courthousenews--2020-12-10--Washington Post Asks Judge to Toss Trump’s Libel Suit

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — An attorney for the Washington Post pushed a federal judge Thursday to toss a libel suit in which President Donald Trump ’ s campaign says two of the outlet ’ s opinion articles falsely imply Trump solicited foreign election interference .
Opinion writers are allowed to make “ rhetorical flourishes ” under the First Amendment , said attorney Kevin Baine of the firm Williams & Connolly at a virtual hearing before the D.C. federal court , noting that both articles were also clearly labeled as “ opinion ” pieces .
The Trump campaign ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the Post ’ s corresponding motion to dismiss in July .
The case centers around two 2019 Washington Post opinion articles that Trump campaign attorney Charles Harder maintained both contain defamatory statements .
Written by Post political blogger Greg Sargent and opinion writer Paul Waldman , both of whom are considered left-leaning , the pieces mischaracterized Trump as a solicitor of foreign election interference , Harder said .
The campaign blasted Sargent ’ s article for saying that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had concluded in his report that the campaign had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to coordinate a “ sweeping and systematic ” attack of the 2016 United States presidential election .
“ That is a statement that is not supported by the Mueller report , ” Harder said Thursday .
The Mueller report stated verbatim it “ did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
” Baine noted that Sargent hyperlinked to his source , providing a 21st-century footnote .
“ Anybody who ’ s wondering about that statement can click on the link @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the basis of this conclusion , ” he said .
The attorney held that the writer ’ s opinion was legally protected free speech .
“ Interpreting another report is protected as long as you disclose the underlying facts , ” Baine continued .
He said that the blogger was interpreting the report , as one would expect a political writer to do .
Harder said the provision did not apply here .
“ Fair report privilege has to be a fair and accurate description of the report , ” said Harder of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further maintained that the statement was not an opinion statement but “ a statement of fact because the writer is saying that it was Mueller ’ s conclusion.
” Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson , a Barack Obama appointee , paused to question why this statement was harmful to the plaintiff .
“ If the Mueller report said ‘ the sky is blue ’ and Mr. Sargent , reading that report , said ‘ the sky is red ’ — isn ’ t Mueller the one that has been harmed in this sense ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said to Harder , who maintained that Trump ’ s campaign had been harmed .
The judge further asked to what extent the article was “ actually harmful when the statement at issue is a characterization of a widely-publicized , well-established report.
” Harder responded Thursday that Sargent ’ s words would be taken as fact by readers , who would be unlikely to read the 448-page report for themselves .
The second piece , Waldman ’ s article , the campaign said , defamed it with a statement referencing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stephanopoulos , in which the president said he would accept information about his 2020 rivals from foreign governments or hand it to the FBI .
In the interview , Trump said : “ I think you might want to listen , there isn ’ t anything wrong with listening .
If somebody called from a country , Norway , [ and said ] ‘ we have information on your opponent ’ — oh , I think I ’ d want to hear it.
” “ Who knows what sort of aid Russia and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , now that [ the President ] has invited them to offer their assistance ?
” Waldman wrote on the topic .
Harder said Waldman ’ s sentence was defamatory because “ it ’ s essentially saying Russia and North Korea will give the Trump campaign aid , who knows what kind of aid it will be.
” “ The president did not invite Russia or North Korea to give evidence to his campaign , there ’ s no evidence whatsoever that this occurred , ” Harder said , maintaining that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either of them , which prompted a response from Jackson .
“ Correct , but the statement is not referencing the past , ” she said , explaining the verbiage of the sentence .
Baine made the same point in his arguments .
“ The main point is that it is not provably true or false .
It is speculative about the future , ” he said .
The Post attorney maintained that a political commentator does not have to punctuate his sentences with phrases like “ in my opinion , ” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ it is my judgment that.
” “ It would be a severe restriction on public debate if a columnist , a commentator on television , anybody in conversation , who was trying to say what they think… had to preface it by saying , ‘ Now bear in mind , this is my interpretation , this is my opinion , ’ ” Baine said .
Judge Jackson did not note when she intended to rule .

