Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Intersection needs four-way stop signsThis letter is intended for anyone in Schenectady politics. My wife and I live at the corner of Lenox Road and Raymond Street. This is the only intersection the entire length of Lenox Road that doesnt have a 4-way stop.Could someone please explain this to me? My wife and I have lived at that corner for almost 15 years and there are between five and nine accidents each year.The one on July 15 was one of the worst Ive ever heard, yes, heard. I heard the impact over the sound of my lawn mower and ear plugs. One day a car is going to run the stop sign and hit a child on a bike.Please, consider putting the two stop signs on Raymond.Butch SlaterSchenectady

Stefanik blatantly misleading publicRep. Elise Stefanik is at it again, lying and gaslighting to cover up the revelations of the Jan. 6 select committee of the House of Representatives.Stefanik played loose with the truth in telling the public this week that the Jan. 6 committee is devoid of Republican input and is nothing but a dog-and-pony show staged by the Democrats.Most of the witnesses called by the committee have been Republicans with an abundance of first-hand knowledge of the lead-up to and execution of the seditious riot. The Republicans initially shunned an attempt to create a bi-partisan investigation.Many Republican witnesses have defied subpoenas or invoked the Fifth Amendment.Its astounding how the Republican base allows Stefanik and the rest of the acolytes to mislead them while taking out their angst on those Republicans who put country over party and have come forward to tell the truth under oath. Liz Cheney, a pure conservative Republican, has taken a key role in the proceedings.Its up to voters to hold Stefanik accountable and recognize her brazen dishonesty in the name of sheer politics. The survival of our democracy depends on it.Al SingerBallston Spa

Ostrelich counter to MAGA RepublicansI have lived in Niskayuna for 19 years, raised my children here and am grateful to live in a caring community.I worry that too many of us are unaware of the threat posed by MAGA Republicans, even here in Niskayuna.We all want a future that builds on the progress of past generations. The MAGA Republicans want to undo that progress, roll back our rights, even cancel our freedom to have our voices heard at the ballot box.Lee Zeldin, a MAGA Republican at the top of the state ticket, voted against certifying the 2020 election, even after the Jan. 6 insurrection. Jim Tedisco, who proudly campaigns with Zeldin, voted against a womans right to make her own healthcare decisions and against early voting.MAGA Republicans do not offer progress, they offer contempt. They do not respect our decisions at the ballot box or in our doctors offices.I support Michelle Ostrelich because she has demonstrated a commitment to progress.She has been a long-term advocate for reproductive healthcare rights and has continued her advocacy as a co-founder of the Schenectady Coalition for Healthcare Access.Michelle is the kind of leader we need in the state Senate 44th District.Katie ChaoNiskayuna

Cartoon offensive to Biden, seniorsIn regard to your political cartoon in the July 20 Gazette which showed President Biden with a walker, what a terrible disservice to portray seniors this way.President Biden also rides a bicycle, keeps himself fit and trim.He does what a lot of seniors do, keeps busy and active.He cares for the people instead of himself, unlike the last occupant of the White House.James LechowiczSchenectady

Rules for commenting:The Gazette will not tolerate name-calling; profanity, threats; accusations of racism, mental illness or intoxication; spreading of false or misleading information; libel or other inappropriate language in any form, and readers may not make any such comments about or directly to specific individuals.Readers who violate the policy will be warned and then banned.

Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

More here:
Letters to the Editor Monday, July 25 The Daily Gazette - The Daily Gazette

Alex Jones, host of Infowars, lost defamation lawsuits filed by parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook tragedy, as well as an FBI agent who responded to the shooting.

Here is what to know about Jones, his failed quest for bankruptcy protection, and the defamation awards trials pending in Texas and Connecticut by Sandy Hook families.

Alex Jones is an anti-government conspiracy theorist best known for his radio show and website "Infowars." He is one of the most influential conspiracy theorists in the United States. Some of his most recognizable claims include that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax to curtail Americans' gun rights, the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job, and the Parkland, Florida, shooting was carried out by actors paid by the Democratic party, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

Alex Jones called the Sandy Hook massacre, where 20 students and six educators were killed, "staged," "synthetic," "manufactured," "a giant hoax," and "completely fake with actors" with inside job written all over it.

The short answer is three: two defamation lawsuits filed in Texas and a third defamation lawsuit filed in Connecticut. Jones lost all three cases by default after he was warned and later fined by judges in Texas and Connecticut over abuses of pre-trial procedure.

The next step in all three lawsuits is for a jury to decide in each case how much money Jones must pay in damages to the Sandy Hook families he defamed when he called the Sandy Hook massacre "staged," "synthetic," "manufactured," "a giant hoax" and "completely fake with actors." The first of those three trials was scheduled to begin in Texas on April 25. That didn't happen because Jones sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for three business entities he controls, which automatically froze the cases in state court.

In Texas, there are two sets of plaintiffs. The first set is the parents of slain Sandy Hook first-grader Jesse Lewis. The second set is the parents of slain Sandy Hook first-grader Noah Pozner.

In Connecticut, the plaintiffs are an FBI agent who responded to the 2012 massacre of 26 first-graders and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and eight families who lost loved ones in the tragedy.

At each of the three trials, a jury will determine how much money Jones owes the plaintiffs. Judges in Texas and Connecticut already ruled in default judgments that Jones defamed the families, so the jury wont decide that.

Scarlett Lewis and Neil Heslin, the parents of Jesse Lewis, have their jury trial first in Austin, Texas. Jury selection is scheduled to begin July 25, with opening arguments beginning the next day. The trial is expected to last two weeks.

The Connecticut trial is scheduled to start with jury selection on Aug. 2 the second week of the Texas trial. But jury selection there will take about a month. The trial is expected to start Sept. 6.

The trial with Noah Pozners parents, Lenny Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa, could begin as soon as September.

The Texas judge postponed an April trial for the parents of Jesse Lewis because three entities owned by Jones filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy about a week before the trial would have begun. The bankruptcy filings held up the Connecticut case, too.

The Sandy Hook families in Texas, and later in Connecticut, requested a federal judge to dismiss the filings, arguing they were in bad faith.

It's important to note that while Jones' representatives say Jones has suffered financially because of the Sandy Hook lawsuits, spending $10 million on legal fees, and losing $20 million in sales, Jones himself did not file for bankruptcy, nor did his parent company, Free Speech Systems.

After about a month, a federal bankruptcy judge released Jones from Chapter 11 protection, clearing the way for the Texas trial to resume. The Sandy Hook families in Connecticut agreed to drop the three Jones-controlled entities under bankruptcy from the defamation lawsuit, allowing the Connecticut trial to go ahead.

Jones has used his platform to share disinformation about COVID-19, the vaccine and treatments, including ivermectin.

Jones met with the Jan. 6 committee that's investigating the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. According to his lawyer, in a report, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment over 100 times.

The popular "Full Send" podcast hosted Alex Jones a week after President Donald Trump appeared on the show in March 2022. Jones offered an explanation as to why the YouTube version of the Trump interview was deleted off the platform.

An open critic of cryptocurrency, Jones was gifted over $2 million worth of Bitcoin from an anonymous donor in April 2022 as the radio host faced financial difficulty due to his lawsuits with the Sandy Hook families.

Derek Turner and Rob Ryser contributed to this report.

Read the original:
FAQ: The Sandy Hook and Alex Jones defamation trials - Danbury News Times

Turley: Bannon 'didn't put on a defense'

Fox News contributor and George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley breaks down Friday's guilty verdict against former Trump adviser Steve Bannon on 'America Reports.'

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

After Steve Bannon's conviction Friday afternoon, Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley broke down the verdict on America Reports.'

JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, this was one of the most predictable convictions I've seen in my career as a legal analyst. I mean, the reason you could predict this outcome is very simple, that he didn't put on a defense, and he didn't show up to cover the Congress. He didn't present any witnesses.

STEVE BANNON FOUND GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS FOR IGNORING JAN. 6TH HEARING SUBPOENA

And now he's going to go on appeal. Presumably, he'll have more to say there. But he did not have a viable defense. He was not a government official to even make a substantial claim of privilege. But also at the time, many of us said, you're making a huge mistake.

You know, you should show up in Congress. You can always take your Fifth Amendment protections, the privilege against self-incrimination. Plenty of witnesses do that, but you should show up.

STEVE BANNON LACKED FACTUAL DEFENSE BUT HAS LEGAL DEFENSE FOR APPEAL, EX-PROSECUTOR SAYS

He decided basically that he would thumb his nose at Congress and that he would go his own way. Well, you can and this is a very rare prosecution.

The last prosecution, I think, was in '83. The last conviction, as you noted, was long before that. It is unlikely that he's going to receive much, if any, jail time the minimum is 30 days.

JAN 6 COMMITTEE: THURSDAY PRIMETIME HEARING TO FOCUS ON TRUMP'S ACTIONS AS RIOT UNFOLDED

The judge has some obvious discretion, particularly in allowing these to run concurrently, which is what I would expect. You know, he could send someone consecutively so they finish one sentence before they start the next sentence.

This is something that would normally be done concurrently. So any sentence runs at the same time.

DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP HERE

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW HERE:

This article was written by Fox News staff.

See more here:
Turley: Bannon 'didn't put on a defense,' guilty verdict 'one of the most predictable convictions' - Fox News

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Continued here:
Senator Kiffmeyer: Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - ECM Publishers

ANN ARBOR, MI A Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) employee is the latest person to invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify in a civil bellwether trial in federal court.

Nancy Peeler, the states director of maternal, infant and early childhood home visiting for the health department at the time of Flint Water Crisis, briefly took the witness stand in the U.S. District Courtroom of Judge Judith E. Levy Wednesday, July 13, and declined to answer any questions pertaining to her duties with the MDHHS or the water crisis.

On advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Peeler responded to a handful of questions from Levy as well as attorneys representing Veolia North America (VNA).

Peeler said she would answer the same way when asked questions by attorneys for Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam (LAN) and attorneys representing for the plaintiffs in the case.

A witness has a right under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to decline to answer questions on the grounds that doing so may tend to incriminate the witness.

The jury was instructed that they may but are not required to infer from that refusal that the answer may have been adverse to the witness interest.

The Michigan Attorney Generals office previously charged Peeler with two counts of common law offenses and one count of neglect of duty. The case is currently pending in Genesee County Circuit Court.

A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 9 during which Judge Elizabeth A. Kelly will rule on a motion filed by the AGs office requesting Peelers case be remanded to 67th District Court for a preliminary examination.

The motion was filed in response to a June ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court, which opined that a judge does not have the authority to indict a defendant. Peeler was one of the multiple defendants charged via a one-judge grand jury, in which Judge David J. Newblatt of the 7th Circuit Court served as the one-man grand jury on the matters, hearing evidence behind closed doors and then issuing indictments against the defendants.

Peelers attorney, Harold Z. Gurewitz, said in court Wednesday he intended to challenge that motion, believing that because of the Supreme Court ruling, the charges need to be dismissed.

The civil trial Peeler had been called to testify in Wednesday involves four Flint children who have sued two companies that advised the city of Flint during its water crisis.

Attorneys for the children claim their clients suffered acquired brain injuries from lead in Flint drinking water and claim the consulting companies are partially responsible for those damages.

Those companies VNA and LAN have contested the injuries claimed by the children and say government officials are solely responsible for elevated levels of lead in Flint water.

The trial is scheduled to continue Thursday, beginning at 8:30 a.m.

Read more on The Flint Journal:

Consultants expert says Flint kids suing over water crisis have healthy brains

Former Flint EM joins others in pleading the Fifth at Flint water trial

New court motions aim to put Flint water crisis prosecutions back on track

See the rest here:
MDHHS employee latest to plead the Fifth in Flint water trial - MLive.com

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

BRI Resources

What is the Significance of the Free Exercise Clause?

How has Speech Been Both Limited and Expanded, and How Does it Apply to You and Your School?

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

BRI Resources

What are the Origins and Interpretations of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

BRI Resources

Liberty and Security in Modern Times

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

BRI Resources

How Does the Fifth Amendment Protect Property?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

BRI Resources

Gideon v. Wainwright

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

BRI Resources

Due Process of Law

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

BRI Resources

How Do Due Process Protections for the Accused Protect Us All?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

BRI Resources

What is the Scope of the Bill of Rights?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

BRI Resources

State and Local Governments

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madisonwrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties. For example, the Founders saw the ability to speak and worship freely as a natural right protected by the First Amendment. Congress is prohibited from making laws establishing religion or abridging freedom of speech. The Fourth Amendment safeguards citizens right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in their homes through the requirement of a warrant.

The Bill of Rights was strongly influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason. Other precursors include English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.

One of the many points of contention between Federalists, who advocated a strong national government, and Anti-Federalists, who wanted power to remain with state and local governments, was the Constitutions lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

Madison, then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, altered the Constitutions text where he thought appropriate. However, several representatives, led by Roger Sherman, objected, saying that Congress had no authority to change the wording of the Constitution. Therefore, Madisons changes were presented as a list of amendments that would follow Article VII.

The House approved 17 amendments. Of these, the Senate approved 12, which were sent to the states for approval in August 1789. Ten amendments were approved (or ratified). Virginias legislature was the final state legislature to ratify the amendments, approving them on December 15, 1791.

Visit link:
Bill of Rights (1791)

(GA Recorder) A Fulton County special grand jury is in full swing in its investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump with the latest string of subpoenas targeting Republican U.S Sen. Lindsey Graham and former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and other Trump advisors.

The South Carolina senator and seven lawyers with ties to Trump and his campaign were subpoenaed last week for the Fulton investigation into whether Trump and his allies illegally interfered in the election that Democrat Joe Biden won by fewer than 12,000 votes.

Even though the latest round of subpoenas say the witnesses should be ready to appear in Fulton as early as Tuesday, dont expect them to show up at the Fulton County Courthouse that day.

Graham, for one, has vowed to fight his summons, arguing that his calls were made in his capacity as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Attorneys John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, Jacki Pick Deason, and Jenna Ellis have also been summoned to talk about the legal strategies used while trying to block Bidens certification. The court filings say it appears the Trump campaign relied on unfounded claims of massive voting fraud and legal landmines.

At a December 2020 state Senate committee meeting, Giuliani, Eastman and several other Trump-affiliated attorneys declared they had overwhelming evidence of voter fraud and Eastman told lawmakers that they could legally replace the Democratic Partys slate of presidential electors who were already certified.

Since May 27, the jury has often heard from witnesses deemed more open to speaking with prosecutors and the chances of more reluctant witnesses increases as the investigation involves people with close ties to Trump.

A large number of people have already testified, including Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his offices staff, GOP Attorney General Chris Carr, Democratic Secretary of State candidate Bee Nguyen and Democratic Attorney General nominee Jen Jordan. Nguyen and Jordan are state legislators who gained national attention for challenging accusations of rigged elections laid out at infamous legislative meetings.

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who repeatedly refused pressure from Trump and others to call lawmakers to a special legislative session to overturn the election results, is set to record a statement for the jury on July 25.

Georgia State University Professor of Law Clark Cunningham said some of the most interesting revelations in the subpoenas involve a second phone call between Graham and Raffensperger and accusations that Trumps attorney Chesebro worked with Georgia GOP Party leaders, including Chairman David Shafer, on the illegitimate electoral vote.

The fake elector selection process appears to have been so micromanaged that Chesebro provided a template for the documents used in the Dec. 14 meeting, Cunningham said.

A real question becomes which side of the scam was David Shafer on, he said. Was he an innocent victim or was he on the other side of perpetrating fraud?

Meanwhile, some of the witnesses sought for the Fulton investigation are overlapping with the Jan. 6th House Congressional committee proceedings, including Eastman, who pleaded the Fifth Amendment during his Jan. 6th testimony.

The U.S. District Court judge in California who ordered Eastman to turn over documents to the Jan. 6th committee said its more likely than not that Trump and his lawyer attempted to obstruct a congressional proceeding and tried to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process.

In contrast to a typical grand jury, the 23 members on the special grand jury do not have the power to indict anyone but can make recommendations to Willis, who initiated the investigation in response to a January 2021 recorded phone call when Trump asked Raffensperger to find enough votes to secure his win.

Trump attorney Cleta Mitchell was also on that call and was summoned last week to testify about it.

Cunningham said that if a grand jury subpoena is issued to Trump, it would set off legal challenges. And even if Trump was ordered to appear, Cunningham said hes not sure anything he might say will add to the former presidents long record of public statements and the volume of documents and testimony presented to jurors.

Given the amount of resources that would be involved in trying to enforce a subpoena and the risks that it would somehow bring everything to a halt, if I were (Willis) I certainly would not be in a hurry to do it, he said. The grand jury could certainly issue an indictment against the former president without having him appear as a witness.

Because another secretary of state employee was on at least one of the calls between Graham and Raffensperger, there could be corroboration that Raffenspergers public account of the call was true versus the South Carolina senators public statements that he was merely trying to understand Georgias election law and absentee ballot rules, Cunningham said.

Willis has said the investigation could lead to criminal charges spanning election fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, making false statements to state or local officials, and for involvement in violence or making threats in elections.

Originally posted here:
Fulton grand jury probe of 2020 election conduct zeroes in on Trump's inner circle - Now Habersham

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. An Albuquerque police detective who was once recognized as one of the best is suspended, now hes suing the city claiming its retaliation.

Detective Jesse Carter claims that some of his fellow officers were violating a suspects constitutional rights, and now he claims hes facing backlash for a case from over two years ago.

Detective Carter was the 2011 non-uniformed Officer of the Year for the Albuquerque Police Department. But then, in late 2020 he was suspended.

Now in a lawsuit filed Friday, Carter alleges he was wrongfully suspended in retaliation for raising concerns about what he called unethical and illegal conduct by his fellow homicide detectives.

In March 2020, Carter was told to review the murder of Jacqualine Vigil a mother of two state police officers.

In Carters review he found and later reported the officers in the case violated the murder suspects Fifth Amendment rights after not reading him his Miranda rights and ignoring his request for counsel.

The lawsuit alleges shortly after this report, Carter was reassigned to a U.S. Marshalls task force and later notified of an internal investigation of his actions on a case from 2019.

In that case, APD wrongfully arrested 17-year-old Gisell Estrada for murder.

Carter was the lead investigator on the case and Estrada spent six days behind bars for crimes she didnt commit.

She filed her own lawsuit against the city for her wrongful arrest and has settled another lawsuit with Albuquerque Public Schools.

Carter now says he was suspended for 32 hours because of the wrongful arrest, but he claims the city didnt follow the contract with the police union to take action no later than 90 days after the incident.

The union says the suspension never shouldve happened.

Carter is now suing for damages.

KOB 4 reached out to the city and APD for comment. A spokesperson with APD said they will get back to us.

Go here to read the rest:
Suspended APD detective sues city alleging retaliation - KOB 4

Share this post or save for later

At the end of the day, both the driver getting pulled over and the officer making the stop want to make it home safely.

Lt. Myrone Grady of the Lawrence Police Department and Neosho County Attorney Linus Thuston shared some advice on how to do that with a few dozen community members Saturday evening at Victory Bible Church.

Most interactions with law enforcement occur in traffic stops, so much of Saturdays talk focused on safety during those uncomfortable moments.

Grady, LPDs first executive officer for diversity and community engagement, noted that Kansas passed a law in 2015 that allows anyone ages 21 and older to carry a concealed gun with or without a permit.

Im not here to try to garner any type of sympathy for what it is we have to deal with on our end because that is a me problem, not a you problem, Grady said. I treat everybody and its kind of sad, but this is the way it is now like they are armed, because its not illegal to be armed anymore.

As a supervisor now, Grady doesnt make traffic stops himself, but he reflected on the years that he did.

I would tell everybody, Look, slow down, take a deep breath, because we only get really one chance to do this thing right. And if we do it right, everybody goes home and does the things that they need to do based on the situation.

Rather than be confrontational during a traffic stop or in any interaction with police its better to exercise your right to remain silent.

Thuston said that oftentimes we may say things that are incriminating, or we might say things we dont mean when were emotional. People are generally better off when they invoke their right to remain silent.

However, he said, you should provide your identification.

Thuston said that as an officer approaches a vehicle, theyre conducting a threat assessment. Here are some suggestions he shared:

Pull over as soon as you safely can. The officer can tell you to pull forward if necessary, but stopping immediately is important.

Thuston said he turns on the vehicles interior lights and rolls down all the windows not just the drivers side so the officer can see clearly inside as they approach.

Keep your insurance and registration information tucked into the sun visor rather than in a glove compartment or center console. Thuston suggested also putting your wallet on the dashboard so your drivers license is easy to access. Reaching into the glovebox, center console or your back pocket could make an officer nervous.

Thuston said he still has a landline with an answering machine. He dials that number and puts his cellphone on speaker so that there will be an audio recording of the stop elsewhere.

Keep your hands at the 10 oclock and 2 oclock positions on the steering wheel and dont make any quick movements.

Thuston said social media is not a good place to learn your rights. One example he cited was some who say officers must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion for a traffic stop. Thats true, Thuston said but they dont necessarily have to tell you what that reason is.

If you ask Why did you pull me over? and they dont give you an immediate response, that does not give you a reason to say Im not gonna be cooperative because you didnt give me the reason for the stop, Thuston said.

If its a bad stop, that can be addressed in court, he said. But the side of the road is not the courtroom.

In addition to the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent rather than give testimony or simply say something that might incriminate yourself, Thuston highlighted the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Sixth Amendment right to defense counsel.

Legal experts with the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas compiled a guide that is available free online.

Some audience members asked questions at the end of the speakers presentations. Here are a few of those questions and answers:

Thuston and Grady said if you can provide information such as the time, date and location of the incident or interaction, the department should be able to determine officers who were present through records kept.

Dont ever let that discourage you from reporting an encounter. If you feel in your heart that you want that report because a lot of times, if people dont report, we dont know, Grady said. And if we dont know, we cant really do much about it. We want to know who those people are.

Thuston said if no one is willing to be a witness, historically, thats hurt us across this country when weve had bad actors. Oftentimes citizens dont want to be snitches or get involved and then that same person stays on the street, year in and year out, doing the exact same behavior, Thuston said.

LPDs logs of calls are also available on our site going back to Jan. 1, 2020.Those can help pinpoint an incident and the number that is attached to it in the police departments computer system.

According to the Lawrence Police Departments policy manual, body-worn camera recordings associated with traffic citations will be maintained for one year. Recordings associated with more serious charges and incidents, ranging from traffic accidents to homicides, are kept between two years and forever.

If there was no citation issued or the recordings arent associated with more serious offenses or complaints, or they are deemed to not have evidentiary value, body-worn camera recordings can be erased after 90 days.

In addition, I dont think anybody gets rid of their dispatching recordings, Thuston said, which include the time, date, location and a brief description of the call. Those things stay around indefinitely.

Below are the Lawrence Police Departments policies on body-worn camera footage and record retention:

LPDs full policy manual is available via this link. The department also follows this guidance from the Kansas State Historical Society.

No, Grady said. If an officers holster is open and theres nothing holding their gun in there, they probably just forgot to close it, but we dont just, as soon as we get out of the car, boom boom, open up our holsters and have it ready to go, Grady said. Thats not something we teach people. They shouldnt be doing stuff like that.

Saturdays event was sponsored by the Lawrence Ecumenical Fellowship Inc., Legacy Work LLC, Sankofa Tumi LLC, SWAP, and the Lawrence Branch NAACP.

If our journalism matters to you, please help us keep doing this work.

