Monthly Archives: March 2022

On Tuesday, attorneys are scheduled to argue over whether former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder may invoke his Fifth Amendment right and not testify at a civil trial concerning the Flint water crisis.

Two engineering firms Veolia North America (VNA) and Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam (LAN) consulted on Flints water system during the water crisis and are being sued on behalf of four plaintiffs who were children during the crisis.

The children were exposed to lead and other contaminants in their drinking water. Theyre seeking financial damages from the engineering firms. The firms deny theyre liable.

Snyder is on a long list of potential witnesses the defense may call.

He has already been disposed in the case, but since the deposition, Snyder, along with eight others, was indicted on criminal charges related to the Flint water crisis.

Snyders attorney has informed the federal judge hearing the case that the former governor plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege if he is forced to appear as a witness.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees no person can be compelled to be a witness against him or herself.

Four other potential witnesses facing criminal charges, including two former Flint emergency managers, have also indicated they plan to plead the Fifth if they are called to testify.

In a motion filed with the court last week, attorneys for VNA say the five cant invoke their Fifth Amendment protection since they have already testified under oath in pre-trial depositions:

"None of the five witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege during his depositioneven though the Michigan Solicitor General was actively and publicly re-investigating the water crisis and had pledged to seek additional indictments against the people responsible for the crisis."

"These witnesses have testified at length in depositions; some have answered reporters questions; two even have testified before Congress. But they have yet to testify in open court. They should do so here."

Lawyers for Snyder and the others say they are concerned attorneys for the engineering firms plan to ask their clients questions beyond what was asked during pre-trial depositions.

In a filing with the federal court on Friday, Snyders attorney laid out what he believes is the real intent of calling the former governor to testify in the civil case.

VNA doesnt care what Governor Snyder says about his alleged 'misconduct and failures,' vis-a-vis the Flint Water Crisis, attorney Brian Lennon writes in his motion, Rather, VNA hopes to force Governor Snyder to repeatedly invoke the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury and thereby shift blame away from itself.

U.S. District Judge Judith Levy has scheduled a hearing on the issue for Tuesday.

In addition to Snyder, former emergency managers Darnell Earley and Gerald Ambrose, former aide to Snyder, Rich Baird, and former City of Flint employee Howard Croft have all indicated they want the court to quash their subpoenas to testify. Snyder and Croft are facing misdemeanor charges related to the water crisis. Ambrose, Early and Baird are facing more serious felony charges.

The civil trial is the first of potentially many related to the Flint water crisis.

Its being referred to as a "bellwether" trial, since it may serve as a guide for how other civil litigation related to the crisis may proceed. It is expected to last four months.

It is unrelated to the $626 million settlement of claims against the State of Michigan, city of Flint, Rowe Professional Services and McLaren Flint Hospital. More than 50,000 people have applied to be part of that settlement. They have until May to complete the application process to receive a share of the settlement.

Read more:
Judge to hear arguments over Fifth Amendment claims in Flint water crisis civil trial - Michigan Radio

The state Supreme Court said in a Wednesday order the Montana Attorney General erred in halting a ballot initiative from going out for signature-gathering.

The proposed ballot initiative aims to add new environmental protections to stretches of the Gallatin and Madison rivers.

The courts unanimous opinion, written by Chief Justice Mike McGrath, also indicated that the attorney general lacks the authority to reject a proposed ballot initiative on the basis that it amounts to a government taking of private property. And in a nonbinding, concurring opinion, McGrath went further, writing that the authority to determine the constitutionality of ballot proposals rests solely with the courts not with the AG.

The court directed Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen to approve a final signature petition form to allow the environmental groups proposing the initiative to start collecting signatures to place it on the ballot. The groups have until June 17 to collect the 30,180 signatures needed to put the proposal to a statewide vote in the 2022 general election. They also need signatures from 5% of the voters in at least 34 of the states 100 House districts.

People are also reading

Ballot Initiative 24 would apply Montanas Outstanding Resource Water designation to 35 miles of the Gallatin River, from the Yellowstone National Park boundary to the Spanish Creek confluence, and to about 55 miles of the Madison River, from Hebgen Lake to Ennis Lake. It would also amend the designation to prohibit temporary pollution sources. The law authorizing the designation currently applies only to year-round sources of pollution.