An attorney for the Washington Post pushed a federal judge Thursday to toss a libel suit in which President Donald Trump’s campaign says two of the outlet’s opinion articles falsely imply Trump solicited foreign election interference.
WASHINGTON (CN) — An attorney for the Washington Post pushed a federal judge Thursday to toss a libel suit in which President Donald Trump’s campaign says two of the outlet’s opinion articles falsely imply Trump solicited foreign election interference.
Opinion writers are allowed to make “rhetorical flourishes” under the First Amendment, said attorney Kevin Baine of the firm Williams & Connolly at a virtual hearing before the D.C. federal court, noting that both articles were also clearly labeled as “opinion” pieces.
The Trump campaign’s eight-page libel lawsuit was filed in March, and the Post’s corresponding motion to dismiss in July. The case centers around two 2019 Washington Post opinion articles that Trump campaign attorney Charles Harder maintained both contain defamatory statements.
Written by Post political blogger Greg Sargent and opinion writer Paul Waldman, both of whom are considered left-leaning, the pieces mischaracterized Trump as a solicitor of foreign election interference, Harder said.
The campaign blasted Sargent’s article for saying that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had concluded in his report that the campaign had “tried to conspire with” Russia to coordinate a “sweeping and systematic” attack of the 2016 United States presidential election.
“That is a statement that is not supported by the Mueller report,” Harder said Thursday.
The Mueller report stated verbatim it “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Baine noted that Sargent hyperlinked to his source, providing a 21st-century footnote.
“Anybody who’s wondering about that statement can click on the link and see exactly what it was for the basis of this conclusion,” he said.
The attorney held that the writer’s opinion was legally protected free speech.
“Interpreting another report is protected as long as you disclose the underlying facts,” Baine continued. He said that the blogger was interpreting the report, as one would expect a political writer to do.
Harder said the provision did not apply here.
“Fair report privilege has to be a fair and accurate description of the report,” said Harder of the blogger’s writings. He further maintained that the statement was not an opinion statement but “a statement of fact because the writer is saying that it was Mueller’s conclusion.”
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Barack Obama appointee, paused to question why this statement was harmful to the plaintiff.
“If the Mueller report said ‘the sky is blue’ and Mr. Sargent, reading that report, said ‘the sky is red’ — isn’t Mueller the one that has been harmed in this sense? His statements are the ones being mischaracterized,” she said to Harder, who maintained that Trump’s campaign had been harmed.
The judge further asked to what extent the article was “actually harmful when the statement at issue is a characterization of a widely-publicized, well-established report.”
Harder responded Thursday that Sargent’s words would be taken as fact by readers, who would be unlikely to read the 448-page report for themselves.
The second piece, Waldman’s article, the campaign said, defamed it with a statement referencing an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, in which the president said he would accept information about his 2020 rivals from foreign governments or hand it to the FBI.
In the interview, Trump said: "I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' — oh, I think I'd want to hear it."
“Who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign, now that [the President] has invited them to offer their assistance?” Waldman wrote on the topic.
Harder said Waldman’s sentence was defamatory because “it’s essentially saying Russia and North Korea will give the Trump campaign aid, who knows what kind of aid it will be.”
“The president did not invite Russia or North Korea to give evidence to his campaign, there’s no evidence whatsoever that this occurred,” Harder said, maintaining that the Trump campaign ultimately never received aid from either of them, which prompted a response from Jackson.
“Correct, but the statement is not referencing the past,” she said, explaining the verbiage of the sentence.
Baine made the same point in his arguments.
“The main point is that it is not provably true or false. It is speculative about the future,” he said. The Post attorney maintained that a political commentator does not have to punctuate his sentences with phrases like “in my opinion,” “as I see it,” or “it is my judgment that.”
“It would be a severe restriction on public debate if a columnist, a commentator on television, anybody in conversation, who was trying to say what they think… had to preface it by saying, ‘Now bear in mind, this is my interpretation, this is my opinion,’” Baine said.
Judge Jackson did not note when she intended to rule.


Top Eight

Your Thursday night briefing from the staff of Courthouse News Top eight stories for today including Prime Minister Boris Johnson warned Brits to prepare for the “ strong possibility ” that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a trade deal ; A committee of FDA advisers voted to recommend Pfizer ’ s Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use nationwide ; A new survey shows the controversy over so-called designer babies becomes less pronounced when the same tools are used to fight disease or infertility , and more .
Sign up for the CNS Top Eight , a roundup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday .
1 . )
A committee of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration voted Thursday to recommend Pfizer ’ s Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use nationwide to fight the pandemic that has killed nearly 300,000 Americans since March .
2 . )
A pastor who calls himself a “ former homosexual ” appeared unlikely Thursday to win a second chance at suing the website Vimeo for removing his posts about conversion therapy .
3 . )
The Supreme Court was mostly unanimous Thursday in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s system of keeping the state ’ s judicial seats split between the nation ’ s two major political parties .
4 . )
Despite the glimmer of hope offered by the impending arrival of a vaccine , Ohio ’ s Covid-19 infection and death numbers continue to escalate after the Thanksgiving holiday , with more than 10,000 new cases reported on Wednesday alone .
5 . )
The burdens presented by Wisconsin ’ s abortion laws were balanced against national precedent governing abortion access in federal court on Thursday as a bench @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the laws came to a close .
6 . )
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Thursday warned Brits to prepare for the “ strong possibility ” that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a trade deal at the end of the year , an outcome likely to cause major disruptions and chaos .
7 . )
Studying the appetite for gene editing around the world , Pew reported Thursday that the controversy over so-called designer babies becomes less pronounced when the same tools are used to fight disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Irish women who say an outdated and controversial surgical procedure was performed on them without their consent during childbirth lost their legal battle before Europe ’ s top rights court Thursday .

Top eight stories for today including Prime Minister Boris Johnson warned Brits to prepare for the “strong possibility” that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a trade deal; A committee of FDA advisers voted to recommend Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use nationwide; A new survey shows the controversy over so-called designer babies becomes less pronounced when the same tools are used to fight disease or infertility, and more.
Your Thursday night briefing from the staff of Courthouse News
Top eight stories for today including Prime Minister Boris Johnson warned Brits to prepare for the “strong possibility” that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a trade deal; A committee of FDA advisers voted to recommend Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use nationwide; A new survey shows the controversy over so-called designer babies becomes less pronounced when the same tools are used to fight disease or infertility, and more.
Sign up for the CNS Top Eight, a roundup of the day’s top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.
National
1.) A committee of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration voted Thursday to recommend Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use nationwide to fight the pandemic that has killed nearly 300,000 Americans since March.
A pharmacist labels syringes in a clean room where doses of COVID-19 vaccines will be handled, Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2020, at Mount Sinai Queens hospital in New York. The hospital expects to receive doses once a vaccine gets the emergency green light by U.S. regulators. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)
2.) A pastor who calls himself a “former homosexual” appeared unlikely Thursday to win a second chance at suing the website Vimeo for removing his posts about conversion therapy.
(Image via Courthouse News)
3.) The Supreme Court was mostly unanimous Thursday in throwing out a challenge to Delaware’s system of keeping the state’s judicial seats split between the nation’s two major political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court. (Jack Rodgers/Courthouse News)
Regional
4.) Despite the glimmer of hope offered by the impending arrival of a vaccine, Ohio’s Covid-19 infection and death numbers continue to escalate after the Thanksgiving holiday, with more than 10,000 new cases reported on Wednesday alone.
Shoppers leave Walmart around 5:30 a.m. on Friday November 27, 2020, morning in Ashtabula Township, Ohio. John Kirk, pushing cart, and Diane Simms, second from right, decided to try the Black Friday experience but many shoppers sat out the traditional start to the holiday shopping season. (Warren Dillaway/The Star-Beacon via AP)
5.) The burdens presented by Wisconsin’s abortion laws were balanced against national precedent governing abortion access in federal court on Thursday as a bench trial for Planned Parenthood’s challenge to the laws came to a close.
Attorneys and U.S. District Judge William Conley are seen during closing arguments in a remote bench trial over Wisconsin abortion access on Thursday, Dec. 10, 2020.
International
6.) British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Thursday warned Brits to prepare for the “strong possibility” that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a trade deal at the end of the year, an outcome likely to cause major disruptions and chaos.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson stands next to a Union flag prior to a meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at EU headquarters in Brussels, Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2020. Leaders of Britain and the EU meet Wednesday for a dinner that could pave the way to a post-Brexit trade deal, or tip the two sides toward a chaotic economic rupture at the end of the month. (Olivier Hoslet, Pool via AP)
7.) Studying the appetite for gene editing around the world, Pew reported Thursday that the controversy over so-called designer babies becomes less pronounced when the same tools are used to fight disease or infertility.
Zhou Xiaoqin installs a fine glass pipette into a sperm injection microscope in preparation for injecting embryos with Cas9 protein and PCSK9 sgRNA at a lab in Shenzhen in southern China's Guandong province on Oct. 9, 2018. China has unveiled draft regulations on gene-editing and other new biomedical technologies it considers to be "high-risk." The measures follow claims in November 2018 by Chinese scientist He Jiankui that he helped make the world's first genetically-edited babies. That roiled the global science community and elicited widespread outcry over the procedure's ethical implications. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)
8.) Three Irish women who say an outdated and controversial surgical procedure was performed on them without their consent during childbirth lost their legal battle before Europe’s top rights court Thursday.


