The court chose the wrong test.

Read the original:

Trump's Order and the Ninth Got it Wrong - WFMZ Allentown

Memo: Chief told officers to harass 'cockroaches' Wichita Eagle He said it was a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process rights for citizens. "Why would anyone in Elkins have faith in the ... and more »

Go here to see the original:

Memo: Chief told officers to harass 'cockroaches' - Wichita Eagle

The Sixth Circuit todaydismissed Wayside Church v. Van Buren County, a case challenging Michigans unconstitutional tax foreclosure scheme. Judge Kethledge who dissented from the panels decision, summed up the case this way:

In this case the defendant Van Buren County took property worth $206,000 to satisfy a $16,750 debt, and then refused to refund any of the difference. In some legal precincts that sort of behavior is called theft. But under the Michigan General Property Tax Act, apparently, that behavior is called tax collection.

You read that right. When Wayside Church fell behind on its taxes on a piece of land it used for youth camp, Van Buren County took the property and sold it for $206,000 to satisfy $16,750 in tax debt, interest, penalties, and fees. The County kept all of the profit$189,250.

When the church couldnt get its equity back from the government, it filed a Fifth Amendment Takings Claim, along with two other individuals who similarly lost their property over relatively small tax debts. The Fifth Amendment prohibits government from taking private property without paying just compensation. As PLF explained in an amicus brieffiled last year in support of the church and other property owners, government can take property for taxes, costs, and penalties due, but it violates the Constitution when it takes and keeps more than that. Indeed, most states recognize that dispossessed property owners should be compensated the surplus proceeds from the sale of tax-foreclosed property.

Unfortunately, today the Sixth Circuit did not even decide whether the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause protects property owners. Instead, it dismissed the case, holding that it was not ripe under Williamson County Regional Planning Commn v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. The court held that Michigan courts offer reasonable, certain, and adequate remedy for Wayside Churchs constitutional claim. The court is wrong. As thedissenting opinion explains, Michigan law is unclear about whether state courts allow a takings challenge to the state tax law. And so far, Michigan courts have dismissed cases just like this one, claiming that the Constitution does not protect people from this kind of confiscation.

As the Liberty Blog has noted many times before, Williamson County hurts Americans ability to enforce their federally protected Constitutional rights. Usually when the local government violates constitutionally protected rights, citizens can seek protection from federal courts. But Williamson County creates a unique obstacle for Fifth Amendment takings claims. Justice Thomas recently urged the Supreme Court tofix the quagmire created byWilliamson County. For the sake of churches and landowners in Michigan, lets hope the rest of the Justices take that advicesoon.

Read more:

Sixth Circuit slams the courthouse doors to takings case - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

Joel K. Goldstein VIncent C. Immel Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Fifty years ago today, Minnesota and Nevada ratified the proposed Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution, providing the final support needed to make it part of our highest law. That Amendment was a significant accomplishment which created procedures to address some vexing problems regarding presidential continuity. And its enactment demonstrated how able and dedicated leadership can solve difficult problems, even those that had long resisted fixes.

Until 1967, the Constitution provided no means to fill a vice-presidential vacancy or to transfer power from a disabled president. Questions that Delawares John Dickinson asked at the Constitutional Convention (What is the extent of the term disability and who is to be the judge of it?) went unanswered for 175+ years. The problem was compounded after President William Henry Harrison died in April, 1841 and Vice President John Tyler claimed that he was president, not simply vice president acting as president as the founders intended. Tylers position was repeated seven times from 1841 to 1963 whenever a deceased president was replaced by his vice president. The Constitutions text treated the vice presidents status following a presidential inability the same as after a presidential death, removal or resignation. The Tyler Precedent inhibited vice presidents from exercising presidential responsibilities during presidential inabilities for fear of displacing the chief executive. So did the ideological, personal and constitutional distance between presidents and vice presidents for most of our history. No move was made to transfer power to Vice President Chester A. Arthur after President James Garfield was shot in 1881, even though the President was incapacitated during the last 80 days of his life. Similarly, Woodrow Wilson clung to power though incapacitated during much of the last 17 months of his presidency. First Lady Edith Bolling Wilson, not Vice President Thomas Marshall, essentially made executive decisions during this period. And presidential power remained with President Dwight D. Eisenhower during his three incapacities in the mid-1950s.