Knudsen had rejected the proposal in late January, following his offices legal sufficiency review. He wrote in a legal memo that the ballot initiative would amount to a private property taking under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 29 of the Montana Constitution, without providing compensation to potentially affected property owners.

Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, one of the groups backing the measure, filed a petition with the state Supreme Court challenging the AG offices finding last month. Cottonwood executive director John Mayer said the proposal is aimed at combating water quality degradation in the two rivers.

Last year, Republican lawmakers passed a law revising the AGs role in determining the legal sufficiency of a proposed ballot initiative. Previously, the AGs office could only block a proposal if it didnt comply with constitutional and statutory language for submitting ballot issues to voters.

House Bill 651 now requires Knudsen to determine the substantive legality of the proposed issue if approved by the voters, giving his office broader authority to reject proposals.

The seven justices unanimously ruled that Knudsens legal finding misapprehends and misapplies the law that applies to constitutional takings and contradicts the statutory scheme creating the attorney generals review process.

While the federal and state constitutions include provisions prohibiting the government from taking private property without some degree of just compensation, the justices wrote that the environmental groups proposal doesnt match up with how previous court decisions have defined takings.

There are two ways a governments action can rise to the level of a constitutional taking, they wrote either through a permanent physical invasion of property or by an action that eliminates all economically beneficial uses of the property.

Knudsen had argued that in order for I-24 to be constitutional, it would have to compensate the property owners who would be affected by the Outstanding Water Resource designation.

But the Attorney General provided no authority for this proposition, and as a matter of takings law, it is incorrect, the justices wrote. They added that nothing in the proposed initiative prevents affected property owners from suing the state to recover damages.

The justices opinion goes further, writing that Knudsens determination shows the impropriety of using an opinion about regulatory takings to determine if a ballot issue is insufficient.

In addition to the new legal sufficiency changes added by the Legislature last year, Republican lawmakers also gave the AG the power to add a warning label to signature petitions for proposed ballot initiatives that could hurt business or private property interests. Knudsen did just that, in addition to blocking the proposal based on his belief that its unconstitutional.

It would not make sense for the law to call for an advisory statement (which would be appended to a valid petition) to be warranted for a reason that would also render the petition invalid, the justices wrote.

Two other conservation groups, Gallatin Wildlife Association and Montana Rivers, are also backing I-24 and both signed onto the petition as plaintiffs.

"We are extremely gratified that the Montana Supreme Court overruled the Attorney General, Gallatin Wildlife Association President Clint Nagel said in a press release Wednesday. This is a win for all citizens of the last best place.

Mayer, with Cottonwood, said despite whats amounted to a six-week delay to start gathering signatures for the petition, he expects to get enough residents to sign on by the June deadline.

Everyone in Montana wants clean water, Mayer said. Not that many people want rich out-of-staters building vacation houses and destroying our water.

But theres a growing list of business groups and local officials, especially those in and around Big Sky, who are pushing back against the proposed initiative.

On Wednesday, the Montana Chamber of Commerce issued a statement in opposition to I-24, referring to previous attempts by conservation groups to add the Outstanding Resource Waters designation to part of the Gallatin.

The designation is the highest water designation that is typically reserved for extremely sensitive areas like national parks, and the (Department of Environmental Quality) and the courts have repeatedly declined to make such designations in this area, the group wrote, adding that it would hurt job creation and halt workforce housing progress.

In a statement, AG spokesman Kyler Nerison argued that the ruling was consistent with Knudsens finding that the ballot initiative would bypass the normal review process established in state law.

Instead of coming to this obvious conclusion, the Supreme Court justices engaged in legal gymnastics to align with radical environmentalists and maneuver toward an outcome that even two liberal Democrat governors rejected, Nerison wrote.

Questionable legal authority

But in a separate, concurring opinion, McGrath went even further in questioning Knudsens legal authority under the new law. He wrote that only the courts have the power to reject a proposed ballot initiative for running afoul of the constitution.

McGrath wrote that the attorney general lacks such power, and the Legislature equally lacks the power to confer it upon him.

That portion of the courts opinion was co-signed only by Justice Dirk Sandefur, and isnt binding as a legal precedent.

Citing a 1986 state Supreme Court opinion regarding a proposed constitutional initiative, he noted that the court has taken a careful approach to those issues in the past: We should hesitate to 'interfere with the constitutional right of the people of Montana to make and amend our laws through the initiative process.'