courthousenews--2020-12-10--Fourth Circuit Hears Free Speech Case Centered on Racial Slur

( CN ) — A Fourth Circuit panel heard arguments Thursday over whether a former Air Force officer ’ s use of a racial slur toward a Black store clerk fell within the “ fighting words ” exception to free speech protection .
Lieutenant Colonel Jules Bartow was convicted under Virginia ’ s abusive language statute for posing a series of rhetorical questions that included a racial slur to a sales associate at the Marine Corps Exchange store in Quantico .
His counsel on Thursday pressed a three-judge-panel of the Richmond-based appeals court to overturn a federal judge ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year after a bench trial .
The lower court judge held that Bartow ’ s speech was not protected under the First Amendment because he had used “ fighting words.
” “ The presence of the n-word is what makes this case complicated , ” U.S .
Circuit Judge Stephanie Thacker said during Thursday ’ s virtual hearing .
The Barack Obama appointee added that the key question in the case is “ whether the n-word was specifically directed at an individual in circumstances where violence could result and is likely to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she had a heated exchange with Bartow , who was trying on boots , after she greeted him by saying “ good morning.
” “ If I had constipation , diarrhea , or a headache , would you still say good morning to me ?
” Bartow responded , according to court records .
When the clerk asked , “ Can I help you , sir ?
” Bartow retorted , “ I am not a male , I am not a female .
If I had a vagina , would you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testified that another customer , a Black man in civilian clothing , stepped in to intervene .
Bartow then asked the other customer , “ If I called her a nigger , would she still say good morning ?
” This comment prompted Johnson-Felder to call security to escort Bartow out of the building , and eventually led to Bartow ’ s conviction .
Bartow ’ s attorney Rick Redmond with the Washington firm Cleary Gottlieb told the Fourth Circuit panel Thursday that his client ’ s “ mode of expression was rhetorical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not ‘ fighting words.
’ ” “ Punishing his rhetorical speech because he used an offensive word while posing rhetorical questions is an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction on his speech and does not fall within the limited ‘ fighting words ’ exception , ” Redmond said .
“ Like a self-styled , modern-day Socrates , he sought to challenge generally accepted norms through a series of rhetorical questions.
” U.S .
Circuit Judge Marvin Quattlebaum , a Donald Trump appointee , noted that the attorney had described his client “ very generously , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ categorize all this as merely rhetorical questions by a ‘ modern-day Socrates.
’ Is it the case then that as long as you frame whatever you ’ re saying in the form of a question , it can never amount to fighting words ?
” she asked Redmond .
He argued that his client ’ s statements did not include fighting words because his intent was not to insult , but to make a point .
“ There ’ s no question that the n-word was offensive in that context .
Even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intend for it to be understood offensively , his intent was in conveying how offensive he found the word ‘ sir ’ to be , ” Redmond said .
When Quattlebaum asked what would constitute fighting words in his view , the attorney responded by clarifying that this is not a facial challenge to the statute as limited by the 1973 Virginia Supreme Court case Mercer v. Winston .
That case , Redmond said , held that the state ’ s abusive language law is limited to words that have “ the direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a person to whom , individually , the remark has been addressed.
” He pointed to the landmark 1971 Supreme Court case Cohen v. California case , in which the justices found that a young man had been wrongly charged under a similar state law related to fighting words for wearing a jacket decorated with the words , “ Fuck the Draft .
Stop the War.
” Arguing on behalf of the government Thursday , Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Young told the judges that Bartow ’ s conviction should stand .
“ To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used a racial slur laden with historical invective as the final thrust in a vulgar and heated confrontation , ” he said .
Responding to questions from U.S .
Circuit Judge Diana Motz , a Bill Clinton appointee , Young said a single use of the racial slur alone does not necessarily constitute fighting words , but argued Bartow crossed the line into unprotected territory in light of all of the circumstances of the interaction .
The judges did not indicate when they would issue a ruling .

