Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LASD) chose to keep the names of the deputies involved in the October 16 shooting of 25-year-old Fred Williams III in Willowbrook under wraps at the medical examiners inquest last Thursday.

No explanation was given for the decision during the proceedings, but KPCCs Frank Stoltze reports that LASD has claimed it is motivated by a credible threat of violence against the deputy.

Such a claim is deeply suspect for a number of reasons, not least of which includes LASDs overt hostility to both the inquest process and transparency, more generally. But in practical terms, it meant that the inquest would yield little to nothing in the way of new information. Both the shooter and his partner pleaded the Fifth to protect themselves against self-incrimination and their statements and related case information were sealed from public view. Similarly, Detectives John OBrien (seen below, in front of a Blue Lives Matter flag) and Christopher Dimmitt both effectively invoked the Fifth in spirit, claiming that answering any questions would compromise the integrity of the ongoing investigation into Williams shooting by requiring them to disclose information from the sealed files. [Find my live tweets/recap of the inquest here.]

But the goal of the medical examiners inquest was not to determine guilt, as retired Judge Candace Cooper reminded those tuning in Thursday. Instead, she said, it was to determine the manner and mode of death: natural causes, accident (which can include unintentional human conduct), suicide, or death at the hands of another, other than by accident (which does not address question of whether it was justified).

Her disclaimer seemed intended to preempt criticism of the process, given the disappointment that followed the November 30 inquest into the shooting death of 18-year-old Andrs Guardado. Guardado had been killed after deputies Miguel Vega and Chris Hernndez said he looked at them, produced a handgun, and then ran down the driveway of the Gardena auto body shop he was working at. Vega briefly chased Guardado (seen here) before confronting him, ordering him to get on the ground, and then firing six times, hitting Guardado five times in the back.

The findings in that case released just after 5 p.m. on January 15 (the Friday of a three-day weekend) to bury them told people what they already knew. Namely, that the medical cause of Guardados death was multiple gunshot wounds and that the manner of death was by the hands of another person other than by accident.

Key issues casewatchers had at least hoped to see addressed such as the significant discrepancy between deputy Miguel Vegas claims of how and why he shot Guardado and what the autopsy showed to be physically possible had fallen outside of the scope of the inquiry.

So had larger questions about LASDs efforts to paint Guardado as dangerous (via a lengthy press briefing touching on illegal activity at the shop and unrelated shooting incidents) and about the heavy-handedness with which youth in the area are policed (especially in light of the kidnapping, taunting, terrorizing, and threatening of a young skateboarder that eventually led to both Vega and his partner Chris Hernndez being relieved of duty).

All of which signaled to Williams family and friends that the inquest would do little to assist them in their quest for answers or in holding LASD accountable.

Still the process can be said to have some value, both in keeping the names of the victims of police violence alive and in underscoring in a very public way just how difficult it is to exact any kind of transparency from law enforcement in these matters. Early on in the Guardado case, for example, Sheriff Alex Villanueva put a security hold on the autopsy, claiming its release would jeopardize the integrity of the investigation. Then, at the inquest last November, the detectives also hid behind the Fifth Amendment, despite the fact that, as investigators, there was no risk of self-incrimination. Meanwhile, the actual shooter Vega had elected to be out of the country during the first inquest L.A. was holding in over thirty years.

_______

If there was anything noteworthy about the Williams inquest last Thursday, it was that the Critical Incident Video LASD released, which included some of the deputys body camera footage, was played during the proceedings to enter it into the record.

LASD only began rolling out body cams in earnest on October 1st. Williams was killed two weeks later, making this the first such incident captured by LASD on a body cam.

Given that LASD had essentially opted not to participate in the inquest, that footage and the narrative included in the video provided the only detailed version of events from the Sheriffs perspective that the public would hear that day.

That that version also went unchallenged may not be a problem with regard to the specific determination that Judge Cooper is tasked with making, but it is deeply problematic in light of LASDs claims about Williams actions and intentions.

More generally, the extent to which law enforcement has treated being armed, being a threat, and actively intending or seeking to do harm to officers as interchangeable when it comes to Black and brown youth and men is what has allowed them to successfully argue time and again that an officers fear for their life justified a shooting. This is especially true in cases where gang activity is prevalent (e.g. around Mona Park) and someones gang affiliation or presence at a known gang hangout can be used as further support for the claim that the suspect intended to harm to an officer.

In Williams case, LASD offers up what appears to be his mugshot, the prior felony convictions for burglary that (although nonviolent) prevented him from being able to own a gun, his current parole status, and images of the weapon he was carrying all before the body cam footage of the deputys encounter with him is ever played.

