Points of contention on police inquests in King County | Courier-Herald – Enumclaw Courier-Herald

Inquests frequently unfold against a backdrop of sadness and drama: Family members shock at the sudden loss of a loved one at the hands of the police, and police defending their actions. It can be insensitive and frustrating.

Recently, King County Executive Dow Constantine and the mayors of Kent, Auburn and Federal Way exchanged political fire over Constantines wanting to change the rules on how inquests would be processed.

Inquests are fact-finding hearings held by a 4-6 member jury. Under state law and county charter, an investigation is required for any death involving a member of law enforcement during the fulfillment of their job duties. The county believes that includes cities and the cities disagree.

In 2018, in response to complaints from family members of those who had died from being shot by city police officers, Constantine formed a citizens group to make recommendations on improving the process. After the release of his new rules, the cities filed a lawsuit to stop the rules from taking effect.

Constantine wanted the cities to withdraw their lawsuit and allow the six inquests that have been on hold since 2017 to be heard and bring the families closure. Some community members believe the inquest process has been unbalanced in favor of police, and some families likely believe the police acted beyond what was necessary or reasonable to resolve the situation without using lethal force. The cities responded by accusing Constantine of playing politics, exceeding his authority and trying to bully them. Renton has joined the lawsuit, and Seattle has withdrawn.

The public might ask: Why is this of interest? Dont both sides want the same thing a fact-based conclusion?

Yes, and Kent Mayor Dana Ralph and Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell, along with Executive Constantine, all used the word accountability as one of their goals in a recent story on inquests. But it is what gets considered in that conclusion that is at issue. Anytime a police officer uses lethal force, there should be a public process to determine the facts of what happened.

The national tide of public opinion on racial justice and police use of force has undergone dramatic change in the past few months from what it was three years ago, prior to the public being able to see a cellphone video every night.

Constantines more regional view seeks accountability through the inquest format. In contrast, suburban police have political clout with mayors, city council members and community leaders in their home jurisdictions, and they view accountability as a local issue. Their word has always been taken over a suspects. The cities believe Constantine has created a contest between the deceaseds family and the police officers involved rather than focusing on facts. Actually, Constantine appears to be broadening what facts can be considered in the inquest conclusion as part of accountability.

While the county and cities disagree on several points, there are three that appear to be key points of contention.

The old system was limited to facts and circumstances surrounding the death. The new system expands the interpretation of facts to include questions about department policy and officer training.

Under the old system, the jurors were asked whether the officer feared for his or her life during the incident. Under the new system, jurors may be asked if the officers actions were consistent with department training and policies. Jurors would no longer be asked if the officer or officers feared for their lives.

Under the old system, involved officers could voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination). Under the new system, the lead investigator of the incident will testify and the chief law enforcement officer (or designee) will answer questions about training and policy. The involved officer can voluntarily testify, but not be subpoenaed. However, if the subpoenaed officer does not testify, the officer may not be represented by legal counsel.

On June 15, Constantine added a compromise on the last issue: An involved officer may voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination) and the officer may be represented by legal counsel throughout the proceeding, regardless of whether they testify.

Constantines view is of concern for the families and a desire to expand the facts that can be admitted for accountability and may benefit in a new era racial justice. Meanwhile, the cities want to protect their police officers, avoid court, or resolve training and policy questions in court and not at the inquest.

A city police officers training, and knowledge of city policy, is always key to any court cross-examination in a use of deadly force case. Whether the officer testifies and how well he or she handles the cross-examination are always crucial in the eyes of the jury. Also, an officer fearing for their life has always been the magic phrase to avoid criminal culpability.

Constantines inclusion in the inquest phase would provide a more thorough record and may determine what cases would go to court.

I spent 12 years as mayor of Auburn, and 11 years in two management positions with King County. I argued for and against each side on different policies. This is not a case where settlement or compromise are possible. Cities question why they are even part of the inquest process and feel it should apply only to the King County Sheriffs Office. The county is confident that Constantines authority is broad enough to withstand a citys legal challenge.

Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus makes a viable point: I believe a statewide process would be beneficial and equitable to everyone. Auburn is in a unique situation. We are part of two counties. I pray we would never utilize the process. It should be the same regardless of where an incident might occur.

The case is scheduled for July, and the court will need to decide less on the two sides political differences, and more on Constantines authority and whether they want criminal culpability to be a new part of the inquest process.

But the Legislature will meet in January and may meet in special session this August. Seattle withdrew from the case, believing the Legislature would be the best place to sort out the issues. While this battle may be just starting, both sides need to be aware of the message they are sending to minority constituent groups. Constantines effort is more reflective of current public opinion.

Federal Way resident Bob Roegner is a former mayor of Auburn. Contact bjroegner@comcast.net.

Talk to us

Please share your story tips by emailing editor@courierherald.com.

To share your opinion for publication, submit a letter through our website https://www.courierherald.com/submit-letter/. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. (Well only publish your name and hometown.) Please keep letters to 500 words or less.

Here is the original post:

Points of contention on police inquests in King County | Courier-Herald - Enumclaw Courier-Herald

Dem AGs Sue to Stop Rule Revoking Transgender Protections – DTN The Progressive Farmer

The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court against the Department of Health and Human Services, secretary Alex Azar and civil rights chief Roger Severino, seeks an injunction to stop the rule from taking effect. The attorneys general argue it violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause.

A message seeking comment was left with a spokesperson for the department.

The Trump Administration pushed ahead with the rule change even after a Supreme Court ruling last month barring workplace sex discrimination against LGBT people, moving to show Trump's religious and socially conservative supporters that he remains committed to their causes ahead of the November election.

Under the change, Health and Human Services said it will enforce sex discrimination protections according to the plain meaning of the word 'sex' as male or female and as determined by biology. That rewrites an Obama-era regulation that sought a broader understanding shaped by a person's internal sense of being male, female, neither or a combination.

The lawsuit brought by the attorneys general is part of an expected flurry of lawsuits challenging the lawsuit, including one filed last month by the LGBT civil rights organization Lambda Legal. Such groups say explicit protections are needed for people seeking sex-reassignment treatment, and even for transgender people who need care for common illnesses such as diabetes or heart problems.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, both frequent Trump foes, assisted James in crafting the lawsuit. Becerra said implementing the rule while coronavirus continues to rage across the country is especially cruel.

This is a mean and unconstitutional rule in any context, Becerra said. But authorizing discrimination in our health care system at this time, when our nation is suffering through a pandemic, is unbelievably immoral.

---------

itemid:6605f2e79f5eb64aed0f1bec57810371

Read the original post:

Dem AGs Sue to Stop Rule Revoking Transgender Protections - DTN The Progressive Farmer

Lawyer suspected in fatal shooting at N.J. federal judges home may have been targeting another judge – NJ.com

The now-deceased lawyer suspected of fatally shooting the son and seriously wounding the husband of U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey on Sunday may have been targeting at least one other judge in New York.

Roy Den Hollander had a photo of that states Chief Judge Janet DiFiore in his car, her spokesman told NJ Advance Media on Tuesday.

Thats what I understand to be true. At this point, thats all I have, said Lucian Chalfen, director of communications for New York State Courts. The information, which was relayed to Chalfen from the FBI, was first reported in the New York Times.

Den Hollander, a self-described anti-feminist lawyer, was found dead in his car of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound in Rockland, New York, about a two-hour drive from the North Brunswick home of Salas, officials have said.

From left, U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas, Roy Den Hollander and New York State Chief Judge Janet DiFiore.File

Investigators say Den Hollander, whose age in public documents is reported as 69 and 72, fatally shot the 20-year-old son of Salas, Daniel Anderl, and wounded her husband, criminal defense attorney Mark Anderl, 63, at their home about 5 p.m. on Sunday.

The son died of multiple gunshot wounds and Mark Anderl was critical but stable condition at a local hospital, according to North Brunswick Mayor Francis Womack.

The family was attacked by a man wearing a face covering and a FedEx delivery driver uniform, officials said. Salas was in the basement at the time of the shooting as was not hurt.

Daniel Anderl, 20. (Photo courtesy of Catholic University)

The New York Times, citing two law enforcement officials, reported the FBI is investigating whether Den Hollander was involved in the July 11 killing of mens rights lawyer Marc Angelucci in San Bernardino, California.

Angelucci was shot at his front door by a gunman wearing a FedEx uniform, according to published reports.

Marc AngelucciFacebook

Based in Newark, Salas was the first Hispanic woman to be appointed to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey. She was nominated by President Obama as a U.S. District Court judge in December 2010 and confirmed by the Senate in June 2011.

Salas was the judge in a 2015 lawsuit Den Hollander filed in federal court claiming the Selective Service System, which requires men to register for military draft, discriminates against both sexes in violation of Equal Protection as incorporated into the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Den Hollander wrote in an online essay in 2019 about having cancer and about a planned hearing apparently before Salas.

Media across the street from the home of Judge Esther Salas where her husband Mark Andrel was shot and their son Daniel was killed, in North Brunswick, N.J. July, 20, 2020 Ed Murray | NJ Advance Media for

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Anthony G. Attrino may be reached at tattrino@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @TonyAttrino. Find NJ.com on Facebook.

Here is the original post:

Lawyer suspected in fatal shooting at N.J. federal judges home may have been targeting another judge - NJ.com

This felon still has more to answer for – Las Vegas Sun

By Harry Litman

Monday, July 20, 2020 | 2 a.m.

President Donald Trumps commutation of Roger Stones sentence is a body blow to two core democratic values.

The first, and most immediate, is the principle of fair and impartial justice for all. It is a travesty that Stone who was plainly guilty of serious crimes, who thumbed his nose repeatedly at the justice system, who continues to challenge his convictions is now a free man. There is little that can be done now to reverse that injustice.

The second principle is the publics right to know, in this case about the full story of the 2016 election and the Trump campaigns complicity in Russias attack on American institutions. Here Stone may yet be called to account, and that should be a goal shared across political boundaries.

The perversion of justice in Stones case stinks. The commutation vividly illustrates Trumps corrupt two-tiered system: the full force of law for everyone but his cronies and supporters. The special status of Trumpers provided Stone a pass on the most basic of the norms associated with such executive branch actions: People convicted of crimes are not supposed to be eligible for commutation until they begin to serve their sentences and cease challenging their convictions, neither of which Stone has done.

In fact, Stones commutation is arguably the most corrupt use of the presidents constitutionally granted pardon power in history and one of the most corrupt acts of Trumps abysmal presidency. Other controversial pardons in history have provided preferential treatment to friends of the president; this one served to directly protect Boss Trump himself. Trump got Stones silence, Stone got freedom, and the public got shafted.

The exact nature of that shafting is not trivial. As special counsel Robert Muellers report makes clear, Stones lies and his obstruction, including witness tampering are major reasons why to this day, there are large gaps in our understanding of the Russian attack on the 2016 election and the Trump campaigns complicity in it.

Stone is the key witness on two not fully answered questions. The first is whether Trump and the campaign knew in advance about or even collaborated on the WikiLeaks dump of purloined emails from the Clinton campaign. Indeed, freshly unredacted material in the Mueller report indicates that Paul Manafort told Mueller that Stone had been tipped off and had passed that info along to Trump or the campaign. The second question is whether Trump lied in his written answers to Mueller when he claimed he couldnt remember the specifics of any conversation with Stone in the six months before the election.

On both issues, the government should not be finished with Stone. He can and should be made to testify under penalty of perjury.

If he is subpoenaed, Stone could assert his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Because his sentence was commuted, as opposed to his being pardoned, his convictions stand and the book is not fully closed on the crimes. His further testimony could be used against him as regards those crimes.

But theres a fairly easy workaround, as Muellers deputy Andrew Weissmann explained in a New York Times op-ed this week. If Stone takes the Fifth, the government could grant him immunity, and his liability would disappear.

Immunity isnt something the government offers casually, but it is appropriate when the value of witness testimony is paramount as is the case here and there is no other way to get it. Once immunized, if Stone were to persist in refusing to answer questions, he could be jailed for civil contempt until he agreed to talk. And if he lied (again), he would be subject to brand new perjury charges.

Where should this testimony take place? I suggest Congress, either as part of regular congressional hearings or, possibly, under the aegis of a broad-based commission on Russian election interference, much like the commissions that investigated 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination. Such investigations are specifically meant to inform the American people.

It is galling that the president has managed to foil nearly every effort to impose punishment on his cronies and himself. The ledger is not yet closed, however, and a fuller reckoning may await them after Trump leaves office.

In the meantime, the American people and their lawmakers urgently need to get the fullest possible account of exactly what happened to our election infrastructure in 2016. Examining systemic failures and enemy attacks is what democracies do, not least because it is the only way to reduce the risk of similar harms going forward.

Trump seems to believe that by commuting Stones sentence he closed the book on what Stone knows, ensuring his buddys lifelong silence. Trump has the power to keep Stone out of prison for the felonies he has been convicted of, but keeping him silent is another matter. Commutation notwithstanding, its likely the day will come when Stone has to sing or sink.

Harry Litman is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

Read this article:

This felon still has more to answer for - Las Vegas Sun

Frantz sentenced to life in prison – Leavenworth Times

A woman has been sentenced to life in prison for the 2017 murder of her estranged husband in Leavenworth.

Barbara M. Frantz will have to serve 25 years in prison before she is eligible for parole.

Frantz, 54, Kansas City, Kansas, was sentenced Tuesday in Leavenworth County District Court for first-degree murder.

She was charged after her estranged husband, Gary, was shot Jan. 27, 2017, in a parking lot in downtown Leavenworth.

She was convicted of the murder charge in 2018.

Before District Judge Michael Gibbens sentenced Frantz, he took up a motion filed by her attorney that requested a continuance.