A Fourth Circuit panel heard arguments Thursday over whether a former Air Force officer’s use of a racial slur toward a Black store clerk fell within the “fighting words” exception to free speech protection.
(CN) — A Fourth Circuit panel heard arguments Thursday over whether a former Air Force officer's use of a racial slur toward a Black store clerk fell within the “fighting words” exception to free speech protection.
Lieutenant Colonel Jules Bartow was convicted under Virginia’s abusive language statute for posing a series of rhetorical questions that included a racial slur to a sales associate at the Marine Corps Exchange store in Quantico.
His counsel on Thursday pressed a three-judge-panel of the Richmond-based appeals court to overturn a federal judge’s denial of his motion for acquittal last year after a bench trial. The lower court judge held that Bartow’s speech was not protected under the First Amendment because he had used “fighting words.”
“The presence of the n-word is what makes this case complicated,” U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanie Thacker said during Thursday’s virtual hearing.
The Barack Obama appointee added that the key question in the case is “whether the n-word was specifically directed at an individual in circumstances where violence could result and is likely to do so.”
Store clerk Cathy Johnson-Felder testified that she had a heated exchange with Bartow, who was trying on boots, after she greeted him by saying “good morning.”
“If I had constipation, diarrhea, or a headache, would you still say good morning to me?” Bartow responded, according to court records.
When the clerk asked, “Can I help you, sir?” Bartow retorted, “I am not a male, I am not a female. If I had a vagina, would you still call me sir?”
Johnson-Felder testified that another customer, a Black man in civilian clothing, stepped in to intervene. Bartow then asked the other customer, “If I called her a nigger, would she still say good morning?”
This comment prompted Johnson-Felder to call security to escort Bartow out of the building, and eventually led to Bartow’s conviction.
Bartow’s attorney Rick Redmond with the Washington firm Cleary Gottlieb told the Fourth Circuit panel Thursday that his client’s “mode of expression was rhetorical questioning and therefore constituted protected speech and not ‘fighting words.’”
“Punishing his rhetorical speech because he used an offensive word while posing rhetorical questions is an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction on his speech and does not fall within the limited ‘fighting words’ exception,” Redmond said. “Like a self-styled, modern-day Socrates, he sought to challenge generally accepted norms through a series of rhetorical questions.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, a Donald Trump appointee, noted that the attorney had described his client “very generously,” prompting Thacker to interject.
“You categorize all this as merely rhetorical questions by a ‘modern-day Socrates.’ Is it the case then that as long as you frame whatever you’re saying in the form of a question, it can never amount to fighting words?” she asked Redmond.
He argued that his client’s statements did not include fighting words because his intent was not to insult, but to make a point.
“There’s no question that the n-word was offensive in that context. Even though I think Lieutenant Colonel Bartow did not intend for it to be understood offensively, his intent was in conveying how offensive he found the word ‘sir’ to be,” Redmond said.
When Quattlebaum asked what would constitute fighting words in his view, the attorney responded by clarifying that this is not a facial challenge to the statute as limited by the 1973 Virginia Supreme Court case Mercer v. Winston.
That case, Redmond said, held that the state’s abusive language law is limited to words that have “the direct tendency to cause acts of violence by a person to whom, individually, the remark has been addressed.”
He pointed to the landmark 1971 Supreme Court case Cohen v. California case, in which the justices found that a young man had been wrongly charged under a similar state law related to fighting words for wearing a jacket decorated with the words, "Fuck the Draft. Stop the War.”
Arguing on behalf of the government Thursday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Young told the judges that Bartow’s conviction should stand.
“To paraphrase the district court, this defendant used a racial slur laden with historical invective as the final thrust in a vulgar and heated confrontation,” he said.
Responding to questions from U.S. Circuit Judge Diana Motz, a Bill Clinton appointee, Young said a single use of the racial slur alone does not necessarily constitute fighting words, but argued Bartow crossed the line into unprotected territory in light of all of the circumstances of the interaction.
The judges did not indicate when they would issue a ruling.


courthousenews--2020-12-11--Mass Extinctions Occur Every 27 Million Years, Study Finds

( CN ) — Scientists from New York University have found that mass extinctions of land-based animals are more predictable than previously thought , and occur roughly every 27 million years in a cycle likely due to our planetary orbit , according to a new study released Thursday .
The study , published in the journal Historical Biology , explains how our place in the galaxy has placed us into a cycle of mass extinctions caused by asteroid or comet impacts and subsequent volcanic eruptions .
The Earth has seen a handful of mass extinction events throughout its history from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without drastic change we are on track to experience another one .
The most disastrous extinction event of all time was the infamous Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction , better known as the death of the dinosaurs .
This event eliminated 70 % of the planet ’ s species as a result of an asteroid impact that triggered a series of mega-tsunamis , volcanic eruption , annihilation of land-based resources and eventually an ice age .
Authors Michael Rampino , a professor in New York University ‘ s Department of Biology , Ken Caldeira of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zhu of NYU ’ s Center for Data Science have studied extinction events for years , and their findings have been both groundbreaking and the subject of many debates .
In their most recent study , the team compared the mass extinctions of land animals to those of marine animals , which experience a loss of approximately 90 % of species every 26 million years .
Armed with a new approach for statistical analysis , they examined all previous mass extinctions of land animals , including amphibians , reptiles , mammals and birds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 27.5 million years .
They propose a likely explanation for this has to do with the orbit of our planet in the galaxy .
The Earth ’ s orbit unfortunately lines up with a cycle of comet showers taking place in periodic intervals of 26 to 30 million years .
By looking at the ages of impact craters formed after earthly collisions with asteroids and comets , the team discovered a pattern that closely matches the mass extinction cycle not-so-coincidentally .
From an astrophysics perspective , the authors explain that our solar system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the midplane of the Milky Way galaxy every 30 million years .
This area of the galaxy is very densely packed with stars and gas circling in the gravitational pull of a black hole , making it possible for the Earth to experience comet showers and subsequent impacts while passing through .
The effects of a comet vary depending on the size of the rock , but nevertheless , impacts can wreak havoc on a planet ’ s environment .
The climate can be completely thrown off , resulting in cases of extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensuing , and dust filling the atmosphere , leaving the surface shrouded in darkness or producing acid rain .
“ These new findings of coinciding , sudden mass extinctions on land and in the oceans , and of the common 26- to 27-million-year cycle , lend credence to the idea of periodic global catastrophic events as the triggers for the extinctions , ” Rampino said in a statement .
“ In fact , three of the mass annihilations of species on land and in the sea are already known to have occurred at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacts of the last 250 million years , each capable of causing a global disaster and resulting mass extinctions.
” These impacts have also been found to trigger massive volcanic eruptions called flood-basalt eruptions .
After the asteroid impact set off the events leading to the end of the dinosaurs , a series of volcanic eruptions known as the Deccan Traps ravaged the Earth ’ s surface , releasing enough lava to cover the entire state of Texas .
Consequently , a long lived debate existed in the scientific community as to whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the true cause of the death of the dinosaurs .
“ The global mass extinctions were apparently caused by the largest cataclysmic impacts and massive volcanism , perhaps sometimes working in concert , ” Rampino said .
These eruptions release an immense amount of lava , and have occurred in every land-based mass extinction to date .
The results of an eruption of this magnitude would have brought fluctuating temperatures , acid rain , destruction of the ozone layer , radiation , and over time a deterioration of the atmosphere ’ s ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the animals on Earth after an asteroid impact and volcanic eruptions would meet an extremely unfortunate end .
“ It seems that large-body impacts and the pulses of internal Earth activity that create flood-basalt volcanism may be marching to the same 27-million-year drumbeat as the extinctions , perhaps paced by our orbit in the Galaxy , ” Rampino said .