At one notable juncture, the video even zooms in on a screengrab of Williams whom the narrator refers to as William throughout holding the gun, which LASD has circled in red. As the viewer is left to take in this frozen image for a full fourteen seconds, the narrator intones, As the deputy rounded the corner, he encountered William, gun in hand, on top of the shed, and a deputy-involved shooting occurred.

Gun in hand is meant to communicate that Williams posed an immediate and deadly threat.

Once the body cam footage is finally played at about 7:23 minutes in, however, we instead see what appears to be a man who was fleeing to avoid jail time for a gun charge Williams had just gotten home after serving time on the burglary charge and who carried the gun so it wouldnt drop out of his sweatpants as he jumped off a roof. We do not see someone who wanted to hurt either the family he ran past in the yard or the deputy.

Just two minutes earlier, Williams had been hanging out in the parking lot at Mona Park with friends and neighbors.

According to what witnesses told the L.A. Times, when LASD pulled up, people in the group assumed the deputies were there to harass them, prompting more than one person to take off. Williams, realizing that deputies had either had spotted the gun on him or were likely to engage him and find it, began running towards 122nd.

In his flight, he followed the trajectory of the yellow line seen below exiting the parking lot, running down the driveway and into the back yard of a nearby home, climbing up on a shed, and jumping over a fence (at the X) into the adjacent property. One deputy tracked him in the vehicle while the other chased him on foot (green arrow).

As he runs, it is clear that he is struggling to keep the gun from slipping out of his elastic waistband.

LASD used the screengrab with the red circle (top left, below) in the critical incident video to show that Williams was indeed armed something observers had initially questioned and point out where he was carrying the gun.

As Williams continues to run toward the back of the house, however, he appears to be struggling to keep it from slipping out of his waistband. He can be seen tugging at it as he comes down the driveway, and appears to try to shield it from the family as he shuffles past them.

He doesnt lift his hands from his waistband until he gets around the last corner, slows down, and moves to climb up on the shed.

Knowing Williams had a weapon, the deputy chasing him on foot appears to be concerned about being ambushed as he came around the corner. He is seen raising his weapon and can be heard shouting Hands! as he reaches the end of the first building and begins to head into the back yard.

Williams has already climbed up on the shed at that point, however, and does not come into the deputys view until the deputy rounds another corner and gets to the back end of the property.

In the full sequence of twelve photos below, which represent about a second and a halfs worth of time (timestamps 17:30:24 and 17:30:25), we see Williams has his back to the deputy from the very outset when his left arm and shoulder first come into view (1st image; atop the shed, center) and the deputy is just beginning to raise his weapon again.

Williams remains angled away from the deputy throughout the entirety of the encounter, never even fully turning his head to focus on the deputy. Given that there was no camera on the shed, it is not clear when Williams took the gun out of his waistband, but it appears he did so as he prepared to jump from the roof, which is when it is first seen in his hand (the seventh image in the sequence below).

As the deputy raises his arms up and out of the camera view (below), we get a clearer look at Williams. We can see that he is wholly intent on figuring out a way to get over the fence, into the next yard, and away from that property (which is largely fenced in by the same high structure) while evading the deputys partner (who was circling the block in the patrol vehicle to cut off Williams escape).

The transition he has to make between the roof and the fence, the height of the fence itself, and the eight(ish)-foot drop to the ground appear to intimidate him; he doesnt just throw himself off the roof. Instead he edges closer to the fence, bends down, and reaches out to grab the fence with his left hand, seeking to vault himself over it.

He remains physically turned away from the deputy throughout this sequence. Although he appears to glance in the deputys direction when he first hears him yell Hey!, his focus is on moving away from the deputy.

It is at this moment the moment that he reaches for the fence with his left hand and moves to vault himself over it that we finally see the gun in his right hand (below; the LASD screengrab is included for reference).

It is also the moment the deputy claims the gun was pointed at him, telling dispatch afterwards, He jumped the fence right before he pointed the 417 [firearm] at me. The coroners investigator Lianna Darabedyan confirmed this is what she had heard from him as well, adding in that the deputy had told her Williams had also turned toward him when pointing his weapon at him.

But examining the footage in sequence, it is clear that Williams is looking down at the fence and the ground throughout and that we only see his right arm (and the gun) because of how he lifts it up to stabilize himself as he vaults. To launch himself over the fence and away from the deputy, he has to grip the edge of a thin sheet of (what appears to be) metal and put his full weight on his left arm (seen in the second frame).

To have pointed the weapon at the deputy at this moment, he would have had to swing his right arm across his body in the opposite direction to the one he is headed in while in midair (in the third and fourth frames below). Doing so would have thrown him off balance, at the very least, and likely caused him to twist in the air. Aiming at the deputy would also have required him to at least turn his head in that direction, and probably his torso, as well neither of which happens here.

