Monthly Archives: January 2022

Updated Information

Find a statement from the Vigo County Health Department at the bottom of this story.

VIGO COUNTY, Ind. (WTHI) - We now know some of the next steps forward in the lawsuit against the Vigo County Health Department.

We first told you about this lawsuit in late October of last year.

Vigo County resident Doug Springer filed a federal lawsuit against the health department, claiming it violated his rights by banning him from its Facebook page.

Springer says in January of 2021, he commented on a health department post involving COVID-19 cases in the county. It's an action he claims got him banned.

A pre-trial conference is set for Monday, January 24, via telephone. By Monday, those involved need to file a proposed case management plan. It will include deadlines for witnesses and evidence.

Springer said he reacted to a Facebook post from the department, writing that positive COVID-19 test results aren't the same as cases of sick patients.

Court documents say, Springer, to the best of his recollection, posted the following:

"They are NOT cases; they are positive test results and the majority of them will never get sick from the virus. The very fact that the number of positives without accompanying illness is so high shows that the virus is much less dangerous than it is being portrayed."

When the health department banned him from the page, the lawsuit claims that it hid his previous comments from public view. It also continues to ban him from making new comments.

The lawsuit claims the actions from the Vigo County Health Department violate Springer's rights under the First Amendment. It goes on to say the department's actions represent improper viewpoint-based discrimination.

He's asking to be unbanned from the health department's Facebook page and for all of his comments to be restored.

In court documents, the Vigo County Health Department says the following:

"The Health Department admits the decision to prevent the plaintiff, Mr. Springer, from commenting on the Facebook Page of the Health Department is based on the belief that Mr. Springer was using the Health Departments Facebook platform to engage in disinformation and unprotected speech regarding the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nothing prevents Mr. Springer from posting on his own Facebook page his feelings and issues surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic...The plaintiffs statement indicating that this disease was much less dangerous than it was being portrayed is a message the Health Department is not willing to tolerate on its Facebook Page for anyone"

See the full document below.

Original post:
Pre-trial conference set for a federal First Amendment lawsuit against the Vigo County Health Department - WTHITV.com

Former President Donald Trump held his first political rally of the new year in Arizona on Friday, continuing to insist that he had won the 2020 election without evidence.

At the large rally in Florence, Ariz., Trump again claimed that he had actually won the state in 2020, despite having lost to Joe Biden 49.4 percent to 49.1 percent. Trump won the state handily in 2016 against Hillary Clinton by over 4 percentage points.

I love Arizona. We had a tremendous victory in Arizona that was taken away and I just want to wish everybody a happy New Year. Were going to have, I think, a great year, Trump said shortly after taking the stage to loud cheers.

Last year we had a rigged election and the proof is all over the place, he continued. We have a lot of proof and they know its proof. They always talk about the Big Lie theyre the Big Lie.

The Big Lie is a lot of bull****, thats what it is, he said to more cheers.

The ex-presidents claims came one day after officials from Arizonas second-largest county concluded that none of the 151 cases they reviewed merited criminal charges.

While PCAOs investigation documented instances of these voters knowingly submitting more than one ballot, there is little to no evidence that they acted with the awareness that their actions would or could result in multiple votes being counted, said Pima County Attorney Laura Conover in a statement on Friday. What our investigation revealed was the genuine confusion about the electoral process, particularly relating to mail-in and provisional ballots, and the genuine fear, for a variety of reasons, that their initial vote would not count.

According to an investigation by the Associated Press,fewer than 200 cases of potential fraud in Arizona had been identifieduntil last week, when election officials in Maricopa County the states largest said they had discovered 38 potential voting fraud cases during an exhaustive review of 2.1 million ballots. Those cases were sent to the state attorney generals office for review.

Trump also mentioned the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill rioters, whom he said were being persecuted for expressing their First Amendment rights when they disrupted congress certification of the electoral votes that would officially make Biden president.

On top of it all, people are being persecuted for using freedom of speech to talk about the corrupt election but more and more information is coming out and its coming out far worse than anyone ever thought it could be.

He said, it would be a lot easier for me to go out and enjoy my life and say you know what? we did great. You know I ran twice and I won twice and we did better the second time, he claimed.

Earlier in the week, Trump abruptly ended an interview with National Public Radio after the outlet pressed him on his repeated claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him by voter fraud.