Scientists from New York University have found that mass extinctions of land-based animals are more predictable than previously thought, and occur roughly every 27 million years in a cycle likely due to our planetary orbit, according to a new study released Thursday.
(CN) — Scientists from New York University have found that mass extinctions of land-based animals are more predictable than previously thought, and occur roughly every 27 million years in a cycle likely due to our planetary orbit, according to a new study released Thursday.
The study, published in the journal Historical Biology, explains how our place in the galaxy has placed us into a cycle of mass extinctions caused by asteroid or comet impacts and subsequent volcanic eruptions.
The Earth has seen a handful of mass extinction events throughout its history from natural disasters, and experts say that without drastic change we are on track to experience another one.
The most disastrous extinction event of all time was the infamous Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction, better known as the death of the dinosaurs. This event eliminated 70% of the planet’s species as a result of an asteroid impact that triggered a series of mega-tsunamis, volcanic eruption, annihilation of land-based resources and eventually an ice age.
Authors Michael Rampino, a professor in New York University's Department of Biology, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science and Yuhong Zhu of NYU's Center for Data Science have studied extinction events for years, and their findings have been both groundbreaking and the subject of many debates.
In their most recent study, the team compared the mass extinctions of land animals to those of marine animals, which experience a loss of approximately 90% of species every 26 million years. Armed with a new approach for statistical analysis, they examined all previous mass extinctions of land animals, including amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds and discovered a similar cycle occurring every 27.5 million years.
They propose a likely explanation for this has to do with the orbit of our planet in the galaxy. The Earth’s orbit unfortunately lines up with a cycle of comet showers taking place in periodic intervals of 26 to 30 million years. By looking at the ages of impact craters formed after earthly collisions with asteroids and comets, the team discovered a pattern that closely matches the mass extinction cycle not-so-coincidentally.
From an astrophysics perspective, the authors explain that our solar system sits in an orbit that passes through the midplane of the Milky Way galaxy every 30 million years. This area of the galaxy is very densely packed with stars and gas circling in the gravitational pull of a black hole, making it possible for the Earth to experience comet showers and subsequent impacts while passing through.
The effects of a comet vary depending on the size of the rock, but nevertheless, impacts can wreak havoc on a planet’s environment. The climate can be completely thrown off, resulting in cases of extreme heat and fires, earthquakes and tsunamis ensuing, and dust filling the atmosphere, leaving the surface shrouded in darkness or producing acid rain.
"These new findings of coinciding, sudden mass extinctions on land and in the oceans, and of the common 26- to 27-million-year cycle, lend credence to the idea of periodic global catastrophic events as the triggers for the extinctions," Rampino said in a statement. "In fact, three of the mass annihilations of species on land and in the sea are already known to have occurred at the same times as the three largest impacts of the last 250 million years, each capable of causing a global disaster and resulting mass extinctions."
These impacts have also been found to trigger massive volcanic eruptions called flood-basalt eruptions. After the asteroid impact set off the events leading to the end of the dinosaurs, a series of volcanic eruptions known as the Deccan Traps ravaged the Earth’s surface, releasing enough lava to cover the entire state of Texas.
Consequently, a long lived debate existed in the scientific community as to whether the asteroid or the volcanic eruptions were the true cause of the death of the dinosaurs.
"The global mass extinctions were apparently caused by the largest cataclysmic impacts and massive volcanism, perhaps sometimes working in concert," Rampino said.
These eruptions release an immense amount of lava, and have occurred in every land-based mass extinction to date.
The results of an eruption of this magnitude would have brought fluctuating temperatures, acid rain, destruction of the ozone layer, radiation, and over time a deterioration of the atmosphere’s ability to sustain life.
In other words, the animals on Earth after an asteroid impact and volcanic eruptions would meet an extremely unfortunate end.
"It seems that large-body impacts and the pulses of internal Earth activity that create flood-basalt volcanism may be marching to the same 27-million-year drumbeat as the extinctions, perhaps paced by our orbit in the Galaxy," Rampino said.


courthousenews--2020-12-11--Citing First Amendment Rights, Judge Lifts Iowa Ban on Protesters

