Trump Judges May Openly Deploy Hate Speech, But Ketanji Brown Jackson Cited The Federalist Papers. So WHO CAN CAST STONES? – Above the Law

Posted on by

Many media observers hate Axios for being a shallow, horse-race obsessed bastion of the bothsiderism normalizing the radical assault on constitutional order and amping up the all politicians are the same cynicism greasing the wheels of the Republics collapse through supercharged low turnout apathy. Its devotion to bold-faced type headings and conclusory sound byte analysis at once is ironically difficult to read and so childish that USA Today throws side eye.

Which is all fair, but its also so clumsily bad at this effort that its always good for at least a couple laughs.

Yesterday, the outlet waded into legal waters discussing Trump judges auditioning for future Supreme Court perches. But it couldnt just print this ground-breaking observation that readers of this website understood years ago because it had to throw in something for balance. And this was a doozy.

After detailing Trumps impact on the judiciary and walking through Judge James Ho wading into the lesser Black women discussion and Lawrence VanDyke denigrating his colleagues (though, weirdly, not the opinions where he compared the rest of the Ninth Circuit to criminals or suggested they were possessed), readers are treated to this visual (hat tip to Professor Steve Vladeck who flagged this on Twitter because Im certainly not reading Axios):

There are culture jammers whose heads spun at that juxtaposition. Weve got judges jumping in to back the idea that Black women arent worthy of the Supreme Court, grandstanding in opinions to bash their colleagues, and turning opinions over to gratuitous anti-Trans hate takes, but Ketanji Brown Jackson said Don McGahn has to comply with his subpoena with a quote that cites The Federalist Papers and de Tocqueville.

Totally responsible media coverage.

Trump judges audition for Supreme Court [Axios]

Joe Patriceis a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

More:

Trump Judges May Openly Deploy Hate Speech, But Ketanji Brown Jackson Cited The Federalist Papers. So WHO CAN CAST STONES? - Above the Law

The Depp-Heard Trial Reminds Us That Toxic Femininity Is Real And Horrifying – The Federalist

Posted on by

If youve heard anything about the ongoing defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, you can tell their relationship was chaotic and both parties contributed to the dysfunction. Allegations have flown from both sides, but in one recording Heard appears to admit to physically hitting her ex-husband, then suggesting he should quit being a baby and absorb the abuse.

I didnt punch you. I was hitting you; it was not punching you. You didnt get punched, you got hit, she said in a recording played in court. But youre fine, I did not hurt you. You are such a baby, grow the f-ck up, Johnny.

Johnny Depp expressing his displeasure with being hit made him a baby in Heards eyes a phrase used as an overt attack on his manhood. This is often a gaslighting tactic used by abusers to legitimize their destructive behavior. When angry, abusive women may use men as their punching bags on whom they can unleash all their frustration and arent supposed to complain afterward.

Men amongst each other understand the real implications of violence, which is why we understand how important it is to be selective about engaging in it. We are raised to understand that while our physical strength means we carry the big stick, we must lean on speaking softly as a method of conflict resolution with other men.

However, how we engage with women is to always speak softly and pretend to have no stick. On average, men are taller and stronger than women. Because of our biological advantages, weve placed a higher level of responsibility (and consequences) on men to remain stoic at all costs and restrain themselves when interacting with women in moments of frustration.

Men have grown up hearing the phrase There is never a reason to hit a woman, and many of us would go as far as protecting a woman we dont know from a man who has chosen to break this code of conduct. While it is socially unacceptable for a man to physically harm a woman, what about the inverse?

We all understand that an out-of-control man is a dangerous man because of his stature and his ability to overpower his female counterpart. But an out-of-control woman is just as dangerous to a man who has been bred to be tame no matter the circumstance.

Our physical stature gives the impression that we can easily withstand the impact of a womans beating but, despite our size, we still feel pain and we still bear the emotional toll. Even after a man heals from his scratches and bruises, he is still mentally affected by the lack of respect another human being displayed for his welfare. A once strong, proud man is now cowering in fear by the very person he was trained to protect.

We have a zero-tolerance policy for men striking women, meaning no matter how heinous or reprehensible the womans behavior was prior to being assaulted, the assault supersedes it. Yet female-to-male violence in our society treats men as physical specimens designed to withstand force instead of also being emotional creatures who deserve care and respect.

That double standard helps explain why we are still battling over how responsible Depp is for Heards apparent abuse, or for the emotional state which led her to it. We are socially still struggling with how to treat women as equals, not in just the positive aspects of our society but even in the negatives.

Weve succumbed to the women are inherently oppressed narrative, to the point of possibly defending abusers. A woman like Heard was long granted legitimacy as a voice for survivors, while Depp struggled to get people to see what he appears to have been drowning in.

Adam B. Coleman is the author of "Black Victim To Black Victor" and founder of Wrong Speak Publishing.

Go here to read the rest:

The Depp-Heard Trial Reminds Us That Toxic Femininity Is Real And Horrifying - The Federalist

Biden Is Openly Pursuing A Policy Of Escalation In Ukraine – The Federalist

Posted on by

What are we to make of a comment Monday from Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin that the Biden administrations goal in Ukraine is to see Russia weakened to the degree that it cant do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine?

Austin made the remark in a press conference with Secretary of State Antony Blinken after the pair met with Ukraines President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv, in what was the highest level visit by U.S. officials since Russia invaded Ukraine in late February.

One obvious conclusion we can draw from Austins comment is that the Biden administration has now committed openly to a policy of escalation in Ukraine. The White House intends to keep the war in Ukraine alive, with the stated goal of weakening Moscow by continuing to pour new and more advanced weaponry into the war-ravaged country.

Indeed, Austin and Blinken announced a new round of military aid to Ukraine, bringing the total amount of U.S. assistance to about $3.7 billion since the invasion began. After resisting pressure early in the conflict to supply Ukraine with advanced weapons systems, the Biden administration has changed course. It is now preparing to send heavy artillery, helicopters, armored personnel carriers, antiaircraft radar systems, advanced attack drones and other weapons.

Austin told members of the press that the Defense Department wont just send weapons, but will expand military training for Ukrainian service members in the region on certain weapons systems being provided.

Delivering all this aid is of course itself an escalation of U.S. involvement in the war. A Wall Street Journalreportabout the meeting in Kyiv included this detail, buried near the end of the story:Senior U.S. military officers at a facility in Poland described an accelerating logistical network for supplying weapons and materiel to Ukraine, as well as a regional effort to increase troop levels and exercises with NATO members along the alliances eastern flank.

Seven 155-mm artillery pieces, along with their tow vehicles, are being processed through the facility, adding to the 18 howitzers the U.S. has already provided to Ukraine, a senior defense official said. Six dozen U.S. howitzers are being sent to Ukraine under a new aid package, and rounds of 155-mm artillery were visible on pallets at the Polish facility.

These weapons and munitions are getting into Ukraine for the most part via railway, which is probably why Russiacarried out missile strikeson least five railway stations across central and western Ukraine early Monday, just hours after Austin and Blinken met with Zelensky.

How did Austin and Blinken get to that meeting? By railway. Politicoreportedthat Austin and Blinken traveled to and from Kyiv by train and crossed into Poland shortly before Russian missiles struck several railway lines including one in the city of Lviv in western Ukraine, near the Polish border.

If youre wondering what is the significance of this deepening U.S. involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war, or how it might lead to a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia, consider that the U.S. secretaries of defense and state might have just narrowly missed being struck by a Russian missile as they traveled to and from Kyiv by rail on Monday.

As the Biden administration escalates, the chances that something very much like that will happen are going to increase exponentially. Perhaps a crew of U.S. servicemen quietly sent into the country to train Ukrainian troops on the use of a new U.S.-provided weapons systems will get hit by a Russian missile strike. Perhaps U.S. diplomats, whom Blinken said are returning to Ukraine this week, first to Lviv and eventually to Kyiv, will be killed or injured or otherwise caught in the crossfire.

We cant know what will happen exactly, only that if the United States continues down this path sending Ukraine increasingly advanced weapons systems, training Ukrainian troops, underwriting Ukraines defense it will lead,as it has already led, to ever-increasing U.S. involvement in the war.

At some point, it wont matter that back in March President Biden said he wouldnt send U.S. troops to Ukraine. The logic of U.S. escalation is already at work, moving us toward direct engagement.

After all, the Pentagonsaid in early Marchthat a U.S.-facilitated transfer of Polish MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine was not tenable, yet last week the United States and its allies took a step in that direction,providing Ukraine with aircraft partsit needed to get 20 grounded planes operational. Even now, Slovakia is in talks with its NATO allies aboutproviding MiG-29 warplanes to Ukraineif the United States will replace them with F-16s.

Beyond the logic of escalation, there is a strategic dead-end looming for the Biden administration. Early on in the war, Blinken articulated the hoped-for end state in Ukraine: We have to sustain this until it stops, until the war is over, Russian forces leave, the Ukrainian people regain their independence, their sovereignty, their territorial integrity. Were committed to doing that.

The best way to understand that is as a maximalist policy vis--vis Moscow: a total defeat of Moscow and a complete humiliation of the Russian armed forces. Since Blinken said that in early March, versions of it have been repeated in the corporate press and among unreconstructed foreign policy neocons.

Arecent columnby Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal is representative of this view. The time has come, he says, for the West to declare its intention to win in Ukraine. After all, Americas credibility is at stake. The moment has arrived in this war for Mr. Biden to clear something up with one presidential assertion: Were in this thing to win.

So goes the thinking among establishment types inside the Beltway. As far as they are concerned, the United States is in this thing. And if were in, then wed better win. The assumption underlying this analysis is that Russian President Vladimir Putin, faced with U.S. escalation, will back down and accept defeat. An unmitigated Ukrainian victory is, according to these people, somehow a realistic outcome of this conflict.

But history, especially theunique history of Russo-Ukrainian relations, suggests otherwise. Indeed it suggests that Moscow will never allow for the kind of Ukrainian victory that Blinken and the White House are working towards. To the extent U.S. policymakers are relying on, say, historical comparisons to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan as a guide for the creation of U.S. policy in Ukraine, then were in trouble.

Put another way,this is not a peripheral conflict for Russia. As far as the Kremlin is concerned, the fate of Ukraine is inextricably tied to Russias core strategic national interests. The chances that Putin will accept total defeat in Ukraine without escalation that involves the use of nuclear weapons, or that involves widening the war, are probably lower than most Americans are comfortable with.

To bring it back to Defense Secretary Austins remark about the U.S. wanting to see Russia weakened to the point it cannot field a military capable of invading a much smaller country, one has to ask: how does Russia, a country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, get weakened to that point? Do Austin and his generals really think that a U.S.-backed Ukraine is going to be able to do that? Or do they have something else in mind? The evidence suggests they have something else in mind, and that something else is direct U.S. and NATO involvement.

Instead of barreling toward a clash between Russia and the West, a wiser course of action for the Biden administration would be to ensure the United States doesnt get drawn into the war at all, and takes the lead in urging both sides to come to a negotiated political settlement that puts an end to the fighting.

But with each passing week, that wiser course of action becomes more remote and less possible, while a far more dangerous and increasingly inexorable course of events, for the United States and Russia and the entire world, draws ever closer.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Read the original here:

Biden Is Openly Pursuing A Policy Of Escalation In Ukraine - The Federalist

Director Robert Eggers Shows The Depths Of Depravity In ‘The Northman’ – The Federalist

Posted on by

Robert Eggers latest film, The Northman, solidifies his standing as one of the most interesting young directors and writers around. His films would be unique in any era, but they truly stand out as something special in the current film landscape, even if they are disturbing.

Eggers films have a distinct aesthetic that makes for powerful filmgoing experiences. Theyre also definitely not everyones cup of tea, which gives his voice even more of an edge in this age of mass media franchise saturation.

Its useful to look at The Northman in context, in line with the directors work. Eggers debut film, The Witch (2015), is at the very least a top-five contender for greatest director premier ever. Its one of the best horror films ever made, but more importantly a fearless and disturbing look into the dark heart of humanity. The films pace is torturous, each moment bleeding dread.