The Eisenhower disabilities amidst the Cold War and nuclear age prompted interest in addressing the problem of presidential inability. Eisenhower took important steps by entering into a letter agreement with Vice President Richard M. Nixon allowing either to initiate the temporary transfer of presidential powers and duties from Eisenhower to Nixon with Eisenhower retaining the right to reclaim them. Congress began considering constitutional amendments addressing presidential inability without reaching any consensus.

Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November, 1963, Senator Birch Bayh, the newly-appointed chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, proposed a constitutional amendment in December, 1963 which anticipated the eventual Amendment. So did principles suggested by a blue-ribbon American Bar Association group that included former Attorney General Herbert Brownell, future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, iconic Harvard law professor Paul A. Freund, and John D. Feerick, a young New York lawyer, who had begun writing scholarly articles regarding presidential inability before the assassination.

The Amendment contains four sections. Section One adopted the Tyler Precedent following a presidential death, resignation or removal, but not after a presidential inability in which case the vice president simply acts as president. Section Two of the Amendment allowed the president to nominate a new vice president to fill a vice-presidential vacancy upon confirmation by each house of Congress. Section Three permitted the president to transfer presidential powers and duties to the vice president during a period of presidential inability and to reclaim them when the disability ends. Section four allowed the vice president and the majority of the Cabinet (or an alternative body should Congress create one) to transfer presidential powers and duties from the president during a presidential inability. The president can reclaim those powers upon a written declaration of his fitness to resume them unless the vice president and Cabinet contest his declaration in which case Congress decides the issue within a designated time.

Presidential succession and inability were not the sort of hot-button issues that attracted the engaged attention of many politicians. That was partly why longstanding problems persisted. Bayh was different. He pushed relentlessly and effectively for passage of the proposed amendment, involving colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Representatives Emanuel Celler and Richard Poff also played important roles. And Feericks scholarship informed legislative deliberations even while he worked with the ABA to achieve passage and ratification, the latter coming on February 10, 1967.

Three of the four sections of the Amendment have been utilized six times since its ratification. In October, 1973, Gerald R. Ford was nominated to fill a vice-presidential vacancy produced by the resignation of Spiro T. Agnew and confirmed less than two months later. In August, 1974, Ford succeeded to the presidency following Richard M. Nixons resignation. The following month, Ford nominated Nelson A. Rockefeller as vice president and Rockefeller was confirmed in December.

Two presidents have transferred presidential powers and duties to the vice president while they underwent surgery under general anesthesia on three occasions. In July, 1985, President Ronald Reagan transferred presidential powers to Vice President George H.W. Bush for eight hours while Reagan had a cancerous polyp removed. President George W. Bush briefly transferred powers to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2002 and 2007 while he underwent colonoscopies.

The early uses of the Amendment confirm its contributions to Americas system of assuring presidential continuity. The impeachment proceedings that forced Nixons resignation would have been complicated without the ability to install Republican Ford as vice president when Democratic Speaker of the House Carl Albert was otherwise next-in-line. Whereas the vice presidency was vacant for 21% of American history before the Twenty-fifth Amendment was ratified, since then it has been unoccupied for only 6 months or less than .1%, thereby diminishing the importance of the remainder of the line of succession where the solutions are less attractive. Section Three and Four encourage a transfer of power when a president is physically or mentally unable to perform by providing procedures, identifying decision-makers, and allowing the president to resume office upon the end of the incapacity.

The framers of the Twenty-fifth Amendment recognized other problems in Americas system for providing presidential continuity but deferred them to later legislatures after concluding that broadening their effort would prevent any progress. These problems include the following: the line of succession after the vice presidency currently runs through legislative leaders who might not belong to the presidents party; no provisions exist to declare a vice president disabled; the electoral system presents various vulnerable spots. Congress should address these and other gaps in the very near future.

That would be a fitting tribute to the great contributions of Bayh, Feerick and others that culminated fifty years ago with the ratification of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, and would continue their great work of improving our system of government.

Continued here:

Celebrating the 50th of the 25th Amendment! | The Huffington Post - Huffington Post

Last night, shortly after the Ninth Circuit blocked enforcement of Donald Trumps immigration executive order, I saw this tweet:

Mr. Crown was more correct than he knows. Thanks to my time machine, I was able to secure a copy of the following opinion, dated October 18, 2019. Its from a panel of Ninth Circuit judges, per curiam:

Abu Bakral-Baghdadi and the State of California, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States

This matter comes before the court through the Trump administrations appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Californias worldwide ban on American bombing raids against alleged members of the so-called Islamic State, better known as ISIS. The alleged leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi filed suit to stop the American aerial offensive, and the state of California intervened on his behalf.