Anthony Johnstone, a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana, said that while the courts have at times tossed out initiative proposals that are clearly unconstitutional, the right of Montanans to directly engage in the legislative process is an area where theyve historically treaded lightly.

No one can go into the Legislature to challenge a law as unconstitutional before it gets passed,Johnstone said.

He added that the constitutionality of I-24 can still be challenged if it makes it onto the ballot and is passed by the voters.

Because theres a final bite at the apple if it actually becomes law, thats usually been a reason not to scrutinize the initiative as closely before its in effect, Johnstone said. Partially because you dont actually know how its going to work until its in effect.

Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter.

See the original post here:
MT SupCo reverses AG decision, says river protection initiative can go out for signatures - Independent Record

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On March 15, 2022, Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. (the "Company"), aDelaware corporation, entered into the Fifth Amendment to Tax Asset ProtectionPlan (the "Fifth Amendment") between the Company and Computershare TrustCompany, N.A. (the "Rights Agent") that amends the Tax Asset Protection Plandated May 5, 2017, as amended (the "TAPP") between the Company and the RightsAgent.

The Fifth Amendment amends the definition of "Final Expiration Date" under theTAPP to extend the duration of the TAPP and makes associated changes inconnection therewith. Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, the Final Expiration Dateshall be the close of business on the earlier of (i) December 31, 2023 or (ii)December 31, 2022 if stockholder approval has not been obtained prior to suchdate.

The foregoing description of the Fifth Amendment is qualified in its entirety byreference to the full text of the Fifth Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit4.6 and incorporated herein by reference.

Item 3.03 Material Modification to Rights of Security Holders.

See the description set out under "Item 1.01 - Entry into a Material DefinitiveAgreement," which is incorporated by reference into this Item 3.03.

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

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read the original post:
ADVANCED EMISSIONS SOLUTIONS, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Material Modification to Rights of Security Holders (form 8-K) -...

March 16, 2022, 8:09 AM

4 min read

As the Browns' brass flew back from a meeting with whom they hope will be their future quarterback, Deshaun Watson, their current quarterback, Baker Mayfield, posted a statement to social media on Tuesday night thanking the city of Cleveland and its fans "who truly embraced who I am."

"With many uncertainties, here is where my head and heart is," Mayfield wrote as an introduction to his message, which he addressed to Cleveland and posted to his Instagram and Twitteraccounts.

"The past 4 years have been nothing short of truly life changing since I heard my name called in the draft to go to Cleveland. This is not a message with hidden meaning. This is strictly to thank the city of Cleveland for embracing my family and me," he said. "We have made many memories and shared growing in this process through all the ups and downs.

"I have no clue what happens next, which is the meaning behind the silence I have had during the duration of this process. I can only control what I can, which is trusting in God's plan throughout this process. I have given this franchise everything I have. That is something I've always done at every stage, and at every level. And that will not change wherever I take my next snap. Whatever happens ... I just want to say thank you to the fans who truly embraced who I am and the mentality that aligned so well with this city's hard working people.

"Cleveland will always be a part of Emily and my story. And we will always be thankful for the impact it has had and will have in our lives. Sincerely, Baker Reagan Mayfield."

The Browns flew to Houston on Tuesday to pitch Watson on waiving his no-trade clause to come to Cleveland, a league source told ESPN. The Browns are one of four teams, along with the New Orleans Saints, Carolina Panthers and Atlanta Falcons, who are attempting to land Watson in a trade with the Texans. Watson has already met with the Saints and Panthers and is scheduled to meet with the Falcons on Wednesday.

Watson did not play at all last season following an offseason request to be traded and the emergence of 22 civil lawsuits against him alleging sexual assault and inappropriate conduct during massage sessions. A grand jury in Texas on Friday declined to indict Watson on criminal charges, signaling the end of criminal proceedings related to him in Harris County, where Houston is located.

Before meeting with the Browns on Tuesday, Watsonanswered questions on two of the 22 lawsuits filed against him during ongoing depositions, the plaintiffs' attorney, Tony Buzbee, told KHOU 11. Watson had invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when sitting for two sessions of depositions that began Friday.

Browns general manager Andrew Berry and head coach Kevin Stefanski have publicly declared that Mayfield would remain their quarterback, up through the NFL scouting combine in Indianapolis.

"We fully expect Baker to be our starter and bounce back," Berry said in January.