DES MOINES , Iowa ( CN ) — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Thursday barring the state of Iowa from banning 17 protesters from setting foot on the Iowa Capitol grounds for up to a year following this summer ’ s protests in support of the Black Lives Matter movement .
The case will proceed in the meantime .
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger issued a 23-page order Thursday that law enforcement officials can not enforce oral and written bans that prohibit the five plaintiffs who sued the state after they were ordered not to enter the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that turned violent and led to several arrests .
Judge Goodgame Ebinger wrote that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claims that the bans violate their right to exercise their First Amendment rights in a traditional public forum .
“ The bans here preclude all First Amendment conduct in the Capitol and on the Capitol complex grounds ” she wrote .
“ The bans not only limit plaintiffs ’ manner of demonstrating but also affect plaintiffs ’ ability to engage in any form of demonstration — indeed any expression at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the capitol complex grounds .
Even with the state ’ s substantial interest in public safety , the lack of narrow tailoring likely dooms the bans.
” Still , in weighing the public interest in an injunction , the judge wrote : “ The public also has a significant interest in peaceful assembly , the safety of protestors , and the safety of law enforcement officers .
The court recognizes the public interest in protecting the right to freedom of expression .
But in doing so , the court does not disregard the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment at the Iowa Capitol complex .
“ This order should not be read as providing this court ’ s imprimatur on the violent and assaultive conduct depicted in defendants ’ video exhibits .
Further , this order does not in any way diminish the Iowa State Patrol ’ s authority and responsibility to continue enforcing the laws of the State of Iowa in the Capitol and on the Capitol complex grounds.
” ACLU-Iowa Legal Director Rita Bettis Austen said in a statement issued Thursday , “ The Capitol complex is a uniquely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free speech , which today ’ s order recognizes .
We are grateful to the court and relieved that our clients will be able to engage in their right to nonviolent speech and assembly at their state Capitol once again while we move ahead in this litigation.
” A spokesman for the Iowa Attorney General ’ s office declined to comment Thursday .
The Capitol grounds ban was instigated by leaders of the Iowa General Assembly following protests near the Iowa Capitol in July following the arrest of several protesters for allegedly assaulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders told Iowa State Patrol officers , who provide Capitol security , to ban individuals believed to have been involved in violent acts .
Protesters received letters from the Department of Public Safety warning them that “ any continued and future presence on or about the ” Capitol grounds “ will not be welcome or tolerated.
” The bans ranged from six months to one year .
And the letters went on to say , “ Be advised that your entry upon any portion of the property after receiving this notice will constitute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those barred from the Capitol grounds — Jalesha Johnson , Louise Bequeaith , Brad Penna , Brandi Ramus and Haley Jo Dikkers — sued the state in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa for violation of their constitutional rights , including their rights of speech and peaceful assembly and their right to petition their state government for redress of grievances .
The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa .
The plaintiffs ’ complaint points out that the Iowa Capitol complex is a huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and includes the Iowa Capitol itself , where the Iowa governor ’ s office , Legislature , and other state executive offices are located ; the Iowa Judicial Branch Building ; State Historical Building ; and numerous other state buildings ; museums ; and paved exterior areas purposely designed to “ accommodate the assembly of the citizenry to petition the state government .
”

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Thursday barring the state of Iowa from banning 17 protesters from setting foot on the Iowa Capitol grounds for up to a year following this summer’s protests in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. The case will proceed in the meantime.
DES MOINES, Iowa (CN) — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Thursday barring the state of Iowa from banning 17 protesters from setting foot on the Iowa Capitol grounds for up to a year following this summer’s protests in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. The case will proceed in the meantime.
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger issued a 23-page order Thursday that law enforcement officials cannot enforce oral and written bans that prohibit the five plaintiffs who sued the state after they were ordered not to enter the Iowa Capitol complex grounds following a protest that turned violent and led to several arrests.
Judge Goodgame Ebinger wrote that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claims that the bans violate their right to exercise their First Amendment rights in a traditional public forum.
“The bans here preclude all First Amendment conduct in the Capitol and on the Capitol complex grounds” she wrote. “The bans not only limit plaintiffs’ manner of demonstrating but also affect plaintiffs’ ability to engage in any form of demonstration — indeed any expression at all — at the Capitol and on the capitol complex grounds. Even with the state’s substantial interest in public safety, the lack of narrow tailoring likely dooms the bans.”
Still, in weighing the public interest in an injunction, the judge wrote:
“The public also has a significant interest in peaceful assembly, the safety of protestors, and the safety of law enforcement officers. The court recognizes the public interest in protecting the right to freedom of expression. But in doing so, the court does not disregard the substantial public interest in maintaining a safe environment at the Iowa Capitol complex.
“This order should not be read as providing this court’s imprimatur on the violent and assaultive conduct depicted in defendants’ video exhibits. Further, this order does not in any way diminish the Iowa State Patrol’s authority and responsibility to continue enforcing the laws of the State of Iowa in the Capitol and on the Capitol complex grounds.”
ACLU-Iowa Legal Director Rita Bettis Austen said in a statement issued Thursday, "The Capitol complex is a uniquely important place for Iowans to exercise their free speech, which today's order recognizes. We are grateful to the court and relieved that our clients will be able to engage in their right to nonviolent speech and assembly at their state Capitol once again while we move ahead in this litigation."
A spokesman for the Iowa Attorney General’s office declined to comment Thursday.
The Capitol grounds ban was instigated by leaders of the Iowa General Assembly following protests near the Iowa Capitol in July following the arrest of several protesters for allegedly assaulting Des Moines police officers. The legislative leaders told Iowa State Patrol officers, who provide Capitol security, to ban individuals believed to have been involved in violent acts.
Protesters received letters from the Department of Public Safety warning them that “any continued and future presence on or about the” Capitol grounds “will not be welcome or tolerated.” The bans ranged from six months to one year. And the letters went on to say, “Be advised that your entry upon any portion of the property after receiving this notice will constitute trespass, a criminal offense.”
Five of those barred from the Capitol grounds — Jalesha Johnson, Louise Bequeaith, Brad Penna, Brandi Ramus and Haley Jo Dikkers — sued the state in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa for violation of their constitutional rights, including their rights of speech and peaceful assembly and their right to petition their state government for redress of grievances. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.
The plaintiffs’ complaint points out that the Iowa Capitol complex is a huge area taking up approximately 24 city blocks, and includes the Iowa Capitol itself, where the Iowa governor’s office, Legislature, and other state executive offices are located; the Iowa Judicial Branch Building; State Historical Building; and numerous other state buildings; museums; and paved exterior areas purposely designed to “accommodate the assembly of the citizenry to petition the state government.”