Mr. Baghdadi claims that the bombing campaign violates his clearly-established rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The state of California claims that the systematic attacks are depriving its public university system access to a number of Islamic legal scholars, including Mr. Baghdadi. Faculty members testified during the district court proceedings that they wished to invite Mr. Baghdadi to lecture students regarding his masters thesis in Koranic recitation, and Mr. Baghdadi testified that a number of ISIS fighters are indeed actively seeking to enter the United States. The government does not dispute that they will be unable gain entry if their remains are spread across the rubble of Raqqa.

In addition, California argues that the Trump Administrations efforts to kill Mr. Baghdadi are motivated by anti-Islamic animus and thus violate the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. As evidence to support their claims, California points to prestigious faculty appointments held by non-Islamic alleged terrorists like William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and to numerous Trump campaign statements declaring an intention not just to ban Muslims from entry to America but also, more ominously, to bomb the sh*t out of ISIS an explicitly religious organization.

After hearing oral arguments via conference call, with Mr. Baghdadis counsel participating through a series of threatening tweets, this court affirms the district court order and enjoins bombing raids directed at ISIS or its members, subsidiaries, and affiliates.

We begin our analysis with our 2017 opinion in Washington v. Trump. In that case we noted that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Government from depriving individuals of their life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Moreover, the Government may not deprive a person of one of these protected interests without providing notice and an opportunity to respond, or, in other words, the opportunity to present reasons not to proceed with the deprivation and have them considered.

Critically, we also held that the due process rights articulated in the Fifth Amendment attach not merely to citizens and persons in the United States, but also to persons seeking to come to the United States. At a minimum, then, Mr. Baghdadi (and any other members of ISIS seeking to travel to the U.S.) are entitled to notice and a hearing prior to having their travel interrupted by Hellfire missile. While Mr. Baghdadi is unquestionably on notice of the governments intention to kill him (notice that he describes as loud, daily, and terrifying), he also unquestionably has not had an opportunity to contest the charges against him.

In addition, Mr. Baghdadi raises credible claims of religious bias in the American bombing campaign. He asserts that American operations violate the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. As we held in Washington v. Trump, It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. And that evidence is indeed damaging. Mr. Trump has repeatedly labeled ISIS as explicitly religious, calling it radical and Islamic, and his avowed intention to bomb the sh*t out of ISIS cannot be divorced from this religious context.

Furthermore, the state of California is indeed correct that American universities have benefited widely from the scholarly insights of alleged non-Islamic bomberslike Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn in spite of the fact that they were reportedly involved in multiple acts of terrorist violence, Mr. Ayers in fact once told the New York Times, I dont regret setting bombs and expressed regret that we [his alleged terrorist organization] didnt do enough.It is a foundational principle of equal protection jurisprudence that similarly-situated individuals should be treated alike. The Trump administration has failed to articulate why a non-Islamic alleged terrorist gained tenure while a squadron of Super Hornets prevents an Islamic alleged terrorist from presenting papers at Berkeley.

Just as in Washington v. Trump, the Government has pointed to no evidence that Mr. Baghdadi or any of the countless, nameless targets of American bombs has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Therefore, the balance of the equities dictates that we must rule for Mr. Baghdadi. Ending the bombing campaign in Syria will have the salutary effect of saving the taxpayers a considerable sum of money and of ending systematic discrimination against a marginalized religious minority. Continuing the campaign means that it is only a matter of time before Mr. Baghdadi and his confederates suffer the irreparable harm of a JDAM attack.

The Governments motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED. The war is enjoined.

Visit link:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi v. Trump, a Ninth Circuit . . . Parody? - National Review

Billionaire Leon Cooperman invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and declined to answer questions from the SEC about alleged insider trades because he faced a related criminal investigation by the U.S., his lawyer said.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Cooperman, accusing the hedge-fund manager of reaping $4 million in profits after conversations with a company insider. Cooperman had allegedly promised he wouldnt use the information, regulators said.