But whats really unique about The Witch is that the commitment to historical detail extends to the beliefs of the time its set. Its subtitled A New England Folktale, and the focus of the entire story is on a heretical pilgrim family trying to make their way in the new world alone. They encounter a witch in the wilderness who embodies all the ideas of the time about witchcraft.

I think from Eggers perspective, this story is probably a deconstruction of Christianity as a toxic ideology and possibly a defense of feminism. After all, witches were alleged to require parts of dead children to make their flying ointments, and engaged in nonreproductive sex with Satan in the woods. The importance of infanticide to contemporary feminism and the worship of nonreproductive sex is central to everything deemed critical theory, a.k.a. leftism.

Whatever Eggerss intention may have been, however, the film he made displays the depravity of the human heart in all its naked glory. Its a boldly directed, disturbing masterpiece, which is also useful as a didactic tool about the age in which its set.

Eggers followed that film with The Lighthouse, done entirely in black and white. A bizarre and twisted tale of insanity and isolation set in a New England lighthouse at the end of the 19th century, this film displayed even more of Eggers mastery as a filmmaker even if it was a less satisfying piece of writing.

The film is visually stunning, and the performances are spectacular, but theres so little for the audience to relate to that it often feels overwhelming. But this film also takes the historical exactitude to the realm of belief. This is what brings in all the insanity of the story: the beliefs of the characters inform the reality of the narrative.

The Northman looked like it would be a massive departure from Eggerss previous works. The cast was much larger, the scale clearly epic. Its categorized as an action drama instead of horror, but this film is essentially a continuation of his previous creative vision.

While there is action and drama in the film, it still feels primarily like a horror movie. The score, in particular, accompanied by brutal onscreen violence, often makes the viewer feel as though hes being assaulted. Several scenes involve hallucinogenic states that are deeply troubling.

If it wasnt so enslaved to reproducing a genuine historical mood, this film would be the epitome of dark fantasy. There are Valkyries, sorceresses, zombies, and Odin even shows up at one point. But its all based around what the people of the time actually believed and did, and while there are surely academics who would contest various aspects (because there always are) its obvious that the film is supposed to be representing an ancient worldview accurately.

The film mostly succeeds at being a powerful tale of Viking revenge. Its basically a retelling of Hamlet, but they went directly to Shakespeares source material: the legend of Amleth. All the fundamental unadorned elements are there, to the point where someone unfamiliar with Shakespeare might think it was a terrifying remake of The Lion King.

The production and cinematography are stunning. The performances are also remarkable, especially for a film with zero humor. Eggerss films are almost unbearably grim. The only thing that offsets this is that the viewer often feels as though the people making the film were having a riotously good time. Not in the way of practical jokes on set, but because everyone understands he is doing great work. And this film is very great work.

The film is also a deeply disturbing look at what paganism meant, and ultimately why Christianity converted all of Scandinavian and Russia out of it. I think Eggers is probably attempting to romanticize pre-Christian Europe. Especially if youve seen The Witch it seems clear that the world of The Northman is the exact same world the witch comes from. Its a world of nudity in the woods, open sex, and violence.

Maybe Eggers is trying to criticize through faithful depiction, but his love of Conan the Barbarian tells me that he likes this world, at least a little. There are numerous visual callbacks to that film in particular.

But its also possible that Eggers is trying to do the most postmodern of things: storytelling without morality. From this perspective, there are no heroes, only protagonists. Its not clear that Amleths mother and uncle arent justified in killing his father, or that it even matters if they are. His father isnt a good man, no one in the film is particularly good.

Amleths revenge is a destiny, something he must do, not necessarily something he should do. The fact that the gods are apparently on his side isnt particularly indicative of his virtue. This is a story of pain and power and magic. Taken in that light, the violent and operatic nature of The Northman feels almost sublime. But as a Christian, it ultimately rings hollow, or even horrifying.

A world with no truth or goodness is not beautiful. At one point a character remarks on the Christians of the day as those who worship a corpse on a tree. And that is iconographically accurate. But the context makes all the difference.

The reasons behind why that corpse was on that tree, how that corpse came back to life, and how that tree eventually replaced Yggdrasil and baptized Norse mythology changing Northern Europe for the better is one of the most beautiful stories ever told.

Maybe the best scene in the film is the climactic swordfight between Amleth and his uncle. They are fighting inside a volcano called the gates of hell. The bombast from the music, the amazing cinematography, and incredible performances synthesize into a perfect moment of fever dream violence. Its amazingly executed.

But while reflecting on it later I was struck by how hollow the struggle was, and how Jesus followers are promised that the gates of hell wont defeat us. And I felt deeply grateful that the world of The Northman was eventually transformed by the love of Christ.

A.C. Gleason is a proud alumnus of Biola University and Talbot Seminary. He teaches Philosophy full time. His writing has appeared in numerous outlets including Hollywood in Toto, The Daily Wire, and The Imaginative Conservative. He co-hosts and co-produces The AK47 Podcast with fellow Talbot Alum Kyle Hendricks.

Go here to see the original:

Director Robert Eggers Shows The Depths Of Depravity In 'The Northman' - The Federalist

Mandatory Face Coverings’ Only Purpose Was Promoting Fear – The Federalist

Posted on by

Now that a judge has stayed the federal mask mandate on public transportation, its important to have an honest accounting of what this entire mask situation was truly all about.

A lot of people will make a lot of claims. A tiny sliver will continue to claim mask mandates actually helped mitigate the spread of Covid-19.

They will be the outliers because, in terms of stopping the spread of Covid or any other virus, wearing a mask is the equivalent of doing a rain dance: it might make you feel better, and some quacks will tell you it works, but ultimately it does nothing except make you look foolish and give you a false sense of security.(Vaccine mandates were the modern equivalent of burning witches at the stake.)

It was all so stupid, and foisted on us by people were supposed to trust, which is why we need this honest accounting of what it was really all about.

A lot of people will claim the masks were about establishing and maintaining control. Thats fair, but it wasnt their primary purpose. The primary purpose of the mask mandates was to make every person who wore one a walking advertisement for fear.

If you were wearing a mask, then you were doing your job, because you had given up your right to free expression and replaced it with one, constant sentiment: Im afraid, and you should be too.

That was the main purpose of the masks. Thats why they wanted everyone to keep wearing them. It was about control, yes, but far more than that, it was about promoting fear.

Thats why they lied about the threat Covid poses. Thats why they inflated the number of deaths, counting so often all who diedwithas having diedfrom. Thats why they convinced so many Americans that the threat of hospitalization or death is exponentially higher than it actually is. (For the record, the survival rate for Covid is 99.7 percent for unvaccinated adults, 99.9 percent for vaccinated adults, and 100 percent for unvaccinated children.)

All they did the entire time was work as hard as they could to promote as much fear as possible, and masks were an excellent weapon they could force on you to help spread their message of constant fear, division, and dehumanization.

The mask stripped you of your right to free expression and replaced whatever you wanted to communicate with one single piece of speech: Be afraid.

That was the primary purpose. Thats why they were all so fired up about it. Thats why they were all so desperate for you and everybody else to wear them.

Its important we have our heads around that because it will help us avoid letting them do it again in the future.

It wasnt just about control.

It wasnt just about dividing and dehumanizing us.

It wasnt just about turning us against each other and forcing us to deny science so we could devastate each others social, psychological, and emotional health.

All of those were welcome byproducts to the public health experts and other elites who to this day claim masking provides value. But the primary purpose was to promote fear, and to stifle your speech and expression so you perpetually signaled that fear to everyone else.

You were obedient, yes. But more than that, you were afraid. That was the message, whether you wanted to send it or not.

It was the primary reason they made everyone wear them, and its important we never let them do that to us again.

Hrand Tookman is a Cleveland, Ohio native with a background in interpersonal communications. He writes with an objective of exposing media bias, and inspiring unity in defiance of so many forces today that thrive off of division.

Read more from the original source:

Mandatory Face Coverings' Only Purpose Was Promoting Fear - The Federalist

Gov. DeSantis Is Right To Attack Disney, And The GOP Should Follow – The Federalist

Posted on by

News broke Wednesday the Florida Senate hadpassed a billto dismantle Walt Disney Worlds half-century-old independent special district status, an arrangement whereby Disney has been allowed, since 1968, essentially to govern itself. Gov. Ron DeSantis says Disneys self-governing status should be subject to review, to ensure that it is still appropriately serving the public interest.

Good. Disney is reaping its just reward for inserting itself into the political debate about Floridas parental rights bill, which Disney lost in spectacular fashion. Republican governors and lawmakers across the country should be taking notes.

This is how you deal with big corporations that try to throw around their weight and force woke policies on voters and families. You punish them, not just because they deserve it, but also, as Voltaire famously put it,pour encourager les autres.

Disney was no doubt betting that DeSantis and Florida Republicans would do what Republicans have almost always done in the face of woke corporate pressure: simply back down. Thats what South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem did last year when at the behest of the NCAA shevetoed a billthat would have protected girls sports from trans ideologues.

Same with Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, whovetoed a measurebanning genital mutilation and hormone treatments for minors (he was subsequently overridden by the state legislature). Same goes for then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who in 2015 infamously caved to corporate pressure andgutted his states religious freedom law.

Indeed, at any other time and place, with almost any other Republican governor and legislature, Disney would almost certainly not have faced any consequences for wading into the debate over the parental rights bill. After all, since when do Republicans actually wield power against the enemies of their voters and defend ordinary families from powerful woke corporations? Almost never.

By breaking that mold, DeSantis has set a clear example that other GOP governors and state lawmakers should follow. If a corporation like Disney wants to insert itself in a political battle that has nothing to do with its business in this case, a fight over whether to prohibit classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity to children in kindergarten through the third grade then it should be prepared to pay a heavy cost.

Simply put, corporations that do what Disney did, publicly lobbying against the rights of parents to have a say in whether their young children are exposed to sexually explicit subject matter, have marked themselves out as enemies of a free people and should be treated as such. If Disney wants to make war on families in Florida, then the proper role of a democratically elected government is to go after Disney with every power at its disposal.

Maybe that means they lose tax breaks that were once justified for purely economic reasons. Same for the special status Walt Disney World has enjoyed all these years, governing a 40-square-mile area in central Florida as it sees fit.

This isnt about the economic arguments, not anymore. Whatever merit there was to the notion that Disney serves the public interest before the fight over parental rights has completely vanished. Now that Disney has taken a stand against families and parents, there can be no doubt: Disney does not serve the public interest in Florida, and Floridians owe it nothing.

Conservatives should understand this, but not all of them do. Over at National Review, Charles Cooke has decided to stand athwart history, as it were,and yell: Independent special district status is complicated! His complaint with DeSantis is that there was no need to punish Disney over its opposition to the parental rights bill because the bill passed. Disney lost, DeSantis and Republicans won. Moreover, he adds, until a month ago, Walt Disney Worlds legal status was not even a blip on the GOPs radar. No Republicans were calling for it to be revisited, nor did they have any reason to.

Did they not? What changed in the last month that might have prompted them to revisit the issue? Could it be that Disney came out publicly as a very real threat to Florida parents who dont want their second-graders instructed about sexual orientation and gender identity? Could it be that the fight over the parental rights bill revealed Disney as something other than an entertainment brand and Walt Disney World as something other than a beloved family theme park? Could it be, in fact, that this entire affair has exposed Disney as a malign force in Floridas civic life?

That Cooke cant grasp this, and instead attacks DeSantis by tediously explicating the particulars of Floridas independent special districts, shows the naivet of conservatives in general and Republican politicians in particular on woke corporations pushing extremist agendas. Cooke argues there are lots of independent special districts in Florida, and that Walt Disney World is unique not in itstypebut only in itsparticulars. Orlando International Airport and the Daytona International Speedway, he notes, have a similar independent status. Why single out Disney?

To ask is to answer. Did the Orlando International Airport or the Daytona International Speedway wage a public campaign against the parental rights bill, and while doing so commit to pushing a queer agenda on children? No, they didnt. Disney did. That makes all the difference.

If the airport and the speedway had behaved the way Disney did then yes, Florida lawmakers should have absolutely punished them. (Thanks to the impending revocation of Walt Disney Worlds special status, its unlikely the airport or speedway or any other entity in Florida with a similar status will decide to follow in Disneys footsteps, which is part of the point.)