But that equation appeared to change Friday when the grand jury declined to indict Watson, leaving Mayfield's future in limbo with the franchise that selected him No. 1 overall in the 2018 draft.

Mayfield has endured a tumultuous, up-and-down tenure in Cleveland over four seasons. He played under four different head coaches through his first three seasons in the league. Despite that, Mayfield led Cleveland to its first playoff victory in 26 years during the 2020 season.

But in Week 2 of the 2021 season, he suffered a torn labrum in his non-throwing left shoulder and struggled the rest of the way. He wound up finishing 27th in the league in QBR, as the Browns missed the playoffs and finished with a disappointing 8-9 record.

Mayfield, who underwent surgery to repair the labrum on Jan. 19 and is expected to be fully cleared well before training camp, is entering the final year of his rookie deal, which will pay him $19 million in 2022.

Excerpt from:
QB Baker Mayfield posts message thanking Cleveland fans on same day Browns' brass meets with Deshaun Watson - ABC News

OPINION:

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration has undertaken a vast scheme against Russian economic actors, which it characterizes as sanctions. The scheme consists in seizing assets, freezing assets and prohibiting lawful and constitutionally protected commercial transactions.

All of this is aimed at dissuading Russian President Vladimir Putin from his determination to use extreme state violence to neutralize the government of Ukraine and install a government more favorable to the Kremlin. Yet, the targets of these sanctions are neither Mr. Putin nor the Russian state. Rather, his friends and political supporters, as well as Russian banks and commercial entities, and even American banks and commercial entities, have been targeted and hundreds of millions of consumers and investors have been harmed.

By prohibiting the use of assets and international money transfers, the sanctions have severely harmed folks in Russia who have nothing to do with Putins war by radically reducing their purchasing power and eliminating many everyday choices from their spending options. All of this was done by presidential edict.

Can the president constitutionally prevent Americans and foreign persons from the lawful use of their own assets and from engaging freely in lawful commercial transactions? In a word: No.

Here is the backstory.

The Constitution was written to establish the federal government and to limit it. The same document that delegates to Congress the power to keep interstate and foreign commerce regular also prohibits the states in the Contracts Clause from interfering in private contracts. But there was originally no comparable prohibition restraining the federal government.

In 1791, James Madison, the author of the Constitution, argued as a member of the House of Representatives against legislation establishing the First National Bank of the United States because he feared federal control of commerce. Of course, it became law, caused recessions and was sunset 20 years later.

Yet in 1816, shortly before the end of his second term in the White House, Mr. Madison caved to corporatism and signed into law the Second National Bank of the United States. After its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1824, the feds insinuated themselves into all sorts of economic activity, none of it enhancing personal liberty, all of it favoring their patrons.

While still a congressman, and fearing federal insinuation into commerce, Mr. Madison authored the Bill of Rights the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. He crafted the Fifth Amendment to protect life, liberty and property from the government.

By requiring due process a trial at which the federal government must prove fault prior to interfering with any persons life, liberty or property, Mr. Madison arguably crafted more restraints on the feds than the original Constitution imposed upon the states.

Similarly, by requiring a search warrant issued by a neutral judge based on sworn testimony of probable cause of crime before the feds could seize any person or tangible thing, Madison again added strength and vitality to his understanding of the Constitutions protections of the primacy of the individual with respect to property and privacy.

Both the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments protect all people and every person, not just Americans. This is critical to an understanding of why the sanctions imposed by the Biden administration upon those as to whom there has been no due process or against whom there have been no search warrants issued are profoundly unconstitutional.

For generations, the government argued that the rights to privacy and due process protected Americans only. In the post-World War II era, the feds have lost those arguments.

Thus, when the feds seize a yacht from a person whom they believe may have financed Mr. Putins political rise to power, or even his personal lifestyle, they are doing so in direct violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Similarly, when they freeze foreign assets in American banks, they engage in a seizure, and seizures can only constitutionally be done with a search warrant. As well, when the feds interfere whether by presidential edict or congressional legislation with contract rights by prohibiting compliance with lawful contracts, that, too, implicates due process and can only be done constitutionally after a jury verdict in the governments favor from a trial at which the feds have proven fault.

As if to anticipate these constitutional roadblocks to its interference with free commercial choices by investors, workers and consumers, Congress enacted the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 and the Magnitsky Act of 2016. These constitutional aberrations purport to give the president the power to declare persons and entities to be violators of human rights and, by that mere executive declaration, to punish them without trial.