Defense attorney Greg Robinson said he was at a disadvantage because he was appointed to represent Frantz only about 3.5 weeks ago.

"This case has been going on for a number of years," he said.

He said there are issues in the case that need to be looked at including evidence indicating a sibling of Frantz may have confessed to the murder.

Assistant County Attorney Shawn Boyd noted this evidence had been available to attorneys who previously represented Frantz.

"At no point in time did they bring it up to the court," Boyd said.

He said the evidence concerns emails from a sibling of the defendant who indicated he committed the crime but later recanted, saying he was trying to cover for Frantz.

Robinson said he did not know why the evidence had not been brought to the courts attention much earlier.

The person who reportedly wrote the emails was in the courtroom Tuesday and Robinson called him to testify.

However, the witness said he was exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and did not testify.

Gibbens said he was denying the motion for a continuance. But he said the ruling does not preclude other procedural remedies from being available to Frantz.

Donna Meyer, sister of the victim, spoke during the sentencing hearing.

Meyer said Frantz took Gary away from his family.

"She took away a son, a father, a brother," Meyer said.

Meyer said Gary was known to his family by the name of Pat.

Boyd acknowledged the case against Frantz was not perfect. But he said the evidence against Frantz was "very, very solid."

He said the evidence included statements Gary made to a police officer and other witnesses that identified Frantz as the person who shot him.

"At no point in time, has she taken any responsibility for her actions," he said.

Boyd noted that during her trial, Frantz blamed the murder on her son.

"She deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison," Boyd said.

Robinson asked the judge to consider giving his client a lighter sentence. Robinson asked Gibbens to consider Frantzs lack of prior criminal history.

The defense attorney also asked Gibbens to consider Frantzs age and medical conditions that she previously has brought to the judges attention.

When given the opportunity to speak, Frantz argued there is a large amount of evidence pointing to a man as the shooter.

Frantz said she believes her husband had been asking for his wife instead of saying she had shot him. She argued that her husband had identified his son as the shooter.

"I am not guilty your honor," she said.

Frantz also accused the Leavenworth Police Department and the County Attorneys Office of misconduct in the case. She alleged they hid and changed evidence.

She also accused her previous attorneys of doing a bad job.

"I should not have to pay for my past attorneys failures," she said.

When imposing a life sentence, Gibbens said he took into consideration Frantzs health issues. But he also took into consideration the fact that a jury found Frantz guilty and that jurors determined the crime was premeditated.

Twitter: @LVTNewsJohnR

See more here:

Frantz sentenced to life in prison - Leavenworth Times

Fowler: A room at the bottom – Amarillo.com

John Boltons new book, "The Room Where it Happened," is a betrayal of the trust Donald Trump placed in him as an adviser and confident. The book in hardback copy sells for $32.50. Judas betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver and then hanged himself. I doubt that Bolton plans to hang himself, but he has already hanged himself figuratively, since neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to put much credence in the books veracity.

Without a doubt, the Democrats (Socialists) would have dearly loved to have had the book when they impeached the president. Indeed, it would have been an ideal complement to the fictions they created in their attempt to overthrow the president; however, it is doubtful that the testimony they may have received from Bolton would have been of much value. I suspect that he would have invoked the Fifth Amendment numerous times if he had been subpoenaed because to swear under oath that his testimony was true would have caused him to perjure himself, and he is too smart for that.

Instead, Bolton laid the groundwork for the future "landslide sales" of his tell-all accusations. If such were his intent, Im afraid that he misjudged this potential customers interest. I would much rather spend $32.50 for a more interesting book, such as a good biography or a good novel. However, to be candid, I havent read the book. My knowledge of its content is only that of TV interviews and various excerpts read by analysts. That is enough!

In many ways, Bolton is a tragic figure. His desperate attempt to justify his actions by insinuating that the country would be in much better shape if the president had followed his advice (mainly to go to war with our enemies) reveals a man who sees himself as a guru of extreme national importance, one who should be president instead of the present candidates. To emphasize his importance to the country, he will vote for neither Biden nor Trump and will instead write in a candidate having his conservative values (a never Trumper). We will never know, but I would wager that he will write his own name on the ballot.

One wonders why a man who once enjoyed the highest esteem among the conservative powers in Washington D.C., has chosen to cast that reputation aside. Some pundits surmise that Bolton was so disgruntled with Trumps failure to give him the political position which he coveted as well as Trumps failure to recognize his brilliance, in fact, even ignoring his advice, that he grumpily determined to make sure Trump would be discredited as a credible second-term president. Never mind the fact that Trump, although crudely at times, has already proved himself to be quite capable of running a country, a stark contrast to the previous administration which was more interested in transforming America than in governing it, an administration in which the present Democrat presidential candidate was an integral part.

Disgruntled people seldom approach their decisions with logic. (Note the present-day Democratic Socialists who believe that socialism is superior to capitalism as a national political philosophy notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary.) Accordingly, Bolton has emerged, not as a memorable figure who brought down a president, but as a comic figure who brought himself down instead. This book, then, has the elements of a true drama, containing both tragedy and comedy centered on its author.

I suppose in the grand scheme of things the book is appropriate for its time. If the book had been released during the grand inquisition of Trumps impeachment, and a Bolton subpoena to appear before the inquisition had been issued, the unverifiable events, verified only by statements, such as "In my opinion" and "It seemed to me" would have left more egg on the faces of Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and Nancy Pelosi, all of whom had enough egg on their faces anyway from their impeachment debacle.

On the other hand, more egg on their faces would have been im-peachy. Sorry! That coined description is a whimsical joke, a bad joke at that, but appropriate, I think, in light of the new face of the Democrat Party whose only agenda is to destroy todays America and create a new one. As the leader of the Black Lives Matter movement in New York City told us, and I paraphrase: We are peaceful protesters, but if we dont get our way, we will burn down America. Now, that statement is a genuine political philosophy, a statement of anarchy, a devastating statement it is true; but, at least, it has more substance than did "The Room Where It Happened."

It is too bad that Bolton didnt close the door to the room when he left.

Carl Fowler is a retired professor of English at Amarillo College and lives in Amarillo

More here:

Fowler: A room at the bottom - Amarillo.com

Lyons: Stone proud to be in Trumps political mob – Muskogee Daily Phoenix

Even amid the endless torrent of malevolent incompetence that characterizes the Boss Trump regime, some days stand out. One such was his Friday night commutation of career lowlife Roger Stones 40-month sentence for lying to Congress, obstructing a congressional investigation and witness tampering. The federal judge who handed it down described Stones crimes as covering up for the president.

Specifically, he obstructed the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. In the immediate aftermath, Stone bragged to veteran journalist Howard Fineman about why he lied and who he was protecting. He (Trump) knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him. It would have eased my situation considerably. But I didnt.

Turn on him, that is, by fully describing his own and Trumps conversations about WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign, when Julian Assange served as a cats paw for Russian intelligence by publishing the Democratic National Committees stolen emails. Trump testified that he has no memory of talking with Stone about it, although two witnesses overheard them. He also swore that his son Donald Jr. never told him about meeting Kremlin operatives promising dirt on Hillary Clinton in Trump Tower.

If you believe that ...

Well, lets move on.

During Attorney General William Barrs Senate confirmation hearing, he was asked, Do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipients promise to not incriminate him?

No, Barr answered, that would be a crime.

A straight-up mob-style transaction, as the inimitable Charles Pierce describes it, one worthy of the fictional Tony Soprano or the all-too-real John Gotti. Disorganized crime, you might call it; a cynical attack upon the rule of law. Even so, its a good bet that the attorney general has changed his opinion, and would likely quibble that a commuted sentence is not a pardon.

No, but in the Stone case, its actually worse. To accept a pardon, see, a convicted felon must admit guilt. By so doing, he surrenders his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and can be called in front of, say, a congressional committee, and required to talk under penalty of perjury.

Cant have that, can we? So no prison time for Roger, although there are reasons to suspect he might have enjoyed certain aspects of incarceration. Back in 1996, the veteran political scam artist he has a tattoo of Richard Nixons face on his back claimed that Bill Clinton had made improper advances toward his wife. The National Enquirer turned up evidence that Stone himself had been advertising her charms in a magazine called Local Swing Fever:

Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband ... seek similar couples or exceptional muscular well-hung single men. Shes 40DD-24-36; hes 195, trim, blond, muscular ... Prefer military, bodybuilders, jocks.

Thats Roger Stone, voluptuary and fop. He later admitted everything to The New Yorkers Jeffrey Toobin. Im not guilty of hypocrisy, Stone said. Im a libertarian and a libertine.

Some years later, he founded an anti-Hillary organization called Citizens United Not Timid.

In short, he and Trump speak the same language. So its only natural that they would end up allies even though Trump described Stone to Toobin as a stone-cold loser ... He always tries taking credit for things he never did.

But Stone did plenty during the 2016 campaign. A seeker of notoriety rivaling Trump himself, he communicated directly with Guccifer 2, the Russian intelligence operatives that hacked the DNC, even as he predicted WikiLeaks document dumps to any Republican who would listen.

Angered by the Trump commutation, special counsel Robert S. Mueller wrote a Washington Post column objecting that regardless of attempts to portray him as a victim, Stone was prosecuted and convicted because he committed federal crimes. He remains a convicted felon, and rightly so ...

A jury determined he lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks.

For that matter, Stone was also convicted for threatening to kill a witness named Randy Credico and his beloved dog in a text message. Also like his patron in the White House, the man is infinitely cunning, but not real smart.

As for being a felon, far from being ashamed, Stone couldnt be prouder. To him, its a badge of honor. Hes a made man in Boss Trumps political mob.

It has been reported that what Sen. Mitt Romney called an act of unprecedented, historic corruption was vigorously opposed by William Barr. If so, the attorney general has resources. The Justice Department can empanel a grand jury, grant immunity to Roger Stone for previous acts and compel his testimony.

I am not holding my breath.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

More here:

Lyons: Stone proud to be in Trumps political mob - Muskogee Daily Phoenix

Rich Rifkin: We have created a new climate of fear – Davis Enterprise

Joseph Welch, the chief attorney for the U.S. Army in the infamous Army-McCarthy hearings, will forever be remembered for interrupting Senator Joe McCarthy, who was fulminating against a young lawyer who had worked with Mr. Welch:

Senator, youve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

That was 1954. On the 20th anniversary, when I was 10, news programs were reliving that history.

I recall asking my mom what McCarthyism was.

She said Sen. McCarthy scurrilously claimed the government and other American institutions had been infiltrated by disloyal communists. She told me that the investigations ruined the reputations of many innocent Americans whose only crime was to have an unpopular political point of view.

At its heart, my mother said, McCarthyism was about creating a climate of fear and denying freedom of speech, freedom of consciousness, freedom of association and freedom of thought.

Sadly, there is a long history in the U.S. of bringing harm to people who hold unpopular views or who have associated with people that the mob wants to silence. In todays climate, we need to keep that history in mind.

In some cases, the excuse for this vigilantism is to protect the brand of the employer of the person with the sinister political views. In others, it is to shut up a persons conscience and discourage anyone else from defending opinions the mob feels are unacceptable.

A handful of stories of this kind of censorship are well known. Films have been made, for example, about the repression of the Hollywood Ten, who were blacklisted following a 1947 hearing of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Likewise, the case of Irving Adler a New York math teacher who was fired for invoking his Fifth Amendment rights and later admitted to being a communist is well remembered.

There are many other tragedies that are long forgotten.

One was the story of Tanner Parga, a longtime baseball announcer. He was originally hired by the Sacramento Senators in 1928, calling their games on radio through the 1935 season, when they were affiliated with the Brooklyn Dodgers.

In 1936, the franchise changed names, becoming the Sacramento Solons, a St. Louis Cardinals affiliate. Mr. Parga remained the teams radio announcer until he was terminated in the middle of the 1947 season.

The team never explained the firing of Tanner Parga, who was also removed from his other job as a radio commentator.

Prior to his dismissals, Parga was not without controversy. Hed had conflicts with a few past players in Sacramento. Some wanted him fired for that. During the second red scare in 1947, Parga said on the radio, Just because someone was a socialist or disliked capitalism didnt mean he couldnt be a good American.

A few days later, the ex-ballplayers who had conflicts with Parga, publicly called for his head. By the end of that week, Tanner Parga had been fired by the Solons and by KFBK-FM. He never worked again.

Another interesting, but largely forgotten case of punishing individuals for holding politically incorrect views came in 1957, the year Sen. McCarthy died of alcoholism.

Don Kingelor, a professor of accounting at the University of Mississippi, came under attack because it was believed he did not sufficiently mourn the death of a white highway patrolman, Johnnie Rank, who was allegedly killed by a Black petty criminal.

Kingelor had also been attacked for writing, People should not be evaluated based on the color of their skin.

When Professor Kingelor refused to cancel a final exam the day segregationist Ole Miss students were grieving the loss of Officer Rank, they signed a petition calling for Kingelors firing. Those who missed the test stated they deserved no harm from their accounting teacher.

Prof. Kingelor replied, Can you guide me on how you think I should achieve a no-harm outcome since our sole course grade is from a final exam only? Thanks, D. Kingelor.

In 1951, shortly after the Battle of Bloody Ridge in which the United States suffered 3,000 casualties fighting North Korean and Chinese soldiers the Philadelphia Inquirer fired its senior editor, Winston Shicksaw, who had been with the paper for over 20 years and was highly esteemed for his work, for having written a headline that pro-military activists and some Inquirer reporters deemed insensitive.

The headline regarded a proposed real estate development called Broadway Ridge. Mr. Shicksaw titled the story about conflict between those for and against the project, The Battle of Broadway Ridge.