The remark by Coopermans lawyer came during a hearing Tuesday in Philadelphia federal court in which the hedge fund founder sought to have the SEC case dismissed. Mark Sylvester, a lawyer for the SEC, toldU.S. District Judge Juan Sanchez that Cooperman had refused to be questioned by regulators before they filed their complaint last year. Coopermans lawyer, Ted Wells, countered that Cooperman had been merely following his instructions.

"Mr. Cooperman had asserted Fifth-Amendment right before the commission because, at the time I advised him, there was a parallel criminal investigation," Wells said. "He made clear he wanted to testify, but for my advice that there was a parallel case."

William Skaggs, a spokesman for the office of New Jersey U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman, said it was his offices policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation. Wells declined to comment when asked if Cooperman still faced a criminal inquiry.

For more on the legal questions raised by Coopermans case, click here

Your cheat sheet on life, in one weekly email.

Get our weekly Game Plan newsletter.

Coopermans lawyers argued Tuesday that he was under no obligation to refrain from trading after the calls because any purported promise came after the information was disclosed by the insider.

"You may have broken your promise not to trade, but you havent misappropriated," said Daniel Kramer, a lawyer for Cooperman. "Not every broken promise is fraud."

Bridget Fitzpatrick, a lawyer for the SEC, said the case should proceed to trial, saying Cooperman was pursuing an "astounding theory" and attempting to create a "new loophole" in securities laws by claiming he had no duty to refrain from trading after the calls. She said Cooperman could have told the insider he intended to trade but chose not to divulge it.

"They come forth with a very clever argument that gives him a free pass for deception," she said. "The statute prohibits deceptive conduct.

Youd be the first court in adopting the defendants argument," Fitzpatrick said. "It would be an astounding opinion."

Sanchez didnt immediately issue a decision on the request, saying, "Im going to be all alone" as the first federal judge to consider such a question.

The case is SEC v. Cooperman, 16-cv-5043, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).

Read the original here:

Cooperman's Lawyer Says He Faced Parallel Criminal Inquiry - Bloomberg

Wow hope that folks at Apple, Samsung, Motorola, etc. see this.

In response to an incident that lacked any relation to the last fingerprint-related news, a Minnesota court ruled against a recent Fifth Amendment appeal regarding device passwords. The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that ordering an individual to unlock a device with a fingerprint is no more testimonial than furnishing a blood sample, providing handwriting or voice exemplars, standing in a lineup, or wearing particular clothing.

The case in question involved Matthew Vaughn Diamond, a man Carver County District Court found guilty in 2015 of burglary and theft, among other crimes. Other news outlets cite arrest records from far before 2015, but the records showed no relevance to the January 2017 ruling. The Carver County District Court fought Diamond over his phones contentshe locked the phone with a fingerprint and refused to unlock the phone for the court. He argued, initially, that forcing his fingerprint violated both his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard only the Fifth Amendment appeal.

According to the Fifth Amendment, compelled self-incrimination is a violation of human rights. The Supreme Court has held that a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Additionally, the right to remain silent from the Miranda Rights, read to an arrestee at the time of arrest, granted a suspect the ability to refuse questions. Additionally, at the minimum, gave suspects the right to avoid answering questions legally and without fear of immediate repercussions.

Read more:

Blog - Lifeboat Foundation (blog)

The Fifth Amendment, as with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is a superfluous restraint on federal power. It can be argued that the Fifth Amendment is not superfluous because it imposes certain specified limits and conditions on the federal governments use of legislative powers pursuant to its Enumerated Powers under Article I, Section 8. However, this distinction is of little significance.

The Fifth Amendment can be broken down as follows. In any federal matter, an individual:

- must be indicted by a grand jury to answer for a capital crime, unless certain conditions are present;

- may not face trial more than once for the same crime; may not be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal case;

- may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.

Lastly, the federal government may not take private property for public use (pursuant to its Enumerated Powers), without providing fair compensation to the property owner.

Fifth Amendment and Eminent Domain Abuse

There was an uproar throughout the United States in 2005 when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

The Supreme Courts decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said private property seized by the city of New London, Connecticut was constitutional under the Fifth Amendment, even though the seized land was to be used for private development as part of a local economic redevelopment program. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment says, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The issue in Kelo centered on whether it was public use to give private property seized under Imminent Domain laws to a private developer. In other words, does permissible public use include private use. The city of New London argued this was public use because the economic redevelopment program would create jobs, revitalize an economically distressed part of the city, and would result in increased tax revenue for the city. The Supreme Court agreed with the city of New London.