These laws turn the Fourth and Fifth Amendments on their heads by punishing first and engaging in a perverse variant of due process later.

How perverse? If the feds seize assets or interfere with contracts involving foreign ownership or interests, and the victims want justice, the persons or entities whose assets have been seized or whose contractual rights have been diminished must consent to the jurisdiction of American courts and prove that they are not human rights violators. These statutes are a federal version of Alice in Wonderland, whereby the punished person or entity must prove innocence. Such a burden defies all American concepts of property ownership, fairness and due process. It is antithetical to our history, repugnant to our values and mocks the Constitution that all in government have sworn to uphold. All persons are presumed innocent. The government must always prove fault. The restrictions that the Constitution imposes upon the federal government have no emergency exceptions, nor are they theoretical or fanciful. They were crafted by men who knew and had tasted the torments of unbridled government power. They wrote the restrictions to assure that the new federal government could not do to Americans what the British had done to them. They failed.

Andrew P. Napolitano is a former professor of law and judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey who has published nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

The rest is here:
U.S. sanctions on Russia violate the Constitution - Washington Times

Attribution: AFP via Getty Images

Flynn knows lying to the feds is bad news, invokes Fifth before Jan. 6 probe

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn gave the January 6 Committee bupkis Thursday when he appeared for his closed-door deposition, opting to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The committee investigating the deadly Capitol attack that unfolded in D.C. 14 months ago, issued its initial subpoena to Flynn back in November after reports surfaced that he attended ameeting in the Oval Office with other Trump White House officials to discuss the seizure ofvoting machines that theTrump campaign deemed fraudulent.

Flynns attorney David Warrington described the hearingThursday as a farce and accused the committee of harassment.

Most of the questions lacked any relation to the legislative purpose contained in House Resolution 503, and many were clearly sourced from finger news and conspiracy websites and rumors, Warrington told CNN.

The statement by Warrington echoes just about the only argument that has been offered by allies to the former president who have come under the probes microscope. In fact, as injunctions to stop subpoenas have been duked out in federal courts for the last year, courts have found time and again that the committee was properly founded and is properly authorized to conduct its review.

In addition to questions about Flynnsgambit to have Trump seize voting machines, the committee also wants to learn about his campaign to have Trump declare a national emergency or invoke martial law to pull off the seizure.

[Related: Whos who: A rolling guide to the targets of the Jan. 6 Committee]

Flynn sued the committee in December to stop its subpoena, saying it violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. Afederal judge rejected the request in just a day, noting that Flynn failed to even notice the committee that he did not intend to cooperate. He also failed to explain why he should be exempt from providing that notice since it's a requirement under federal rules.

By invoking his FifthAmendment, Flynn is not making an admission of guilt. Invoking the right is a bedrock principle of the Constitution and afforded to all who wish not to incriminate themselves should they speak.

In the Jan. 6 probe, Flynn is far from the only ex-Trump official to invoke this right. Jeffrey Clark, aTrump DOJ attorney, invoked it as he faced more than 100 questions from the committee. Clark pushed to have his superior at the department removed at Trumps behest when a ploy to declare fraud in Georgias election results fizzled.

Conservative attorney John Eastman also invoked his Fifth Amendment. Eastman is now in the middle of a fraught legal battleto keep the committee away fromemails sent and received between himself and Trump from Jan. 4 to Jan. 7.

GOP operative Roger Stone has invoked the right as well as right-wing bombast Alex Jones.

[Related: Alex Jones might be the undoing of Alex Jones]

Flynns decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment right may not be good for the committee but it is prudent. Flynn pleaded guilty in federal court to making false statements after it emerged in 2017 that he lied to the FBI and then Vice President Mike Pence about his contacts with Russian officials.

Flynn was fired from his national security role at the White House and later pardoned by the former president.

See more here:
Flynn knows lying to the feds is bad news, invokes Fifth before Jan. 6 probe - Daily Kos

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

What's next for Jussie Smollett after his release from jail on Wednesday? Several legal experts gave their opinions in interviews with Fox News Digital.

Smollett was granted a release on bond from the Cook County Jail in Illinois pending the appeal of his conviction. A panel of three appellate judges came down with the ruling in a 2-1 decision granting the former "Empire" stars release after posting a personal recognizance bond of $150,000.