Two days later, Shicksaw lost his job. That same week, a New York Times editor was fired for having run an editorial written by a U.S. Senator that pro-military activists deemed dangerous.

Of course, in hindsight, its easy to see how very wrong these episodes were, especially when mob action harmed people for whom you may feel sympathy or you think were unjustly treated.

Sadly, we still live in those times. Yes, the story ofTanner Parga is fiction, a representation of sports announcer Grant Napear, whowas fired for expressing his belief that all lives matter. Don Kingelor is made up. However, it is not fiction to report that UCLA student activists are calling for the head of Prof. Gordon Klein for not cancelling his final exam as they mourned the death of George Floyd.

Newspaper editor Stan Wischnowski (anagram for the fictive Winston Shicksaw) of the Inquirer was fired for a headline, Buildings matter, too; and James Bennet of the Times was forced to resign for running a column written by Sen. Tom Cotton.

The list of those who todays mob wants to deny freedom of speech, freedom of consciousness, freedom of association and freedom of thought continues to grow.

Have we left no sense of decency?

Rich Rifkin is a Davis resident; his column is published every other week. Reach him at [emailprotected]

Related

Excerpt from:

Rich Rifkin: We have created a new climate of fear - Davis Enterprise

On the 6th anniversary of his death, Dan Markels friends plead for an investigation into his ex-wifes family – Forward

Six years ago, on July 18, a gunman approached Dan Markel and shot him twice in the head. A Florida State University law professor and attorney, Markel had just pulled into his own garage. He died the following day at the age of 41.

Three people were charged in his murder; two found guilty. The third is due to be retried sometime next spring, or even later, depending on the state of the pandemic.

But Markels friends and family say justice has still not been served, because Floridas state attorney has not adequately pursued the Adelson familys role in the murder. Markel had recently been through an acrimonious divorce and custody battle with his wife, Wendi Adelson. At the murder trial, the lead prosecutor made closing statements that appeared to lay blame at the feet of Markels in-laws.

Now, Markels friends are concerned that momentum on Markels case is slowing that delays in the legal system due to the coronavirus pandemic might mean prosecutors wont take the next step, and investigate the question of who paid for the killing.

For this reason, they have formed a group called Justice for Dan and launched a petition signed by more than 900 people so far to try to push the state attorney to prosecute Wendi Adelsons older brother and mother, Charles Adelson and Donna Adelson.

As time passes, we worry that people will forget that there were leaders in this plot, and that the people who are most responsible for this murder, specifically the Adelson family, wont be held accountable. There will be people who will say, Weve gotten some justice and we have to move on, said Jason Solomon, a friend of Markels who is spearheading the effort.

The murder of Markel, of a Harvard-educated legal scholar, sent shock waves through the Florida capital, and also reverberated in South Florida, where Wendi Adelson, also a lawyer, grew up in a well-established Jewish family: Her father and brother, Harvey Adelson and Charles Adelson, are in a dental practice together in the Fort Laurderdale suburb of Tamarac. Days after Markels killing, Wendi Adelson, now 41, moved their young sons to South Florida.

About two years after Markels murder, as the investigation developed, Wendi Adelson made it impossible for Markels parents, Ruth and Phil Markel, to see their grandsons.

The man who police say shot Markel, Sigfredo Garcia, was found guilty of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in a trial last October. Luis Rivera, a former Miami gang leader who drove Garcia to Tallahassee to murder Markel, took a plea deal and agreed to testify against the other two people involved, receiving a second-degree murder conviction to avoid the death penalty. Jurors were unable to reach a verdict on Katherine Magbanua, who has two children with Garcia the third person charged with Markels murder.

Solomon believes that the part of the reason the jury couldnt agree on a decision was their sense of being baffled about who was being tried for the crime and who wasnt.

The jurors were confused or unhappy that she was being prosecuted and the Adelsons were not. There was a sense that they should, said Solomon, adding that he based his conclusions on media interviews with jurors he saw afterwards.

Magbanua, two people testified at her trial, was widely known as Charles Adelsons girlfriend. But why did Garcia and Rivera rent a Prius in Miami and drive hundreds of miles north to Tallahassee to kill Markel? Part of the custody battle involved Wendi Adelsons desire to move back to South Florida a nearly seven hours drive away from Tallahassee with their two young boys. A court order barred her from doing that, so that the divorced couple could have joint custody.

What enemy or enemies had Mr. Markel made that set into motion such a brutal act? asked Georgia Cappelman, the lead prosecutor at the trial, in her closing statements. The answer? His own family. What offense had Mr. Markel committed against these people? Wanting to be a good father, refusing to let his children be taken away from him.

The process of getting to a murder trial is always complicated, and the coronavirus crisis has only slowed the wheels of justice further, with most trials suspended.

Magbanua is scheduled to face retrial in the spring of 2021 at the soonest, and the judge on the case, James C. Hankinson, retired at the end of June, expressing disappointment and frustration that he didnt see the end of this important case.

Its quite possible that they decided on going after the lower people on the totem pole on a criminal enterprise first, with the hope that they will flip and cooperate and testify against the people who are at the top of the criminal enterprise, said Solomon, who befriended Markel when they started their careers as law professors in Southern states Markel in Florida and Solomon in Georgia. Now in California, Solomon said that he and others in the campaign were concerned that an overloaded state attorneys office might just move on to other cases.

In an op-ed in the Tallahassee Democrat, published last month at the height of nationwide reckoning last month with systemic racism in America, Solomon wrote that this seems to be yet another case in which people of color are prosecuted, but people who are white, wealthy and in positions of power are not.

We thought that it would be important to enlist friends in Tallahassee and around the country and around the world to say, police have already presented evidence of who is responsible for Dans murder, Solomon added. The evidence against Charlie and Donna Adelson has already been presented at trial and its been overwhelming. I think its important for the Florida state attorney to say that we dont just let white wealthy people off the hook.

In media interviews during the trial last fall, lawyers for the Adelson family maintained their innocence.

On the Justice for Dan Facebook page, which has more than 4,000 followers, a posting shows a screenshot of Wendi Adelsons Facebook page in which she had encouraged people to sign a Change.org petition calling for the police officers who killed George Floyd to be brought to justice. Commenters on that post noted the irony of her calling for justice for Floyd but taking the Fifth a reference to the Fifth Amendment right not to not incriminate oneself multiple times during the trial, at which she testified after having been subpoenaed. After numerous comments calling on her family to face justice in the case, Wendi Adelson deleted the post.

In a separate effort on behalf of Markel, advocates are working to change Florida law in order to allow grandparents greater ability to access courts to petition for visitation rights. The effort received support from Florida lawmakers this spring, including unanimous passage through the Senate Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs; advocates say they are working on revised bill language for the 2021 session.

On the anniversary of the murder, Ruth and Phil Markel, Dan Markels parents, released a statement thanking the police and prosecutors and hoping that they persist.

We understand that due process takes patience, they wrote. We pray that this next phase of the legal process moves quickly, and that all those responsible for Dans murder are held accountable. And we pray for the chance to see and know Dans two boys our beloved grandsons again.

Ilene Prusher, a journalist in South Florida, is a regular contributor to the Forward and the author of the 2014 novel Baghdad Fixer.

The rest is here:

On the 6th anniversary of his death, Dan Markels friends plead for an investigation into his ex-wifes family - Forward

The Revolutionary Life of Paul Robeson: Scholar Gerald Horne on the Great Anti-Fascist Singer, Artist, and Rebel – The Intercept

As Donald Trump campaigns for reelection, he is increasingly sounding like a fanatical Cold War relic, railing against the communists, anarchists, and socialists while pledging to protect the real Americans from this growing Red Menace. This week on Intercepted: As Trump vows to smash leftist movements, we take a comprehensive look at the life of the revolutionary Black socialist, anti-fascist, and artist Paul Robeson. University of Houston historian Gerald Horne, author of Paul Robeson: The Artist as Revolutionary, discusses Robesons life from his early years to his time in Europe on the brink of a fascist war. The son of an escaped slave, Robeson rose to international fame as a singer and actor, but committed himself to the liberation of oppressed people across the globe and was a tenacious fighter for the freedom of Black people in the U.S. Robeson was heavily surveilled by the FBI and CIA, dragged before the House Un-American Activities Committee, and was stripped of his passport by the U.S. government.

Audio of Robesons testimony at the House Un-American Activities Committee, used throughout this episode, is a dramatization by actor James Earl Jones in the stage play, Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?

Sean Hannity: Joining us now on the phone is President Donald Trump from the White House tonight. Mr. President, thank you, sir, for being with us.

Donald Trump: Well, thank you very much. And how good is Mark?

[Sounds of toilet]

SH: I want to start Um, Mr. President? We have an election in 117 days, Mr. President, and

DJT: I actually took cognitive tests.

SH: Ok.

DJT: Very recently when I proved I was all there because I aced it. I aced the test

SH: You know

DJT: in front of doctors and they were very surprised. They said thats an unbelievable thing. Rarely does anybody do what you just did.

SH: What is your second term agenda?

DJT: Our country will suffer. Our stock markets will crash. Cases all over the place. People dying.

SH: Thank you for your time. We appreciate you being with us. And 117 days to go. Alright.

DJT: Thank you very much, Sean. Thank you.

[Musical interlude]

Jeremy Scahill: This is Intercepted.

[Musical interlude]

JS: Im Jeremy Scahill, coming to you from my basement in New York City. And this is episode 138 of Intercepted.

Catherine Herridge [CBS]: Why are African Americans still dying at the hands of law enforcement in this country?

DJT: And so are white people. So are white people. What a terrible question to ask. So are white people more white people by the way.

JS: The United States is in the midst of a period of great reckoning. While many major media outlets have moved on in their coverage, demonstrations for racial justice and Black Lives continue in cities and towns across this country.

Protesters: George Floyd! Say his name! George Floyd! Say his name! George Floyd!

JS: At the same time, the pandemic is continuing its carnage, due in no small part to the criminal incompetence of President Donald Trump. While Wall Street celebrates its gains and basks in the perceived contradictions, workers across this country are suffering. Millions of people are at risk of losing or already have already lost their employer-based health care. The paltry means-tested so-called economic stimulus was at its inception an inadequate bandaid, and now the wounds on working families are becoming infected. At the same time, the billions doled out to corporations are shrouded in unaccountability and secrecy.

And, as Trump campaigns for re-election, he is increasingly sounding like an early Cold War fanatic, railing against the communists, anarchists, socialists while pledging to protect the real Americans from this growing Red Menace.

DJT: We are now in the process of defeating the radical left, the marxists, the anarchists, the agitators, the looters, and people who, in many instances, have absolutely no clue what they are doing.

JS: In these times, the long shadow of history stretches over us all. And in thinking of the magnitude of the current world and national crisis, Ive found myself reading books, watching films, listening to music that was produced during times of crisis and struggle throughout history.

[Water Boy sung by Paul Robeson plays.]

Paul Robeson: [Singing] Water boy, where are you hiding? If you dont come, Im going to tell your Mamie.

JS: One of the great stories of the past century is that of the life of Paul Robeson. He was born in New Jersey to a father who escaped slavery. He was an athlete, a lawyer, an actor, and a singer. And his songs propelled him to international fame beginning in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

But Paul Robeson represented something much bigger than his art or his biography. His ascent to fame came as the world was in upheaval, the market crash and the Great Depression, the rise of fascist forces in Europe, and the grinding oppression of Jim Crow America. Robeson spent many of his prime years living outside the United States. He said he felt more free as a Black artist abroad than he did in the land of his birth. He traveled the world performing in the great concert halls and theater venues of Europe and beyond. He was enamored of the Soviet Union and the great hope that he placed in the liberation of Black people from the shackles of colonialism in Africa. He mastered several languages, among them German and Russian, and he gave in London what is to this day considered to be one of the greatest performances of Othello ever staged.

Paul Robeson reciting Shakespeares Othello: Soft you, a word or two before you go. I have done the state some service, and they knowt. No more of that. I pray you, in your letters, when you shall these unlucky deeds relate, speak of me as I am. Nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.

JS: Paul Robeson was an international man of resistance, of worker solidarity, and he was a proud Marxist. He could have lived a life of extreme comfort and luxury. He could have chosen to just be an artist. But at his core, Paul Robeson believed that the struggle to liberate workers across the globe and to overthrow the tyranny of fascists was connected to the liberation of Black people in the United States. And when Robeson was outside of the U.S. or inside of it, he always spoke with an international perspective. After visiting with coal miners in the Welsh valley in the U.K. in the 1950s, Robeson described his political evolution in a radio interview on KPFA.

PR: And I went down in the mines with the workers and they explained to me that Paul, you may be successful here in England, but your people suffer like ours. We are poor people. And you belong to us, you dont belong to the bigwigs here in this country. And so I today feel as much at home in the Welsh valley as I would in my own Negro section in any city in the United States. And I just did a broadcast by transatlantic cable to the Welsh valley a few weeks ago. And here was the first understanding that the struggle of the Negro people, or of any people, cannot be by itself. That is, the human struggle. And so I was attracted then to met many members of the Labor Party and my politics embraced also the common struggle of all oppressed peoples, including especially the working masses, specifically the laboring people of all the world. And that, that defines my philosophy. Its a joing one of, we are a working people, a laboring people the Negro people. And theres a unity between our struggle and those of white workers in the South. Ive had white workers shake my hand and say, Paul, were fighting for the same thing. And so this defines my attitude toward socialism, and toward many other things in the world. I do not believe that a few people should control the wealth of any land, that it should be a collective ownership.