Voting Accessibility

CONCORD , N.H. — A federal court in New Hampshire denied the state ’ s motion to dismiss a suit @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t adequately accessible to blind and print-disabled citizens .

The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.


Pandemic Orders

BOSTON — Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker had the authority to declare a state of emergency and issue emergency orders relating @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s Supreme Court ruled , in a case brought by various hair @ @ @ @ @ , houses of worship and other businesses and individuals .


Labor Practices

NEW YORK — The Second Circuit vacated a National Labor Relations Board order that found Time Warner engaged in unfair @ @ @ @ @ interrogating ” employees about discussions that led to an unprotected protest and work stoppage that @ @ @ @ @ with the company and a union .


Excessive Force

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal court in California denied in part two San Francisco police officers ’ motion for summary @ @ @ @ @ case in which the officers used pepper spray and a baton and shot a mentally @ @ @ @ @ porch after he yelled and cursed at them to go away .


Election Results

MILWAUKEE — A federal court in Wisconsin dismissed a would-be Republican elector ’ s lawsuit seeking to decertify the state @ @ @ @ @ and declare President Donald Trump the winner .
The court lacks authority and jurisdiction to @ @ @ @ @ sought in the suit , which would exceed constitutional limits .


courthousenews--2020-12-11--FBI Subpoenas Texas AG Ken Paxton After Alleged Bribery Reports

AUSTIN , Texas ( CN ) — Sources confirmed Thursday the FBI has subpoenaed Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton after his senior staff revolted and reported him for alleged corruption , bribery and abuse of office for investigating the enemies of campaign donor and Austin real estate investor Nate Paul .
Three sources told the Austin American-Statesman and ABC-affiliate KVUE that federal agents delivered at least one subpoena to Paxton ’ s office in Austin on Wednesday .
The FBI declined to comment on the report Thursday — the agency has yet to publicly acknowledge an investigation into Paxton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office could not be reached for comment after office hours Thursday .
The report comes two months after seven of Paxton ’ s senior staff asked for the federal investigation after Paxton appointed Houston attorney Brandon Cammack as a special outside prosecutor for the Paul investigation .
The staff mutinied after Cammack had a Travis County grand jury subpoena Paul ’ s creditors in September .
“ We have a good faith belief that the Attorney General is violating federal and/or state law , including prohibitions relating to improper influences , abuse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal offenses , ” the one-page letter dated Oct. 1 states .
“ Each signatory below has knowledge of facts relevant to these potential offenses and has provided statements concerning those facts to the appropriate law enforcement authority.
” All seven whistleblowers have since been fired by Paxton .
Four sued Paxton last month in Travis County District Court , claiming they were fired in retaliation , threatened , intimidated and falsely smeared by Paxton .
The lawsuit claims Cammack issued 39 subpoenas that were designed to harass law enforcement and federal prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses .
Paul ’ s home and businesses were raided last year — he has yet to be criminally charged .
The whistleblowers claim Paxton used his official capacity to help Paul , that he pressured them to give Paul ’ s lawyers state and federal records into the raids .
They claim Paxton ordered the issuance of a non-binding advisory opinion that would stop some of Paul ’ s real estate properties from being foreclosed on during the Covid-19 pandemic .
Paul has contributed $ 25,000 to Paxton ’ s campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigns of at least three other Texas Republicans in the past two years , including Congressmen Chip Roy and Michael McCaul and U.S .
Senator John Cornyn , according to Federal Election Commission records .
Paxton was forced to publicly close the investigation on Paul ’ s behalf after Travis County District Attorney Margaret Moore called him out on Oct. 9 , alleging Paxton personally approached her office with Paul and Paul ’ s attorney to complain about FBI and Texas Rangers ’ investigations into Paul .
Moore had referred Paxton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on June 10 .
“ We concluded that ours was not the appropriate office to either address the matters raised in the complaint or to conduct an investigation into them , ” Moore wrote at the time .
“ My office has closed this file and will take no further action .
Furthermore , I have instructed my employees to have no further contact with you or your office regarding this matter.
” Further complicating matters was confirmation by two sources in November that Paxton admitted to having an affair with a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deposition in an unrelated state civil case last month that Paxton recommended the mistress to him for a job , but Paul explicitly denied he hired her as a favor to Paxton .
The whistleblowers ’ lawsuit also alleged Paxton admitted the affair .
His wife is state Senator Angela Paxton , R-McKinney .
The couple has not publicly commented on the allegations .
Few Republicans have dared to ask Paxton to resign .
Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick have each declined to comment on the allegations until an investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Representative Sarah Davis , R-Houston , have urged Paxton to step down .
The FBI subpoena comes two days after Paxton filed a last-ditch lawsuit against four battleground states that narrowly went to President-elect Joe Biden .
Filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court , the suit claims Georgia , Michigan , Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had “ significant and unconstitutional irregularities ” that cost President Donald Trump votes .
The lawsuit claims the states took advantage of the Covid-19 pandemic to implement unconstitutional changes to election procedures .
Legal experts have dismissed Paxton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while others call it “ insane.
” Some critics have speculated Paxton ’ s lawsuit is merely a ploy to gain favor with Trump in order to secure a presidential pardon against the FBI ’ s investigation and possible criminal charges .
Trump has pardoned political allies and his friends in the past , including former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn , former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona and Republican commentator Dinesh D ’ Souza .
Trump commuted the sentence of Republican operative Roger Stone in July , erasing a 40-month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress .
Repeated questions over Paxton ’ s ethics have dogged him for five years .
A Collin County grand jury charged Paxton in August 2015 with two first-degree felony counts of securities fraud and a third-degree felony count of failing to register with the Texas State Securities Board from his time in the Texas House of Representatives .
Prosecutors claim the attorney general urged investors to put $ 600,000 into technology firm Servergy without disclosing he would earn a commission and misrepresented he was investing in the McKinney-based company .
Paxton faces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if convicted .
The criminal case has been stuck in pretrial for over five years as the case has been moved to Harris County and back while Paxton has launched several attempts at having the judge removed .
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a similar civil lawsuit against Paxton in April 2016 in federal court in Dallas over the Servergy matter .
A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit six months later , finding Paxton “ did not have a legal obligation to disclose his financial arrangements ” to the firm ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Dallas-area district attorney launched an ethics probe into Paxton accepting a $ 100,000 gift for his legal defense fund from James Webb , the leader of a company that was being investigated for Medicaid fraud .