It is nearly the amount of the $120,106 restitution Smollett was ordered to repay after he was convicted of lying to Chicago police about being the victim of a hate crime in 2019.

As the appellate judges have released Smollett on his own recognizance, he will not fork over any of the amounts so long as he agrees to appear in court as required.

The legal experts who weighed in on the court's decision as news of Smolletts release swiftly spread raised questions as to why the three-judge panel elected to spring the actor from jail, as well as what this could potentially mean for his conviction appeal.

JUSSIE SMOLLETT RELEASED FROM JAIL PENDING APPEAL: UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CHARGE SOMEONE TWICE, LAWYER SAYS

According to one criminal defense attorney, while Smolletts celebrity status hurt him in his trial and the subsequent sentencing handed down by Judge James Linn, the decision to free him pending his appeal was "a great sign" for the embattled singer and performer after he was recentlysentenced to 150 days in jail and 30 months of felony probation in addition to the restitution.

Jussie Smollett is released from Cook County Jail on March 16. (FOX 32 Chicago)

Los Angeles-based defense attorney Lara Yeretsian who is not involved in the case told Fox News Digital minutes after the release order was granted Wednesday that she believes Smollett, 39, "has got some really good grounds for his release."

During Smolletts sentencing hearing on March 10, his legal counsel argued he had been the victim of a double jeopardy conviction based on the Fifth Amendment Clause and doubled down on the idea in court that it was "unconstitutional to charge someone twice" for the same offense.

JUSSIE SMOLLETT SENTENCE: OSUNDAIRO BROTHERS BREAK SILENCE, HOPE RULING BRINGS CLOSURE TO PEOPLE OF CHICAGO

At a Wednesday news conference held outside the Cook County Jail in Chicago, double jeopardy arguments from Smolletts legal team were mentioned again and were based on Cook County state's attorney Kim Foxx originally dismissing the indictment against Smollett in exchange for him forfeiting his $10,000 bond.

Following Foxx's dismissal of the initial charges, special prosecutor Dan Webb was appointed to the case, and he ultimately charged Smollett. However, the actors lawyers argued that jeopardy had already been attached, and he couldn't be prosecuted a second time.

Now, Smollett's defense attorney Nenye Uche is seeking to file an appeal of the verdict.

"We are very happy with the ruling made by the Illinois District Appellate Court," Uche said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "We are pleased that sensationalism and politics will be put aside and we can finally have an intellectual discussion about our laws with our esteemed appellate court.

"Three years ago, Jussie and the State of Illinois reached a deferred prosecution agreement in which he paid a $10,000 fine and performed community service. As a result, the case was dismissed,"the statement continued. "To be recharged and prosecuted for the exact same thing, a second time, is not just morally wrong, but certainly double jeopardy and thus unconstitutional especially as it concerns an innocent man."

A jury convicted actor Jussie Smollett of five counts of disorderly conduct for staging a racist, anti-gay attack in Chicago and lying to police. (Associated Press graphic)

Yeretsian believes Smolletts lawyers have a firm point and that the three-judge panel might have felt similarly as the justice system should take only the law and the Constitution into account.

"The one aspect that really, really sticks out for me as far as appeals go is the special prosecution I mean, it's almost unheard of," she explained of the appointment of special prosecutor Webb. "Smollett had a deal. He took the deal. He met his part. He had a contract with the prosecution to do community service and he forfeited his $10,000 bond and in return, they gave him a diversionary deal and once he finished his community service and forfeited his bond, this case was dismissed the same counts."

COURT ORDERS JUSSIE SMOLLETT BE RELEASED FROM JAIL ON BOND PENDING HIS HATE CRIME HOAX CONVICTION APPEAL

Webb did not immediately respond to Fox News Digitals request for comment.

Furthermore, West Coast Trial Lawyers President Neama Rahmani who is also an uninvolved spectator to the Smollett saga relayed to Fox News Digital that for the three-panel committee to come back with a ruling releasing the actor from jail, "there has to be a clear legal error" allegedly on the part of Judge Linn or prosecutors that pointed to a reason for Smolletts release.

"There are a lot of people unhappy at Kim Foxx," Rahmani explained of the confusion surrounding the "deal" from Foxx that Smollett agreed to but did not officially plead to in signing.