Instead, he vaults, left hand still supporting his weight on the fence and right arm still out for balance. The deputy shouts at him to put his hands up as Williams begins to drop out of view. The gun is still all the way over on Williams far side (it can be seen sticking out from behind his right thigh in the penultimate frame).

The deputy fires eight times in quick succession, hitting Williams once in his upper left back, perforating his left lung and his aorta.

Williams later died at the scene.

_______

Once Judge Cooper has finished reviewing the testimony and the sealed statements from the deputies involved in the shooting, she will likely issue the same findings she did in the Guardado case. And given that she saw no need to push LASD on its abuse of the Fifth Amendment in that case, it is unlikely she will try to hold LASD accountable for its intransigence here, either.

Meanwhile, the Sheriffs internal investigation is ongoing. When completed, it will be turned over to the Justice System Integrity Division of the District Attorneys Office, which will determine whether the force used was within the law. Then the case will go back to the Internal Affairs Bureau, which will complete an administrative investigation of the incident before passing it on to LASDs Executive Force Review Committee. That committee will evaluate the deputies performance and determine whether the tactics and use of force were within policy.

While officer-involved shootings were almost always found to be within policy during former D.A. Jackie Laceys tenure, officers tactics were occasionally found wanting by either LASD or LAPD. When that happened, as it did in the case of Keith Bursey, who was shot in the back by LAPD officer Charles Kumlander in 2016 during an investigative stop at Brynhurst and Slauson, the officers in question might be recommended for tactical debrief and extensive retraining, as Kumlander and his partner were. And like Kumlander and his partner, they rarely face other consequences for an in policy killing, even if the tactical lapses played a role in how a victim ended up dead.

The election of George Gascn to D.A. this past November and his promise to revisit some of these cases offered the families of the victims of police violence hope that there might finally be some semblance of justice for their loved ones. Or, at the very least, some accountability.

But what they also want is some reassurance that these processes will work to prevent other families from experiencing this kind of loss going forward. In our next story in this series, we will engage that question by way of unpacking some of the more complex cases, like Burseys, to see what they tell us about the way lower-income Black and brown communities are policed.

In the meanwhile, find the critical incident video from Fred Williams case here. See the live-tweet/recap thread I did on the inquest here. See the live-tweet/recap thread of the Andrs Guardado inquest here and a discussion of the inquest findings here. The findings from the Guardado inquest can be found here or here.

Find me on twitter, @sahrasulaiman, or email me at sahra@streetsblog.org.

_______

Related stories

Other stories on the intersection of repressive policing, disenfranchisement, and trauma in the public space

The impact of trauma:

How under/overpolicing in a community can fuel violence and force youth to fend for themselves

Racial Profiling

Incorporating these issues into planning processes

Other readings on the legacy of redlining

Link:
LASD Won't Name Deputies Involved in Killing of Fred Williams III at Otherwise Uninformative Inquest - Streetsblog Los Angeles

The smartphone maker is the latest Chinese company butting heads with the US over claims of ties to Beijing.

Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi is suing the US over its inclusion on a blacklist of Chinese companies.

Xiaomi, which is one of the worlds largest smartphone makers, was last month placed on a record of companies that the US deemed to have links to the Chinese military a claim the company denies.

This bars American investors from holding shares in the company, subject to an executive order signed by former US president Donald Trump in November. Nine other companies were designated as Communist Chinese military companies or CCMCs.

In its lawsuit filed last Friday (29 January) against the US Department of Defense and the US Treasury, Xiaomi said Trumps designation was unlawful and presented no evidence.

[By] failing to provide Xiaomi with notice of, or an opportunity to challenge, the basis for the designation, defendants have deprived Xiaomi of due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the lawsuit said.

Defendants designation of Xiaomi as a CCMC is arbitrary and capricious because, among other things, defendants failed to articulate a reasonable explanation for their decision.

Xiaomi claimed that the designation will damage the companys ability to raise funds, sell products, and attract and retain US employees as some may hold shares in the company.

Under the order, US investors will no longer be able to buy shares in Xiaomi, which is listed in Hong Kong, from March of this year and existing shareholders must divest by January 2022.

The company denied that is owned or controlled by, or otherwise affiliated with the Chinese government or military.

The tiff between Xiaomi and the US bears similarities to the long-running feud between the US and Huawei. The Chinese telecoms equipment maker repeatedly denied allegations by the Trump administration that it is linked to Beijing and is a national security threat.

While Trump has left office, there are no immediate signs of the US-China tech tensions abating just yet. The Biden administrations nominee for commerce secretary, Gina Raimondo, said she would protect US telecom networks from Chinese companies but stopped short of committing to retaining Huawei on blacklists. She is expected to be voted in on Wednesday.