JS: Today on the show, we are going to take a journey through the life and times of Paul Robeson. From his early years to his rise to fame, to his time in Europe on the brink of a fascist war. We will hear how Robeson traveled to the frontlines of the war against General Franco to perform for the international anti-fascist brigades. Well hear of the FBI investigations, Robesons appearance before the House Un-American Activities Committee and of how Paul Robeson was stripped of his passport by a U.S. government afraid that he would become a Black Stalin.

Our guest for todays program is the historian and scholar Dr. Gerald Horne. He currently holds the John J. and Rebecca Moores Chair of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston. He is a prolific author and among his works is the recent book Paul Robeson: The Artist as Revolutionary. Dr. Hornes newest book, just published, is The Dawning of the Apocalypse: The Roots of Slavery, White Supremacy, Settler Colonialism, and Capitalism in the Long Sixteenth Century. Dr. Gerald Horne, thank you so much for joining us here on Intercepted.

Gerald Horne: Thank you for inviting me.

JS: As weve watched these events unfold over the past months, not just with the pandemic, but centrally with the uprisings that weve seen around the country in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd, I found myself thinking a lot about Paul Robeson.

Dramatization by James Earl Jones as Paul Robeson: Is that when I am abroad, I speak out against injustices against the Negro people in this land. That is why Im here. Im not being tried for whether Im a communist. Im being tried for fighting for the rights of my people, who are still second class citizens in this country, in this United States of America. My father was a slave. I stand here struggling for the rights of my people to be full citizens in this country. And they are not.

JS: Paul Robeson was a militant anti-fascist, a radical thinker, and in your book on him, you say that he was the forerunner to Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, and that in studying his life we can understand better this history that we all continue to live through. For people that are not familiar, just give an overview of why you put Paul Robeson in that historical context.

GH: Well, Paul Robeson was born in New Jersey in 1898, passes away in Philadelphia in 1976. In between, he was a star scholar at Rutgers University, one of the few Black Americans admitted to that state school. He was also an All-American football player and a baseball catcher. He also attended Columbia University Law School and practiced law for a while. But it was soon revealed and discovered that he had a marvelous singing voice.

PR: [Singing] I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you and me. Says I, But Joe, youre ten years dead. I never died says he, I never died says he.

GH: And he quickly transferred to being a star concert singer and a star of the stage, and ultimately film.

PR: Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

GH: From the 1920s up through the late 1930s, he was actually in exile. He lived in London. And there he came into contact with many anticolonial leaders. But a turning point in Paul Robesons life comes in the early 1930s, when he comes face to face with fascism as its rising in Germany. And his transition to becoming this stellar anti-fascist activist is assisted in no small measure by his good friend, another Black lawyer, speaking of William Patterson, who went on to spearhead the defense of the Scottsboro Nine in the 1930s. Recall these are the nine Black youth in Alabama who are accused falsely of sexual molestation of two Euro-American women. Their case becomes a cause clbre all over the world. Its not unlike the antiapartheid movement, which in the 1980s and 1990s becomes an international movement. And in fact I argue that the Scottsboro Nine, in some ways, was a precursor and necessary prelude to the eruption of the anti-Jim Crow movement in the 1950s in the United States of America.

In any case, Paul Robeson becomes an advocate of socialism. He visits the Soviet Union early on. The turning point, in a sense, in Paul Robesons life comes with the dawning of what London would call World War II, that is to say 1939. And he felt that with his family he might be caught in the midst of a war so he decided to return to the land of his birth. And for a while it seemed as if he was in accord with main political trends in the United States after all. But alas, with the end of World War II, you see the rise of the Red Scare, the Cold War. Robeson quickly becomes persona non grata. A turning point again in his star-crossed life comes when he confronts President Harry Truman in the White House, when Mr. Robeson is campaigning against lynching the extrajudicial murder of Black Americans, non unlike what befell George Floyd in Minnesota in May 2020.

PR: A very broad committee went in to protest the lynchings of the Negro boys in the South. He said that it wasnt politically expedient to do anything about lynching.

GH: And as Mr. Truman was being berated by Mr. Robeson, therein you can espy the onset of the decline of Mr. Robeson. He quickly becomes blacklisted. He becomes an early victim of McCarthyism. He still has a certain kind of contact with the emerging civil rights movement. I mean, for example, he rubs shoulders with Malcolm X while in London. He confers with Dr. Martin Luther King and some of Dr. Kings representatives. But its fair to say that the final decade of his life is spent generally in seclusion and he passes away in Philadelphia in early 1976.

JS: As Robeson discovers his gift for the performance arts, particularly singing and acting in the United States, and he is given some early opportunities to perform in the plays of Eugene ONeill, what was Robesons life like as he entered entertainment? And ultimately what brings him then to Europe?

GH: After leaving Rutgers, he enrolls in law school and is well on his way to becoming a well-paid lawyer. But like many people, that is to say many Black people in particular, he felt that his individual success was insignificant compared to the kind of relentless Jim Crow and mindless lynching that his people were being subjected to. But, as suggested, he left that particular life and that particular career. And then, in the early 1920s, moving to London on the premise, which proved out, that there would be more opportunities in London for a Black performer than in the land of his birth.

While in London, hes exposed to a number of radical intellectuals when Britain was considered to be a so-called top dog in the imperialist and capitalist world. That process led to the creation of a number of leading anti-fascist, anti-imperialist intellectuals. And this kind of environment influenced Robeson quite deeply and, as suggested, along with his trip to Germany as fascism was being born, helped to move him decisively to the left.

PR: I would say that, unquestionably, I am an American. Born there. My father slaved there. Upon the backs of my people was developed the primary wealth of America. The primary wealth. Theres a lot of America that belongs to me yet, you understand? But just like a Scottish-American is proud of being from Scotland, Im proud for being African. Now in our school books they tried to tell me that all Africans were savages until I got to London and found that most Africans that I knew were going to Oxford and Cambridge and doing very well and learned their culture. So I would say today that Im an American who is infinitely prouder to be of African descent, no question about it, no question about it. Im an Afro-American and I dont use the word American ever loosely again.

JS: In 1934, he travels to Moscow for the first time and Robeson said that, Through Africa I found the Soviet Union. Talk about how that first trip to the Soviet Union really profoundly changed Robesons trajectory.

GH: Well, you know, I find that people in the United States, at least certain elites and certain folks who dont know better, theyve really been able to convince Black people in the United States that everybody hates us. You go anywhere in the world, they dont like Black people. Which, of course, sort of lets U.S. Jim Crow and U.S. apartheid off the hook, lets U.S. white supremacy off the hook because the U.S. is just reflecting these global trends. But of course you dont have to be a historical materialist to recognize that these anti-Black attitudes come out of a particular cultural and historical context.

And if you look at Russia, in particular, a European country that, I think its fair to say, that was not as avid a participant in the African slave trade as some of its Western European counterparts including England and France and Portugal and Spain most notably and not only that but the man whos considered to be the founder of the modern Russian language, speaking of Pushkin, was of partial African descent himself and still is seen as a hero today.

Then theres the rather pragmatic political point, which is that the Soviet Union, at that time, needless to say, was being encircled by a number of antagonists, including imperial London, including imperial France, including Germany. So there was a pragmatic reason for Moscow to try to win favor amongst the colonial subjects of its antagonists. Not to mention those who were victimized by bigotry and racism and white supremacy in the United States of America.

There were many good reasons and many sound historical reasons for Moscow to open its embrace to Robeson. It helped to solidify his already growing attraction to the ideas of socialism. And of course he was not alone in this. This circle included many of the Black intellectuals of that time and this pro-Moscow, pro-socialist attitude is not unusual because Black people were looking for allies against U.S. imperialism and white supremacy. Just like by June 22, 1941, when Germany invades the Soviet Union, the United States is looking for allies. Which is why you have this rapid turn about in the United States of America with regard to its opinion of the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin becomes man of the year according to Time magazine. You have Hollywood producing pro-Soviet movies, which I think you can still find on YouTube.

[Mission to Moscow clip plays.]

Mr. Davies: I believe, sir, that history will record you as a great builder for the benefit of mankind.

Stalin: It is not my achievement, Mr. Davies. Our five-year plans were conceived by Lenin and carried out by the people themselves.

Mr. Davies: The results have been a revelation to me. I confess I wasnt prepared for what I found here. You see, Mr. Stalin, Im a capitalist as you probably know.

Stalin: Yes, we know youre a capitalist. There can be no doubt about that.

GH: Which presents a vision of the Soviet Union which contrasts with the pre-World War II and post-World War II approach. And of course we all know that after the war ends, these Hollywood creators are then dragged to Washington and grilled as to why they made these pro-Soviet movies.

Newsreel: Investigating alleged communism in Hollywood, the Washington Committee on Un-American Activities has been hearing the testimony of prominent film personalities.

Eric Johnston: The motion picture industry has been accused of putting subversive and un-American propaganda on the screen. We deny that without any reservation. The pictures themselves are complete proof of its falsity.

GH: Of course, the answer was that Franklin Delanoe Roosevelt suggested that this was a good idea in order to massage U.S. public consciousness so that the U.S. population would be more prone to go along with this alliance with the Soviet Union against imperial Tokyo and fascist Berlin.

And so Robeson was part of that overall political environment. The difference is, is that after 1945, the U.S. did a 180 degree reversal with regard to its pro-Soviet attitudes. Robeson chose not to, not least because the Soviets were still supporting African liberation movements. Now this rather simple political historical understanding, its oftentimes difficult for whatever reason for many of our friends in the United States to grasp.

PR: For the first time, as I stepped on Soviet soil, I felt myself a full human being a full human being. So its unthinkable for me today that colored peoples in any part of the world would ever join a war or attacks upon the Soviet Union. Im an anti-fascist and I would feel perhaps that any war against the Soviet Union would be a fascist war. Why not talk about peace and friendship with the Soviet people.

Journalist: What are your political opinions? Have they been changed today?

PR: My political opinions about the Soviet Union have only been deepened. As I said, in the Soviet Union, Im a believer in socialism and I would say with Dr. Du Bois that I believe that the socialist lands, in the sense of the Soviet Union, China, and the peoples democracies are the hope can I repeat it? the hope for the future.

JS: Part of history that I think is so vital that people understand but its almost never talked about, is the Spanish Civil War that preceded Hitlers war of conquest and genocide throughout Europe and eventually extending elsewhere. But you had, from the United States just as an example, three thousand people who signed up under the auspices of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade people who were communists or anarchists, socialists that went to Spain to fight against the rise of fascism. And, in fact, the United States officially declared itself to be neutral. And as you write about, Paul Robeson himself goes to the frontlines in Spain to perform for the anti-fascist forces that really were at the vanguard of trying to prevent fascism from taking hold in Europe.

PR [Singing]: But your courageous children. But your courageous children.

JS: Talk about that episode and why Robeson decided to go to Spain to perform on the front lines for the anti-fascists.

GH: Robeson was not alone in terms of those sentiments in favor of the Republican regime in Spain that was being challenged by the ultimate victor, the proto-fascist Francisco Franco who, as you correctly suggest, was backed by the fascist powers. But not only backed by the fascist powers, Berlin not least, but also, you may recall, that Henry Ford, one of the top manufacturers, as theyre called in the United States and his eponymous automobile company is still with us. And so on the other side of the ledger, not only had Robeson, who went to Spain to sing before the beleaguered forces and troops, but Langston Hughes, who was perhaps the leading Black writer of the 20th century was also a part of that crew that descended on Spain.

And, interestingly enough, a number of Black Americans whose names sadly have been lost to history, they were sufficiently motivated to go to Spain as well because, like Robeson, they felt that if fascism could be defeated on the Iberian peninsula that that would bode well for its close cousin, Jim Crow, being defeated on these shores. And likewise, if fascism were to emerge victorious on the Iberian peninsula, this would give a shot in the arm to its close cousin, speaking of Jim Crow, on these shores. And so thats what motivated Robeson to go to Spain in the 1930s. Like his trip to fascist Germany, like his trip to the Soviet Union, this had a catalytic and a positive impact on his emerging anti-fascist consciousness and was one more factor that was pushing him steadily to the left.

JS: Yeah, I wanted to read a quote that you cite in your book from Robesons own description of why he travels to Spain to perform for the anti-fascist forces.

PR: I am deeply happy to contribute to this cause of Spanish culture and of the Basque children in particular. A cause which must concern everyone who stands for freedom, progressive democracy, and for humanity. Today, the artist cannot hold himself aloof.

JS: He said, Every artist, every scientist must decide now where he stands. He has no alternative. There is no standing above the conflict on Olympian heights since, the artist must take sides. He must elect to fight for freedom or slavery. I have made my choice. I had no alternative. When Robeson was asked why he said because, The history of the capitalist era is characterized by the degradation of my people. Put that in context.

GH: I still get chills when I hear that quote being rendered. Obviously hes referring to the origins of capitalism itself, something Ive dealt with in a number of books, including my most recent book, The Dawning of the Apocalypse, which deals with the 16th century. And as Karl Marx himself put it, capitalism comes upon the world stage dripping with blood with the blood of Africans in particular because it was the African slave trade, one of the most profitable enterprises known to humankind. As you know, the African slave trade was the precursor for bringing millions of Africans to these shores, including my ancestors, Im afraid to say. And after suffering through centuries of slavery, we were able to create conditions that led to a U.S. Civil War, culminating in 1865, and then we were then degraded by a century further of U.S. apartheid in this so-called land of liberty and land of freedom. So this is what Robeson was making reference to when he made those rather scalding comments about what was happening to Black people, what was happening to his people.

JS: Tell the story of how Robeson was impacted by the case of the Scottsboro Boys. This starts in 1931, where you have nine Black teenagers ranging in age from 13 to 19 years old who are falsely accused of raping two white women on a train.

Clarence Norris: The three of us were surrounded with a mob. They had shotguns, pistols, sticks, pieces of iron, everything. The crowd commenced to holler: Lets take these Black sons of bitches up in here and put em to a tree. I did thought that I was going to die.

JS: Maybe set the Scottsboro Boys case and Robesons response to it in context.

GH: These nine Black youth are riding trains in the middle of a collapsing economy. It was quite common for folks to hop on trains to get from a city of unemployment to a city where they hoped there would be employment. These two women are riding the train too. There are controversies and confrontations between the nine Black youth, all from Dixie, and the two women. It leads to this allegation that turns out to not to be accurate that they had sexually molested these women. What happens is that the aforementioned William Patterson, who becomes a leader of the International Labor Defense, in many ways they take up the banner of the Scottsboro Nine. They use this case to illustrate the frailties, if you like, of Jim Crow, the noxious nature of white supremacy. Because the International Labor Defense has an international network, because the Communist Party and the Communist International, headquartered in the then Soviet Union, that is to say speaking of the latter, its part of an international organization. And so when this Communist International and International Labor Defense take up this case, theyre able to generate a worldwide movement against U.S. Jim Crow.

James W. Ford: It is only the Communist Party, which day in and day out, fights for every demand and need of the Negroes in the terror-and lynch-ridden South.

GH: Because of the disadvantageous conditions that Black Americans face in the United States of America, historically Black Americans have needed international solidarity and international support to make a step forward. And fortunately that was present in the 1930s. Now, it turns out that it takes quite a bit of activism to free the Scottsboro Nine. For most of the 1930s, despite this international protest, picketing at U.S. consulates and legations and embassies all over the world, boycotts of U.S. based corporations, etc., they still spend most of the 1930s in prison. But eventually, they are not executed because they were definitely slated to be executed, which, I might say, was the fate of too many Black people, that is to say being accused falsely then either rushed to the electric chair of the gas chamber or dragged unceremoniously from the prison and lynched, that is to say murdered without due process of law. But fortunately that fate did not befall the Scottsboro Nine and it also, I should say, not only helped to give U.S. imperialism a black eye in the international community, it also helped to drive many Black people into the ranks of the U.S. Communist Party, including a number of its leaders. And certainly it was a factor in helping to bring Paul Robeson closer to the U.S. Communist Party. I should say at this point that in his testimony before the U.S. Congress in the 1950s, the interrogators said that he was a member of the U.S. Communist Party under a false flag, under a false name. He denied that. I guess because they were not expert interrogators, they did not ask him if he had been a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, and I suspect that he was. And in any case that remains an avenue of research that has not been fruitfully explored.

Unidentified Actor as Richard Arens: Are you now a member of the Communist Party?

James Earl Jones as Paul Robeson: Oh, please, please, please.

Unidentified Actor as Richard Arens: Please answer, will you, Mr. Robeson.

James Earl Jones as Paul Robeson: What is the Communist Party? What do you mean by that?

Unidentified Actor as Richard Arens: Are you now a member of the Communist Party?

James Earl Jones as Paul Robeson: Would you like to come to the ballot box when I vote and take out the ballot and see?

Unidentified Actor as Richard Arens: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the witness be directed to answer the question.

Unidentified Actor as Chairman Francis E. Walter: You are directed to answer the question.

James Earl Jones as Paul Robeson: I invoke the Fifth Amendment and forget it.

Unidentified Actor as Richard Arens: I respectfully suggest the witness be directed to answer the question.

JS: Robeson is in Europe and he returns to the United States not just completely in the grips of the Jim Crow politics and reign of the leaders of the time, but also the FBI begins to investigate Paul Robeson as well. His activism is escalating during this time, and you had fears among powerful white interests in the United States that Robeson was going to become possibly a Black Stalin. Explain that.

GH: Historically, many Black people have fled the United States and have found homes in Western Europe in particular. But what happens is that with the rise of fascism and Hitler and Mussolini taking over most of Europe, they are not, shall we say, as friendly to these Black exiles as previous governments had been. And so many of them end up in concentration camps. Many of them perish. And this is what Robeson feared would befall him and so he decided the better part of wisdom was to get out of dodge, which actually made good sense.

But as already noted, he comes back to the United States and the United States is in the process of shifting to antifascism, shifts out of antifascism almost simultaneously with the signing of the treaty of surrender on the battleship Missouri in September 1945, as Japan surrenders. And then what happens is that this is taking place at a time when the United States is still officially a Jim Crow country. Its still an apartheid country. The United States is a rigorously segregated society. But the flipside of that is that in some ways this hands the Black community on a silver platter to those who profess antiracism, which was quite unusual at the time. And so what happens is that Robeson has a certain modicum of popularity in the Black community. And this is at a time, too, when the left had not been purged from leadership of unions. Robeson in many ways was the titular leader, not only of the Black radical, or even Black progressive movement, but in some ways, a leader of the U.S. progressive movement as well. And it was felt by those who majored in hysteria that somehow this would catapult him into a leadership role in Washington where he would become the so-called Black Stalin that is ruling the United States, subjecting his political antagonists to labor camps and even worse. And this was part of the hysteria that gripped the United States at that moment. What unfolds is this rather adroit maneuver by U.S. ruling circles whereby those with foresight and vision, such as Robeson, Du Bois, et. al., are marginalized and, to a degree, are isolated. And at the same time you have this attempt to erode Jim Crow, per the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision of 1954 saying that U.S. apartheid now is unconstitutional. And so you have this anomaly where Black people somehow, at least on a formal level, procedural level, get the right to eat in restaurants that they had been barred from, but because of the weakening of progressive unions and most Black people are working class and survive and are able to thrive because of being part of unions but because of the weakening of unions, they dont have the money to pay the bill at the restaurant.

JS: We are speaking to Dr. Gerald Horne of the University of Houston. In a moment, were going to continue this conversation by taking a look at the U.S. governments investigation of Paul Robeson during the Red Scare period as the Cold War was intensifying. Stay with us.

Read more:

The Revolutionary Life of Paul Robeson: Scholar Gerald Horne on the Great Anti-Fascist Singer, Artist, and Rebel - The Intercept

Judge: Women can get abortion pill without doctor visits – WXII The Triad

A federal judge agreed Monday to suspend a rule that requires women during the COVID-19 pandemic to visit a hospital, clinic or medical office to obtain an abortion pill.U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland concluded that the in-person requirements for patients seeking medication abortion care impose a substantial obstacle to abortion patients and are likely unconstitutional under the circumstances of the pandemic."Particularly in light of the limited timeframe during which a medication abortion or any abortion must occur, such infringement on the right to an abortion would constitute irreparable harm," the judge wrote in his 80-page decision.Chuang's ruling will allow healthcare providers to arrange for mifepristone to be mailed or delivered to patients during the public health emergency declared by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone to be used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy or manage a miscarriage.By causing certain patients to decide between forgoing or substantially delaying abortion care, or risking exposure to COVID-19 for themselves, their children, and family members, the In-Person Requirements present a serious burden to many abortion patients, Chuang wrote.The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other groups sued HHS and the FDA in May to challenge the rule.Plaintiffs attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the FDAs in-person requirements infringe on a womans constitutional rights to an abortion and violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Government lawyers have argued that the requirements are necessary to ensure that patients safely use mifepristone.The judge said suspending the requirements aligns with public health guidance to eliminate unnecessary travel and in-person contact.Chuang granted the ACLUs request for a preliminary injunction on due process grounds. He noted that federal regulators have waived in-person requirements for many other drugs for the specific purpose of protecting public health.The groups lawsuit says mifepristone is the only one of more than 20,000 FDA-regulated drugs that patients must receive in person at a hospital, clinic, or medical office yet may self-administer, unsupervised, at a location of their choosing.The judge didnt set any geographic limitations on the injunction. Referring to the nature of the pandemic, he said that crafting relief that attempts to account for both the unpredictable changes and nuanced regional differences across 50 different states over an extended period of time is simply infeasible. More than 4 million people in the U.S. have used mifepristone and misoprostol to end an early pregnancy; the two-drug combination accounted for 39% of all U.S. abortions in 2017, the lawsuit says.The lawsuit says the FDA rule has particularly severe implications for low-income people and people of color, who comprise a disproportionate share of impacted patients and who are already suffering and dying from COVID-19 at substantially higher rates.In March, dozens of anti-abortion advocates signed a letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar in which they called for halting abortion procedures during the pandemic. Their continued operation depletes sorely needed personal protective equipment and leads to complications that will further overwhelm already overextended emergency rooms, the letter said.

A federal judge agreed Monday to suspend a rule that requires women during the COVID-19 pandemic to visit a hospital, clinic or medical office to obtain an abortion pill.

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland concluded that the in-person requirements for patients seeking medication abortion care impose a substantial obstacle to abortion patients and are likely unconstitutional under the circumstances of the pandemic.

"Particularly in light of the limited timeframe during which a medication abortion or any abortion must occur, such infringement on the right to an abortion would constitute irreparable harm," the judge wrote in his 80-page decision.

Chuang's ruling will allow healthcare providers to arrange for mifepristone to be mailed or delivered to patients during the public health emergency declared by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone to be used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy or manage a miscarriage.

By causing certain patients to decide between forgoing or substantially delaying abortion care, or risking exposure to COVID-19 for themselves, their children, and family members, the In-Person Requirements present a serious burden to many abortion patients, Chuang wrote.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other groups sued HHS and the FDA in May to challenge the rule.

Plaintiffs attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the FDAs in-person requirements infringe on a womans constitutional rights to an abortion and violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Government lawyers have argued that the requirements are necessary to ensure that patients safely use mifepristone.

The judge said suspending the requirements aligns with public health guidance to eliminate unnecessary travel and in-person contact.

Chuang granted the ACLUs request for a preliminary injunction on due process grounds. He noted that federal regulators have waived in-person requirements for many other drugs for the specific purpose of protecting public health.

The groups lawsuit says mifepristone is the only one of more than 20,000 FDA-regulated drugs that patients must receive in person at a hospital, clinic, or medical office yet may self-administer, unsupervised, at a location of their choosing.

The judge didnt set any geographic limitations on the injunction. Referring to the nature of the pandemic, he said that crafting relief that attempts to account for both the unpredictable changes and nuanced regional differences across 50 different states over an extended period of time is simply infeasible.

More than 4 million people in the U.S. have used mifepristone and misoprostol to end an early pregnancy; the two-drug combination accounted for 39% of all U.S. abortions in 2017, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit says the FDA rule has particularly severe implications for low-income people and people of color, who comprise a disproportionate share of impacted patients and who are already suffering and dying from COVID-19 at substantially higher rates.

In March, dozens of anti-abortion advocates signed a letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar in which they called for halting abortion procedures during the pandemic. Their continued operation depletes sorely needed personal protective equipment and leads to complications that will further overwhelm already overextended emergency rooms, the letter said.

View original post here:

Judge: Women can get abortion pill without doctor visits - WXII The Triad

Kitsap judges: Law to help keep guns away from abusers violates the Fifth Amendment – Kitsap Sun

Kitsap County judges have ruled a state law unconstitutional that requires those accused of domestic violence crimes to affirm they have surrendered their firearms, finding that the law meant to keep guns away from abusers forced defendants to testify against themselves.

The decision has statewide implications and at least one other countymay heedthe reasoning from judges in Kitsaps superior and district courts but municipal courts in the county are split on whether to continue enforcing the law.

Obviously the goal of the statute has, I think, very beneficial ends in mind, said Steve Lewis, a public defender who has led the opposition to how the order to surrender weapons law works. It wants to remove firearms from the hands of people accused of domestic violence. The mechanism it uses, though, clearly violates the Constitution, thats the problem.

Kitsap County courthouse(Photo: Kitsap Sun file)

Though the law has been in effect for years, it was amended in mid-2019 to make judges responsible for enforcement.

Judges can still forbid people accused of crimes not just domestic violence from possessing weapons while their case goes through the system, however, the law Kitsap judges found problematic was how those accused of domestic violence crimes prove they actually surrendered their weapons.

The judges decisions differ in findings as well as detail. Kitsap County Superior Courts February order, signed by two of the county's eight judges,Kevin Hull and Bill Houser, totaled three pages. Kitsap County District Courts order went to 154 pages, including attachments, along with 586 footnotes.

The two decisions, however, reach a common conclusion: The law violates protections in the U.S. and state constitutions, often known as the right to remain silent famously embedded in the Fifth Amendment.

The District Court ruling found the law which is in effect through the entire state has judges force defendants who may own guns into a cruel trilemma where they had to choose between three options.

First, they admit to breaking the law by actually surrendering their weapons because, after the order is signed, a person is instantly forbidden from touching a gun. There is no grace period."

Second, they could perjure themselves if they own guns and lie that they didnt have guns to surrender.

Third, they could be held in contempt of court if they refuse to do either when called inprove they followed the order.

There are no other choices, that is what this statute basically offers to defendants, its the cruel trilemma, Lewis said.

For the District Court case, in January Kitsap County sheriffs deputies went to an apartment off Fairgrounds Road after receiving reports of a domestic violence assault. A woman there said she and Zachary James Marshall, 24, had a child together and had been fighting, according to court documents. The latest argument took a turn and became physical, the woman said, and Marshall was arrested and charged with fourth-degree assault, a misdemeanor. Marshall pleaded not guilty and was issued the order to surrender his weapons or make a statement under oath.

This court declines to force Marshalls guilt from his own lips, Judge Jeff Jahns wrote in the decision. Three of the four judges found the law also violated the Fourth Amendment the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, but Judge Marilyn Paja dissented on that point.