At the desert rally, he threw his support behind GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, who pushed Trumps stolen election narrative and has threatened to throw the states top election official in prison.

Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, a vehement Trump supporter and 2020 election results denier, also took the stage. Gosar was was censured by House Dems and stripped of his committee assignments in November after he tweeted a video depicting himself as an anime character assassinating progressive New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Biden.

See more here:
Trump repeats claims that 2020 election was stolen at first rally of new year - New York Post

After more than a year, a former Army National Guard officer and current Army reservist has had an official reprimand that he received from his chain of command for attending a protest during the summer of 2020 overturned.

Capt. Alan Kennedy, an Army reservist who was serving with the Colorado Army National Guard when he attended a Black Lives Matter rally in 2020, called the decision a victory for the First Amendment.

Kennedy had initially received a general officer memorandum of reprimand, or GOMAR, from the head of the Colorado Army National Guard for his actions. That action was reversed following a decision from the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board.

The issue began more than 18 months ago, on May 30, 2020, when Kennedy who was not on duty at the time as a Colorado Army National Guard officer participated in a protest in Denver. During the protest, Denver police began tear-gassing the crowd. Kennedy later recounted his experiences in an editorial column for the Denver Post. Service members are normally not allowed to use their uniform or rank to inform public statements.

The op-ed launched an investigation by Col. Charles Beatty, chief of staff of the Colorado Army National Guard, into whether Kennedy had violated Department of Defense Instruction 1325.06, which prohibits service members, even when off duty, from participating in demonstrations in foreign countries, that are in violation of local laws, or where violence is the likely result.

The initial investigation, conducted by a lieutenant colonel in the Colorado Army National Guard according to documents obtained by Task & Purpose, found that Kennedy had not committed any misconduct. Given that Kennedy was not serving as a National Guard officer either when attending the protest or when publishing the editorial, there was no violation of military regulations.

Shortly after those findings, Beatty overruled the initial investigation and issued Kennedy a temporary local reprimand, arguing that Kennedy should have known that violence was likely to occur at any protest.

The protests that Kennedy attended later became the subject of a civil court case, Abay v. City of Denver, in which a judge found fault with the Denver Police Departments use of tear-gas and projectiles when responding to the demonstrations.

The next month, in July 2020, Kennedy published a second editorial recounting his experience. That launched a second investigation by the Colorado Army National Guard.

By publishing the article and identifying yourself as a service member you violated regulations and provisions of the Colorado Code of Military Justice, and your actions brought disrepute and dishonor upon the COARNG. It is also apparent from the plain language of the article that it was your intent to do so, and thereby to intimidate the command into refraining from lawful use of its authority to investigate, read the reprimand issued by Brig. Gen. Douglas Paul on Sept. 11, 2020.

The GOMOR issued would have essentially ended Kennedys military career, preventing any potential for promotion or further advancement through the ranks.

Kennedy then filed a lawsuit, alleging that the military reprimand represented a violation of his constitutional rights.

That lawsuit also alleged that Kennedys superior officers held that Black Lives Matter protests are inherently violent, asserting that all Black Lives Matter protests begin peacefully and devolve into violent clashes with the police. The lawsuit also triggered a third investigation into Kennedy, which still upheld his GOMAR.

It was clear that I was not representing the views of the military when I wrote those articles, said Kennedy. The Colorado National Guard just didnt like what I wrote.

Kennedy has since transferred to the Army Reserve, currently serving in Virginia.

Soldiers expressing their views in public is not a new issue for the military, but Kennedys case comes at a moment when service members have increased visibility in their personal lives, and the gap between soldiers and civilians is increasingly blurred by social media.

Earlier this summer, Marine Corps. Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller saw his career rapidly go up in flames after taking to social media to decry the pullout from Afghanistan. Seven states are now suing the federal government to protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates for their National Guard personnel.

But its also become a way for service members to call out their leaders. In 2020, a sergeant first class at Fort Hood took to TikTok to discuss toxic leadership conditions in his unit after having been rebuffed by his chain of command. In 2019, Task & Purpose wrote about a Wisconsin Air National Guard master sergeant who spent years trying to call attention to claims of sexual harassment in his unit. For members of the National Guard and Reserves, who only spend a few days a month in uniform, that dichotomy between service time and civilian life is only heightened.