Read this article:
Xiaomi sues the US government over military blacklisting Just now - Siliconrepublic.com

At the beginning of 2020 the Supreme Court appeared poised to take on multiple patent cases, but a series ofcertdenials resulted in only one decision from the High Court in 2020. The Supreme Court avoided entering the Section 101 debate by denyingcertiorarifor a number relevant patent cases includingAthena Diagnostics Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC,No. 19-430 (2020) (IP Update, Vol. 22, No. 2) andChamberlain Group, Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., No. 19-1299 (2019) (IP Update, Jan. 2020). The Court also deniedcertin various cases relating to whether the America Invents Act (AIA) violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, includingCollabo Innovations v. Sony Corp.No. 19-601 (2019) (IP Law Year in Review 2019).

The only patent decision to come from the Supreme Court in 2020 wasThryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, 590 US ___ (2020), in which the Court held that 35 USC 314(d) precludes judicial review of the Patent Trial and Appeals Boards (PTAB)application of 315(b)s one-year time bar. The Court largely reiterated its reasoning inCuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 US ___ (2016) (IP Update,Vol. 19, No. 7) stating that because the 315(b) time bar is closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to the institution determination, a party may not appeal the PTABs application of the one-year time bar of 315(b). In a lengthy dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that 314(d)s prohibition on appeal applied only to the subsections under this section of 314, as explicitly stated in the text of the statute, especially given the strong presumption

Read the original here:
2020 at the Supreme Court - Lexology

So its Super Bowl Week. Super Bowl LV, to be exact.

Shouldnt be that big of deal in Chicago, because the Bears have missed the cut LIII times.

But I did run across an item of interest to people who follow the so-called Monsters of the Midway.

While decluttering the basementbecause, what else are you gonna do in a pandemic?I discovered two aging spiral notebooks.

Across the top of each, it simply said: ``4th Period A.A.

The Fourth Period Athletic Association!

I had completely forgotten.

The FPAA was a league for lunch-time football players at a high school in suburban Chicago. The league culminated in the Dixie Cup championship game.

It was played at the Deerfield High School cafeteria with little triangles that were flicked or pushed across the table. If a portion of the triangle was hanging over the edge of the table when it stopped, that was a touchdown.

Field goals and extra points were kicked by holding the triangle on its edge. and flicking it into the air through flesh-and-blood crossbars that were made by your opponent, who held his index fingers together and his thumbs in the air.

Or something like that. It was a long time agoaround the time when Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey were jousting for the presidencylong before Nixon was whistled for too many men at the Watergate.

One thing bothers me. I have no idea how a field goal fit into our game. Why would you kick a field goal? Its kind of fun to do. But is it harder to hang the triangle/football over the edge of the table from a distance? All these years later, I have no idea. And I dont have a suitable table handy to test the theory.

This mystery is not explained in the surviving rules that are contained in these faded notebooks, along with entire seasons of scores, standings and the signatures of the players.

The rules dont really explain how ``the ball is advanced. I cant imagine that there were first downs.

The rules are exceptionally detailed, though, regarding the length and time of the game.

For example, Section 1.2 says, ``The game shall be terminated when:

``Section 1.21 One team scores 100 pts. Hence, The first person to 100 wins.

Hence? Really?

Or ``Section 1.22: The clock strikes 11:34.

Fourth period must have been awfully early for lunch. More like brunch.

Or ``Section 1.23. A teacher tells you to terminate (the game).

Apparently, our civil disobedience was confined to protesting Vietnam.

Section 2 is devoted to The Ball

``Section 2.1 The Ball shall be a triangle, preferably made out of notebook paper.

Section 2.2 Each ball (triangle) must:

2.23 Have three sides, none of which exceeds 4 inches or are less than 1 inch.

A three-sided triangle? No controversy there.

2.24 Be approved by both teams.

Apparently, there were a lot of disputes about The Ball, or triangle, that were resolved in the second season. In the second notebook, Section 2, The Ball, simply says, ``The ball shall be an official league ball.

These balls apparently were precious. In one of the notebooks in my basement, I found an envelope containing three of them. In perfect condition.

And then, there is a Fifth Amendment, which states: ``Each team will be given an official ball. The home team shall supply the ball for the game. Teams keep the ball themselves or keep it in the official FPAA envelope safe. If the home team does not have its official ball at game time, the result will be an automatic forfeit. If a ball is lost during a game, the visiting team ball shall be put in play. If the visitors do not have their ball, they will automatically forfeit.

The Sixth Amendment, I suspect, also addressed another controversy: ``Fingers must be closed when the ball is pushed.

I can imagine the sniping that must have gone on before these amendments were adopted.