Kitsap County Superior Court judges made a similar ruling in the 2019 violation of a no-contact order case of Nicholas James Kandow, 25. Deputies went to an apartment on McWilliams Road after receiving reports of a disturbance. A woman answered the door with a fresh black eye, a cut lip and blood on her shirt, according to court documents. The woman denied she had been assaulted but deputies found Kandow, who was prohibited from being near the woman, hiding in a closet. He pleaded guilty in February to a felony for violating the court order and was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

Though no onein Kitsap County is known to have been charged with possession of a firearm while trying to surrender it, Lewis said that is beside the point.

Sure you can tell them to take their guns to the sheriff and hope for the best, they probably will not be prosecuted, Lewis said. But (defense attorneys) are not allowed to advise clients to commit a crime, let alone a felony.

Chad Enright, Kitsap County prosecutor, said the purpose of the law is crucial to protect victims of domestic violence from further and greater violence but the law as written has problems.

Those days after being arrested, that is when the situation is particularly dangerous, and making sure people dont have access to firearms during that period of time is important, Enright said. But you still have to recognize people have the right to remain silent, and finding a way to both keep people safe and respect their rights can be difficult, and Im not sure this statute accomplishes that.

Superior Court handles all felonies in Kitsap County, in and outside of cities, but it gets trickier at the misdemeanor level. If a person is accused of a domestic violence misdemeanor outside of Kitsaps four cities such as in unincorporated areas like Silverdale, Kingston or Olalla their case would be heard in District Court.

The four municipal courts in Kitsap County are evenly split on whether to stop issuing the orders Poulsbo and Bainbridge Island will continue to issue the orders, Bremerton and Port Orchard will not creating a patchwork of enforcement.

Bremerton Municipal Court Judge James Docter said though the decision does not directly apply to him he is going to follow it, as Superior Court acts as an appellate court for his decisions.

If I were to rule differently than Superior Court that would get appealed and it would be overturned, Docter said. I feel I am virtually bound by that decision.

However, the same law applies to civil protection orders, which Docter said he would enforce, as the superior and district courts' decision only applies to criminal cases.

Bainbridge Island Municipal Court Judge Sara McCulloch will continue giving the order to surrender weapons on civil and criminal cases, despite the Superior Court ruling, saying the issue has not been raised before her.

The court has to rule on things that are raised before it, McCulloch said. And this has not been raised before me.

One way to get uniformity is to have the state Division II Court of Appeals rule on the matter, and Enright said the office has charged two people for violating the law, a crime called failure to file proof of surrender of firearms. Enright said if those cases go to trial, and the defendants are found guilty, the case could be appealed, which could lead to uniformity in how judges enforce the law.

Outside of Kitsap, its unknown how other counties and cities are following the law. Lewis said King County has a form where defendants can check a box saying they are invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, a process he said Kitsap cribbed to avoid confronting the constitutionality of the law.

However, Enright said in light of the Kitsap judges rulings, he learned Whatcom County officials are reconsidering how judges there enforce the law. A decision from an appeals court could get all judges on the same page, but Enright said a true fix will have to come from the Legislature.

The current situation is pretty untenable, Lewis said.

Read or Share this story: https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2020/07/08/kitsap-judges-law-help-keep-guns-away-abusers-violates-fifth-amendment/5394659002/

Continue reading here:

Kitsap judges: Law to help keep guns away from abusers violates the Fifth Amendment - Kitsap Sun

US Court of International Trade Rules That President Trump’s Section 232 Tariff Increase on Steel Imports from Turkey Is Unlawful – Lexology

On July 14, 2020, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in Slip Opinion 20-98 that a proclamation President Donald Trump issued increasing Section 232 duties on steel imports from Turkey beyond those previously implemented under a prior proclamation violates statutorily-mandated procedures and the Constitutions guarantee of equal protection under law. Lead plaintiff Transpacific Steel LLC (Transpacific) argued that it should be refunded additional tariffs paid pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 9772 on certain imports of Turkish steel. This proclamation solely affected Turkish steel raising the duty rate from 25 percent to 50 percent and was issued well after the Section 232 national security investigation of steel imports had concluded and well after President Trump issued his initial Presidential Proclamation 9705 imposing a 25 percent tariff duty on steel products from several countries.

Transpacific argued that the statute requires the President to make a decision within 90 days of receipt of the Secretary of Commerces report and recommendation and to implement any chosen action within 15 days of that decision. The first proclamation was issued on March 8, 2018. The second proclamation was issued on August 10, 2018, which was outside of the statutory time period and was not the result of any formal Department of Commerce report. Attorneys for the U.S. government argued that Congress inten[ded] to confer continuing authority and flexibility on the President to counter the threat identified as confirmed by the language, long-standing congressional understanding, and the purpose of the statute . . . The three-judge panel agreed with the plaintiffs that the statutory language is clear and that Proclamation 9772 was issued far beyond this temporal window. The opinion notes that there is nothing in the statute to support the continuing authority to modify proclamations outside of the stated timelines and that the government offered no citation to the statute nor to the recent legislative history to support its theory that the President is permitted to modify his previous proclamation under the provisions of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. The CIT also found that, in addition to acting outside of the statutory time limitations, President Trump acted without a proper report and recommendation by the Secretary on the national security threat posed by imports of steel products from Turkey.

The plaintiffs also raised a Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge to Proclamation 9772, arguing that the second proclamation discriminates between similarly situated importers based on the origin of their imports without rational justification and that the government has offered no sensible reason for targeting imports from Turkey and that no reasonable rationale is apparent. While the ruling found that national security is a legitimate purpose, it concluded that [s]ingling out steel products from Turkey is not a rational means of addressing that concern. Section 232 does not ban the President from addressing concerns by focusing on particular exporters, but the decision to increase the tariffs on imported steel products from Turkey, and Turkey alone, without any justification, is arbitrary and irrational. As a result, the CIT determined, Proclamation 9772 denied the plaintiffs equal protection under law.

See the original post here:

US Court of International Trade Rules That President Trump's Section 232 Tariff Increase on Steel Imports from Turkey Is Unlawful - Lexology

Points of contention on police inquests in King County – Seattle Weekly

Inquests frequently unfold against a backdrop of sadness and drama: Family members shock at the sudden loss of a loved one at the hands of the police, and police defending their actions. It can be insensitive and frustrating.

Recently, King County Executive Dow Constantine and the mayors of Kent, Auburn and Federal Way exchanged political fire over Constantines wanting to change the rules on how inquests would be processed.

Inquests are fact-finding hearings held by a 4-6 member jury. Under state law and county charter, an investigation is required for any death involving a member of law enforcement during the fulfillment of their job duties. The county believes that includes cities and the cities disagree.

In 2018, in response to complaints from family members of those who had died from being shot by city police officers, Constantine formed a citizens group to make recommendations on improving the process. After the release of his new rules, the cities filed a lawsuit to stop the rules from taking effect.

Constantine wanted the cities to withdraw their lawsuit and allow the six inquests that have been on hold since 2017 to be heard and bring the families closure. Some community members believe the inquest process has been unbalanced in favor of police, and some families likely believe the police acted beyond what was necessary or reasonable to resolve the situation without using lethal force. The cities responded by accusing Constantine of playing politics, exceeding his authority and trying to bully them. Renton has joined the lawsuit, and Seattle has withdrawn.

The public might ask: Why is this of interest? Dont both sides want the same thing a fact based conclusion?

Yes, and Kent Mayor Dana Ralph and Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell, along with Executive Constantine, all used the word accountability as one of their goals in a recent story on inquests. But it is what gets considered in that conclusion that is at issue. Anytime a police officer uses lethal force, there should be a public process to determine the facts of what happened.

The national tide of public opinion on racial justice and police use of force has undergone dramatic change in the past few months from what it was three years ago, prior to the public being able to see a cellphone video every night.

Constantines more regional view seeks accountability through the inquest format. In contrast, suburban police have political clout with mayors, city council members and community leaders in their home jurisdictions, and they view accountability as a local issue. Their word has always been taken over a suspect. The cities believe Constantine has created a contest between the deceaseds family and the police officers involved rather than focusing on facts. Actually, Constantine appears to be broadening what facts can be considered in the inquest conclusion as part of accountability.

While the county and cities disagree on several points, there are three that appear to be key points of contention.

The old system was limited to facts and circumstances surrounding the death. The new system expands the interpretation of facts to include questions about department policy and officer training.

Under the old system, the jurors were asked whether the officer feared for his or her life during the incident. Under the new system, jurors may be asked if the officers actions were consistent with department training and policies. Jurors would no longer be asked if the officer or officers feared for their lives.

Under the old system, involved officers could voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination). Under the new system, the lead investigator of the incident will testify and the chief law enforcement officer (or designee) will answer questions about training and policy. The involved officer can voluntarily testify, but not be subpoenaed. However, if the subpoenaed officer does not testify, the officer may not be represented by legal counsel.

On June 15, Constantine added a compromise on the last issue: An involved officer may voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination) and the officer may be represented by legal counsel throughout the proceeding, regardless of whether they testify.

Constantines view is of concern for the families and a desire to expand the facts that can be admitted for accountability and may benefit in a new era racial justice. Meanwhile, the cities want to protect their police officers, avoid court, or resolve training and policy questions in court and not at the inquest.

A city police officers training, and knowledge of city policy, is always key to any court cross-examination in a use of deadly force case. Whether the officer testifies and how well he or she handles the cross-examination are always crucial in the eyes of the jury. Also, an officer fearing for their life has always been the magic phrase to avoid criminal culpability.

Constantines inclusion in the inquest phase would provide a more thorough record and may determine what cases would go to court.

I spent 12 years as Mayor of Auburn, and 11 years in two management positions with King County. I argued for and against each side on different policies. This is not a case where settlement or compromise are possible. Cities question why they are even part of the inquest process and feel it should apply only to the King County Sheriff. The county is confident that Constantines authority is broad enough to withstand a citys legal challenge.

Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus makes a viable point: I believe a statewide process would be beneficial and equitable to everyone. Auburn is in a unique situation. We are part of two counties. I pray we would never utilize the process. It should be the same regardless of where an incident might occur.

The case is scheduled for July, and the court will need to decide less on the two sides political differences, and more on Constantines authority and whether they want criminal culpability to be a new part of the inquest process.

But the Legislature will meet in January and may meet in special session this August. Seattle withdrew from the case, believing the Legislature would be the best place to sort out the issues. While this battle may be just starting, both sides need to be aware of the message they are sending to minority constituent groups. Constantines effort is more reflective of current public opinion.

Federal Way resident Bob Roegner is a former mayor of Auburn. Contact bjroegner@comcast.net.

Read this article:

Points of contention on police inquests in King County - Seattle Weekly

Points of contention on police inquests in King… – Renton Reporter

Inquests frequently unfold against a backdrop of sadness and drama: Family members shock at the sudden loss of a loved one at the hands of the police, and police defending their actions. It can be insensitive and frustrating.

Recently, King County Executive Dow Constantine and the mayors of Kent, Auburn and Federal Way exchanged political fire over Constantines wanting to change the rules on how inquests would be processed.

Inquests are fact-finding hearings held by a 4-6 member jury. Under state law and county charter, an investigation is required for any death involving a member of law enforcement during the fulfillment of their job duties. The county believes that includes cities and the cities disagree.

In 2018, in response to complaints from family members of those who had died from being shot by city police officers, Constantine formed a citizens group to make recommendations on improving the process. After the release of his new rules, the cities filed a lawsuit to stop the rules from taking effect.

Constantine wanted the cities to withdraw their lawsuit and allow the six inquests that have been on hold since 2017 to be heard and bring the families closure. Some community members believe the inquest process has been unbalanced in favor of police, and some families likely believe the police acted beyond what was necessary or reasonable to resolve the situation without using lethal force. The cities responded by accusing Constantine of playing politics, exceeding his authority and trying to bully them. Renton has joined the lawsuit, and Seattle has withdrawn.

The public might ask: Why is this of interest? Dont both sides want the same thing a fact based conclusion?

Yes, and Kent Mayor Dana Ralph and Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell, along with Executive Constantine, all used the word accountability as one of their goals in a recent story on inquests. But it is what gets considered in that conclusion that is at issue. Anytime a police officer uses lethal force, there should be a public process to determine the facts of what happened.

The national tide of public opinion on racial justice and police use of force has undergone dramatic change in the past few months from what it was three years ago, prior to the public being able to see a cellphone video every night.

Constantines more regional view seeks accountability through the inquest format. In contrast, suburban police have political clout with mayors, city council members and community leaders in their home jurisdictions, and they view accountability as a local issue. Their word has always been taken over a suspect. The cities believe Constantine has created a contest between the deceaseds family and the police officers involved rather than focusing on facts. Actually, Constantine appears to be broadening what facts can be considered in the inquest conclusion as part of accountability.

While the county and cities disagree on several points, there are three that appear to be key points of contention.

The old system was limited to facts and circumstances surrounding the death. The new system expands the interpretation of facts to include questions about department policy and officer training.

Under the old system, the jurors were asked whether the officer feared for his or her life during the incident. Under the new system, jurors may be asked if the officers actions were consistent with department training and policies. Jurors would no longer be asked if the officer or officers feared for their lives.

Under the old system, involved officers could voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination). Under the new system, the lead investigator of the incident will testify and the chief law enforcement officer (or designee) will answer questions about training and policy. The involved officer can voluntarily testify, but not be subpoenaed. However, if the subpoenaed officer does not testify, the officer may not be represented by legal counsel.

On June 15, Constantine added a compromise on the last issue: An involved officer may voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination) and the officer may be represented by legal counsel throughout the proceeding, regardless of whether they testify.

Constantines view is of concern for the families and a desire to expand the facts that can be admitted for accountability and may benefit in a new era racial justice. Meanwhile, the cities want to protect their police officers, avoid court, or resolve training and policy questions in court and not at the inquest.