Its just common sense to me that you dont lose your constitutional rights just because you take an oath to defend them, said Kennedy.

Kennedys lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, remains outstanding. It raises a question that while specific to one social movement in this case is increasingly relevant to service members.

Can the government prohibit off-duty, out-of-uniform service members stationed in the United States from peacefully participating in Black Lives Matter and other peaceful protests, if the service members conduct is not in breach of law and order? reads the complaint.

In July 2021, the National Guard Bureau issued a memorandum stating that the regulations under which Kennedy had initially been punished would only to National Guard service members in a title 10 duty status under federal command and control.

Want to write for Task & Purpose? Click here. Or check out the latest stories on our homepage.

More here:
An Army captain fought his chain of command for a year over his free speech rights and won - Task & Purpose

A plan to require masks in committee hearings drew the first fight between Democrats and Republicans in the state House Friday.

House Resolution 1003 would allow the Democratic leader of the House to create regulations to protect vulnerable members of the House during a public health emergency.

Speaker Alec Garnett, D-Denver, said all the resolution would do is to cover committee space of the House, to ensure people can socially distance and wear masks.

"It keeps us up to date where we were last year, no more than that," he said.

The need for the resolution stems from Joint Rule 44, which concerns declaration of public health emergency and which guided the General Assembly until its use was ended last year.

But House Republicans, most of whom don't wear masks anywhere in the Capitol, fought back. That included invoking information that has been thoroughly debunked.

Rep. Stephanie Luck, R-Penrose, has been one of the most ardent advocates for debunked medical information, both in 2021 and 2022. She's the sponsor of a 2022 bill to allow off-label use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which both the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warn shouldn't be used to either treat or prevent COVID and which they say could be dangerous.

Luck ran a similar bill in 2021 that died in its first committee hearing. The 2022 version is unlikely to fare any better.

The mask topic has divided communities against each other, she told the House.

"My community objects to the idea of being told what medical treatments to pursue. This isn't a question about keeping other people safe," and people who decide not to wear a mask aren't choosing to put others at risk, she said. "They're looking at a different set of facts and arguments" and deciding based on those facts.

Luck then cited debunked information about how masks negatively impact the body's oxygen intake. That's been debunked by the FDA.

Luck claimed her constituents won't be comfortable testifying at the Capitol if they have to wear masks and would have to testify remotely, which she called a "diminished" form of testimony. She then suggested it would be discrimination if the House passed the rule.

Rep. Kyle Mullica, a Thornton Democrat and a registered nurse, has been on the front lines of the pandemic. That includes a month he spent working in the Cook County Jail last year to help with what was then the nation's worst COVID outbreak. He sees COVID patients every day, including last week when his emergency room had no beds and he had to take patients coming in by ambulance to the waiting room.

"The science is clear. Masks help stop the spread of this virus," Mullica said.

He also noted that in the years before COVID, when someone went into surgery, every single medical professional wore a mask.

"We can't say we're changing things ... we've been using masks to help combat the spread of disease for years," he said, calling the assertions that masks are dangerous "absurd and false."

Minority Leader Hugh McKean, R-Loveland, said the discussion is about how to operate the House.

He commended Garnett for the discussions they've had on how to get back to normal.

"Nothing in this [rule] has anything to do with a member's ability to represent their constituents," or prohibit a member from coming to the House to do their work.

"We desperately want to get to a baseline of normal, where people can redress their government," McKean added, saying he didn't want to do it by rule but appeared to acknowledge that's where it was headed.

"This has become political," said Assistant Minority Leader Tim Geitner, R-Falcon.

He submitted three amendments. The first said the speaker's authority "shall not include the authority to require face coverings, vaccines or vaccine passports." The second omitted masks.

Geitner quoted Gov. jared Polis several times. The first was when Polis told Colorado Public Radioin December that the state shouldn't tell people what to wear, and in the same interview, when the governor said the emergency is over.

Garnett, in urging a "no" vote, said there was no need for the amendments.

Geitner tried again, with an amendment that limited the authority to just the 2022 session given that the resolution was open-ended. Garnett, however, said the rule is limited to the current health emergency. He also pledged to continue discussions with McKean on the issue.

The amendments failed along party lines. The resolution passed along the same party lines.

The votes also signaled the first effort to put lawmakers on the record in the 2022 session, this time on mask mandates. Garnett asked for, but never got, voice votes on the amendments or the resolution itself, since Republicans asked for recorded votes for everything.