The first season, there were eight teams in the FPAA, divided into two divisions, the Central and the Coastal. Remember that long-ago time in the NFL?

I have no idea how the teams were assigned, but it must have been some kind of a lottery. I was Chicago, which Im sure I liked, in Season One. On the other hand, in Season Two, I was Los Angeles. So go figure.

I only have first names from Season One. In the Coastal were Tom (Baltimore Colts), John U. (Atlanta Falcons), John E. (San Francisco 49ers) and Ed (L.A. Rams). Besides me and the beloved Chicago Bears, the Central had Kirk (Detroit Lions), Jack (Green Bay Packers) and Bruce (Minnesota Vikings).

If I had to guess, I would say John Unger, Jack Strichman and Ed Karlin competed in that pioneering season. Bruce Homer and Tom Gottlieb also are possible, but I am drawing a blank on Kirk and John E.

I mention these names in hopes of bringing everyone together for a reunionat the Hupmobile showroom in Canton, Ohio.

In Season Two, the FPAA expanded to 10 teamsthe original eight plus the New York Giants and the St. Louis Cardinals.

I am the only one who played in both seasons. I will attribute that to the vagaries of staggered lunch hours rather than any disinterest in flipping a triangle across a lunchroom table and calling it football.

In Season Two, we traded our two Johns for a pair of Als, Al Z. and Al F. And I have last names for eight players because everyone except the ``expansion teamssigned a pledge to ``abide by the rules. That would beDale (New York) and Jim (St. Louis).

The Original Eight were Cregg Wennstrom (Minnesota), Alan Feldman (San Francisco), Blair Neller (Baltimore), Marc Minkus (Detroit), Howie Fleishman (Chicago), Roger Brook (Green Bay), Al Zucker.(Atlanta) and me (L.A.).

If any of you guys are out there, Hupmobile!

As for results, the notebooks show that in Season One, my Bears had the best regular-season record (20-8), edging Kirks Lions (19-9). But Eds Rams (15-10), who won the Coastal Division, prevailed in the playoffs, beating me 100-95 in a thriller to win the Dixie Cup.

In Season Two, my Rams had the best record (23-4), but lost in the Dixie Cup final to Howies Bears, who had a modest 13-14 regular season but got hot in the playoffs to bring the Dixie Cup to Chicago.

I have no record of a Season Three, so I assume the FPAA folded after just two seasons. Deerfield might have had an open campus by senior year, removing the need and opportunity for Triangle Football.

The notebook says there was an All-Star during Season One. Its a shame that cant be found on Youtube.

But the burning question that remains after so many years is this: Under what circumstances is it wise to kick the field goal in Triangle Football?

Hence, the first person who can answer that shall receive an official FPAA football. Um, triangle.

@@@

If you like sports history with an extra bit of drama, check out Herb's 1908 Cubs novel, The Run Dont Count. Excerpts and other information at facebook/therundontcount. Its available in paperback and Kindle at Amazon.com.

The rest is here:
FPAA Remembered: In Triangle Football, the Dixie Cup Was the Ultimate Game - Bama Maven

Brad Petrishen|Telegram & Gazette

WORCESTER A former Rutland police officer serving 28 years in jail on two rape convictions has been denied a bid for a retrial he requested in November.

Jason D. Briddon, who was 40 when sentenced on the second of two rape convictions in 2012, would not have prevailed had his wife been asked to testify as an alibi, a judge ruled, because she would not have testified on account of perjury concerns.

It took two trials for a jury to convict Briddon in his second rape case, which centered on allegations Briddon raped a woman he met at a bar in 2007.

Briddons wife had testified as his alibi in the first trial thatended in mistrial but by the second trial, the two were in a contentious divorce, and Briddons lawyer, David R. Yannetti, elected not to call her.

Briddon argued Yannettis decision was a mistake, noting that he didnt bother to reach out to the wife to see whether she would, again, testify as an alibi at the second trial.

The state appeals court agreed, and ordered Worcester Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Wrenn to determine whether the wifes testimony might have proved helpful.

In a Jan. 26 ruling he wrote after hearing from the wife in a closed-door hearing, Wrenn said the woman would not have testified at a second trial because of perjury concerns.

Had (she) been subpoenaed to testify at the (second) trial as an alibi witness she would have invoked her fifth amendment privilege based on her concern of facing potential perjury charges with regard to her testimony at the first trial, Wrenn wrote.

The woman had testified at the first trial that Briddon had come home around 3 a.m. the night in question, which conflicted with the time frame the rape victim had detailed.

Wrenn also noted that because the wife had testified untruthfully at the first trial, his lawyer would have been precluded from introducing that testimony at the second trial in 2012 if he was aware it was untruthful.

Briddons 2012 conviction led to an 18-to-20-year sentence from Judge John S. McCann, who remarked at the time that Briddon took an oath "to protect society and not to rape one of its citizens.

That sentence is to run after a separate, 10-to-12-year sentence Briddon received in 2010 after being found guilty of beating and raping a prostitute in 2008.

Briddon worked as a part-time police officer in Rutland for about three years, and was employed there at the time of the 2008 rape, records show.

Read the original here:
Former Rutland cop denied new rape trial after ex-wife, citing perjury concern, declines to provide alibi - Worcester Telegram

by Dennis Crouch

Christy, Inc. v. US (Supreme Court 2021)

This is a super interesting patent-as-property case. In 2018, Christy filed a class-action lawsuit asserting that the cancellation of its patent via Inter Partes Review was taking subject to the due process requirements of the Constitution as well as the Fifth Amendment requirement of Just Compensation.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Christy also argued that the payment of USPTO maintenance fees, without refund, constitutes an illegal exaction. The Court of Federal Claims rejected Christys argument as did the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Now, Christy has the case up to the Supreme Court with the following two questions:

Petitioner Christy, Inc. obtained a patent after following all the steps and rules and paying all of the fees demanded of it. Upon trying to assert its property rights embodied in the patent against an accused infringer, the Government invalidated the patent during Inter Partes Review (IPR) initiated by the accused infringer because it had allegedly been mistakenly issued. Christy, Inc. received no compensation for its property nor return of the fees it paid. In that context, the Questions Presented are:

1) When a duly-issued patent is invalidated through a post-grant review process (such as an IPR), must compensation be paid under the Takings Clause?

2) When a duly-issued patent is invalidated through a post-grant review process (such as an IPR), should the issuance and maintenance fees that were demanded by the government by mistake be returned?

[Christy-v-USPTO_Petition4Cert].

The Federal Circuit offered a very low quality opinion on the issues here. In particular, the Federal Circuit simply stated that it was bound by a prior decision holding that cancellation of patent claims in [an] inter partes review cannot be a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The prior decision is Golden v. U.S., 955 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2020) where Larry Golden represented himself pro se. In that decision, the court also did not explain its decision but rather simply cited to another prior case,Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In Celgene, the court likewise did not examine the issue of takings, but rather cited to its older decision of Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Manbeck, 959 F.2d 226 (Fed. Cir. 1992) andPatlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985). However, neither of these cases addressed the takings clause they focused instead on alleged violation of due process. So, as is often the case, the trail Federal Circuit self-citation leads nowhere.

I dont expect the patentee to prevail in this case, but that will only be based upon the Supreme Courts rejection of its own prior statements.

A patent for an invention is as much property as a patent for land. The right rests on the same foundation and is surrounded and protected by the same sanctions. Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92, 96 (1877).

Briefing in the case will continue through the spring.

= = =

U.S. Patent No. 7,082,640

The rest is here:
Are Patents Free for the Taking; or Does the Law Require Just Compensation? - Patently-O

On January 27, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an opinion in which it dismissed all but one claim challenging on various grounds a proclamation by former President Donald Trump (Proclamation 9980) that imposed 25% tariffs on, inter alia, various imported products made of steel pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. However, the CIT will continue to consider the claim that President Trump implemented additional and new duties on certain steel derivative products after the statutory time period for such action had lapsed.

PrimeSource Building Products, Inc., a U.S. importer of various steel derivative products, filed a complaint (subsequently amended) in the CIT on February 4, 2020, arguing that President Trumps Proclamation 9980 was unlawful and unconstitutional. See Update of February 14, 2020. On March 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the new tariffs did not violate the Section 232 procedural requirements or PrimeSources right to due process. See Update of March 31, 2020.

In its January 27, 2021 order, the CIT dismissed PrimeSources claims that: (i) the imposition of Section 232 duties on the derivative products was procedurally deficient; (ii) the secretary of commerce violated all of the Section 232 statutory provisions; (iii) PrimeSource was deprived of its Fifth Amendment due process constitutional rights; and (iv) Section 232 is unconstitutional as it unlawfully delegates legislative authority from Congress to the president.

The CIT did not dismiss PrimeSources claim that Proclamation 9980 was issued 638 days after the transmittal of the Section 232 steel investigation report to the president (well after the 105 days set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1862(c)(1)) and is thus null and void. Despite DOJ arguing that the president has the authority to modify Section 232 tariffs at any time to protect national security (including adjusting imports of articles not addressed in Proclamation 9705 that the president designated as derivatives of identified steel articles), the CIT found that this claim rests upon a plain meaning interpretation of the statute. The opinion states that DOJs flexible reading of [19 U.S.C. 1862(c)(1)] would require us to interpret the action taken by Proclamation 9980 and that taken by Proclamation 9705 as parts of the same action, which presents several interpretive problems. The opinion concludes that there is no flexible reading of [19 U.S.C. 1862(c)(1)] Section 232(c)(1) that suffices to allow the President to adjust, through new tariffs, imports of derivatives of previously-affected articles outside of the time limits Congress imposed, and the appellate decisions on which defendants rely do not lend support to any such reading.

The parties now have until February 26, 2021, to file a joint schedule that will govern the briefing and hearing schedule for the remaining unresolved factual issues of this claim.

More:
CIT Dismisses All but One Claim in Section 232 Steel Tariff Dispute - Lexology

The Los Angeles County Department of Medical Examiner-Coroner held its second inquest in nearly 30 years Thursday to provide a public examination of the death of Fred William, III, who was shot to death while running from LA County Sheriffs Department deputies in Willowbrook last year.

Deputy medical examiner Dr. Vadim Poukens, M.D., who conducted the autopsy, testified that William was shot once, and the wound would have been fatal within one hour.

Was Mr. Williams back to the deputy when he was shot?, asked Deputy County Counsel Joseph Langton.

Yes, said Dr. Poukens.

William, 25, was killed Oct. 16, 2020 after deputies said they noticed him holding a gun while standing with a group of people and the deputies began to chase him.

The Sheriffs Department initially said William had pointed a gun at a deputy, and released video recordings and information in late October in which the deputy was recorded in radio traffic saying William had, pointed 417 at me, using the Sheriffs radio code for a person armed with a gun.

The Sheriffs Department has not released the names of the deputies involved in the chase and shooting, as is typically required by state and case law, citing unspecified threats to the deputies.

The retired judge presiding over the inquest, Justice Candace Cooper, said Thursday she had received a written request from the Sheriffs Department to keep the deputies names secret and said she would do that.

The deputy who fired the shots was issued a subpoena to testify at the inquest but he did not appear, citing his 5th Amendment privilege against self incrimination, Cooper said.

The Sheriffs homicide detective responsible for the William investigation, John OBrien, appeared briefly and testified that he arrived at the scene, but then declined to answer any questions about the case.

It kind of puts us in a bad spot, OBrien said while appearing via video conference seated in front of a thin blue line style American flag, and explained that he could not discuss his findings so far.

The investigation is open and ongoing, he said, and was quickly excused. OBriens partner, Det. Christopher Dimmitt, also declined to testify about his findings and was excused.

Both detectives cited a section of the California Evidence Code that allows government agencies to keep some information confidential.

Coroners office investigator Lianna Darabedyan, who examined William at the scene of the shooting, testified that deputies told her on the night of the shooting that William had turned and, pointed a weapon at the deputy.

Darabedyan said a gun had been removed from the scene before she examined the body, and reported that there were eight cartridge casings at the scene, indicating the firing deputy had likely pulled the trigger eight times.

Body worn video recordings made public by the Sheriffs Department in October showed William on top of a shed holding a handgun during a foot chase, and William father, Fred William, Jr., told reporters the video shows his son was shot in the back.

There was never a gun pointed, in the deputys direction, he said.

An LA County Fire Department paramedic testified at the inquest Thursday that he and other firefighters performed CPR and other lifesaving measures for 20 minutes before William, III was pronounced dead.

I conferred with the other firefighters there, that there was nothing else we could do, said firefighter-paramedic Richard Johnson.

The edited video presentation created by the Sheriffs Department, first made public in October, was played during the hearing. It included segments edited from the deputies body worn video camera and security camera recordings.

At the conclusion of the inquest retired Judge Candace Cooper will determine the cause and manner of Williams death.

In November, 2020 the Medical Examiner-Coroner held an inquest to examine the death of Andres Guardado, 18, who was killed by deputies near an auto shop on West Redondo Beach Blvd. in June, 2020.

The inquest concluded with the same findings as the autopsy examination of Guardado: that hed been shot in the back five times.

The deputy who fired the shots, Miguel Vega, did not attend the inquest and said in a letter from his attorney that were he present he would have refused to answer questions by asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Several other Sheriffs employees, including the homicide detectives assigned to investigate the case, also asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege when they were questioned about the facts of the case.

Both inquests were prompted by members of the Board of Supervisors who complained the Sheriffs Department has been resistant to public oversight and has not been forthcoming with details about the killings.

Here is the original post:
Inquest: Man Killed by Deputies in Willowbrook Was Shot in the Back - NBC Southern California

The newest film release in the country is expected to begin its run at the Blackfoot Movie Mill on Friday, and from all expected reports, will most likely be a box office hit, no matter what the reviews are.

It is a dark and sinister film about a serial killer and the two law enforcement officers who are chasing him and trying to capture him.