A city police officers training, and knowledge of city policy, is always key to any court cross-examination in a use of deadly force case. Whether the officer testifies and how well he or she handles the cross-examination are always crucial in the eyes of the jury. Also, an officer fearing for their life has always been the magic phrase to avoid criminal culpability.

Constantines inclusion in the inquest phase would provide a more thorough record and may determine what cases would go to court.

I spent 12 years as Mayor of Auburn, and 11 years in two management positions with King County. I argued for and against each side on different policies. This is not a case where settlement or compromise are possible. Cities question why they are even part of the inquest process and feel it should apply only to the King County Sheriff. The county is confident that Constantines authority is broad enough to withstand a citys legal challenge.

Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus makes a viable point: I believe a statewide process would be beneficial and equitable to everyone. Auburn is in a unique situation. We are part of two counties. I pray we would never utilize the process. It should be the same regardless of where an incident might occur.

The case is scheduled for July, and the court will need to decide less on the two sides political differences, and more on Constantines authority and whether they want criminal culpability to be a new part of the inquest process.

But the Legislature will meet in January and may meet in special session this August. Seattle withdrew from the case, believing the Legislature would be the best place to sort out the issues. While this battle may be just starting, both sides need to be aware of the message they are sending to minority constituent groups. Constantines effort is more reflective of current public opinion.

Federal Way resident Bob Roegner is a former mayor of Auburn. Contact bjroegner@comcast.net.

The rest is here:

Points of contention on police inquests in King... - Renton Reporter

Martha McSally: Women in the military get pregnant to "skirt" deployment – Salon

Arizona Republican senator and former Air Force combat pilotMartha McSallyonce published an academic paperin which she said military servicewomen should be counseled against the "foolishness of entering into a lifetime commitment (motherhood)"to avoid deployment, and calledfor the Pentagon to repeal the policy that allows womento use pregnancy as an excuse to "skirt" their commitment.

The article, titled "Women in Combat: Is the Current Policy Obsolete?"appeared in a 2007 edition of the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. At the time,McSally, the first femalecombat pilot in U.S. history and the first-ever losing Senate candidate to immediately receive a Senate seatwas pursuing a second graduate degree at Air War College.

She later expandedon the articlein a lectureat the Duke University School of Law, whichhosts a full videoon its website. Aclip aboutthe pregnancy issue can be seenhere.

State polls have shownMcSally consistently down bydouble digitsagainstDemocratic challenger Mark Kelly,the astronaut husband of former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords. Last month,Kelly wasup 15 points among women.

McSally ran for an open Senate seat in Arizona in 2018, but was narrowly defeated byDemocrat Kyrsten Sinema. Then McSally was appointed by Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey to fill the seat formerly held by the late Sen. John McCain. She could end up losing two U.S. Senate races in the same state within two years, a rare accomplishment.

In the article, theformer squadron commander calls for a cultural shift to teach servicewomen that it is "not appropriate" to have a child just because they want to.

"The military must foster a culture in which military women understand that it is not appropriate to get pregnant whenever they desire," she writes."Instead, women need to realize their duties take precedence. They must take measures to prevent unplanned pregnancies and plan for pregnancies to occur only when they are in non-deployable situations." She does not elaborateon what those measures might include, and later rules out abortion as an acceptable option.

McSally goes on to explainthat the primary "issue" with her proposalis that senior officials would have trouble saying with certainty exactly what a woman's "intent" was behind her pregnancy. The solution, she says,is for senior officers to offer"proper counseling" for women:

Military leaders must create a climate where commanders are not afraid to talk about pregnancy as a readiness issue and to counsel female warriors on their obligation to avoid pregnancies when it will negatively impact unit readiness.The issue is intent, which is difficult to enforce except through strong leadership, a call to dedication and integrity, and proper counseling for military women.

McSally'spolicy solution to this"foolishness"also hinges on counseling.

"It is the author's recommendation that young service women, especially, need to be counseled about the foolishness of entering into a lifetime commitment (motherhood) in order to be released early from a four- or six-year commitment to serve in the military," she says.

(Her paper notes that the courts have ruled, in the1976 caseCrawford v. Cushman,that dischargingpregnant servicewomen violatedthe Fifth Amendment's due process clause, because thepolicy assumesthat pregnant women are permanently unfit for duty.)

McSally's most ambitious proposal is to repeallongstanding Pentagon policy that, in her words, allowspregnant women to "skirt"their duty.

The Department of Defense should rescind the policy that allows servicewomen to skirt their commitment to the military due to pregnancy.It must also create a climate where commanders are encouraged to counsel military women on their responsibilities to not plan a pregnancy during deployment vulnerability times or when serving in jobs where pregnancy would prohibit them from conducting their primary duties.

McSally, who during a 2019hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committeerevealedin emotional testimony that she had been "preyed upon andraped by a senior officer," writes that in her experience as asquadroncommander "single, pregnant, junior enlisted personnel were considered the most problematic because the pregnancies were less likely to be planned and more likely to create other problems, such as financial and child-care problems, that impacted the unit."

A NewYork Times reportpublished soon after that hearing specifies that McSally had been assaulted soon after entering the Air Force Academy, in 1988.

The law journal paper does not address unwanted pregnanciesas a resultof rape.

McSallyspins her argument as feminist, even though"some argue that droves of women will get pregnant to avoid the possibility of serving in combat." The military, she says,should not apply "double standards" to anyservice members,andpregnancies can create the "perception or reality" of a double standard.

The article does not address in any detail the role of men in conception or parenthood, but does callparenthooda permanent condition that affectsservicemen and servicewomen alike.

"Single parents and dual military parents are obligated to have a plan for care of their children in event of deployment and many manage their duties and parenthood admirably," she argues."Servicewomen should not be allowed to avoid their service obligations merely because they become pregnant."

McSally goes on to liken unplanned pregnancies to injuries or diseases, but rules out abortion as a acceptable solution.

"The author realizes accidents may happen, and units should deal with them just like unplanned injuries and illnesses. There is a fine line between creating an ethos that addresses this issue seriously and not encouraging women to have abortions or endanger the health of their babies for fear of potential career implications," she says.

In her 2019 Senate testimony, McSally said that"weaknesses in the processes"had motivated her "to make recommendations to Air Force leaders, shaped my approach as a commander, and informed my advocacy for change while I remained in the military and since I have been in Congress."

Even though McSally, the first female squadron commander in U.S. history,said thatshe"felt raped bythe system," shestill believed thatonly military courts should handle sexual assault cases, arguing that commanders would otherwise be let off the hook.

She spokemore freelyin her lecture at Duke, saying that the policy of givingtemporary leave to pregnant women was"ludicrous"and that the mere prospect of apregnancyis "enough to cause a problem" that all servicewomen get "lumped into."

"You know, go work at Walmart if you want to do that," she says. "Nothing against Walmart."

One year before her Senate testimony, McSally also disclosed that she wasraped in high school byher track coach, who pressured her into having sex with him.

"Even though he didn't physically force me, it certainly was an emotional manipulation," McSally said in aninterviewwith theWall Street Journal. Afterwards, shestepped up her running regimen in an effort to stop her menstrual cycle, which she said had happened before when she ran long-distance.

"I was freaking out that he would get me pregnant," she said.

Watch the clip of McSally's Duke Universitylecture:

The McSally campaign did not respond to Salon's request for comment.

Visit link:

Martha McSally: Women in the military get pregnant to "skirt" deployment - Salon

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear 18-Year-Old Klamath Water Rights Case, Upholding Tribal Primacy – Lost Coast Outpost

Map and photo via U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

# # #

Press release from EarthJustice:

Irrigated croplands along both sides of the Klamath River south of Klamath Falls.

WASHINGTON, D.C. The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear a case brought by Klamath Basin irrigators,Baley v. United States, settling for good the question of whether reduced water deliveries to Klamath Basin agricultural producers in 2001 constituted a taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment.

We are pleased that the Supreme Court has declined to hear this case, and upheld the Federal Circuits decision, saidattorney Stefanie Tsosie of Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm that has been involved in this case for 18 years. This decision affirms sound and settled principles of Tribal reserved water rights. Earthjustice has long worked to protect and restore the Klamath River and its salmon, which hold significant cultural value for Tribes in the Klamath Basin and are essential to sustaining the West Coast commercial salmon fishing industry.

Background

The lawsuit began 18 years ago when a group of water districts and individual farmers in the Klamath Basin of southern Oregon sought compensation under the Fifth Amendment, as well as damages for breach of contract, over reduced Bureau of Reclamation water deliveries from the Klamath Project for irrigation in 2001.

Because it was a drought year, plaintiffs with junior water rights received less water than expected. However, the Federal Circuit found that the water available in 2001 was necessary to fulfill the senior water rights of Tribes in the Klamath Basin and so the plaintiffs had no property interest in water required to satisfy the Tribes right. Earthjustice represents the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermens Associations, an affiliation of commercial salmon fishing interests that have faced drastically reduced fishing seasons and incomes because of declines in Klamath River and other salmon populations.

See the original post:

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear 18-Year-Old Klamath Water Rights Case, Upholding Tribal Primacy - Lost Coast Outpost

The Equal Protection Issues in the DACA Case – Reason

The DACA decision primarily involved principles of administrative law. (I discussed those issues here and here). But the case also involved a challenge brought under the Equal Protection Component of the Fifth Amendment. (Remember, the Fifth Amendment lacks an Equal Protection Clause).

The Plaintiffs alleged that the rescission of DACA violated the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts described the claims:

Tracking these factors, respondents allege that animus is evidenced by (1) the disparate impact of the rescission on Latinos from Mexico, who represent 78% of DACA recipients; (2) the unusual history behind the rescission; and (3) pre- and post-election statements by President Trump.

I discussed the issue way back when in a September 2017 WSJ op-ed (this litigation has been floating around for three-plus years):

That brings us to Mr. Schneiderman's most unsettling claim: that Mr. Trump can't revoke DACA because he is racist. "The President has demonstrated a willingness to disparage Mexicans in a misguided attempt to secure support from his constituency," the states' complaint argues, "even when such impulses are impermissible motives for directing governmental policy."

The filing cites a litany of Mr. Trump's offensive commentshis warning about Mexican "rapists"; his disparagement of Univision anchor Jorge Ramos; his reference in a presidential debate to "bad hombres"; his attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curielas well as his pardon of Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz.

Let's start with Part IV of Roberts's opinion, which was joined (behind the veil of a paper bag) by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Chief Justice Kagan. Roberts rejected each of these three arguments.

None of these points, either singly or in concert, establishes a plausible equal protection claim. First, because Latinos make up a large share of the unauthorized alien population, one would expect them to make up an outsized share of recipients of any cross-cutting immigration relief program. Were this fact sufficient to state a claim, virtually any generally applicable immigration policy could be challenged on equal protection grounds.

We saw a similar argument during the travel ban litigation: Any policy that prohibited entry of people from countries with links to terrorism would be predominantly Muslim.

Second, Roberts rejected the relevance of the history leading up to the rescission:

Second, there is nothing irregular about the history leading up to the September 2017 rescission. The lower courts concluded that "DACA received reaffirmation by [DHS] as recently as three months before the rescission," referring to the June 2017 DAPA rescission memo, which stated that DACA would "remain in effect." But this reasoning confuses abstention with reaffirmation. The DAPA memo did not address the merits of the DACA policy or its legality. Thus, when the Attorney General later determined that DACA shared DAPA's legal defects, DHS's decision to reevaluate DACA was not a "strange about-face." It was a natural response to a newly identified problem

Not quite. The newly-identified problem was that Texas threatened to sue. Sessions thought DACA was illegal for years.

Finally, Roberts rejects the relevance of the President's statements about Hispanics. Why? Because the relevant actors are the DHS Secretary and the Attorney General. More importantly, he dismissed the relevance of Trump's statements under the Arlington Heights framework.

But, even as interpreted by respondents, these statementsremote in time and made in unrelated contextsdo not qualify as "contemporary statements" probative of the decision at issue. Arlington Heights. Thus, like respondents' other points, the statements fail to raise a plausible inference that the rescission was motivated by animus.

Alas, this analysis only had four votes. Therefore, we do not have a five-member majority that dismisses Trump's statements, "remote in time and made in unrelated contexts."

Justice Sotomayor could not don this paper bag. She wrote a partial dissent that focused on Trump's statements. It was very similar to her Trump v. Hawaii dissent.

But "nothing in our precedent supports [the] blinkered approach" of disregarding any of the campaign statements as remote in time from later-enacted policies. Trump v. Hawaii, (2018) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). Nor did any of the statements arise in unrelated contexts. They bear on unlawful migration from Mexicoa keystone of President Trump's campaign and a policy priority of his administrationand, according to respondents, were an animating force behind the rescission of DACA. Taken together, "the words of the President" help to "create the strong perception" that the rescission decision was "contaminated by impermissible discriminatory animus." This perception provides respondents with grounds to litigate their equal protection claims further.

She also found there was possible pretext in DHS's sudden reversal:

The abrupt change in position plausibly suggests that something other than questions about the legality of DACA motivated the rescission decision. Accordingly, it raises the possibility of a "significant mismatch between the decision made and the rationale provided." Department of Commerce v. New York (2019). Only by bypassing context does the plurality conclude otherwise.

Justice Thomas offered only a footnote about the Equal Protection Clause:

I concur in the judgment insofar as the majority rejects respondents' equal protection claim.

I don't read this statement to agree with Roberts's analysis in Part IV. He only concurs in the judgment.

Justice Kavanaugh's dissent included a similar line:

I therefore respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment on plaintiffs' APA claim, and I concur in the judgment insofar as the Court rejects plaintiffs' equal protection claim.