Cooke further laments that singling out Disney is a mistake because, Walt Disney World is deeply rooted in Floridas soil, as a result of agreements the Florida legislature made with it in good faith. To poison that soil over a temporary spat would be absurd.

But here again Cooke and really, its not about Cooke, its about the accommodationist strain on the right that he and NR represent misunderstands the nature of the fight. This is not a temporary spat, asDisney itself has made clear. Its an ideological and cultural war that corporations like Disney will never stop waging.

For many years now, only one side in this war has been crying no quarter before every battle. The other side has pretended not to believe it and surrendered time and again, with predictable results. Finally, DeSantis and Florida Republicans have taken the enemy at their word, and responded in kind. Republicans everywhere should go and do likewise.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Link:

Gov. DeSantis Is Right To Attack Disney, And The GOP Should Follow - The Federalist

The Media’s Tinx Takedown Relied On Shoddy And Dishonest Excuses – The Federalist

Posted on by

Over on Substack, journalist Sophie Ross just penned the perfect headline. We Need to Talk About Tinxs Old Tweets, she titled a brief post about influencer Christina Najjar, the woman behind @itsmetinx (and Its Me, Tinx on Sirius XM).

The headline is perfect because it so concisely captures the shoddy logic that fuels cancel culture. No, we actually dont have to talk about Tinxs old tweets. We really, really dont.

Why? First, none of the tweets in question are all that offensive. They involve a 21-year-old calling a few celebrities fat and ugly 10 years ago. Even worse, some of the more recent tweets Ross included in her roundup are merely conservative, like criticizing Hillary Clinton, Silicon Valley, and the liberal echo chamber.

Najjar, according to Ross, also liked and retweeted posts in 2020 from Eric Trump, Elon Musk, Clay Travis, and Eric Weinstein, along with some tweets that directed harsh language at journalist Ken Klippenstein. I know people often blur the line between what is and what is not offensive to suit their politics at any given point in time so, please, review the posts yourself.

They basically amount to happy hour talk and mainstream conservatism.

For better or worse, tweets about celebrities she posted as a 21-year-old dont necessarily reflect one bit on Najjars character as a grown woman in 2022. If she seems like a different person now, thats probably because she changed, and she probably changed because shes a human being who grows with age.

While were on the subject, its also somewhat amusing that our media is only debating the morality of Tinxs TikTok account in light of old tweets and not, say, because TikTok is addictive and unhealthy and likely under the control of an adversarial government that obfuscated critical information in the early days of a pandemic.

Tinx, like Libs of TikTok, wields some cultural power. Influencers and anonymous accounts may seem silly, but theyre fair game for journalists when they deserve to be held accountable. This is not one of those times. (Nor was the weird occasion on which Taylor Lorenz creepily wrote about Libs of TikTok.)

If Najjar had been caught racking up followers with body positivity content while secretly or recently calling people fat or ugly, that would warrant some questions. Instead, shes being questioned for sending mean tweets at rich people as a 21-year-old leaning right.

The many corporate media outlets that amplified Rosss story zeroed in on the alleged hypocrisy of Najjar, TikToks big sister, criticizing peoples appearances. After Tinx apologized, E! News wrote, The TikTok star, who has been dubbed the older sister on the platform by fans due to her postscentered around positivity and self-love, concluded: If youve been following me for a little bit, you know they are not representative of who I am. I am very sorry. I am a work in progress.

This is the crux of the problem. Of course tweets she sent as a 21-year-old arent representative of who she is as a woman in her 30s. This entire controversy is silly precisely because its predicated on the argument that they are representative.

Its also predicated on the argument that Najjars right-leaning views are objectionable or somehow out of alignment with her affable persona. What actually seems to have happened is that a lot of center-left women discovered someone they really like holds views they dont like. That might not have been shocking in years past, but when people have been conditioned by the media to see dissent from liberal dogma as bigotry and extremism, it makes more sense that Tinxs followers feel disoriented.

Importantly, the apology Najjar posted makes no mention of her politics. If those tweets sincerely represent her views, she was right not to grovel or feign regret.

And if Najjar was more careful about vocalizing her views after getting famous, that decision wouldnt have been dishonest or even unreasonable in this unforgiving climate. She might not have wanted to alienate sensitive fans or subject herself to the kinds of unserious, damaging questions and accusations shes fielding now.

As Ross wrapped up her expose on Tinx, much of which seemed to originate on Reddit, she wrote, I do believe people grow, and are worthy of forgiveness and redemption. I promise Im not writing her off or attempting to cancel someone for things they said in their youth, or problematic political beliefs of the past. Again, people can change. I just think, alongside her loyal fans, Im simply interested in seeing her acknowledge them.

I actually think its great Ross felt compelled to clarify she didnt want to cancel Najjar. Its a sign our incentives are shifting. People dont want to be seen participating in cancel culture. But Rosss post remains a sad symptom of a deeply unhealthy society. An influencers conservative politics are not newsworthy and neither are mean tweets she posted as a 21-year-old, whether a journalist is interested in an acknowledgment or not.

This is why Rosss headline which explicitly said we need to talk about Tinxs tweets is so perfect. Plenty of major outlets followed her lead, granting the story newsworthiness in a cynical bid for clicks and a reflexive need to produce formulaic apology porn.

The latter is most concerning. Weve become so accustomed to this rhythm of habitual struggle sessions that we hardly even pause to consider whether something is actually to borrow a phrase needed. Is it newsworthy? Is it fair? Is it doing your readers a service? Or are we just going through the motions?

In this case, the answer seems clear.

Emily Jashinsky is culture editor at The Federalist. She previously covered politics as a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. Prior to joining the Examiner, Emily was the spokeswoman for Young Americas Foundation. Shes interviewed leading politicians and entertainers and appeared regularly as a guest on major television news programs, including Fox News Sunday, Media Buzz, and The McLaughlin Group. Her work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Real Clear Politics, and more. Emily also serves as director of the National Journalism Center and a visiting fellow at Independent Women's Forum. Originally from Wisconsin, she is a graduate of George Washington University.

Visit link:

The Media's Tinx Takedown Relied On Shoddy And Dishonest Excuses - The Federalist

THE FEDERALIST WINES Cabinet of Summer Returns to Give Two Consumers $10,000 – Broadway World

Posted on by

America's craft wine brand, The Federalist Wines, has announced the return of the brand's Cabinet of Summer campaign, a contest offering fans a $10,000 reward to create an epic summer itinerary. Building off the success of the 2021 Cabinet of Summer campaign, The Federalist is opening two new positions consumers can apply for: Secretary of the Backyard and Secretary of the Frontier. Selected winners will each receive their prize to make history, be challenged to use this prize to master their chosen craft, and officially become a part of the Federalist family.

Consumers have from Tuesday, April 20th to Wednesday, June 22nd to enter, and selected winners will have the opportunity to shape their summers however they'd like - on a local and/or national scale. Beginning today, fans can apply for the following two positions:

-Secretary of The Backyard: This person loves spending the warm summer months in the comfort of their own home or throwing the biggest block party to date. Whether they're grilling, playing sports in the yard, or looking to revamp their backyard space to host their family and friends all summer - The Federalist has got them covered!

-Secretary of The Frontier: This individual is all about new adventures and spends most of their time soaking up the sunshine outdoors. This summer, they'll be able to enjoy their favorite Federalist wine as they explore everywhere from the countryside to the beach or to the mountains.

"We're thrilled to reinstate the Cabinet of Summer and to offer more consumers the chance to have their best summer yet. We understand that life has been on pause for a few years, which is why we are excited to offer additional personalized opportunities for winners to live out their dreams," said Tony Terlato Jr., Vice President at Terlato Wines. "The Federalist Wines hopes this summer will be the best one yet, filled with good people, good memories, and plenty of good wine."

To apply, contestants can visit federalistwines.com/cabinetofsummer and share how they plan to make history if chosen as a Secretary of Summer. To be considered, all applicants must propose how they would make the most of their prize, including an example of their epic summer itinerary, as well as a link to a photo or video on their Instagram page that illustrates their content creation skills. To be eligible, fans must reside in The U.S. and be 25 years of age or older.

The judging period will commence following the Summer Solstice on Wednesday, June 22, and winners will be announced on Thursday, June 30 on The Federalist Instagram page.

Please visit federalistwines.com/cabinetofsummer for official Cabinet of Summer rules and regulations. To learn more about The Federalist, visit http://www.federalistwines.com and @federalistwines.

ABOUT TERLATO WINE GROUP: Owned and operated by the Terlato family for four generations, Terlato Wine Group is comprised of several businesses specializing in the marketing and production of exceptional wines & spirits. Their global portfolio includes more than 85 fine wine and artisanal spirit brands from world-class producers in more than a dozen countries and is the leading fine wine & spirits marketer in the U.S. For more information, please visit http://www.terlatowines.com.

The Terlato portfolio of brands include: Napa Valley: Chimney Rock, EPISODE, Galaxy, Jack Nicklaus Wines, Maxville, Rutherford Hill, Tangley Oaks, Terlato Vineyards; Sonoma County: Dueling Pistols, The Federalist, Hanna, Hideaway Creek, Rochioli, Steep Ridge, Terlato Vineyards; Santa Barbara County: Domaine Jean Franois, Sanford; California: Glass Mountain, Greystone Cellars, Iconoclast, Jack's House; Washington State: Klipsun Vineyards; Argentina: Tamari; Austria: Kracher; Australia: Two Hands; Canada: Peller Estates; France: Champagne Lanson, Chteau de La Tour Clos-Vougeot, Chteau de Marsannay, Chteau de Meursault, Chteau Timberlay, Domaine Aurlien Verdet, Domaine Castagnier, Domaine Confuron-Gindre, Domaine Drouhin-Laroze, Domaine Georges Roumier, Domaine Robert Groffier, Domaine Jean-Claude Ramonet, Domaine Jean-Louis Chavy, Domaine Lcheneaut, Les Sarrins, Domaine Michel Niellon, Domaine Pierre Damoy, Domaine Pierre Labet, Domaine Rebourseau, Domaine Vacheron, Domaine Vocoret, Franois Labet, Italy: Alta Mora, Ca'Marcanda (GAJA Toscana), Cecchi, Cusumano, Feudi di San Gregorio, GAJA, Giuliana Prosecco, IDDA (GAJA Mt. Etna), Il Poggione, La Casaccia di Franceschi, Nino Franco, Pieve Santa Restituta (GAJA Toscana), Riondo, Terlato Vineyards, Lunardi, Seven Daughters; Japan: Shimizu-no-mai; New Zealand: Loveblock, Wairau River; South Africa: Ernie Els, Nederburg, Rust en Vrede, Two Oceans; Artisan Spirits: Amarula Cream Liqueur, Angostura Rum, Breaker Bourbon, Bunnahabhain Islay Single Malt, Deanston Highland Single Malt Whisky, Distillatorio Nonino (Amaro, Aperitivo, and Grappa), Don Pancho Origenes Rum, Dublin Ink Irish Whiskey, Heartland Gin, Langley's No. 8 London Gin, Ledaig Single Malt Scotch, Riazul Tequila, Riazuleno Mezcal, Spring Mill Bourbon, Tiramisu Liqueur, Tobermory Single Malt Scotch; Non-alcoholic: San Benedetto Natural Mineral Water.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of The Federalist Wines

Link:

THE FEDERALIST WINES Cabinet of Summer Returns to Give Two Consumers $10,000 - Broadway World

Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Epitomize Our Sexual Dysfunction – The Federalist

Posted on by

In his ongoing libel lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard, Johnny Depp testified that he was the victim of domestic abuse and challenged Heards published insinuation that he was abusive. According to Depp, she would berate and throw objects at him while he would remove himself from their arguments by leaving the room or locking himself in the bathroom.

Without taking a side on this issue since theres no way to know whos telling the truth its worth noting Depps account would have seemed ridiculous only a decade ago. Here is one of Hollywoods most famous actors complaining about being abused by a woman 23 years younger than him. How could he be so weak and she so strong?