There were some unexpected votes along the way. Rep. Dylan Roberts, D-Eagle, voted in favor of Geitner's first amendment. Rep. Dave Williams, R-Colorado Springs, voted against Geitner's second amendment. Rep. Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, voted against the resolution.

Chalk that up to first vote errors, though. McCluskie said she meant to vote in favor of the resolution.

Continue reading here:
House rules fight over masks brings out debunked information from Republicans - coloradopolitics.com

Herms is suing the NFT creator Mason Rothschild, who has seen viral success marketing a line of digital assets he calls MetaBirkins.

The French luxury house dropped its famously discreet posture in order to come out guns-blazing against Rothschild in a 47-page complaint submitted to New Yorks Southern District Court Friday, calling the creator a digital speculator who is seeking to get rich quick.

The complaint, which was first reported on The Fashion Law, raises questions about how trademark protections for real-world items will be enforced in the digital realm as commercial activity heats up in the metaverse. Brands including Balenciaga and Nike are experimenting with virtual fashion. Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs (unique digital assets authenticated using blockchain technology), depicting fashion items have sold for millions in recent months.

Rothschilds digital dupes of the Birkin, which depict fur-covered bags shaped like the iconic totes, first sold online in December for $42,000. The bags retail for over $10,000 in the physical world and are particularly coveted on the resale market due to their limited production.

A few weeks later, NFT exchange OpenSea removed the MetaBirkins from its online exchange in response to a cease-and-desist letter from Herms, but Rothschild continued to market them on his website, linking visitors to other exchanges where they remain available to buy and sell.

Rothschild claims that as an artist his activities are protected by the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, calling the MetaBirkins a playful abstraction of an existing fashion-culture landmark. Herms has pushed back against that interpretation.

Rothschild simply rips off Herms famous Birkin trademark by adding the generic prefix meta, Herms counsel alleged in the complaint. There can be no doubt that this success arises from his confusing and dilutive use of Herms famous trademarks, the company added.

The company argues that without the courts action, MetaBirkins could ultimately preempt Herms ability to offer products and services in virtual marketplaces that are uniquely associated with Herms and meet Herms quality standards. Herms wants the court to require Rothschild to cease his activities, surrender the MetaBirkins.com domain name to Herms, and pay damages including his profits from selling the digital assets.

Although a digital image connected to an NFT may reflect some artistic creativity, just as a T-shirt or a greeting card may reflect some artistic creativity, the title of artist does not confer a license to use an equivalent to the famous Birkin trademark in a manner calculated to mislead consumers and undermine the ability of that mark to identify Herms as the unique source of goods sold under the Birkin mark, the company said.

Rothschild did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Learn more:

How to Market an NFT

Brands will have to navigate how to reach a new kind of audience in order to make their digital assets stand out.

Follow this link:
Herms Sues NFT Creator Over MetaBirkin Sales - The Business of Fashion

(Bryan Schott | The Salt Lake Tribune) Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes chats with Rep. Chris Stewart at the Utah Eagle Forum convention on Jan. 8, 2022.

By Mark Hurst | The Public Forum

| Jan. 16, 2022, 1:00 p.m.

While I am ever grateful for the First Amendment and its guarantee of a free press, at the same time I always feel bad for the Utah journalists who must report on and print the details of Utahs infamous Eagle Forum conference. The recent report in the Tribune of the Jan. 8 meeting of Utahs craziest of the crazy sent a chill up my spine.

At least the writer was at liberty to freely use the term fringe in describing Gayle Ruzika and her band of deluded sheep, including our Utah attorney general, Blandings poster boy for Warhols 15 minutes of fame Rep. Phil Lyman, most of our other elected officials, and a whopping 83.33% of our 6-member congressional delegation.

Fortunately, the article did not provide us with all the details, but it was enough to read that our Uber Republican friends continued to harp on the evils of vaccination, the (disproven) effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and the painting of Dr. Anthony Fauci as the leader of a religious cult. What a cruel irony that participants would have the audacity to label anyone else a cult.

This disreputable band of brothers and sisters would be laughable if they were not so very frightening.

Mark Hurst, St. George

Submit a letter to the editor

More:
Letter: The Eagle Forum participants would be laughable if they weren't so frightening - Salt Lake Tribune