When you add three, yes three, Academy Award winners in the three lead roles of this film, you have every reason to believe that it will be blockbuster of immense proportions, especially when those three actors are Denzel Washington, Rami Malek, and Jared Leto.

The film opens in the 1990s with Joe Deke Deacon, played by Washington, as a sheriffs deputy, five years into a stint in Kern County, California, following his release from the police department following a botched murder investigation when he was a homicide detective in Los Angeles.

While a menial errand finds Deke back in his old stomping grounds just as a new series of killings are beginning, Deke crosses paths with Jimmy Baxter, played by Rami Malek, who just happens to be the lead investigator and the two join forces to narrow the search for the murderer.

On paper, casting Washington and Malek as the veteran/rookie archetypes makes sense and the chemistry and mutual respect between the two keeps the film interesting. While the killers identity and Dekes past are shrouded in mystery, the film meanders primarily between those lines, leaving Maleks Jimmy as the window into Dekes thinking and his personal reason for wanting to catch this murderer too little explored.

The shame is that Jimmys slick confidence, ambition, and occasionally explosive temper give Malek a few opportunities to upstage Washington, which is no easy feat. While the abilities of the three actors dont quite fit the characters, all three give admirable performances to keep the audience well in tune to the plot and exploits of all three.

The introduction of Letos character, Albert Sparma, into the film is what basically saves it from becoming a potential disaster and his ability to intertwine with Washington and Malek keeps the film alive thanks to an unwavering commitment to being as off-putting as possible.

Leto, when being interrogated by Washington and Malek, keeps both of them off balance with his request and recital of his Fifth Amendment rights.

One truly interesting scene is when Washington creates a dialogue with a corpse, discussing the little things, those that can trip up an assailant, or that come forth and complete an investigation and reveals who the culprit actually is.

More could have been done to introduce the different victims better and really get the investigators involved with how the victims had lived and died rather than just leave them as so much dressing on the cutting room floor.

A good film, but not as great as it could have been, but then again, the script was originally introduced nearly 30 years ago and I am sure that some things have dropped through the cracks of the floor.

On a scale of 1-5, this film is easily a 4 and possibly even higher based upon the acting of the three leads.

This film opens at the Blackfoot Movie Mill Friday and should be a major focus of the activity that surrounds the Movie Mill this weekend.

As always, we recommend that you visit the Movie Mill at their website at http://www.royaltheaters.com to ensure your favorite seat is available and that you can get the exact showtimes for the film you wish to see.

Please, if it makes you more comfortable, wear your mask or face covering while in the theater and by all means, enjoy your show!

Read more here:
'The Little Things' boasts powerhouse lineup - Post Register

By Jason Resnick, Sr. VP, and General Counsel, Western Growers Association

Western Growers, California Fresh Fruit Association, Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties and Ventura County Agricultural Association have filed anamicus curiae friend of the court briefat the U.S. Supreme Court in a case challenging the so-called Access Regulation promulgated by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) in 1975.

Californias Access Regulation requires agricultural employers to allow labor union organizers such as the United Farmworkers Union onto their private property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year, for the purpose of organizing agricultural employees.A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the regulation, but eight judges dissented noting the decision not only contradicts Supreme Court precedent but also causes a circuit split (i.e., conflicting decisions between different federal circuits that can only be reconciled by the Supreme Court.)

The amicus brief was filed in the case ofCedar Point Nursery and Fowler Packing Company, Inc. v. Hassid,in which the question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.

The amicus brief argues that California has repeatedly recognized the sanctity of the right of private property owners to exclude third parties under the Fifth Amendment, but not when it comes to the Access Regulation. The brief goes on to say:

California has upended that proposition for the sake of one privileged group: organized labor. Specifically, in this case, agricultural labor unions. In all other cases, California recognizes the right of private property owners to establish rules by which third parties may be allowed to access private property, if at all. Otherwise, trespassers are subject to criminal prosecution But not in the case of organized labor. In that case alone, California has enacted statutes and regulations that coerce acceptance of physical invasion. Regulations of the States ALRB have exacerbated the problem for farmers by authorizing repeated trespass by union organizers for 120 days each year.

The amicus brief was drafted by Michael Berger with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, one of Californias preeminent appellate land use lawyers. The petitioners, Cedar Point Nursery and WG member Fowler Packing Company, Inc., are represented by Howard Sagaser and Ian Wieland with WG Ag Legal Network member Sagaser, Watkins & Weiland, and Joshua Thompson, Damien Schiff and Wencong Fa of Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). PLF is a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans liberties when threatened by government abuse. Western Growers lauds the petitioners and their counsel for taking this important fight all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

View original post here:
Meet the People Archives - California Ag Today