Much of the country was in an uproar because this meant any government (state, local, or federal) with Eminent Domain power could seize private property and give that property to another private party if the stated use was for economic redevelopment and increased local tax revenues. This public uproar was understandable and justified, but the decision in Kelo resulted in a strange situation where the ultimate result of the case was correct, though the Supreme Court conjured up an absurd decision.

The Fifth Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not apply against state and local governments. The Fifth Amendment was erected as a superfluous restraint on federal power. To say the Fifth Amendment applies against state and local governments would mean the Fifth Amendment and the Bill of Rights actually granted power to the federal government and its courts. This would be ludicrous.

An early Supreme Court case involving the Takings Clause was Barron v. Baltimore, 1833. This was one of the few cases Chief Justice John Marshall got right. The decision held the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the state governments and any remedy for the plaintiff would need to be settled under Maryland law. In addition, Justice Marshall acknowledged the federal courts did not have jurisdiction in the case since the taking of property at issue was not a federal matter.

The plaintiff, John Barron, sued the city of Baltimore claiming the value of his wharf property had been so impaired by the citys development/improvement project that it constituted a taking of his property under the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause. John Marshalls decision said the issue presented in the case was, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. Marshalls decision explains the text of the Constitution, the purpose of the Bill of Rights, and the context in which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The opinion concludes, [w]e are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. As such, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause.

The Kelo House, New London, Connecticut

The Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London should have reached the same conclusion as the court in Barron v. Baltimore, namely, that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the Fifth Amendment and the Takings Clause do not apply against state and local legislation. The result of the Supreme Courts decision in Kelo was correct because it affirmed the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Connecticut Supreme Courts decision was dubious, but the Supreme Court does not have legitimate authority to overturn bad state supreme court decisions unless the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. State action under the Fifth Amendment does not fall within federal subject matter jurisdiction and does not involve a federal question.

Why did the Supreme Court assume jurisdiction in Kelo? Because, like other branches of the federal government, the Supreme Court loves power, and because of a judicial doctrine the Supreme Court created in the early twentieth century called the Incorporation Doctrine. For more on the Incorporation Doctrine, click here.

For more on Eminent Domain, generally, click here.

Another reason why the Fifth Amendment matters today would be so-called, Miranda rights.

Miranda rights were created out of thin air by the United States Supreme Court in 1966 with no basis whatsoever in the text, history, plain meaning, or logic of the Constitution.

Miranda rights create an obligation for police officers throughout the United States to warn criminal suspects being interrogated or in custody that they have certain rights prior to interrogation (e.g., right to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc). Generally, statements made to police without suspects first receiving Miranda warnings cannot be used against the suspect in court.

Ernesto Miranda convicted kidnapper, rapist and armed robber.

According to the Supreme Court, so-called Miranda Rights are based on the language from the Fifth Amendment, nor shall any person be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Fifth Amendment had been around for one-hundred and seventy-five years before the Supreme Court discovered these rights.

Whether requiring police officers to Mirandize criminal suspects is good policy or not is a separate matter. What matters is the Supreme Court took the Fifth Amendment a superfluous restraint on federal power, a shield erected by the states against the federal government and turned it into a weapon whereby federal judges could create laws out of thin air and impose their arbitrary personal opinions on all fifty states. Requiring police officers throughout the United States to follow rules made up out of thin air by federal judges is a radical, sweeping and dangerous power grab.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Visit link:

Fifth Amendment - U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights

Reading time: 6 9 minutes

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution

Download This Free Guide

The right to remain silent is a fundamental principle of liberty. It gives American citizens better privacy. The burden falls on the accuser to build a case against a person. If the accuser does not meet that burden, the accused is free to go. The accused never, ever, is required to furnish any evidence or testimony against himself. In other words, liberty requires that you have the right to remain silent.

If the accused were forced to produce evidence that they did not commit an act, innocent people would be forced to prove a negative. Proving a negative is usually far more difficult, if not impossible to do. Anyone without an alibi would be convicted. No one could afford to spend even one minute alone in that kind of world. The right to remain silent preserves a functioning system of justice and a functioning society.

The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution does not say explicitly that you have the right to remain silent. It does say that you do not have to be a witness against yourself. This means that you cannot be compelled to reveal information that might implicate you in a crime.