"[Smollett] didn't take a plea, that's why it's a weird issue," Rahmani pressed. "He didn't take a plea. [Foxx] said, 'Listen, forfeit your bond and if you agree to do some community service, I'm going to dismiss.' So that's why it's a weird legal issue."

Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx. (Associated Press)

JUSSIE SMOLLETT SHOUTS HE'S INNOCENT,' NOT SUICIDAL AFTER BEING SENTENCED TO JAIL

Asked point-blank if he believes Smollett now has a decent case for getting his conviction overturned based on his team's Fifth Amendment argument, Rahmani agreed simply based on the decision from the appellate justices.

"Yes, it's a good case, and we know it's a good case because he's already got two out of three justices who are saying that he should be released on bond and his sentence should be stayed while this appeals process is being heard," Rahmani said. "So he's got a very good legal argument for getting his conviction overturned."

Actor Jussie Smollett, center, leaves the Cook County Jail on Wednesday, March 16, 2022. (Associated Press)

Meanwhile, on the side of prosecutors, Rahmani maintained that he understands the proverbial gray area the case straddles, and added that the prosecution was more than fair in raising the fact that Smollett hadnt signed any plea agreement, thus double jeopardy shouldnt apply.

"The trial judge said [Smollett] didn't plead, he wasn't punished, so the jeopardy never attached but what I think the appellate judges are going to say is that by making him forfeit his bond, that's considered punishment jeopardy attaches and you can't [charge him again]," Rahmani said.

Rahmani pointed to Smolletts forfeiture of his $10,000 bond as a litmus not only for punishment but acceptance of the Foxx agreement.

"This one was very sort of nonstandard. Normally, the deals aren't in exchange for forfeiting your bond," he said. "So it's a very atypical case and I think that's why the trial judge [Linn] said, jeopardy didn't attach because [Smollett] never came in here and pled in my courtroom with a plea agreement and all the things that are normally involved with the dismissal."

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

Following the news conference on Wednesday, Tina Glandian of Geragos & Geragos, who is also representing Smollett, told Fox News Digital in a statement: "We are gratified that Jussie will be back with his family and loved ones and look forward to a dispassionate review and reversal of the serial injustices visited upon him."

The courts decision marks the latest chapter in a strange story that began in January 2019 when Smollett reported to Chicago police that he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack by two men wearing ski masks. The manhunt for the attackers soon turned into an investigation of Smollett himself and his arrest on charges that hed orchestrated the attack and lied to police about it.

Authorities said Smollett paid two men he knew from work on the TV show "Empire" to stage the attack. Prosecutors said he told them what racist and homophobic slurs to shout, and to yell that Smollett was in "MAGA Country," a reference to the slogan of Donald Trumps 2016 presidential campaign.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A jury convicted Smollett in December on five felony counts of disorderly conduct the charge filed when a person lies to police. He was acquitted on a sixth count. Judge Linn sentenced Smollett last week to 150 days in jail with good behavior he could have been released in as little as 75 days.

Smollett maintained his innocence during the trial.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Go here to read the rest:
Jussie Smollett released from jail: Will he successfully appeal conviction? Legal experts weigh in - Fox News

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On March 10, 2022, Novanta Inc. (the "Company"), Novanta Corporation (the "LeadBorrower"), Novanta UK Investments Holding Limited (the "U.K. Borrower"), andNovanta Europe GmbH (the "German Borrower" and together with the Company, theLead Borrower and the U.K. Borrower, the "Borrowers") and certain of theCompany's wholly owned subsidiaries as Guarantors entered into an amendment (the"Fifth Amendment") to the Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated asof December 31, 2019 (as amended, the "Credit Agreement") with Bank of America,N.A., as Administrative Agent, Swing Line Lender, L/C Issuer and lender, and theother parties thereto. The Fifth Amendment amends the Credit Agreement to extendthe maturity date thereof from December 31, 2024 to March 10, 2027, update thepricing grid, replace LIBOR with SOFR as the reference rate for US dollarborrowings, increase the uncommitted accordion option from $200 million to $350million, and add the Company as a Borrower.

The foregoing description of the Fifth Amendment does not purport to be completeand is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full amendment attached asExhibit 10.1 hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

The information set forth in Item 1.01 in connection with the Fifth Amendment isincorporated in this Item 2.03 by reference.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d) Exhibits.

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

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read the original here:
NOVANTA INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet...