Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

First Amendment

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 4, 2022, 12:03 pm CDT

A cover of the Onion parody news publisher. Image from Shutterstock.

Updated: The satirical website the Onion deems itself to be the single most powerful and influential organization in human history in an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of an Ohio man who was prosecuted for creating a parody Facebook page for the local police department.

The Onion brief supports Anthony Novak, who lost his lawsuit against Parma, Ohios police department when the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati ruled that police had qualified immunity from his constitutional claims.

The Onion cannot stand idly by in the face of a ruling that threatens to disembowel a form of rhetoric that has existed for millennia, that is particularly potent in the realm of political debate, and that, purelyincidentally, forms the basis of the Onions writers paychecks, the amicus brief says.

The petition for certiorari should be granted, the rights of the people vindicated, and various historical wrongs remedied. The Onion would welcome any one of the three, particularly the first.

The brief argues that a satire works best when told with a straight faceand that means that Novak didnt have to include a disclaimer on his fake Facebook page for the Parma, Ohio, police department. The page, which was up for 12 hours, claimed that the department was offering free abortions in a police van and was hosting a pedophile reform event with a no means no learning station.

About a dozen people called police about the page, including some who wanted to know whether it was real. Police then posted a warning about the fake page on the departments website, which Novak copied onto his fake Facebook page.

After learning Novaks identity through a Facebook search warrant, police arrested Novak, who spent four days in jail before making bond. He was later acquitted on a charge of disrupting police functions.

Novak sued for violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The 6th Circuit ruled against Novak in April.

Novak is represented by the Institute for Justice, according to a Sept. 27 press release. Its cert petition asks the Supreme Court to decide whether government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when they arrest someone based purely on speech. The Institute for Justice argues that the Supreme Court should do away with qualified immunity altogether.

The Onion brief argues that a parody has to plausibly mimic the original to work. The brief cites instances in which its parody was taken as reality, as when:

Chinas state-run news agency republished a news story by the Onion proclaiming Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea, the sexiest man alive.

An Iranian news agency uncritically picked up a headline by the Onion titled: Gallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad to Obama.

A Republican congressman thought that he had to warn his constituents about the abortion-rights movement after reading a headline by the Onion titled: Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex.

The brief also says its headlines have forecast future events and provides this 2017 headline as an example: Mar-a-Lago Assistant Manager Wondering If Anyone Coming to Collect Nuclear Briefcase From Lost and Found.

The brief began with a tongue-in-cheek description of the Onion, complete with claims that it has a daily readership of 4.3 trillion, and that it supports more than 350,000 full- and part-time journalism jobs in its numerous news bureaus and manual labor camps stationed around the world. The brief also asserts that the publication owns and operates the majority of the worlds transoceanic shipping lanes.

The Onion intends to continue its socially valuable role bringing the disinfectant of sunlight into the halls of power, the brief says. And it would vastly prefer that sunlight not to be measured out to its writers in 15-minute increments in an exercise yard.

The listed authors of the Onion brief are two lawyers from Michigan law firm Miller Johnson: Steve van Stempvoort, chair of the firms appellate practice group, and litigator D. Andrew Portinga.

But Mike Gillis, head writer for the Onion, wrote much of the brief, NPR reports. Gillis told the publication that he wrote most of the arguments and jokes, and then the lawyers added legal precedent and historical context in an extremely collaborative process.

Hat tip to Bloomberg Law, CNN and the Associated Press which had coverage of the brief.

Updated Oct. 5 at 8:45 a.m. to add information on Mike Gillis, the Onion writer who wrote much of the brief.

See the original post here:
Claiming to have 4.3 trillion readers, the Onion supports parodist and its writers' paychecks in SCOTUS brief - ABA Journal

Item 1.01 Entry Into a Material Definitive Agreement

On October 3, 2022, Inhibrx, Inc. (the "Company") and Oxford Finance LLC("Oxford") entered into a sixth amendment (the "Sixth Amendment") to the Loanand Security Agreement between the Company and Oxford, dated as of July 15,2020, as amended by the First Amendment dated November 12, 2020, the SecondAmendment dated December 15, 2020, the Third Amendment dated June 18, 2021, theFourth Amendment dated February 18, 2022, and the Fifth Amendment dated June 15,2022 (collectively, the "Oxford Loan Agreement").

The Sixth Amendment amends and restates the Seventh Draw Period (as originallydefined in the Fourth Amendment) to be the period commencing on the later of (i)June 30, 2022 and (ii) the date of the occurrence of the FDA Announcement Event(as defined in the Sixth Amendment), and ending on the earliest of (i) December31, 2022, (ii) the date that is thirty (30) days immediately after theoccurrence of the FDA Announcement Event and (iii) the occurrence of an Event ofDefault (as defined in the Loan and Security Agreement); provided, however, thatthe Seventh Draw Period shall not commence if on the date of the occurrence ofthe FDA Announcement Event an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing.

Except as noted above, the terms of the Oxford Loan Agreement remain unchanged.

The foregoing description of the Sixth Amendment is qualified in its entirety byreference to the Sixth Amendment attached as Exhibit 10.1 to this Current Reporton Form 8-K and is 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 of this Current Report on Form 8-K isincorporated by reference herein.

Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.

On October 4, 2022, the Company posted an updated copy of its corporate slidepresentation to the "Investors" tab of its website at http://www.inhibrx.com. Theseslides are also attached to this Current Report on Form 8-K as Exhibit 99.1. TheCompany from time to time presents and/or distributes to the investmentcommunity at various industry and other conferences slide presentations toprovide updates and summaries of its business. It undertakes no obligation toupdate, supplement or amend the materials attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.

Item 8.01 Other Events.

On October 4, 2022, the Company issued a press release announcing the potentialto pursue an accelerated approval pathway in the United States for INBRX-101, anoptimized recombinant human AAT-Fc fusion protein, in patients with emphysemadue to alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD). The Company also announced thedetection of INBRX-101 in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) data in allAATD patients tested in its Phase 1 study. The full text of the Company's pressrelease regarding this announcement is filed as Exhibit 99.2 to this CurrentReport on Form 8-K and incorporated herein by reference.

The information in Item 7.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K, includingExhibit 99.1 attached hereto, is intended to be furnished and shall not bedeemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(the "Exchange Act") or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section,nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth byspecific reference in such filing.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

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

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

More:
INHIBRX, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet...

PennLive and two other central Pennsylvania news organizations are asking a federal court to unseal records related to the FBIs seizure of U.S. Rep. Scott Perrys cell phone on Aug. 9.

PennLive is joined by The York Daily Record and The York Dispatch, two other leading news organizations in the 10th U.S. House District, which is represented by Perry. The district covers Dauphin County and parts of York and Cumberland counties.

The FBI took Perrys phone while he was vacationing with his family in New Jersey. The FBI made a copy of the phone and returned it to him the same day.

The seizure is believed to be part of a U.S. Justice Department investigation into alleged efforts by allies of former President Donald Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The Justice Department hasnt publicly stated why Perrys phone was seized.

The news organizations are asking the federal court to unseal documents including the search warrant, the application for the warrant and any judicial records related to the warrant.

Perry has said the seizure of his phone was politically motivated and hes not the target of any investigation. He has sued to prevent the Justice Department from viewing the copied contents of his phone.

The news organizations motion argues theres a powerful public interest in matters that involve potential misconduct by a sitting public official.

It also argues its important for the public to understand government actions and investigations that impact important constitutional rights such as the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Perry is a close ally of Trump and was a major purveyor of false claims of significant fraud in the 2020 presidential election. The special U.S. House committee investigating events leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol alleges Perry was among those who plotted to overturn the election results and enable Trump to stay in power.

Perry is running for a sixth two-year term in the U.S. House. His Democratic opponent is Shamaine Daniels, an immigration lawyer and member of Harrisburg City Council.

The news organizations motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The case number is 1:22-mc-00756-SES.

For information on candidates, campaigns and voters, subscribe to our weekly Elections 2022 newsletter at http://www.pennlive.com/newsletters or text alerts at https://joinsubtext.com/pennliveelection?embed=true.

RELATED COVERAGE FROM PENNLIVE:

Rep. Perry insists seizure of cell phone about abuse of power, not Jan 6 attack on Capitol

Scott Perry sues for return of cell phone data seized in Jan. 6 investigation

See the article here:
PennLive goes to court for records related to U.S. Rep. Scott Perrys cell phone - PennLive

Ms. Dennis brings nearly a decade of experience to the Hardin team

HOUSTON, Oct. 4, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Rusty Hardin & Associates, LLP is pleased to announce that Aisha Dennishas joined the firm as a senior associate. The addition of Ms. Dennis adds strength and depth to the firm's already robust team of skilled litigators.

"Aisha is an awesome lawyer who also happens to be a delightful person," said firm founder Rusty Hardin. "And when it comes to talent, intellect, and experience, she has it all and then some. I know she will be an incredible asset to our team and most importantly, to our clients."

Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Dennis was part of the trial team for the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of Texas. There, she served as lead defense counsel on hundreds of federal cases, securing numerous dismissals and other favorable results for her clients. Ms. Dennis then went on to become a staff attorney for the Fourth Amendment Center of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Ms. Dennis began her legal career as a law clerk to Judge J. Michelle Childs of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and later for Judge James E. Graves, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She obtained her law degree from New York University School of Law, and she has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Government from Harvard University.

"I am so excited to be able to work with this amazing team and to be able to learn from a legend like Rusty," said Ms. Dennis. "I look forward to working hard for our clients and using my experience and everything I know to help move their cases forward."

Rusty Hardin & Associates, LLP has built a solid reputation for taking on the causes of its clients and obtaining favorable results in commercial litigation, white-collar criminal defense, plaintiffs' personal injury, appellate matters, and general civil and criminal litigation. To learn more about the firm's representative matters, visithttps://www.rustyhardin.com/.

Media Contact:April Arias[emailprotected]800-559-4534

SOURCE Rusty Hardin & Associates, LLP

See the article here:
Rusty Hardin & Associates Strengthens Litigation Team with Addition of Attorney Aisha Dennis - PR Newswire

The Vancouver City Council is poised to approve a six-figure settlement agreement Monday with the family of a man who was fatally shot by Vancouver police in 2020.

Three Vancouver police officers fatally shot William Abbe, 50, while responding to an April 28, 2020, assault at Northeast Fourth Plain Boulevard and Stapleton Road.

A review of the shooting by the Thurston County Prosecuting Attorneys Office deemed the shooting was lawful and justified.

Abbes daughter, Kara Brandon, filed a federal lawsuit Oct. 26, 2021, in U.S. District Court in Tacoma against the city of Vancouver and Vancouver police Sgt. Jay Alie and Officers Sean Suarez and Sammy Abdala.

The lawsuit alleged wrongful death, negligence, assault and battery, excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and a 14th Amendment due process violation. The complaint also alleged the officers were acting in accordance with the Vancouver Police Departments policies when they violated Abbes civil rights, and it accused the department of an invalid investigation. Court records show the claim under the 14th Amendment was later dismissed.

Brandon had previously filed a tort claim with the city demanding $5 million, according to a staff report for the city council. After a Sept. 13 mediation session, the City Managers Office, Brandon and her attorney agreed to a settlement of $725,000, pending city council approval Monday, the report states.

The settlement does not concede any wrongdoing by the involved officers or the department, the report states. However, both the city and Ms. Brandon agreed that juries can reach different conclusions based on the same evidence.

Brandons attorney, Angus Lee, said the parties also agreed to a joint statement that he said would be the only comment to media.

A human life was lost, and everyone involved in this case on both sides recognizes the significance of that loss, the statement reads. Every human life is important and has dignity. Both parties agree that settlement is in the best interest of all involved.

Read the rest here:
Vancouver City Council asked to OK $725000 deal with family of man killed by police - The Columbian

The government plans to auction 22 mineral blocks in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Goa in November and December.

The mines to be auctioned include six iron ore blocks, three blocks each of limestone and gold, two blocks of bauxite, one block each of copper, phosphorite and glauconite, according to the mines ministry.

The notice inviting tenders for the blocks were floated in September.

While the mines in Maharashtra will be auctioned next month, those in Uttar Pradesh and Goa will be put on sale in December.

So far, more than 180 mineral blocks have been put on sale since the system of auctioning of mineral blocks began. The government started the process of allocating mineral blocks through auctions in 2015-16.

The ministry has expressed hopes of auctioning 500 mines by the end of 2024.

The Centre is aiming to increase the mining sector's contribution to the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 5 per cent from 2.5 per cent at present.

The ministry has also notified the Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents) Second Amendment Rules, 2021, and the Mineral (Auction) Fourth Amendment Rules, 2021.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Follow this link:
Govt plans to auction 22 mineral blocks in 3 states within next two months - Business Standard

The defendant accused two officers of slamming him face-first into pavement, injuring his face, without telling him he was under arrest.

FORT WORTH, Texas Two Fort Worth police officers are being sued on multiple counts after their accuser stated they violated his Fourth Amendment rights, violently slamming him to the ground face-first causing multiple injuries.

The plaintiff, Cesar Salinas, is suing Fort Worth officers Steve Loud and Teresa Torres. The charges against the two officers include using excessive and unreasonable force, a Fourth Amendment violation, when they slammed Salinas into the ground when he was not resisting them, and had not been told if he was being detained or for what reason.

Officers first made contact with Salinas the night of Sept. 20, 2020, while they were investigating a complaint from a woman that she was groped by an unknown Hispanic man outside a bar, the suit details.

The suit states the woman never identified Salinas as the person who grabbed her and the charges were later dismissed.

At no point during the altercation did officers tell Salinas he was under arrest or being detained, the suit details. After handing police his ID card and calling his friend over the phone, Salinas was walked over to a police car without being told why.

From there, Salinas told officers he would stand there and wait. After asking Loud why he needed to walk to the car, the suit adds, Loud told him he would explain why when they got there, but he still had not been told why police were talking with him.

While talking on the phone with his friend, Torres reportedly told him "I'm taking over" and tried to grab Salinas' phone without warning or explanation. Body cam footage shows Salinas' arm being pulled back and the phone being pulled from his ear by Torres.

Without giving Salinas any further commands or just asking him to hand over the phone, Torres swung Salinas to his right and then slammed him into the ground face-first against the pavement, causing him to bleed heavily.

Salinas was slammed so hard that his hat flew off and a green pocket knife, closed, flew out of his pocked onto the ground, which Torres later falsely reported seeing in his hand even though it had been in his pocket the whole time. Body cam footage shows Salinas had been holding only his cell phone and a pink e-cigarette before being slammed to the ground.

Salinas suffered multiple injuries from being slammed on the ground, including a cut on his lip, a contusion to his left cheek, a knot above his left eyebrow and swelling on his head, the lawsuit stated.

The plaintiff, Salinas, is asking for punitive damages due to the officers violating his Constitutional rights

"Plaintiff is entitled to recover all actual damages allowed by law. Plaintiff contends said Defendants conduct constitutes malice, evil intent, or reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs legally protected rights. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendant Torres and Defendant Loud."

Originally posted here:
Fort Worth officers sued after being accused of violating rights - WFAA.com

NPR reported in August that a Cleveland State University student won a lawsuit after suing his college for asking him to take a video of his surroundings before an online proctored exam.

He said he felt his Fourth Amendment rights protecting U.S. citizens against "unreasonable searches and seizures were violated, according to the article.

As conversation sparked around the country, LSU professors and students weighed in on their thoughts about online proctoring.

David OBrien, director of Testing and Evaluation Services at LSU, said this court ruling could possibly put students at more of a disadvantage than professors as physically monitoring tests can be more expensive and time-consuming than remotely monitoring a test.

If the ruling in Cleveland began to make a bigger impact throughout the nation, making universities no longer allowed to offer online, proctored tests, the availability and cost of online learning could be affected.

OBrien said there is always a balance between providing a secure testing environment and an invasion of privacy for students. He said room scans are enforced to help ensure room security for the student testing in the room.

There would need to be an alternative in cases where the student is unwilling to have the room scanned, OBrien said.

Another way to proctor tests, OBrien said, is the LSU Testing Center, a secure testing location where students could be tested online and monitored in person.

He suggested that universities like LSU should provide testing rooms in libraries or quiet areas. A student could take their online proctored test in this room and deal with no privacy issues.

He also said the ruling could affect the potential for students to cheat on exams, as they might still take the tests online, and they would no longer be proctored.

OBrien said cheating on exams could create an unfair academic environment, lowering the value of grades received and degrees earned. He said it gives no more value to cheat your way to a degree than to simply print out a degree on a piece of paper.

Students who cheat are in fact cheating themselves and their fellow students of the quality of the degree they earn, OBrien said.

Charles Cloutier, operations coordinator of the Department of World Languages, Literatures and Cultures at LSU, said he agrees with the judge's ruling that individuals have a right to privacy in their own homes. He said that the proctoring company had gone too far in storing data in that students room.

I find it very unreasonable for students to have to show their entire room for a single test, Cloutier said.

Cloutier suggested that the best solution for proctoring online exams is being proctored by another person over Zoom. The student would share their screen with the proctor, and the proctor could assess whether the student was using unapproved materials during the exam as well as look for signs of cheating and dishonesty.

He also said that in the future, students and professors could think about completing exams via virtual reality. The student would be unable to use their notes with a headset covering their eyes.

I believe with VR, higher education would be able to control the test-taking environment to a higher degree, Cloutier said.

In terms of cheating, Cloutier said that although the inability to control the testing environment could lead to individuals cheating on exams, students will always find a way to cheat.

We really should not be policing students, but rather trying to instill a sense of integrity in them, Cloutier said.

Stacia Haynie, a political science professor at LSU, said she believes colleges will adapt just like they did during the COVID-19 pandemic. She said universities could require students to still utilize software at local libraries if they were uncomfortable in their own homes.

She also said universities could require students to agree to online monitoring when they schedule the course.

If you are aware of the requirement, you are waiving the expectation of privacy, Haynie said.

In terms of cheating, Haynie said professors learn strategies to limit it, and students learn strategies to increase it.

Biochemistry freshman Antonio Zavala said that while he agrees with the court ruling, he understands this was during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when testing in person was not always feasible. The student had no say in whether he tested at home or in a monitored area.

Zavala said that the court ruling over this matter puts students and the education system in a sticky situation as students might start having less of an option to test outside of campus.

It can be assumed that a larger amount of students will cheat until a superior method of proctoring is discovered, Zavala said.

Zavala said that he hopes software with advanced face recognition systems could be the key to preventing students from cheating while also abiding by the Fourth Amendment. He said that regardless, he believes the education system will find ways to adapt.

Continued here:
LSU professors, students weigh in on constitutionality of room scans for online exams - The Reveille, LSU's student newspaper

Could constitutional rights be a contributing factor in Americas ideological divisions?

Thats the argument made by Jamal Greene, author of How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights Is Tearing America Apart. Courts have reduced complex discussions about rights into zero-sum conflicts where a constitutional right overrides all other interests, writes the Columbia Law School professor and former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens.

Courts have reduced complex discussions about constitutional rights into zero-sum conflicts, says Professor Jamal Greene. He and other constitutional scholars worked on a project that demonstrated people who disagree on a lot can still cooperate on updating Americas founding document.

More recently, he has been involved inthe Constitution Drafting Project. Organized by the National Constitution Center, the venture grouped constitutional scholars into ideological teams liberal, libertarian, and conservative and tasked them with drafting their ideal constitutions.

Of the project, Professor Greene says, the biggest take-home from the process is that quite a number of people across ideology actually can agree that there are aspects of the Constitution that are in need of revision, and about which revisions would be useful and helpful. He adds, It was an object lesson in negotiation, that people from different starting points can get together around something if theyre willing to be open-minded and engage with the arguments and objections made by others.

Could constitutional rights be a contributing factor in Americas ideological divisions?

Thats the argument made by Jamal Greene, author of How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights Is Tearing America Apart. Courts have reduced complex discussions about rights into zero-sum conflicts where a constitutional right overrides all other interests, writes the Columbia Law School professor and former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens.

More recently, he has been involved inthe Constitution Drafting Project. Organized by the National Constitution Center, the venture grouped constitutional scholars into ideological teams and tasked them with drafting their ideal constitutions.

Courts have reduced complex discussions about constitutional rights into zero-sum conflicts, says Professor Jamal Greene. He and other constitutional scholars worked on a project that demonstrated people who disagree on a lot can still cooperate on updating Americas founding document.

Professor Greene spoke with the Monitor about the project, as well as how America can move beyond the current climate of despair and divisiveness toward cooperation. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Could you explain what the Constitution Drafting Project is and why you wanted to be a part of it?

So this is an initiative of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia that is trying to bring together people who come from different ideological orientations, to see if they can come up with some sensible revisions to the Constitution. The way it was structured was to set up three teams, each with a different ideological orientation a progressive team, a libertarian team, and a conservative team [Professor Greene was part of the progressive team] have them work independently to draft their own constitutions, and then see where they agree and where they disagree. That was kind of the first phase of the project. And I dont know if this was intended from the start, or whether it arose out of the first phase, but the next phase was to have the teams get together and see if they can actually hammer out language in relation to the provisions or the potential amendments that they actually agree about. So thats what weve done. There was a kind of mock constitutional convention in which we got together via Zoom and tried to work out actual constitutional language that all three of these teams could actually agree on.

What have you learned throughout that process?

I think the biggest take-home from the process is that quite a number of people across ideology actually can agree that there are aspects of the Constitution that are in need of revision, and about which revisions would be useful and helpful. We actually agreed on five amendments, some of which would be significant. There was disagreement about the language and exactly around the margins, and people had to make compromises. But it was an object lesson in negotiation, that people from different starting points can get together around something if theyre willing to be open-minded and engage with the arguments and objections made by others.

Can you give more details on that? What were you able to agree on?

One [amendment] would remove the limitation on a president to be a natural-born citizen. Everyone agreed that naturalized citizens should be able to be president, at least if they have lived in the country for a certain length of time. There was a second amendment relating to and this gets a little bit inside baseball, but its quite important whats called a legislative veto, which enables the legislature to override an agency regulation without necessarily getting the approval of the president. A third amendment had to do with impeachment. We all agreed to lower the threshold for Senate conviction, but raise the threshold for House impeachment, so that they would both be three-fifths. [Under] the current Constitution the House can impeach with a simple majority, and the Senate requires two-thirds to convict, so we made both of those numbers three-fifths.

Jason Berger/Courtesy of Harper Collins

Jamal Greene is a professor at Columbia Law School and author of How Rights Went Wrong." He participated in the Constitution Drafting Project, which brought together scholars with different ideologies to propose revisions to the U.S. Constitution. Professor Greene says, "it was an object lesson in negotiation, that people from different starting points can get together around something if theyre willing to be open-minded and engage with the arguments and objections made by others."

A fourth amendment basically imposes 18-year term limits on the Supreme Court, and [a] regularized appointment process so that there are two justices appointed for every presidential term. And then a final amendment that would change Article 5 itself, and change the actual amendment procedure in the Constitution. Right now it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses and three-quarters of the state legislatures. We changed that to a three-fifths vote in both houses and two-thirds of the states and also an additional possibility of either two-thirds of the states, or states representing three-quarters of the population.

Why did you want to be part of this, and devote time to this? What do you think is the broader significance?

Well, I really do think that the Constitution, which is a very old document [it] was written for a very different society than what we have today is in need of significant revision. And I also think that if we are going to revise the document, it needs to be in a way that takes into account the views and commitments of a broad range of people. And its also important to show that its possible for people who have different views and attitudes and commitments to compromise, to negotiate, and not just yell at each other on social media or cable news. I think this is a good kind of object lesson in how one can actually come to agreement on things that we all can believe in, even if we start from different points. The country could use more examples of people coming to engage in what I think of as genuine politics, which are figuring out how to move forward even though you come from different starting places.

You talk about the current state of our politics. Is that related to our Constitution, and in particular how its interpreted right now?

They are related in the sense that one of the basic premises of the book is that we are a very pluralistic, diverse people, and the only way for a pluralistic, diverse people to move forward together as a single society is if they dont understand themselves to have absolute entitlements against each other that conflict with each other, that they really do need to engage in political conversation. Im trying to live that by getting together with people I disagree [with] about lots of things. Thats no reason not to try to come together around the things that we can agree on, and also, again, to compromise.

In reality our Constitution is famously difficult to change. You write about how the problem of the 21st century is the problem of the rights line. Can you give an example of rights conflicting, and what thats meant for our politics and our country?

There are lots of examples of it. Abortion rights is a clear example, where there are entrenched sides, both of which understand themselves to be vindicating constitutional rights. Gun rights [and] affirmative action also in a lot of ways take these forms. Lots of conflicts over freedom of speech, between the freedom of the listener or the freedom of the speaker. And we tend to view those conflicts as if the job of the legal decision-maker is to choose one of those rights or the other when they come into conflict, as opposed to trying to mediate between them. And thats a big part of what the book is about, is some strategies for mediating between rights.

As to how realistic the project is, as an academic, one engages in lots of projects that dont have an immediate payoff, so in some ways this seems more realistic than some of the things that academics typically do. But Im not so sure that theres no practical possibility. It is incredibly difficult to amend the Constitution, but we also have a kind of despair about constitutional amendment, as if theres just nothing we could possibly agree to. And this project shows that thats not true. There are things that people could possibly agree to, and just developing some momentum toward that end I think is a productive thing to do.

What do you see as the stakes? The momentum that we have right now, that youre trying to change, where do you see that heading? Why do you think we need a correction?

I think among the stakes is self-government itself. Governing oneself according to a 200-plus-year-old document that we cant change means that we, in fact, are not governing ourselves. And so invigorating the idea that we actually have some agency in trying to decide what constitutional rules apply to our society is as important as anything in constitutional law. Im just one person, but it seems to me that among the things that a single person can do to try to get at that problem, showing that it actually can be done, and then actually going out and doing it and trying to defend it, is among the more productive things one can do in the face of very steep odds. Whether we think of the Constitution as something that we have any power to change, it is the very stakes of self-governance, and I take those very seriously.

Read this article:
Solution for ideological division: Revising the Constitution? - The Christian Science Monitor

By Callie Ferguson, Bangor Daily News StaffA former teen who was incarcerated at two Maine youth prisons has sued the Maine Department of Corrections, claiming staff repeatedly used excessive force against him and placed him in solitary confinement for behavior related to his disabilities.He also claims a female guard sexually assaulted him over months in her custody when he was still a minor, but the department failed to properly investigate the abuse when he came forward after his release.

By Callie Ferguson, Bangor Daily News Staff

A former teen who was incarcerated at two Maine youth prisons has sued the Maine Department of Corrections, claiming staff repeatedly used excessive force against him and placed him in solitary confinement for behavior related to his disabilities.

He also claims a female guard sexually assaulted him over months in her custody when he was still a minor, but the department failed to properly investigate the abuse when he came forward after his release.

The alleged events took place between 2012 and 2017 while Alexander Mascal, now 24, was imprisoned at the now-shuttered Mountain View Correctional Facility in Charleston and, later, Long Creek Youth Development Center in South Portland, according to a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday.

Mascal alleged that his treatment by staff violated his Eighth and Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, as well as his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint names multiple Department of Corrections officials and guards, known as juvenile program workers, as defendants.

The allegations are not the first of their kind to be leveled against Maines juvenile justice system, which has long faced criticism for failing to meet the complicated needs of kids in its care and doing further harm instead.

Mascals experience illustrates how the state failed its obligations to him under the juvenile code, which, unlike the adult system, is supposed to be rehabilitative in nature, his lawyers argued. Instead, he encountered repeated forms of violence and abuse.

From the moment the doors of Mountain View closed behind him, Alexander found himself trapped in a veritable black box, defenseless to abuse and neglect at the hands of facility staff, his lawyers, Thomas Hallett and Grainne Dunne, wrote in the complaint. When he cried out for help, the system worked in concert to further criminalize him, ensuring he would spend the remainder of his childhood and much of his young adult life behind bars.

A spokesperson for the Maine Department of Corrections did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mascal spent time incarcerated at Mountain View and Long Creek until April 2016, following a difficult and unstable home life. By the time he was locked up at age 14, Mascal had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiance disorder, a mood disorder and had a history of psychiatric hospitalizations.

His mental health struggles caused him to act out behind bars, he wrote. But instead of treating his symptoms, staff placed him in isolation in the prisons special management unit, causing stress that made it harder to control his behavior and his mental health to deteriorate further, according to his complaint. Maine has rules about when, and for how long, kids in custody can be placed in isolation, and they are not allowed to be isolated as a form of punishment. Mascal alleges that he was subjected to isolation against those rules, and often as a form of punishment.

Staff also responded to his behavior with excessive physical force, such as throwing him against walls and to the ground, kicking and punching him, and using a spit mask to cover his face, according to the complaint, which includes photos of an altercation that was caught on camera.

Most commonly, these physical assaults were precipitated by minor infractions or in response to Alexander experiencing mental health symptoms, his complaint states.

Staff should have instead accommodated Mascals known disabilities by enlisting the help of a mental health clinician to appropriately respond to any of Alexanders outburst or self-harming behavior and use de-escalation methods to resolve any direct confrontations, his lawyers wrote.

During his time behind bars, correctional staff referred Mascal for at least 20 additional criminal charges based on his behavior behind bars, often for assaulting guards but not always. In 2014, he threatened to kill himself while confined to an isolation cell and made a noose out of his bed sheet. He was later charged with making a false public report and criminal mischief, the complaint states.

After he was charged for assaulting a guard at Mountain View, Mascal was transferred to Long Creek in the spring of 2014. A few months later, in October, he alleged that then-Juvenile Program Worker Elia Atkinson entered his cell one night and sexually assaulted him. People in custody cannot legally give consent.

The two had 10 more sexual encounters over a 14-month period until Mascal left Long Creek because he was transferred to the Cumberland County Jail, the complaint states. When he was released from jail in February 2017, the two began openly dating. Mascal had just turned 19, and Atkinson was 37, according to the complaint.

Atkinson had left her job at Long Creek by December 2017, when Mascal began to recognize the abusive and coercive nature of their relationship, the complaint states. He contacted his former case worker and reported the sexual relationship had started while he was incarcerated at Long Creek.

When he was interviewed by a prison investigator three weeks later, he also reported that Atkinson allegedly provided him with alcohol and Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder.

Mascal claims in his lawsuit that officials failed to properly investigate his complaint and covered up the allegations.

After being interviewed, he did not hear from the investigator, Joseph Fagone, again.

Mascal later requested paperwork from the Department of Corrections related to its investigation and received a one-page document that did not mention Atkinson as the alleged perpetrator but instead named another person Mascal said he had never met, according to the complaint.

Mascal later learned that the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, which oversees the certifications of police and correctional officers, had revoked Atkinsons certification for furnishing alcohol to a minor in 2018. The paperwork did not mention a sexual assault.

More here:
Lawsuit says teen was thrown in solitary confinement and abused inside Maine's youth prisons - observer-me.com