Support The Lawrence Times

Mackenzie Clark (she/her), reporter/founder of The Lawrence Times, can be reached at mclark (at) lawrencekstimes (dot) com or 785-422-6363. Read more of her work for the Times here. Check out her staff bio here.

Share this post or save for later

Bridge improvement work along a roughly 9-mile stretch of K-10 between Eudora and K-7 is set to begin Monday, and its expected to continue through early December.

Share this post or save for later

A city proposal to cut its portion of funding for the Lawrence Humane Society by about 27% has sparked worry from the organizations staff about how the cut could affect their ability to care for local pets.

Share this post or save for later

The Lawrence school board on Monday will consider a third proposal to change student fees, which would add fees for students who qualify for reduced-price lunches; new meal prices; and some organizational updates.

Share this post or save for later

Community members, artists and authors are invited to gather together Sunday morning to celebrate the Wakarusa Wetlands, an area deeply tied to Indigenous history in Lawrence and home to a variety of animal species and nature.

MORE

Read more here:
Here's what to do in an encounter with law enforcement - The Lawrence Times

Last weeks blog post on celebrity misbehavior during depositions made the point that deponents who answer uncomfortable questions with civility, humility, and honesty have the best chance for a successful outcome.

There was, however, another lesson that could have been drawn from those same cases. For any number of reasons, critical witnesses wont necessarily be available when needed for pretrial discovery or trial.

Witnesses may die before trial. This occurred in the recent sexual assault lawsuit against comedian Bill Cosby in California, where Playboy Mansion owner Hugh Hefner died prior to trial and was thus unavailable to impeach the testimony of the plaintiff regarding security procedures in place at the mansion on the night the assault allegedly occurred. Hefners account was captured in a video deposition, which was played for the jury at a trial that took place nearly 5 years after his death.

Witnesses may plead the Fifth Amendment. At the same trial, Cosby refused to testify, asserting that a court order forcing him to do so would violate his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. Citing Pennsylvanias successful criminal prosecution of Cosby for sexual assault in 2018 (later overturned), Cosbys lawyers successfully argued that the possibility of future criminal proceedings against their client for other alleged assaults supported a well-founded belief that his testimony in a civil matter could be used to incriminate him. Cosbys version of events was provided to the jury by way of a deposition he had given earlier in the case, before he had asserted his Fifth Amendment rights.

Witnesses may decline to give testimony. For any number of reasons, some good (e.g., outside the subpoena power of the court), some not-so-good. The not so good justification for declining to give deposition testimony appears to be in play in the conservatorship litigation between singer Britney Spears and her father, Jamie Spears. According to news media accounts, the elder Spears refuses to cooperate in scheduling a deposition and has been a no-show for several of them.

The Spears case points up another reason why taking a deposition at the earliest opportunity can be a wise decision. The litigation process itself can be stressful and not always conducive to good behavior. Witnesses who were once willing to give deposition testimony might be so forthcoming after experiencing one, or several, adverse outcomes during the course of the litigation.

Celebrity hijinks aside, there are other reasons why witnesses might not be available for pretrial deposition of trial. We live in a highly mobile society, where people move easily from state to state to pursue new employment, live closer to family, or retire. Unless a contract provides otherwise, there is no legal requirement to leave a forwarding address with an employer or anyone else for that matter.

For these reasons, employment law attorneys Anthony Argiropoulos and Maximilian D. Cadmus at Epstein Becker Green say its important to depose potentially important witnesses early and to treat those depositions as the last chance the client might have to obtain their testimony.

According to Argiropoulos and Cadmus, important business to be handled during those depositions might include:

They also advise taking a video deposition in every case. Video depositions were once exotic expenses, reserved for complicated and well-funded lawsuits, they write. Today, they should be regarded as standard.

To paraphrase the Chinese proverb about planting trees, if the best time to depose a witness is immediately after the relevant events, then the second-best time to depose that witness is now. The opportunity to take that deposition may not come again.

Read the original post:
Depose Witnesses Early or Risk Losing Their Testimony, Experts Say - JD Supra