Far from idle gossip, the answer to this question reveals some important trends that have been influencing the two sexes for some time now. Due to the propaganda of modern feminism and the corrosive decadence of modern culture, women as a whole have come to dominate and abuse men, while men as a group have become helpless victims mired in mediocrity.

A key to understanding this troubling development is the famous quote from Spider-Man, With great power comes great responsibility. This is said by Uncle Ben (or Aunt May, depending on the movie) to the callow teenager Peter Parker, who later internalizes this lesson as the superhero Spider-Man.

The advice isnt a statement on the ethics of being a superhero, but about becoming a man. As a young man on the brink of independent adulthood, Peter will soon have the great powers of masculine strength that will enable him to work, study, and build as well as defend those close to him. He needs to be responsible with this power, serving others and being creative instead of the opposite.

Unfortunately, this idea of matching masculine power to great responsibility is an alien notion to most men today, who lack both power and responsibility. Rather, based on their reluctance to compete, lead, or even ask a girl out, the majority of young men today can be fairly characterized as weak and irresponsible.

There are many reasons for this decline in men, but the main ones are usually a lack of role models, screen addiction (usually video games), and pornography. More and more boys grow up in fatherless households, and their schools and entertainment largely lack virtuous adult males who can serve as guides. Thus, they never learn about the great power of disciplined masculinity and end up wasting their energies on virtual adventures and virtual sex.

On the flip side, Uncle Bens quote would apply quite well to most women today, who are very much empowered although curiously sadder than ever before. They are graduating from college in greater numbers, working more, and taking on more positions of authority. Moreover, more women are becoming the leaders of their households, being both breadwinner and caretaker.

Whats missing, however, is the great responsibility that comes with this newfound power. While great at encouraging and inspiring girls to pursue excellence and achievement, modern feminist messaging often falls short in combining this message with supporting and having compassion for others. Its mean-spirited and resentful. All too often, female empowerment and liberation become synonymous with bullying and selfishness.

When this feminist narrative is multiplied a million times and reinforced with emasculated schools and households, what results is an unhealthy imbalance between men and women that violates the nature of both sexes. Empowered women actively dominate passive men who never make it past adolescence.

Today, because of these divergent trajectories of men and women, a wife abusing her husband is entirely possible and happens often. For all his wealth and sex appeal, Depp is decidedly not manly: hes vain, not especially intelligent, and suffers from periodic drug addictions. And on some level, his decision to marry a woman so much younger than him suggests poor judgment and insecurity.

One could easily imagine Heard being disillusioned and frustrated with her husband and lashing out against him. Here she was expecting him to take the lead, but instead it appears to have been the reverse. Perhaps women in the past would accept this and build up their husbands to take charge and be more manly. However, most women today would do what Heard did: divorce the loser and extract as much from him as the law allows.

Whether it was really Depp who abused Heard or Heard who abused Depp, neither changes the fact that the children Depp brought into their marriage likely suffered the most. Their parents were in no shape to take care of them, and at least one of them is an abuser.

What makes this story so tragic is that this kind of dysfunction is playing out everywhere. Weak men and aggressive women are failing one another and their children. Its no wonder that few of them want to marry and have children in the first place.

Solving this problem will require a culture-wide shift in understanding the sexes, ultimately recognizing them as separate, unique, and complementary. Men and women are not in competition with each other, and toxic masculinity isnt magically redeemed when women do it. Rather, men need to be virtuous men and women need to be virtuous women, both seeking to serve one another and build something beautiful together.

In other words, both men and women need live out the wisdom of Uncle Ben, coupling their great power with great responsibility and vice versa. If they do this, they can be like Peter Parker, and can become heroes of their own stories. If they dont, they are more likely to become like Johnny Depp and become victims of a destructive and humiliating relationship.

Excerpt from:

Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Epitomize Our Sexual Dysfunction - The Federalist

Secretive Committee On Risky Virus Research Should Be More Open, Chair Says – The Federalist

Posted on by

The secret committee created to oversee federally funded gain of function research that can make dangerous viruses even more deadly should be more transparent in its review process, according to the chairman of that committee, House Republicans revealed this week.

The review process continues to be unnecessarily shrouded in secrecy, wrote House Committee on Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., in a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra.

Gain-of-function research projects are supposed to be reviewed by a committee as part of guidelines known asPotential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight(P3CO) Framework, created in 2017 after a three-year pause on such research following several lab-related incidents that raised public concerns.

Chris Hassell, the chairman of the P3CO virus research review committee and its only public member, acknowledged a strong interest in improving the transparency of the HHS P3CO review process and the need for more transparency, according to the letter.

None of the HHS departmental review process for approving enhanced PPP [Potential Pandemic Pathogens] experiments is public, the letter states. HHS review should make public who participates in the review, as well as the basis of the decision that the research is acceptable to fund, including the U.S. governments (USGs) calculation of the potential benefits and risks of the proposed enhanced PPP research.

HHS gave House Republicans the names of some but not all review committee members, on a confidential basis because of personal security concerns, the letter states.

Indicating the lack of transparency, National Institutes of Health officials will not disclose how many gain-of-function projects they have funded.

When Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was asked how many gain-of-function grants his agency had approved, he said the answer would hinge on how the work was defined in a given year, The Washington Post reported in August.

To the extent that we can be transparent, that the system would allow us to be transparent, we go overboard to be transparent, Fauci also said.

Hassell has previously said he believes the definition of the research the committee reviews is too narrow. Hassell made those remarks in January 2020 now, more than two years after the Covid-19 pandemic began, that definition remains the same.

Indeed, Fauci and other NIH staff were responsible for narrowing the definition of the research the committee reviewed and for weakening the committees oversight, according to The Post.

Many scientists fear to speak out against gain-of-function research because they receive funding from the NIH.

Last month, the NIH asked the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) to evaluate the effectiveness of the HHS P3CO framework for reviewing gain-of-function research, but the House Republicans object that the board is not independent enough.

We think it appropriate to reconstitute NSABB as an independent entity rather than a group of individuals replete with conflicts-of-interest given the source of grants to them, or to convene an independent body, Rodgers letter states.

Like its oversight board, some members of the P3CO review board itself may also have conflicts of interest one is from the NIAID, a funding entity. Further, this individual co-authored articles with a principal investigator who was engaged in research proposals that could have been subject to HHS P3CO review, according to the letter.

Another member is a gain-of-function research proponent who was apparently deeply involved in the development of the framework. This raises obvious questions of bias in favor of approving incredibly risky research.

The review committee also lacks jurisdiction and can be bypassed by funding agencies, the House Republicans wrote.

An example of a grant the committee did not review is one that sent U.S. taxpayer money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is considered a possible origin of Covid-19. The NIAIDdecidedits grant to the EcoHealth Alliance for bat-based coronavirus research didnotmeet the definition of gain of function and thus was not submitted to the committee, but an NIAID official and others have questioned whether it was gain of function.

This unilateral NIAID authority shows a lack of independence in the P3CO process and raises significant concerns, the Republicans wrote.

What little we know from another committee member affirms the panel lacks power and has reviewed few projects. Robert Kadlec, who previously was chair of the review committee, said, Frankly, we didnt have the scientific wherewithal.

The review committees capabilities were not robust enough to make sure that bad things dont happen, he added.

From 2017 to 2020, no more than three or four projects were forwarded to the review committee, according to Kadlec. They were grading their own homework.

The Post identified at least 18 projects from 2012 to 2020, totaling about $48.8 million, with eight approved after 2017, that appeared to be gain-of-function research.

However, only one proposal initiated since 2017 has been referred to the HHS P3CO review committee, with two other proposals that existed before 2017 also referred to the committee. Thus, we are concerned that NIH is under referring proposals to the HHS P3CO review committee, Republicans wrote.

Before his retirement as director of the NIH in December, Dr. Francis Collins said he was open to making public the names of members of the committee. Such a move would help officials to achieve the kind of transparency that the public expects regarding such research, Collins told The Post.

View original post here:

Secretive Committee On Risky Virus Research Should Be More Open, Chair Says - The Federalist

WMU Law professor says if federal probe is opened, the 4th and 5th amendments will be key in Lyoya case – FOX 17 West Michigan News

Posted on by

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. Last Friday morning, April 22, Civil Rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton flew into town to do the eulogy for Patrick Lyoyas funeral at Renaissance Church of God in Christ.

Over a thousand people including family, friends, state and local officials joined the Congolese community in mourning the 26-year-olds death.

Before them, Reverend Sharpton said hes calling on the justice department to step in and conduct their own investigation into Lyoyas death.

Im not going to desecrate the local authorities. But, I want to call on the federal justice department. We need the justice department to investigate this death, Reverend Sharpton said at the podium at the front of the church. We have reason to not just want to wait on the local prosecutor. We dont want local politics to compromise justice. Were calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene and to stand up for the civil rights of Patrick Lyoya.

Peter Lyoya told FOX 17 in an interview this week that he too would like the justice department to step in and open an investigation into his sons death.

On Monday morning April 4, Patrick Lyoya was fatally shot in the back of the head by a Grand Rapids police officer identified by GRPD as Christopher Schurr during a traffic stop near the intersection of Nelson and Griggs.

Reverend Sharpton said at the podium that there was intent to use a deadly weapon and reiterated his call for a federal investigation.

Western Michigan University Law Prof. Lewis Langham said if that should happen, the DOJ will look to see if Lyoyas constitutional rights were violated, he said.

[Reverend Sharpton] is looking to have the federal government investigate as to whether or not there is some type of constitutional law violation, Langham said, whos professor emeritus at WMU's Cooley Law School. [Theyre] probably looking at Section 242 Title 18, which basically makes it a crime for a police officer or others in their profession similar, when theyre acting under the authority of their job, to deny someone their constitutional right.

Langham spoke with FOX 17 on Monday afternoon via Zoom. He said specifically the justice department would look at the fourth amendment and the overall traffic stop.

The traffic stop, as it relates to the license plate ... that was a legitimate stop, Langham said. But, I think they may be looking at the question as to why. What drew their attention to Patrick Lyoya in the first place, that you even looked at his license plate. So, that could be something that theyre looking at under the fourth amendment.

Langham said that officers cannot stop anyone under false pretenses. He added that the DOJ may look at the fifth amendment and double jeopardy.

If for some reason if the officer is charged, if hes found not guilty, looking down the road, if that were to happen, you can still seek federal charges and that'd be considered double jeopardy under the fifth amendment because the federal government and state government are considered separate sovereigns, he said.

Currently, Michigan State Police is conducting its investigation into the fatal officer-involved shooting. Langham said once they wrap, itll head to Prosecutor Chris Becker, who will then determine if criminal charges should be brought.

However, he said its up to the justice department if they should get involved and when.

For now, the request is an avenue Lyoyas legal team, led by civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Ven Johnson, is seeking in order to bring justice to the family.

Whatever and however the federal government gets involved they will make a decision whether or not they want to, and if they do there may not even be a federal civil rights type violation, Langham said. They could look at it and determine there isnt an issue here.

READ MORE: GRPD explains process behind releasing officer's name in Lyoya shooting

Follow FOX 17: Facebook - Twitter - Instagram - YouTube

Go here to see the original:

WMU Law professor says if federal probe is opened, the 4th and 5th amendments will be key in Lyoya case - FOX 17 West Michigan News

NJ Appeals Court: Lower Court Mixed Up 4th And 5th Amendment And Either Way, Phone Passcodes Can Be Compelled – Techdirt

Posted on by

from the looking-at-the-wrong-problem-and-it's-not-even-a-problem dept

More case law on compelled passcode production and the Fifth Amendment has been generated by a New Jersey appeals court. Unfortunately, it doesnt do anything to strengthen Fifth Amendment protections against compelled production.

And thats largely because this court cant. The states Supreme Court handed down a ruling in August 2020 that limited the foregone conclusion the government needed to reach before securing a court order demanding passcode production was limited to the device and the existence of a passcode, rather than offering supporting arguments about the presumed existence of criminal evidence on the device.

That case dealt with a crooked cop whose phones were seized during an investigation. After discussing some (still unaddressed) concerns about the Fifth Amendments inconsistent application in other cases that may protect people using passwords more than people using biometric features to unlock phones, the court said that, in this case, law enforcement knew what it needed to know to surmount the foregone conclusion barrier.