Download This Free Guide

Law abiding citizens are particularly at risk because they think that the truth will set them free. They feel compelled that if they just tell their story they will be exonerated. This is not true. Numerous opportunities abound for an innocent individual to become entrapped by speaking with police.

Innocent people often overstate or understate some fact while vigorously defending their innocence. This makes their testimony technically untrue, or at least a prosecutor can make it look like its untrue. Once attention is called to the misstatement, the rest of the testimony is suspect because of the one untruth. This suspicion may be sufficient to land the innocent person in jail.

Police officers may make an innocent mistake and not remember correctly what you said. If you claim you told the cop one thing, and he claims you said another, the police officer will be believed over an accused any day. If you had said nothing, the cop would have to flat out lie that you said something. That is not likely to happen.

There may be a witness that will mistakenly identify you as the suspect in a crime. If you claim one thing that is absolutely true, there may be a solid witness that is honestly mistaken about seeing you. If your testimony contradicts theirs, the witness will be believed instead of the accused. If you dont say anything, there will be nothing to contradict and the honesty of the accused will not be in play.

The federal criminal code contains over 10,000 crimes. State laws add even more crimes to the list. Not even the government knows them all. Many of these crimes are for seemingly innocent behavior, such as buying 2 packages of cold medicine, or possessing a flower that any other country in the world has outlawed. Thus, telling your true story about your seemingly completely innocent behavior could, in and of itself, implicate you in a crime, you should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever speak to government agents, ever.

Criminals know that talking may incriminate them and so are much more aware of their right to silence and are much more inclined to use it. Innocent people like you arent aware of these dangers. And, if someone is truly innocent, they need to know this right and know how to use it far more than criminals do.

Under no circumstances should you ever talk to a police officer, fire fighter, ticket enforcer or street sweeper. All of them are government agents and can be a witness to use anything you say to them against you in a court of law.

Download This Free Guide

The Supreme Court recently ruled that to invoke your right to silence, you have to break your silence and speak. They might need the fifth amendment explained to them again, but that is what they said. A simple phrase such as I am invoking my right to remain silent should suffice.

There is a free and handy insert for your passport that will show you exactly what you need to do to invoke your right to remain silent. It is designed to help you right when you need it. You will have it with you as you go through Customs upon re-entering the US. Customs officers may need to have the fifth amendment explained to them too, so there are several cases which clearly show your right to remain silent in that situation. Remaining silent can give you better privacy when re-entering the country.

Customs will still have the right to do a thorough search of you and your belongings whether you invoke your right to remain silent or not. Threatening a search, or actually subjecting you to search for invoking your rights is within their power.

To avoid being targeted for a search, it helps if you are not the only one invoking your rights. If lots of others are invoking their right to remain silent on a regular basis, no single individual will stand out any more than normal.

To decrease the likelihood of a search and promote even better privacy, share the free guide with everyone that you know. You have permission to post it anywhere, share it with anyone, make copies, print, and distribute it for free in any legal way as long as nothing is changed. The more people that exercise their rights, the better privacy for everybody.

Download This Free Guide

So go ahead and download and distribute this free guide and enjoy.

Tagged as: better privacy, crimes, criminal law, double jeopardy, due process, evidence law, exercise, explained, explaining, fifth amendment, fifth amendment explained, grand jury, innocent, law, law enforcement in the united states, miranda warning, pleading the fifth, pocket guide, police officer, private property, process of the accused person, remain, remain silent, right to silence, rights of the accused, the right, united states constitution, you have, you have the right to remain silent

Read this article:

You Have The Right To Remain Silent: Fifth Amendment Explained

The Eighty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, enables the State to make any provision for reservation in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, giving them the benefit of consequential seniority in matters of promotion to any class of classes of posts in the services under the State, if they are not adequately represented.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows:-

1. Short title (1) This Act may be called the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.

2. Amendment of article 16 In article 16 of the Constitution, in clause (4A), for the words "in matters of promotion to any class", the words "in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class" shall be substituted.[1]

Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The 85th Amendment amended clause (4A) of the article replacing the words "in matters of promotion to any class" with the words "in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class" in order to enable the State to make any provision for reservation in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, giving them the benefit of consequential seniority in matters of promotion to any class of classes of posts in the services under the State, if they are not adequately represented.[2]