As I read the case, only four Justices supported the Chief's analysis.

In total, eight Justices rejected the Plaintiffs' Equal Protection arguments. Though there was not a majority opinion for a rationale. Therefore, there is no holding with respect toArlington Heights. And no actual Equal Protection precedent was set. The John Roberts express chugs along.

Originally posted here:

The Equal Protection Issues in the DACA Case - Reason

Connecticut man’s arrest on armed-robbery charges in Jamaica Plain actually a homecoming of sorts – Universal Hub

A Connecticut man arrested early Sunday on charges he robbed a man of his scooter in Jamaica Plain is actually a Roxbury native who only last week won early cancellation of his probation on a federal cocaine-distribution conviction stemming from a search of his Roxbury room in 2009 during a murder investigation, court records show.

Just this past Thursday, US District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor cut Christopher Jamison, 35, free from the remaining 2 1/2 years of his federal "supervised release" after both Jamison's attorney and the US Attorney's office in Boston agreed he had not gotten into any trouble since his release from prison in November, 2017, had never tested positive for narcotics and had a "stable living condition" that included a full-time job as a maintenance worker for a property-management firm just outside Bridgeport, where he had lived since his release.

The original five years of supervised release was a condition of his plea deal in 2011 on the coke charge, which also included a ten-year federal prison sentence, less time he had served in state custody following his initial arrest in January, 2009.

As part of the deal, federal prosecutors agreed to drop a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition for the gun loaded with one bullet police found during the search of his room in his mother's apartment in an investigation into the shooting murder of Anthony Perry on Centre Street in Jackson Square in January, 2009.

The Suffolk County District Attorney's office, in fact, had originally charged Jamison with Perry's murder just a couple days after Perry''s death, but dropped all its charges in January, 2011 - about two months after federal prosecutors formally charged him as a felon in possession of a handgun for the gun found in his room.

Federal prosecutors later added a second charge - possession of cocaine with intent to distribute - before reaching the plea deal with his attorney in June, 2011. Had he gone to trial, he was facing up to 20 years in prison if convicted for the gun loaded with a single bullet and 18 bags of cocaine police say they found in his room.

According to an affidavit by an ATF agent who worked on the case, Jamison was convicted on a state cocaine-distribution charge and resisting arrest in Roxbury District Court in 2006.

Prosecutors almost weren't able to use the gun and cocaine because two BPD cops assigned to guard the apartment Jamison shared with his mother didn't stay outside while a detective obtained a search warrant but instead went inside and made themselves comfortable. A state judge ruled that was a serious enough Constitutional violation to toss out the evidence - but then ruled that because the detective who sought the search warrant developed her information independently, with no connection to the two couch sitters, the evidence was not tainted and so could be used against Jamison.

At the time of his arrest in 2009, police described Jamison as a member of the H Block Gang, which had a long running feud with the Heath Street Gang, based at what was then the Bromley-Heath Apartments, outside of which Perry was gunned down.

In 2006, Jamison's testimony before a Suffolk County grand jury led to the conviction of a Heath Street member, Lamory Gray, for the murder of an H Street member on Humboldt Avenue in the heart of H Street territory. Jamison refused to testify at Gray's trial, citing the Fifth Amendment, but the prosecutor relied heavily on his grand-jury statements and the judge refused to let Gray's attorney point out that during the grand-jury proceedings Jamison pointed to the wrong person when shown an array of photos of possible suspects.

In 2012, the Supreme Judicial Court threw out the conviction, saying the judge should not have allowed Jamison's grand-jury statements to be used because Gray's attorney had no effective way to try to rebut them through cross examination.

Innocent, etc.

See the rest here:

Connecticut man's arrest on armed-robbery charges in Jamaica Plain actually a homecoming of sorts - Universal Hub

County executive wants cities to drop opposition to revised officer-involved shooting… – Renton Reporter

The cities of Renton, Kent, Federal Way and Auburn need to drop their legal opposition to inquests of officer-involved deaths, says King County Executive Dow Constantine.

Now is the time for action and accountability, Constantine said in a Monday news release. We want the governments that have filed litigation to block inquests to step aside so we can move forward and get to the truth.

But the mayors of each city, including Mayor Armondo Pavone, responded Monday that they plan to continue the lawsuit and want Constantine to restore an inquest process that is fair, transparent, just and legally acceptable within his authority.

While we strongly advocate for accountability and transparency, these actions by the King County Executive clearly indicate that he is overreaching his authority, said Pavone.

Six inquests have been on hold in King County for two years, frustrating families and making it harder for witnesses to recall details, Constantine said. The Kent, Federal Way and Auburn police departments each have a inquest case on hold. One of the two Seattle police cases on hold includes the death of a Kent man.

The city of Renton also is part of the suit against the new inquest format, but have no inquest cases on hold.

State law authorizes, and the King County Charter mandates, the investigation of any death involving a member of law enforcement in the course of their duties.

Inquests are fact-finding hearings conducted before a six-member jury. Inquests are designed to provide transparency into law enforcement actions so the public may have all the facts established in a court of law. Inquest jurors answer a series of questions to determine the significant factual issues involved in the case, and it is not their purpose to determine whether any person or agency is civilly or criminally liable. State law requires a jury of no more than six, and no less than four.

It is unfortunate that Executive Constantine has chosen to portray the intent of our cities in this light, Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus said. In truth, we believe that his executive overreach jeopardizes a full and transparent process for the public, cities and families involved and as such, we will fight its implementation.

Federal Way Mayor Jim Ferrell also opposes the changes.

We believe police accountability is more important now than ever, but the inquest process is an imperfect tool for this, and the new rules are unfair, Ferrell said. We believe it is unconstitutional.

After a spike of such deaths in 2017, residents expressed serious concerns about the inquest process in the county and the seeming lack of transparency and accountability, according to the news release.

Sonia Joseph is among the residents who complained about the process after a inquest jury in December 2017 found a Kent police officer feared for his life when he shot her son Giovonn Joseph-McDade, 20, in June 2017. Joseph-McDade died from multiple gunshot wounds after he reportedly tried to use his vehicle to run over an officer after a short pursuit on the East Hill.

In response to the complaints, Constantine put all inquests on hold in 2018, then convened a community group to examine the process and suggest reforms. Many of those reforms were included in an Executive Order that went into effect in October 2018 but has not yet been used with all inquests still on hold because of the lawsuits.

Executive Order includes the following major changes:

Old system: District Court judge presided over hearing

New system: A pool of retired judges serves Inquest Administrators to oversee the process.

Old system: King County Prosecuting Attorneys Office facilitated the proceedings, presents evidence.

New system: Prosecuting Attorneys Office will not participate in the hearing, but will continue administrative functions.

Old system: Limited only to facts and circumstances surrounding death.

New system: Expands the interpretation of facts and circumstances to include questions about department policy and training.

Old system: Jurors were often asked whether the officer feared for his or her life at the incident.

New system: Jurors may be asked whether officers actions were consistent with department training and policies. Jurors will no longer be asked whether officers feared for their lives.

Old system: County did not provide attorneys for families.

New system: Attorneys are provided by the Department of Public Defense, if wanted.

Old system: Involved officer could voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination).

New system: Lead investigator of incident will testify, and chief law enforcement officer (or designee) will answer questions about training and policy. Involved officer can voluntarily testify, but not be subpoenaed. However, if the subpoenaed officer does not testify, may not be represented by legal counsel.

Revised June 15 order: Involved officer may voluntarily testify or be subpoenaed to testify (officer maintains Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination), and officer may be represented by counsel throughout the proceeding regardless of whether they actually testify.

Constantine said the creation and issuance of the 2018 Executive Order was supported by:

Andre Taylor, founder of Not This Time, a community organization focused on reducing fatal police shootings, changing the laws that govern the use of force and rebuilding trust between our communities and the police who are sworn to protect and serve us. His brother Che Taylor was fatally shot by Seattle Police in 2016

Fae Brooks, co-chair of the King County Inquest Process and Review Committee and retired chief of the criminal investigations division of the King County Sheriffs Office

James Schrimpsher, Lodge 27 President of the Washington Fraternal Order of Police

Diane Narasaki, executive director, Asian Counseling and Referral Services

Almost immediately, several cities including the city of Seattle, King County Sheriff, and individual Seattle police officers filed lawsuits challenging various aspects of the inquest process, Constantine said. Three families of the deceased also filed litigation.

The Obet, Lyle and Butts families lawsuits include several items, such as making inquests include potential criminal charges against officers, and giving attorneys the ability to subpoena officers.

The litigation by the cities of Seattle, Kent, Auburn, Federal Way and King County Sheriffs challenge almost every aspect of the inquest system, including: police policies and training should not be part of inquests, disciplinary history of officers should not be allowed, expert testimony should be limited, and inquests should not be presided over by administrators (retired judges). The King County Sheriff contends that the King County Charter exempts it from inquests.

The city of Kent is utilizing the proper legal channels in order to have an impartial court of law settle a significant dispute regarding the interpretation of law, City communications manager Bailey Stober said in a statement. It is clear to us that the county executive is politicizing and attempting to bully South County cities into dropping a suit which highlights significant legal shortcoming of his new inquest process. The process was so out of line that the city of Seattle first filed the lawsuit and was joined by the King County Sheriff, the executives own county law enforcement agency.

On June 9, the Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes announced his intent to withdraw the city of Seattle from legal challenges to the inquest process.

Seeking to find compromise, Constantine this week issued a revised Executive Order to allow involved officers to be subpoenaed to testify, and to allow the officer to have an attorney present during the inquest.

King County will defer to the courts on whether inquests, after 50 years of case law stating otherwise, should now consider criminal culpability as part of the process.

The inquest process created by my 2018 Executive Order puts new emphasis on law enforcement training and lethal use-of-force policies so that departments can be held accountable for creating better, safer ways of policing, Constantine said.

Today (Monday) I am revising my Executive Order to remove objections that some departments and some families raised, Constantine said. My new order will allow the involved officer or officers to be subpoenaed to testify, and will allow officers to be represented by counsel throughout the proceeding regardless of whether they actually testify, he said.

The changes arent enough for Kent city leaders.

Our county executive has attempted to create a system of police accountability utilizing a statutory structure created in 1854, before police departments even existed in Washington, Stober said in a city statement. The executive has used imagination and a false sense of authority, not granted to him by state law, to try and create oversight authority over city police departments in 38 cities, none of which he has the authority of oversee. We firmly believe in police oversight and accountability, but that should be a conversation with the community here in Kent, not made unilaterally from a politician in downtown Seattle. Kent residents know what is best for Kent. King County is the only county in Washington that systematically uses the inquest process for this purpose. Inquests in other counties are extremely rare if not ever used, and for good reason they are not an effective tool for police oversight.

Stober continued.

It is absurd that the executive complains that cities are delaying the process of inquests, Stober said. Because of his rush to change the rules with minimal input, he has caused significant delays in the resolution of inquests. Because of the lack of thoughtfulness, it took his office almost two years to produce the rules once he decided to convene his community work group.

Residents speak out

Taylor, founder of Not This Time, said the cities need to change their stance.

I worked with very hard with Executive Constantine and other community partners to draft a new inquest process that was vastly superior, and focused appropriate attention on police policies and trainings in a way that was fair to everyone, Taylor said in the statement released by Constantine. The fact that certain cities were cowed by their police departments into filing lawsuits against the inquest shows just how far we have to go in creating a society that values and protects people of color. The political leaders of these cities have heard our protests. Now they need to act.

Katrina Johnson, the cousin of Charleena Lyles who was fatally shot by Seattle Police in June 2017, spoke at the Kent protest march on June 11 and delivered a message to Kent Police Chief Rafael Padilla shortly after he spoke about how he will listen to the protesters and the need for the department to do better.

If Kent Police Department wants to stand in solidarity with families and black lives, I need you guys to drop the lawsuit that you have forbidding the inquest from going forward, Johnson said. If you guys want to stand in solidarity with black lives, I need you guys to apologize to Sonia Joseph for killing Giovann Joseph-McDade, for killing Eugene Nelson and many others lives that you guys have taken.

Six King County victims with inquest hearings on hold

Damarius Butts

Seattle Police Department

Date of Incident: April 20, 2017

Butts, of Kent, died from multiple gunshot wounds after a reported shootout with Seattle Police on April 20 when he fled after allegedly robbing a 7-Eleven store, 627 First Ave., in downtown Seattle.

Isaiah Obet

Auburn Police Department

Date of Incident: June 10, 2017

Police say the officer shot Obet after the 25-year-old man entered a home armed with a knife and later tried to carjack an occupied vehicle.

Charleena Lyles

Seattle Police Department

Date of Incident: June 18, 2017

Lyles, 30, was shot seven times in her Seattle apartment by two Seattle Police officers. Officers fired after they said Lyles threatened them with a knife.

Eugene Nelson

Kent Police Department

Date of Incident: Aug. 9, 2017

Nelson, 20, died from multiple gunshot wounds after he allegedly tried to flee in a vehicle while dragging an officer in the 23600 block of 104th Avenue Southeast.

Robert Lightfeather

Federal Way Police Department

Date of Incident: Oct. 30, 2017

Lightfeather, 33, died of multiple gun shot wounds from a shooting at South 316th Street and Pacific Highway South outside the Elephant Car Wash. Federal Way police responded to a 911 caller who reported seeing a man pointing a gun at two men.

Curtis Elroy Tade

Kirkland Police Department

Date of Incident: Dec. 19, 2017

Federal Way Mirror reporter Olivia Sullivan contributed to this article.

Here is the original post:

County executive wants cities to drop opposition to revised officer-involved shooting... - Renton Reporter