The States demonstration of the passcodes existence, Andrewss previous possession and operation of the cellphones, and the passcodes self-authenticating nature render the issue here one of surrender, not testimony, and the foregone conclusion exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination thus applies. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment does not protect Andrews from compelled disclosure of the passcodes to his cellphones.

Its this case thats specifically cited in this appeals court decision [PDF]. The lower court refused to grant the governments motion to compel, citing its inability to prove the locked iPhone seized belonged to the suspect. It also said the search of the phone (which hasnt occurred yet) raised additional Fourth Amendment concerns.

Heres how everything started:

Det. Pancza and members of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force executed the three warrants at 6:00 a.m. on July 16, 2021, at defendants residence. Defendant was located in his locked bedroom. He was the only occupant of the room, and he refused to open the door. Ultimately, the officers forced entry into defendants bedroom.

During their search of defendants bedroom, officers located three electronic devices: a Samsung cell phone, an Asus laptop, and an Apple iPhone. The iPhone was found in a pull string bag hanging on the back of a computer chair.

In accordance with the search warrant, Detective Brian Migliorisi attempted to access the iPhone 7, but he was prevented from doing so because the iPhone was passcode protected. The only information Det. Migliorisi could retrieve from the iPhone was its association with the same iCloud email account from the cyber tips, the one containing defendants last name and first initial. Defendant was charged with third-degree endangering the welfare of children, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(5)(b)(iii).

The lower court did not find these circumstances added up to proof of the defendants ownership of the iPhone.

The court denied the motion, concluding the State failed to establish defendants ownership of the iPhone and knowledge of the passcode. The court found that officers locating the iPhone in a backpack in a bedroom was insufficient to prove defendants ownership. The court also found that the phone immediately being in the vicinity of the defendant at the time of the search did not conclusively demonstrate that . . . defendant own[ed] the phone.

The appeals court disagrees. First, it points to the August 2020 Andrews decision, which limited the Fifth Amendment discussion to the government proving a passcode exists, the defendant operates or controls the device in question, and that entry of the passcode would allow investigators to access the devices contents. From what it sees here, the government has everything it needs to utilize the foregone conclusion exception.

Further, it says the Fourth Amendment concerns about the proposed search have no bearing on this discussion because the search hasnt been performed and the defendant never challenged the warrants utilized in this case. If the search is indeed determined to be overbroad, the defendant can challenge it then. But because no challenge to the probable cause basis was raised by the suspect, the lower court was wrong to bring Fourth Amendment analysis into a discussion dealing solely with compelled production.

The only standard being applied to compelled production was easily met here, the appeals court says.

The motion court found defendant was in the vicinity of the phone and concluded that this was insufficient to prove defendants ownership or operation of it. We disagree, as the court overlooked credible evidence in the record when making its findings. At the time of the search the phone was in defendants locked bedroom; he was the sole occupant and refused to let the police in. Significantly, the email address associated with the phones iCloud account incorporates defendants last name and first initial. These probative facts, which suggest that defendant owned and operated the iPhone, were omitted from the motion courts analysis.

Any further appeal efforts within the state will be foreclosed by the state Supreme Courts decision. To appeal this determination, the defendant will have to look to the top court in the land. That remains an option because this is a discussion about federal constitutional rights rather than limited to the protections granted by New Jerseys constitution. But odds are slim this will be examined by the US Supreme Court. The Andrews case that set state precedent has already had its appeal effort rejected by SCOTUS. For the time being, it will remain pretty easy for New Jersey law enforcement to bypass the Fifth Amendment.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, 5th amendment, compelled disclosure, compelled speech, new jersey, passwords, phone passcode

More:

NJ Appeals Court: Lower Court Mixed Up 4th And 5th Amendment And Either Way, Phone Passcodes Can Be Compelled - Techdirt

Department of Justice reaches agreement with Springfield about policing – Reminder Publications

Posted on by

SPRINGFIELD The announcement the city of Springfield has entered into a settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) was met with positive reactions from both Mayor Domenic Sarno as well as people who have been critical of the actions of some members of the department.

Sarno released the following statement: Our brave and dedicated men and women in blue do a tremendous job day in and day out. Policing is a dangerous but still a very honorable profession and everyone knows that throughout my career I have been one of SPDs (Springfield Police Departments) biggest supporters in good times and bad. However, Police Superintendent Cheryl Clapprood and I found these issues and deficiencies concerning and we cooperated fully with the DOJ in their investigation. We acknowledge that past misconduct should not have occurred and it is our goal that it does not happen in the future. Simply put, its a balance between public safety and cop accountability. Working together with the DOJ and our internal city team, including former Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Roderick L. Ireland, the city is striving to have the best Police Department possible. Additionally, we were quick to move to correct and enhance our policing practices once these issues were found. Since that time, under Superintendent Clapproods leadership, our SPD have implemented numerous reforms and initiatives aimed and focused on improving and enhancing our policing practices, training, and document and record tracking to increase accountability and transparency.

According to information from the DOJ, The settlement agreement, in the form of a proposed consent decree, which must be approved by a federal district court judge, would resolve the United States claim that the city and the Narcotics Bureau of the Springfield Police Department engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force that deprived individuals of their rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Under the agreement, the Springfield Police Department will improve policies and training related to officers use of force. These improvements will ensure that officers avoid force whenever possible through the use of de-escalation tactics; that officers know when force can and cannot be used; and that officers report all instances where force is used. In addition, the Springfield Police Department will provide better supervision to officers and improve internal investigations of complaints of officer misconduct. When officers violate use-of-force policies, the agreement will ensure that the Springfield Police Department holds officers accountable.

The settlement is the resolution for illegal conditions within the Springfield Police Departments former Narcotics Bureau.

According to the DOJ documents, The Narcotics Bureau was a unit of SPD plainclothes officers tasked with apprehending those suspected of narcotics offenses and executing narcotics search and arrest warrants. On July 8, 2021, SPD announced that it was dismantling its Narcotics Bureau and renaming it the Firearms Investigation Unit. All Narcotics Bureau officers have been reassigned to the newly created Firearms Investigation Unit, which focuses on reducing gun violence in Springfield. On April 13, 2018, the United States opened a pattern or practice investigation into SPDs Narcotics Bureau.

The United States issued a report on SPDs Narcotics Bureau on July 8, 2020. As a result of its investigation, the United States found reasonable cause to believe that SPDs Narcotics Bureau engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force that violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

SPDs Narcotics Bureau engaged in a pattern or practice of using force that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances in which the force was applied, including the threat posed by the suspect and the severity of the alleged underlying crime, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. SPD Narcotics Bureau officers punched individuals in the face unnecessarily, in part because they escalated encounters with civilians too quickly. SPD Narcotics Bureau officers also punched subjects head areas with closed fists as an immediate response to resistance without attempting to obtain compliance through other less serious uses of force. SPD Narcotics Bureau officers conducted unnecessarily forceful takedowns that could reasonably be expected to cause head injuries without legal justification. SPD Narcotics Bureau officers often failed to report use of force incidents that should have been reported and made reports that were inconsistent with other available evidence, including video and photographs.

Clapprood said, We have also made transparency a cornerstone of our operations. The Springfield Police Department has acquired early warning intervention software that collects and assesses data to identify trends in troublesome conduct, and I am very proud that all sworn personnel now wear body-worn cameras while on duty. Our Use-of-Force and Internal Investigations Unit policies have been modernized, and we have begun the process toward achieving the departments first-ever, voluntary and self-initiated state certification.

The superintendent continued, We have already seen encouraging outcomes as a result of these reforms. In 2021 body-worn camera footage helped to resolve all seven use-of-force complaints against officers, including one against the now-former Narcotics Unit, with zero of the complaints being sustained. This work will continue in the coming years as we plan for additional changes, including a new state-of-the-art records management system and transforming how we respond to, report and investigate use-of-force calls.

City Councilor Tracye Whitfield said, On Feb. 2, 2021, Councilor [Justin] Hurst, Sen. [Adam] Gomez, state Rep. [Orlando] Ramos (city councilor at the time), Councilor [Malo] Brown and I sent a letter requesting the DOJ and the US Attorney enter into a Consent Decree with the city of Springfield to ensure the much needed changes highlighted in the scathing DOJ report on Springfield Police Narcotics Bureaus civilian abuse are adequately addressed. I am so pleased to witness the decision made by the US Attorney and the Department of Justices to do just that, enter into a consent decree also called a settlement agreement.

Hurst noted, The city of Springfield is at a pivotal time in its history that cant be left for chance and having the same people who created the problem solve it after years of inaction was never a viable solution. It is comforting to know that from this point forward an independent and objective third party will have oversight over much need reforms in our Police Department.

Bishop Talbot Swan II, president of the Springfield chapter of the NAACP, said, The need for the department to improve policies and training relative to the use of force and to ensure that officers use proper de-escalation tactics and respect the rights of residents is long overdue. The systemic racism that has resulted in disproportionate abuse of Black and other non-white citizens has long been a problem of a department labeled by some as one of the worst departments in the nation.

Tara Parrish, executive director of the Pioneer Valley Project (PVP), said, This shows that the Department of Justice listened during multiple meetings with PVP and the NAACP, and took the communitys experience seriously. They looked thoughtfully at the harm that has been done in our city by the practices of the Springfield Police Department and concluded that the Sarno Administration could not be trusted to enact needed reforms on its own.

Read more here:

Department of Justice reaches agreement with Springfield about policing - Reminder Publications

Sinclair Closes Refinancing and Extension of STG Credit Facilities – Business Wire

Posted on by

BALTIMORE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair or the Company) (Nasdaq: SBGI) announced today that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sinclair Television Group, Inc. (STG), has entered into the Fourth Amendment (Fourth Amendment) to its Seventh Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of August 23, 2019, as amended with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent, the guarantors party thereto and the lenders and other parties thereto, to, among other things, provide for the incurrence of new term loans in an aggregate principal amount of $750 million (the Term B-4 Loans), refinance all outstanding term B-1 loans and extend the maturity of $612.5 million of revolving commitments to April 21, 2027. The proceeds of the Term B-4 Loans are being used to refinance all of the existing term B-1 loans and to redeem STGs outstanding 5.875% senior notes due 2026. The Term B-4 Loans will mature on April 21, 2029 and will bear interest, at the option of STG, at Term SOFR plus 3.75% (subject to customary credit spread adjustments) or at base rate plus 2.75%.

This description of the Fourth Amendment is only a summary, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the complete amendment, a copy of which will be filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as an exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K.

Forward-Looking Statements:

The matters discussed in this news release include forward-looking statements regarding, among other things, future events and actions. When used in this news release, the words outlook, intends to, believes, anticipates, expects, achieves, estimates, and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results in the future could differ materially and adversely from those described in the forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including and in addition to the assumptions set forth therein, but not limited to: the potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business operations, financial results and financial position and on the world economy, including the significant disruption to the operations of the professional sports leagues, need to provide rebates to our distributors related to canceled professional sporting events, and loss of advertising revenue due to postponement or cancellation of professional sporting events, and reduced consumer spending as a result of shelter in place and stay at home orders; our ability to generate cash to service our substantial indebtedness; successful execution of outsourcing agreements; the successful execution of retransmission consent agreements; the successful execution of network affiliation and distribution agreements; the successful execution of media rights agreements with professional sports teams; the impact of OTT and other emerging technologies and their potential impact on cord-cutting; the impact of distributors offering "skinny" programming bundles that may not include all programming of our networks; pricing and demand fluctuations in local and national advertising; the successful implementation and consumer adoption of our sports direct to consumer platform; volatility in programming costs; the market acceptance of new programming; our ability to identify and consummate acquisitions and investments, to manage increased leverage resulting from acquisitions and investments, and to achieve anticipated returns on those investments once consummated; the impact of pending and future litigation claims against the Company; the ongoing assessment of the October cybersecurity event, material legal, financial and reputational risks resulting from a breach of the Company's information systems, and operational disruptions due to the cybersecurity event; the impact of FCC and other regulatory proceedings against the Company, uncertainties associated with potential changes in the regulatory environment affecting our business and growth strategy; and any risk factors set forth in the Company's recent reports on Form 10-Q and/or Form 10-K, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There can be no assurances that the assumptions and other factors referred to in this release will occur. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly release the result of any revisions to these forward-looking statements except as required by law.