The Bill of The Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 26 November 2001, as the Constitution (Ninety-second Amendment) Bill, 2001 (Bill No. 105 of 2001). It was introduced by Vasundhara Raje, then Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. The Bill sought to amend article 16 of the Constitution.[2] The full text of the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the bill is given below:

The Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes had been enjoying the benefit of consequential seniority on their promotion on the basis of rule of reservation. The judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) 6 SCC 684 andAjit Singh No. I AIR 1996 SC 1189, which led to the issue of the O.M. dated 30th January, 1997, have adversely affected the interest of the Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category in the matter of seniority on promotion to the next higher grade. This has led to considerable anxiety and representations have also been received from various quarters including Members of Parliament to protect the interest of the Government servants belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

2. The Government has reviewed the position in the light of views received from various quarters and in order to protect the interest of the Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it has been decided to negate the effect of O,M. dated 30th January, 1997 immediately. Mere withdrawal of the O.M dated 30th January, 1997 will not meet the desired purpose and review or revision of seniority of the Government servants and grant of consequential benefits to such Government servants will also be necessary. This will require amendment to article 16(4A) of the Constitution to provide for consequential seniority in the case of promotion by virtue of rule of reservation. It is also necessary to give retrospective effect to the proposed constitutional amendment to article 16(4A) with effect from the date of coming into force of article 16(4A) itself, that is, from the 17th day of June, 1995.

3. The Bill seeks to achieve the aforesaid objects.

The Bill was considered by the Lok Sabha on 28 November 2001, and passed on the same day with a formal amendment changing the short title from Ninety-second to Eighty-fifth. The Bill, as passed by the Lok Sabha, was considered and passed by the Rajya Sabha on 5 December 2001. The Bill, as passed by the Rajya Sabha, was considered and passed by the Lok Sabha on 22 August 2000. The Bill received assent from then President K. R. Narayanan on 4 January 2002, and was notified in The Gazette of India on the same date. It retroactively came into effect from 17 June 1995, as stated in clause (2) of Section 1 of the Amendment Act.[2]

Go here to read the rest:

Eighty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India ...

CLEVELAND - Five Cleveland police supervisors pleaded the Fifth during CPD patrol officer Michael Brelo's trial Monday.

The supervisors each face two counts of dereliction of duty related to the Nov. 29, 2012 Cleveland police chase and shooting.

Attorneys for Sgt. Michael Donegan, Lt. Paul Wilson, Sgt. Randolph Daley, Sgt. Jason Edens and Sgt. Patricia Coleman appeared with their clients in court.

A sixth Cleveland police officer invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination after taking the stand at the trial last Wednesday.

Officer Michael Demchake immediately stated he was told not to answer questions based on advice from his attorneys.

His refusal to answer questions sparked an angry outburst by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Tim McGinty.

"We need his testimony in this trial. We're asking for his testimony. We're asking for the truth. That is his duty as a police officer," said McGinty.

McGinty said Brelo's colleagues knew he was "in trouble" for jumping on the hood of Timothy Russell's Chevy Malibu and firing at least 15 shots through the windshield at the conclusion of the November 2012 CPD chase and shooting.

View a PHOTO GALLERY of some of the crime scene photos here

During opening statements last Monday , prosecutors said Brelo committed a crime when he jumped onto the hood of Russell's car and fired 15 to 18 shots through the front windshield.

More here:

CPD officers plead the fifth

By Ryan Mavity | Apr 13, 2015

Dover A Delaware Superior Court judge is expected to rule within 90 days on a motion for summary judgment in a civil sexual-assault case against former Sussex County Councilman Vance Phillips.

Phillips did not appear at the April 13 hearing in Dover. In previous depositions Phillips has consistently invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

Brian Brittingham, attorney for Phillips accuser, Katelynn Dunlap, said Phillips silence is telling, as he has not refuted accusations that Phillips sexually assaulted Dunlap 10 times in different locations starting May 9, 2011, and continuing through July.

According to Dunlaps lawsuit, the relationship between the now 21-year-old Lincoln woman and the then-Sussex councilman began in 2010 when Dunlap was 16. When Dunlap turned 18 in April 2011, Phillips was 48; the lawsuit says at that point, the relationship took a sexual turn. On May 9, the lawsuit said, Dunlap met Phillips in the parking lot of a Georgetown dental office, where Dunlap alleges Phillips tried to have sex with her and then threatened her if she told anyone.