Continued here:

Sinclair Closes Refinancing and Extension of STG Credit Facilities - Business Wire

Op-ed: The Constitution in a time of change – Courier & Press

Posted on by

Evansville Bar Association editorial board| Evansville Courier & Press

The following article was written by the editorial board of the Evansville Bar Association, chaired by Joe Langerak, and comprised of Max Fiester, Carl Heldt, Steven Hoar, Yvette LaPlante, Katherine Rybak, Les Shively, Dirck Stahl, Kathryn Sullivan, Shawn Sullivan and Cliff Whitehead.

Law Day, commemorated on May 1, is a celebration of the law and its role in society. The theme for 2022 is Toward a More Perfect Union: The Constitution in Times of Change. Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the Constitution has survived over two centuries of societal changes and has served as a great influence on other countries systems of government.

The document has served as the cornerstone of American jurisprudence even as the viewpoints, standards, and norms of our country have changed. With these changes, judges have been tasked with determining how to interpret the words of the Constitution. Even at the highest level of judicial office, reasonable jurists disagree on how that should be done.

The task seems easy: If we start from the premise that the words of the Constitution contain the answer to whatever question is posed, we should simply need to read the words and then apply them. But in practice, interpreting the Constitution is much more difficult. Rules from a 200-year-old text may not always neatly address modern problems.

For example, how should a judge apply the Fourth Amendments protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in todays society where a cell phone carries the types of information that a citizen would have previously kept locked in a filing cabinet or a safe? When the First Amendment was written, there was no such thing as television. How do we apply a term that was written into the Constitution to a situation which did not exist at the time?

To answer that question and others like it, judges apply one of (at least) two schools of thought, known in the legal world as Constitutional Theories. The theories, sometimes referred to as Originalism and Evolutionism, are guiding principles that help the judge tackle a common problem, in a way that ensures their decisions are consistent. If the law were an algebra problem, constitutional theories would be a way for problem solvers to show their work through reasoning.

By showing their work, judges provide a consistent approach to solving the problem, which allows litigants and citizens to more accurately anticipate how a court may rule.

Judges who are Originalists interpret the statute as it would have been understood by competent users of the language at the time when the law was enacted. Originalists analyzing the search of a cell phone look at the Fourth Amendments prohibition on unlawful search and seizures and decide what The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects means, and they take the approach that we cannot change those words, simply because hundreds of years have passed.

By reference to another example, because the death penalty was not a cruel and unusual punishment when the 8th Amendment was adopted in 1791 (indeed any felony was punishable by death), it cannot be a cruel and unusual punishment in 2022. The Originalist would object to the argument that the Constitution prohibits the death penalty today, because the death penalty existed when the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was adopted.

The Evolutionists look to the purpose of the law they are interpreting. In reviewing a cell phone search, they would ask what value or objective the Founding Fathers were trying to protect or accomplish when they drafted the Fourth Amendment. They would then determine if the search of the cell phone violated that value or objective. Importantly, the Evolutionists are quick to point out that they are not changing the meaning of the words in the Constitution, but are recognizing that the world has changed.They place emphasis on what the goal of the language was, not simply the meaning of the word itself.

Further, they take the stance that the Originalist approach is flawed because it fails to recognize that sometimes, the meaning of a word is not clear. One judges definition of cruel may be different from another judges definition of cruel. The Evolutionist may argue that if we fail to consider the values or objectives of the wording, we run the risk of violating the entire purpose for which the wording was used.

In response, the Originalist would argue that in this effort to attempt to determine what the authors of the Constitution (including the Amendments) were trying to protect, the Evolutionist goes too far to essentially revise the Constitution. The Originalist is quick to point out that in applying the Constitution, courts are not permitted to re-write its language by placing a different meaning on a word. The Originalist points to the fact that the Constitution can be amended, and if there is language in the document that we as a governed people no longer agree with, we can amend it through the legislative process.

Jurists from both schools of thought serve at all levels throughout the country. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was perhaps the most passionate Originalist. Justices Hugo Black and Clarence Thomas also utilized the doctrine in their opinions. Evolutionists include Justices Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, and Stephen Breyer.

As the members of the Supreme Court change, so will the way that justices interpret the laws. But, one thing remains constant: Justices continue to use certain guiding principles to reach their conclusions in a consistent manner.

Link:

Op-ed: The Constitution in a time of change - Courier & Press

‘You Have The Right To Remain Silent JUST KIDDING!’ Says Biden Administration – Above the Law

Posted on by

Its probably fair to say that the first scrap of constitutional law mastered by an American child is Miranda. Every police procedural has snuck the right to remain silent into the script since at least Kojak. Its an inescapable nugget of constitutional fabric you cant watch Spongebob without learning it. Most shows dont carry the bit through to the equally important right to an attorney part, but that initial right is tattooed on the brains of Americans early.

Kids say you have the right to remain silent when they play cops and robbers on the playground!

So it should come as little surprise that Miranda take its place alongside Roe, Affirmative Action, and eventually Brown v. Board as cornerstones of constitutional order that this Supreme Court plans to bulldoze. As the real Federalist Society heads out there will point out, if its really a right, how come the word Miranda wasnt in the Constitution, hmmmmm?

And Bidens Department of Justice, under the helm of Merrick Garland, is right there waving the bulldozer in on this one.

Honestly, between punting on civil rights inquiries and refusing to ask any serious questions about how January 6 happened, this Justice Department greases the wheels of fascism like its competing at the Mr. Universe pageant.

The Court heard oral argument in Vega v. Tekohthis week. I hadnt really tracked this case until arguments this week, but having gone back and read the filings, this case is nuts.

A sheriffs deputy named Carlos Vega held Terence Tekoh, a nursing assistant, in a windowless, soundproof room for over an hour. Without providing any Miranda instructions, Vega produced a confession from Tekoh. Tekoh testified that this investigation was replete with profanities and threats to have Respondent and his family deported Tekoh is a Cameroonian immigrant and that at all times Vega refused to allow Tekoh to speak to a lawyer or any of his supervisors.

Pretty cut and dry Miranda violation. Vega used this confession to get Tekoh prosecuted. Ultimately the jury acquitted Tekoh. Take a second to consider how completely bullshit a case in 21st century America has to be for a jury to acquit an immigrant when the prosecution says we have a written confession.

Tekoh filed a 1983 action for violation of his civil rights. The Biden administration, answering the question no one asked them, decided to roll in as amicus on Vegas side. Just like all the people who voted for this administration would have OBVIOUSLY wanted.

Look, the administration has an interest here. It doesnt want a bunch of 1983 cases arising to gum up counter-terrorism interrogations or anything like that. And if the brief limited itself to we caution the Court to make clear that 1983 relief isnt available in every outlier circumstance, that would be fine.

Did they do that? Oh, you already know the answer:

The Miranda rule, which was crafted to account for practical realities, makes sense in light of those realities only if it is treated as a constitutional rule of evidence, rather than a rule of law-enforcement procedure.

Yep, they went after the very idea of Miranda.

Again, we all learned this rule from TV shows we call police procedurals for a reason. Issuing these instructions is the heart of police procedure. Some forces hand out little cards with scripted instructions to make sure everything is done on the up and up. The DOJ is redefining procedure like it was sanitation.

It also doesnt make any sense.

The DOJ position is that since the jury acquitted Tekoh no harm, no foul. Miranda only exists to give defendants an avenue to toss a confession in their eyes like tainted evidence or something. But thats not what Miranda was all about.

As Tekohs brief explains, Miranda is about informing defendants of their Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself in a criminal trial. The civil rights violation occurs when the confession is used against him at trial without warning. Full stop. As for the tainted evidence comparison, as one Supreme Court opinion put it, Unlike the Fourth Amendments bar on unreasonable searches, the Self-Incrimination Clause is self-executing.

The DOJ position doesnt strike down Miranda, it just strips the self-executing part of this right and relegates it to another Fourth Amendment style balancing test. And no one gets away with illegal searches and seizures under those! The federal docket is paved with decisions that read, obviously this was an illegal search BUT we figure the defendant was guilty anyway. Turn the right against self-incrimination over to that model and just see what happens. Well have coerced, extorted confessions getting rubber-stamped by judges by the end of the week.

Its not so much that the DOJ is wrong though it is its the way this administration seems willing to play lead blocker for the worst judicial abuses. What does a brief like this accomplish other than add credibility to the inevitable opinion declaring Miranda advisory? Who do they think is going to end up on the wrong end of it when they abdicate their constitutional duty like this?

Check out all the filings here.

Joe Patriceis a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

View post:

'You Have The Right To Remain Silent JUST KIDDING!' Says Biden Administration - Above the Law

SP PLUS CORP : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet…

Posted on by

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

Fifth Amendment to Credit Agreement

On April 21, 2022 (the "Fifth Amendment Effective Date"), SP Plus Corporation, aDelaware corporation (the "Company"), entered into a fifth amendment (the "FifthAmendment") to the Company's credit agreement (as amended prior to the FifthAmendment Effective Date, the "Credit Agreement"; the Credit Agreement, asamended by the Fifth Amendment, the "Amended Credit Agreement") with Bank ofAmerica, N.A. ("Bank of America"), as Administrative Agent, swing-line lenderand a letter of credit issuer; certain subsidiaries of the Company, asguarantors; and the lenders party thereto (the "Lenders"), pursuant to which theLenders have made available to the Company a senior secured credit facility (the"Senior Credit Facility"). Prior to the Fifth Amendment Effective Date andpursuant to the fourth amendment (the "Fourth Amendment") to the Company'scredit agreement, which was entered into on February 16, 2021, the Senior CreditFacility permitted aggregate borrowings of $550.0 million consisting of (i) arevolving credit facility of up to $325.0 million at any time outstanding, whichincluded a letter of credit facility that was limited to $100.0 million at anytime outstanding, and (ii) a term loan facility of $225.0 million (the entireprincipal amount of which the Company drew on November 30, 2018). Among otherthings, the Fifth Amendment extended the maturity date of the Senior CreditFacility to April 21, 2027 and increased the aggregate commitments under therevolving credit facility by $75.0 million to $400.0 million. Prior to the FifthAmendment Effective Date, the outstanding principal balance under the term loanfacility was $182.8 million. Pursuant to the terms of the Fifth Amendment, theCompany received an additional advance under the term loan facility in anaggregate principal amount of $17.2 million so that as of the Fifth AmendmentEffective Date, the term loan facility was $200 million (the entire principalamount of which the Company drew on April 21, 2022).

In addition, the Fifth Amendment transitioned all loans under the Senior CreditFacility that bore interest at the London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") to aforward-looking SOFR term interest rate administered by CME ("Term SOFR"). As ofthe Fifth Amendment Effective Date, borrowings under the Senior Credit Facilitybear interest, at the Company's option, at the applicable margin plus (i) TermSOFR plus a credit spread adjustment, subject to a "floor" on Term SOFR of0.00%, or a successor rate to SOFR approved in accordance with the terms of theAmended Credit Agreement or (ii) a base rate consisting of the highest of (x)the federal funds rate plus 0.5%, (y) the Bank of America prime rate and (z) adaily rate equal to Term SOFR for an interest period of one-month plus 1.0%. Theapplicable margin is based on the Company's ratio of consolidated total debt(net of up to $30.0 million in unrestricted cash and cash equivalents) to EBITDAfor the 12-month period ending as of the last day of the immediately precedingfiscal quarter (the "Consolidated Leverage Ratio"), determined in accordancewith the applicable pricing levels set forth in the Credit Agreement. The FourthAmendment provided that until the compliance certificate for June 30, 2022 wasdelivered, the applicable margin for all loans under the Senior Credit Facilitywould be 2.75% for LIBOR loans and 1.75% for Base Rate Loans. The FifthAmendment eliminated these fixed applicable margin rates.

In addition, the Fifth Amendment eliminated the requirement that the Companyrepay its revolving loans at any time cash on hand exceeded $40.0 million for aperiod of three consecutive business days. The Fifth Amendment also eliminatedrestrictions on certain Investments, Permitted Acquisitions, Restricted Paymentsand Prepayments of Subordinated Debt (each as defined in the Amended CreditAgreement) that were imposed by the Fourth Amendment.

Prior to the Fifth Amendment Effective Date, the maximum Consolidated LeverageRatio was 5.25:1.0 for the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2021, withcertain step-ups and step-downs described in the Credit Agreement, including astep down to a maximum Consolidated Leverage Ratio of 4.00:1.00 for the fiscalquarter ending December 31, 2023 and each fiscal quarter ending thereafter. TheFifth Amendment amended the Consolidated Leverage Ratio covenant to provide thatthe maximum Consolidated Leverage Ratio will be 4.50:1.0 for the fiscal quartersending March 31, 2022, June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2022, 4.25:1.0 for thefiscal quarters ending December 31, 2022, March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023 andSeptember 30, 2023, and 4.00:1.00 for the fiscal quarter ending December 31,2023 and each fiscal quarter ending thereafter. In addition, the Fifth Amendmentadded a covenant holiday option to the Consolidated Leverage Ratio covenant,which allows the Company to elect to raise the maximum Consolidated LeverageRatio up to 4.50:1.0 for a fiscal quarter in which an acquisition involvingconsideration in excess of $50.0 million would be consummated, subject to theconditions in the Amended Credit Agreement.

Prior to the Fifth Amendment Effective Date, the Company was required tomaintain a minimum consolidated interest coverage ratio of not less than1.60:1.0 for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2021, with certain step-ups andstep-downs described in the Credit Agreement, including a step up to a minimumconsolidated interest coverage ratio of not less than 3.50:1.0 for the fiscalquarter ending June 30, 2022 and thereafter. The Amended Credit Agreementprovides that the Company shall maintain a minimum consolidated interestcoverage ratio of 3.5:1.0 for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2022 and eachfiscal quarter thereafter.

The forgoing description of the Fifth Amendment is not complete and is qualifiedin its entirety by reference to the full text of the Fifth Amendment, a copy ofwhich is filed as Exhibit 10.1 hereto.

The information set forth in Item 1.01 above is hereby incorporated by referenceunder this Item 2.03.

Item 9.01.Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d) Exhibits

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read the rest here:

SP PLUS CORP : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet...

In review: key recent IP developments and trends in China – Lexology

Posted on by

All questions

Recent developments

On 5 February 2022, China joined the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs. The accession comes into force on 5 May 2022. This means that as of 5 May 2022, Chinese applicants and foreign applicants are able to register up to 100 designs in 94 countries, including China, through the filing of a single international application.

After the fourth amendment of China's Patent Law took effect on 1 June 2021, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) published draft versions of the Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law2 and the Guidelines for Patent Examination.3 Each has sections dedicated to the Hague Agreement. However, at the time of writing, neither has been finalised. According to the draft version of the Guidelines for Patent Examination, CNIPA will still conduct examination of the design applications filed through the Hague Agreement and may reject the application based on the examination standard of design applications in China.4 It is reasonable to expect that foreign applicants might still receive rejections based on lack of clarity, as Chinese practice is very strict in the sense that the drawings in a design application should clearly show the design. This means that applicants will still need to provide a sufficient number of drawings that show different sides of the product bearing the design, and they should correspond to each other so that the product can be shown clearly.

Trends and outlook

After China joins the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs, it is expected that the new Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law and the Guidelines for Patent Examination will be finalised some time in 2022.

Read this article:

In review: key recent IP developments and trends in China - Lexology

Syracuse police had other options for dealing with 8-year-old accused of stealing. They didn’t use them. – City & State

Posted on by

A troubling video of Syracuse police detaining an 8-year-old child accused of stealing a bag of Doritos has sparked national backlash, and concern from Gov. Kathy Hochul, who on Wednesday called the incident heart wrenching. The video has raised questions about whether officers acted appropriately in both their handling of the boy who is seen hysterically crying as hes dragged into the back of a police vehicle and the outraged bystander who caught the incident on camera. To many, the image of white police officers forcibly loading the Black child into a police car as onlookers fervently protest has become yet another example of the types of incidents that fuel deep-seated distrust in law enforcement in Black communities.

Many of us are parents, and you can't help but imagine the fear in that child as he had to endure that experience, Hochul said Wednesday, three days after the video was posted to Facebook, racking up more than 50,000 views on the platform and 5 million-plus on Twitter, along with responses from concerned lawmakers and civil rights lawyers. Building the trust back between the community and the police is so important, Hochul said, speaking at an unrelated press conference in Syracuse. We have more work to do, and I know that the (Syracuse) mayor is working closely with the police department to get to the bottom of everything, but also make sure that we do protect our children, and that they're handled in a different way when it comes to encounters with law enforcement.

The Syracuse Police Department, along with Mayor Ben Walshs office have said they are investigating the incident.

Attorney Jeffrey Bloom, a partner at the law firm Gair Gair Conason, which represented the family of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed African immigrant who was shot 19 times in 1999 by New York City Police Department officers as he reached for his wallet, called the incident outrageous and said it proliferates distrust between the police and the Black community at a time when were trying to have young people gain the trust of the police department.

In the 4-minute video shot by bystander Kenneth Jackson, one of the officers involved in the incident attempted to justify the interaction by comparing the alleged theft of a bag of chips to burglary. Hes stealing stuff. If he breaks into your house and steals stuff, how do you think . . . the unidentified officer said, before Jackson cut him off.

Think of the racism of that an 8-year-old kid steals chips, but because he's a Black kid, we're going to worry that maybe he'll just come to your house and burglarize? Bloom said.

New York City-based civil rights lawyer Brett Klein, who has handled hundreds of federal police misconduct cases, called the video disturbing and said police escalated the situation. He also noted that what happened prior to Jacksons recording is important context the public has not seen, including whether the child attempted to run away.

It just seemed like they ratcheted up the situation, which was harmful to the kid, harmful to the community, harmful to the department in a way that was just needless under the circumstances, he said.

The father of the child, Anthony Weah, initially said police were respectful when they brought his son home, according to reports, but once Weah saw the video, he told Syracuse.com that he planned to file a complaint over the incident. Because the child was not formally arrested or charged, Bloom said the legal grounds for doing so were uncertain. Hes got some hurdles to overcome. Because his child was not arrested, the cause of action for false arrest is not there, Bloom said.

Both Bloom and Klein, without knowing what happened prior to the interaction captured on video, noted a better solution would have been to speak to the boy, explain what he did wrong, and possibly call his father to the scene.

They could have spoken to him. They could have called the parents. They could have worked something out given his size, his obviously very young age, how sad he was, Klein said.

Former NYPD Detective Sergeant and Department of Correction Assistant Commissioner Keith Taylor, who now works as an adjunct assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, was hesitant to criticize police for detaining the child, in part, because police reportedly said the alleged theft was part of a pattern. However, Taylor said the officers interactions with the bystanders appear to be a clearer breach of protocol.

We don't have the full story, but from what we can see, it looks like the officers were irate, and they were responding out of that emotional response. Antagonistic, I think, both parties were to each other, Taylor said. One of the things that I think is always important is for officers, when they're dealing with the general public, is to have their best face showing, to have the proper courtesy, professionalism, respect . . . and not not act in a way that can be perceived as not best representing the agency theyre working for.

Taylor added that typical protocol when conducting an arrest of a person who falls into a special category, such as a child, pregnant or elderly person, would be to wait for a supervisor to come to the scene. According to the NYPD Patrol Guide, arresting officers must call the Juvenile Desk prior to beginning the arrest process to ensure that any intelligence regarding the juvenile is obtained before the decision whether to release the juvenile to a parent/guardian or adult relative is made.

The Syracuse Police Department did not respond to questions from City & State about the incident. In a statement released Tuesday, the department said officers body-worn cameras were under review. There is some misinformation involving this case. The juvenile suspected of larceny was not placed in handcuffs. He was placed in the rear of a patrol unit where he was directly brought home. Officers met with the childs father and no charges were filed, the statement said.

Klein, however, said the video evidence shows the child was clearly not free to leave. This is a problem, a disconnect with police departments that I see every day for the last two and a half decades of doing this, he said. As soon as the police touch you and take you, and you're not clear to leave, that is an imprisonment or a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and so they did detain him, they did imprison him.

Follow this link:

Syracuse police had other options for dealing with 8-year-old accused of stealing. They didn't use them. - City & State

Jon Bernthal embedded with Baltimore police to play city’s dirtiest cop in HBO’s "We Own This City" – Salon

Posted on by

The countless online videos of police brutality and African Americans dying at the hands of police officers have led to deep conversations about America's policing problem and TV portrayals. One side of the argument is committed to the idea that all cops are inherently good brave men and women who dedicate their lives to keeping us safe. The other side of the argument believes that all police officers are oppressive, terrible people who are dedicated to ruining the lives of Black people. Both sides are right, which makes the argument even more confusing.

Yes, a cop can be good and bad. Both of these things can be true. We see that clearly documented in the new HBO six-part miniseries, "We Own This City," which centers on Baltimore cop Wayne Jenkins, played by Jon Bernthal. I first met Bernthal when he started reading my writing covering these issues in my home city. We connected later when he signed onto play the lead actor and I joined the writers' room. Bernthal and I sat down on "Salon Talks" in New York last week to talk about his lengthy preparation process and the personal effect the role has had on him.

These cops stole from civilians, sold all kinds of drugs, committed massive overtime fraud and sent a large number of innocent people to prison

Most people are only able to critique police officers through the lens of their own experiences. If you grew up in a neighborhood where cops show up two minutes after you call them, and even stick around to make sure you feel extra safe, then you probably think police officers are heroes. And if you grew up like me, in a neighborhood where police officers were hungry to grind their boots into your gumline, steal your money and harass you for no reason other than the color of your skin, then you probably think all cops are a**holes. The problem is that both sides struggle with the ability to be able to accept the other side's experiences good or bad. People only believing in their own experiences is childish, extremely dangerous, unfair and will never lead to any real understanding. If police haters or apologists were open to different arguments, they will learn that their limited critiques lack the way in which some police departments reward police officers who appear to be good in certain communities for doing all of the wrong things making those cops both good and bad."We Own This City," created by David Simon and George Pelecanos ("The Wire") is based on the book "We Own This City" by journalist Justin Fenton, which tells the story of Sergeant Wayne Jenkins and The Gun Trace Task Force (GTTF), a group of elite cops in Baltimore who had special privileges because of their abilities to get guns off of the street. What their bosses didn't know is that one of the reasons they were so good at getting guns was because they were planting them on people. These cops stole from civilians, sold all kinds of drugs, committed massive overtime fraud and sent a large number of innocent people to prison.Cop lovers saw these guys as heroes because they were always touted as the best at getting weapons and dangerous criminals off of the streets cop haters knew they were frauds, because of the way these guys terrorized Black communities for generations. It's all perspective solely based on your color and zip code. Jon Bernthal star of "The Walking Dead," "King Richard," and "The Punisher" plays Wayne Jenkins, the golden boy of the Baltimore City Police Department.Jenkins had sappy dreams of being a square police officer at the beginning of his career but realized stealing from Black people in oppressed areas was a lot more lucrative than what he brought home after two weeks of work. He also realized that if he made cases, he could quickly move up in rank, stash a whole lot of cash, still be considered a hero to cop lovers and have a pretty good life. Jenkins did this for years, collecting constant praise and privilege. He even received a bronze star from then-commissioner Kevin Davis for his efforts in helping out injured officers during the Freddie Gray unrest. The funny part is that the department was so proud of the way Jenkins brought encouragement, water and food to cops, aiding them during the protest while during those same protests he ran up inside of looted pharmacies and stole opioids to sell. One side saw him going above and beyond to help his fellow officers, as the other side saw him stealing. Both things can be true and we can't have a real conversation until we fully acknowledge that.

Jenkins was sentenced to 25 years, back in 2018. However, there are still some people who believe that he is innocent, even though some of his crimes are caught on tape, even though a bunch of officers testified against him, even though he confessed to his crimes.