Despite ample opportunity, the defendant wholly failed to address the claims at issue, Brittingham said. He said Phillips has consistently invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid addressing Dunlaps allegations. He also invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions not related to the allegations, such as when Phillips and his wife divorced.

Defense attorney Kurt Heyman said the court could not infer guilt from Phillips decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. He said Dunlap has made inconsistent statements and has changed her story numerous times.Heyman said at one point, Dunlap said some of the encounters with Phillips were consensual, but she later changed her story to say she was sexually assaulted.

Brittingham said Dunlaps inconsistencies are explained by the fact that she was fearful, confused, shamed and intimidated by Phillips. He said Dunlap was scared of retaliation by Phillips and had an emotional breakdown.

While Heyman said the case hinges on Dunlaps credibility, Brittingham said third parties, including family and Delaware State Police officers, support Dunlaps credibility. Brittingham said a reasonable jury would find Dunlaps claims to be true and award her damages.

The April 13 arguments were a subdued affair, with only Dunlaps family attending the proceedings. Dunlap is seeking punitive damages and legal fees. Judge William Witham offered no timetable for when he would rule on the motion, but Heyman said he would have 90 days to make a ruling. If Witham does not grant the motion, the case would head to trial.

Continue reading here:

Phillips declines to face his accuser

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Five more police supervisors invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Monday in the trial of Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo.

The five supervisors have been charged with dereliction of duty in connection with the same Nov. 29, 2012 police chase and fatal shootings that resulted in Brelo being charged with voluntary manslaughter.

Michael Donegan, Patricia Coleman, Randolph Dailey, Jason Edens and Paul Wilson have all pleaded not guilty to the charges, and a date for their trial has not been set yet.

Brelo, 31, is charged with two counts of voluntary manslaughter in thedeaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams. Russell drove the Chevy Malibu that led police on the chase. Williams was a passenger in the car.

The supervisors appeared in court on Monday, but none took the witness stand. Instead, they pleaded the Fifth as a group, with their lawyers present. There was no discussion of their right to plead the Fifth, as there was last week, when Officer Michael Demchak invoked his Fifth Amendment right.

The rest of the morningfocused on a Bratenahl police officer and a Cleveland police officer, both of whom were involved in the chase but not the shooting.

Here are highlights from the morning's testimony.

1. A Bratenahl police officer suspected crossfire.

Bratenahl Sgt. Michael Flanagan, a K-9 officer, testified to joining the chase and stopping at Lee Boulevard, perpendicular to the driveway that Russell's 1979 Malibu was stopped in.

Flanagan said he got out of his car, heard shots fired, and ran to take cover behind a nearby gray Ford.

Read more here:

Five police supervisors plead the Fifth in the trial of Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo

DOVER, Del. (AP) - Attorneys for a young woman who claims in a lawsuit that she was sexually abused by former Republican Sussex County Councilman Vance Phillips asked a Superior Court judge on Monday to find Phillips liable because he has not explicitly denied the allegations.

Citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Phillips has refused to address the allegations by the 21-year-old woman, who was once his political protegee, even though he has previously said that he looked forward to telling his side of the story to a jury.

The Associated Press does not normally identify possible victims of sexual assault.

The woman's lawyers argued that the judge should grant partial summary judgment in her favor regarding liability because Phillips has not disputed the allegations.

"The defendant wholly failed to address the claims at issue," attorney Brian Brittingham told Judge William Witham Jr.

Brittingham said Phillips' decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment does not amount to a denial or a defense, but was simply "the avoidance of an answer."

After a brief hearing, Witham gave no indication on when he would rule.

Delaware State Police investigated Phillips in 2012 after members of the General Assembly received an anonymous letter claiming he was involved in a relationship with an underage girl. No criminal charges were ever filed, but Phillips invoked his rights against self-incrimination in the civil action after the lawsuit was filed in May 2013.

Kurt Heyman, a lawyer for Phillips, told Witham the court cannot infer his liability based on the assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights, especially on a motion for summary judgment. He also said inconsistent and contradictory statements the woman has made about her relationship with Phillips and the allegations of abuse preclude summary judgment in her favor, and that a jury must determine whether she is believable.

"It's for the jury to decide which version of her story to credit," he said.

See the rest here:

Judge Weighs Sex Allegations Against Former Sussex Official