Watch my "Salon Talks" episode with Jon Bernthal here, or read a Q&A of our conversation below, to hear more about playing Jenkins, how he addresses "The Wire" comparisons and what he learned working side-by-side with Baltimore City Police officers, many who knew Jenkins, to prepare for this complex role.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

My great friend, my brother, Jon Bernthal. How you doing, man?Man, it's great to be here with you guys.

First I want to tell all our viewers that I worked on "We Own This City" too, as a writer. I covered the story for a long time and I wasn't even thinking about who would play these characters and who can pull it off. Then when Jon and I met, I was like, "That's the guy." How do you decide what role is for you?

There literally is not a day that goes by that I don't feel deep, deep gratitude and feel how blessed I am to be doing something that I love and being able to support my family from it. The way things were starting in my life, it did not really look like things were really working out, and I found this, I fell in love with it and I put everything towards it. I never, in a million years, thought I'd be in a place where I actually get to make choices. And that's the blessing of all blessings in this business.

For me, there's really nothing strategic as far as career stuff. I'm never saying, "Well, I've done some action stuff, so I need to do a rom-com, I need to be in this market or that." I just never have thought in those terms. For me, it really comes down to a few criteria. And that is if I read the words and something happens to me, if my heart is affected by it, I want to get in there. If it scares me, if it's something that I feel like I can't do, I want to run towards it. If I get to work with people that I really respect and admire, and I'm just chomping at the bit to get in the box with them, then I run towards it.

"It's just a bunch of flag-waving and agenda-driven sort of spoon-fed information."

To be honest with you, with this project in particular, this checked every single box. It was working with heroes, working with people I deeply respect and wanted to get in the box with. And it also covers issues that are enormously important to me, near and dear to my heart, things that I'm fascinated by, troubled by, has caused enormous amounts of pain in my life. And I felt like this was an opportunity to explore these issues and dive into the gray, dive into the wound, explore them with all the nuance that these issues deserve because so much of the discourse around these issues in this country right now is just being led by the polls.

It's just a bunch of flag-waving and agenda-driven sort of spoon-fed information. I knew that this piece was going to be driven by journalistic integrity and trying to tell the truth and to not shy away from how complicated these issues are so this was a no-brainer.

I imagine it's difficult in these times to take a role as a police officer because you have one side that's pro-cop, you have another side that's anti-cop, and you have to be able to walk that line and find that balance and do something that's complex and nuanced.

I think if you're going to do it this is the group of people to do it with. This is the city to do it in, with these people. I really believe that we told this story with the city of Baltimore, for the city of Baltimore and by the city of Baltimore. I feel like there was such reverence and respect to the folks that this story was about, to the victims, but also to the BPD and the good folks that still are on that job. And I got to, it's my job.

This was one of the things you and I first connected to, with your writing. I feel like you write with empathy. I feel like your description and your dive into Danny in your piece, you went above and beyond and out of your way to get to know who he was, to get to know his pain, to look at him as a human being, not just as this archetype or this, you looked at his flaws, but you didn't judge him. You question your own judgment. I have so much respect for that as an artist. That's what I had to do.

RELATED:Thanksgiving and "The Wire": My true Baltimore story about the streets, writing and TV

You play Wayne Jenkins, an ambitious supercop. He was the cop's cop, right? He was the guy they looked up to and then he goes on this dark spiral. Let's start at you trying to figure out how to portray that. Walk us through your research process, because I heard you mention Donny Step, who was his best friend.

My first conversation with David Simon, he said, "We can't just make him a monster," and everybody, from Donny Step, who he used to sell drugs with, to other officers from GTTF, to the gentleman he used to coach youth football with, I got to know everybody in his life, as many people as I could, and to a person, every single person said he was a committed father.

He put his kids above everything else. And for me, that's something I can really relate to. I'm a father before I'm anything else. I needed a hook into this character, to something that I could relate to and kind of believe in, and I feel like there is this crux, this conflict that I believe exists in all of us. How could you be that committed your children, but yet engage in this kind of activity that is going to eventually, and ultimately separate you from them for most likely the rest of your life? That pressure and that conflict was something that was with Wayne at all times. And through all the stories and all the footage and everything I saw, I always saw that conflict present in him.

He coached football too, right?

He coached youth football. He coached his sons and he was extraordinarily passionate with it. He fought MMA. Look, I think there's nobody better than David and George in terms of their track record, being able to explore systematic, systemic issues and how they affect the individual.

Absolutely.

"We can't just make him a monster."

Policies go down and they tear up people's lives. To do it on both this sort of macro level, but then to get down to the nitty-gritty and how lives are destroyed because of these policy decisions. So I think it examines kind of the culture of policing, what's so present, especially in that department. I think to find, to track his journey through, I think it's really important to dig in to his life as much as possible.

You were everywhere.

Everywhere around that city, Middle River and then I was doing three months of ride-alongs in really every district. A lot of those plain-clothed flex unit squads have been disbanded, but a lot of the guys from the Gun Trace Task Force, they're still working. A lot of their careers have been completely upended because of their proximity to Wayne. There's a few guys in particular Tony Maggio and Sergeant Nagavich and Keith Galliano guys that I got to know really, really well, who still police in that sort of similar way.

They're all guys that are from the community. They grew up in the community. I believe they're policing for the right reasons, but they still police. They still, in their terms, police aggressively. I really wanted to understand what that meant. I think when you police aggressively, you lead to a lot of fourth amendment violations, period. It's like, if you're out there, you're not waiting for the crime to happen. You're going there and you're trying to take the fight to the criminals. Just the idea of that, it's an us versus them mentality, which oftentimes is a fertile field for tragedy and trauma. And unfortunately, in Wayne's case, it was a fertile field for corruption.

That's the most difficult part of the conversation is everybody wants one thing. You just talked about how good of a father this guy was. You can be a great father and you can do all those other things, too. Both things are true. We have to tell the whole story.

Absolutely.You can try to police in a certain way. Your intentions could be good, but what you do in that process could be f**ked up for somebody else. Right?

Destroy people's lives.

You brought up George Pelecanos and David Simon, the creators of the show. They are the two people who have the power and the patience and the love and the research ability to tell this story. You worked with them before on "Show Me A Hero. "

Yes, sir.

RELATED:"Democracy is never perfected": David Simon on his new HBO series and the 2020 "s**tshow" election

What makes a David and George project special?

Look, George Pelecanos, his relationship to the city of Baltimore, to that Baltimore-based crew that he's been with now for over 20 years, it's the same crew from "The Wire." Kids that grew up on that show were coming back and playing young men. He knows people's family members. He knows intimate details. It's clear people eat together. They stayed in contact.

This entire piece, again, was made with reverence for the sensitivity and the vitality of the story. As you know, man, Wayne Jenkins, that's a household name in Baltimore. That first night you and me hung out, we were just asking people, saying, "Hey, man. You know Wayne Jenkins?" People know who he was. That story is alive on the streets. You walk around on those streets with that name tag, that W. Jenkins, you meet people who were victims of his. People have stories about him, everyone.

Because it's those guys [Pelecanos and Simon] and because there's so much resonance of "The Wire" in that city, the only way I really know how to work or want to work was I needed to go into the BPD and I needed to be able to dive in. I needed to be able to get to know them. I needed to be able to, and honestly, if you're telling a story about one of the ugliest chapters of the Baltimore Police Department, it's really hard for them. You're playing one of the most vilified and vile characters that have ever been in that department and say, "Hey, I'm here for research." Why should they open up their arms to me? Why should they welcome me in?

Why did they do it?

Because of David and George and because of the respect that they had for telling the truth. I think you only get one go-round. Your reputation as a human being is just as important as your reputation as an artist. if what you do is you tell the truth, that's what you're trying to do, that's all you're trying to dig, I think that has real resonance with people. Keith Galliano, who was a protege of Wayne's and is an unbelievably wonderful cop, he's policing for the right reasons. He's enormously successful within the department. He watches "The Wire." He says he re-watches it every single year to remember you cannot take things personally on the street. You got to divorce that. When someone's running from you, they're not running from you, they're running from the badge.

The lessons that were imparted in that story have deep resonance within that department. The police officers that I really responded to were the ones that really looked at the police's responsibility to look at the mistakes they've made and accepting them and call them mistakes because there's so much pressure to just deny culpability at all costs. And you're never going to move on from that. And I think, it's what I say to my kids all the time. When you have a problem, if you want to fix it, the first and most vital step is realizing you have a problem. And I think one of the most, one of the best things that we can do as artists is show a mirror to society and show society, "Hey, this is a problem. We're showing it for all its nuance and all its detail." And I think once you see it, and you can understand it, you can start really trying to figure out ways to fix it and understand its complexities.

"Keith Galliano ... re-watches 'The Wire' every single year to remember you cannot take things personally on the street."

Some of those police officers you mentioned got a chance to participate in the show. A lot of people who were victims of the Gun Trace Task Force also got a chance to participate in the show, in front of the camera and behind the camera, for both sides.

Yes, sir.

That is something that should be talked about because you're telling the story and trying to honor the victims. It's that kind of truth that scares people and it is a beautiful thing. This show is a vehicle and a mechanism that can unite.

It's cathartic, it's therapeutic. I do really believe in the power of art in that way. It's something that I hold near and dear to my life. I feel like my life was saved by art and finding this. And the fact that people could sit down and make this piece of art when it was so unbelievably personal to them, it changes the air that we breathed on set. The vitality it's exactly how I like to work. I'm so grateful for that. I'm so grateful, when somebody opens up and somebody's willing to tell you their story, let alone come and then participate in the telling of it, that's sacred.

I feel 100% confident that we honored that and that we treated the city of Baltimore and the folks that this story's about, and the people that came in to come participate with us, we treated it with the right reverence, and that's really the culture of how George and David and that team, that's how they work. And so I'm grateful for that.

This year alone there have been several television shows where actors were tasked with playing living people who have done some terrible things. Do you feel like your position as an actor changes after playing something like this? Do you see it in a different way?

"My heart has been completely broken as we have more and more examples of people who have suffered at the hands of corrupt police."

I don't really think about position as an actor, that hasn't really crossed my mind. Look, more than anything else it's, I'm not trying to be political with it, but it's gratitude. As you know, these are issues that have deeply affected my life and I really care about, and I feel like I was able to have kind of a front row ticket to so much of this and to really understand and get into the city of Baltimore, to meet so many wonderful people, to have people share their stories with me. Look, Wayne, I talked to Wayne and we communicated from prison. I got to know and ride out with so many of the people whose lives he affected.

My heart has been completely broken as we have more and more examples of people who have suffered at the hands of corrupt police and weak police and cowardly police who have engaged in brutality, and people's fourth amendment rights that have been violated. My heart breaks for those folks. The one thing I really learned on this project, in spending so much time with this department itself was this whole other set of victims that I really didn't have any access to, and that is good police, people who are policing for the right reasons. They are less safe. Their careers are upended. Their daily lives are affected by, also by the actions of these corrupt police. And that's a whole other group of victims that I didn't really know about.

Are you worrying about the 20 million "Wire" comparisons?

I did "The Sopranos" movie and now this. I don't think about those terms. For me, I felt about it in the day to day, tactical, being there every day. I was walking onto a set with you and with George and with David and Nina and Miss Debbie and these folks that have that created, in my opinion, the greatest show of all time. That's a family, and they opened their arms to me and they welcomed me in. I knew I was in someone else's house the entire time and I just wanted to come in there with respect.

The Wayne that I think that I portrayed, he kind of does his own thing, but I knew to commit to that fully, that was my way of honoring the city and honestly honoring the victims, to go full out.

And I just want to say, Ray Green, Reinaldo Marcus Green we had come off "King Richard" together. He's my brother. He doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves for that film and what he was able to accomplish there. I would walk anywhere with that man. For me, to take on something like this, knowing we were going into it together, it filled me with so much confidence just knowing I had this support system. I think he's one of the best filmmakers in the world, and honestly of all times, so to know that I had him there with, getting my back and by my side, that filled me with gratitude and confidence.

"We Own This City" premieres Monday, April 25 at 9 p.m. on HBO and streams on HBO Max. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube.

Watch more "Salon Talks" episodes with D. Watkins :

Read the original here:

Jon Bernthal embedded with Baltimore police to play city's dirtiest cop in HBO's "We Own This City" - Salon