Sources confirmed Thursday the FBI has subpoenaed Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton after his senior staff revolted and reported him for alleged corruption, bribery and abuse of office for investigating the enemies of campaign donor and Austin real estate investor Nate Paul.
AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — Sources confirmed Thursday the FBI has subpoenaed Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton after his senior staff revolted and reported him for alleged corruption, bribery and abuse of office for investigating the enemies of campaign donor and Austin real estate investor Nate Paul.
Three sources told the Austin American-Statesman and ABC-affiliate KVUE that federal agents delivered at least one subpoena to Paxton’s office in Austin on Wednesday. The FBI declined to comment on the report Thursday — the agency has yet to publicly acknowledge an investigation into Paxton is taking place. Paxton’s office could not be reached for comment after office hours Thursday.
The report comes two months after seven of Paxton’s senior staff asked for the federal investigation after Paxton appointed Houston attorney Brandon Cammack as a special outside prosecutor for the Paul investigation. The staff mutinied after Cammack had a Travis County grand jury subpoena Paul’s creditors in September.
“We have a good faith belief that the Attorney General is violating federal and/or state law, including prohibitions relating to improper influences, abuse of office, bribery, and other potential criminal offenses,” the one-page letter dated Oct. 1 states. “Each signatory below has knowledge of facts relevant to these potential offenses and has provided statements concerning those facts to the appropriate law enforcement authority.”
All seven whistleblowers have since been fired by Paxton. Four sued Paxton last month in Travis County District Court, claiming they were fired in retaliation, threatened, intimidated and falsely smeared by Paxton.
The lawsuit claims Cammack issued 39 subpoenas that were designed to harass law enforcement and federal prosecutors that were looking into Paul and his businesses. Paul’s home and businesses were raided last year — he has yet to be criminally charged.
The whistleblowers claim Paxton used his official capacity to help Paul, that he pressured them to give Paul’s lawyers state and federal records into the raids. They claim Paxton ordered the issuance of a non-binding advisory opinion that would stop some of Paul’s real estate properties from being foreclosed on during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Paul has contributed $25,000 to Paxton’s campaign. He has also given money to the campaigns of at least three other Texas Republicans in the past two years, including Congressmen Chip Roy and Michael McCaul and U.S. Senator John Cornyn, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Paxton was forced to publicly close the investigation on Paul’s behalf after Travis County District Attorney Margaret Moore called him out on Oct. 9, alleging Paxton personally approached her office with Paul and Paul’s attorney to complain about FBI and Texas Rangers’ investigations into Paul. Moore had referred Paxton’s complaint back to Paxton’s office on June 10.
“We concluded that ours was not the appropriate office to either address the matters raised in the complaint or to conduct an investigation into them,” Moore wrote at the time. “My office has closed this file and will take no further action. Furthermore, I have instructed my employees to have no further contact with you or your office regarding this matter.”
Further complicating matters was confirmation by two sources in November that Paxton admitted to having an affair with a woman in 2018. Paul admitted during a deposition in an unrelated state civil case last month that Paxton recommended the mistress to him for a job, but Paul explicitly denied he hired her as a favor to Paxton.
The whistleblowers’ lawsuit also alleged Paxton admitted the affair. His wife is state Senator Angela Paxton, R-McKinney. The couple has not publicly commented on the allegations.
Few Republicans have dared to ask Paxton to resign. Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick have each declined to comment on the allegations until an investigation is completed. Congressman Roy and state Representative Sarah Davis, R-Houston, have urged Paxton to step down.
The FBI subpoena comes two days after Paxton filed a last-ditch lawsuit against four battleground states that narrowly went to President-elect Joe Biden.
Filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court, the suit claims Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had “significant and unconstitutional irregularities” that cost President Donald Trump votes. The lawsuit claims the states took advantage of the Covid-19 pandemic to implement unconstitutional changes to election procedures.
Legal experts have dismissed Paxton’s lawsuit as legally dubious, while others call it “insane.” Some critics have speculated Paxton’s lawsuit is merely a ploy to gain favor with Trump in order to secure a presidential pardon against the FBI’s investigation and possible criminal charges.
Trump has pardoned political allies and his friends in the past, including former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona and Republican commentator Dinesh D’Souza. Trump commuted the sentence of Republican operative Roger Stone in July, erasing a 40-month sentence for witness tampering and lying to Congress.
Repeated questions over Paxton’s ethics have dogged him for five years. A Collin County grand jury charged Paxton in August 2015 with two first-degree felony counts of securities fraud and a third-degree felony count of failing to register with the Texas State Securities Board from his time in the Texas House of Representatives.
Prosecutors claim the attorney general urged investors to put $600,000 into technology firm Servergy without disclosing he would earn a commission and misrepresented he was investing in the McKinney-based company.
Paxton faces up to 99 years in state prison if convicted. The criminal case has been stuck in pretrial for over five years as the case has been moved to Harris County and back while Paxton has launched several attempts at having the judge removed.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a similar civil lawsuit against Paxton in April 2016 in federal court in Dallas over the Servergy matter. A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit six months later, finding Paxton “did not have a legal obligation to disclose his financial arrangements” to the firm’s investors.
One year later, a Dallas-area district attorney launched an ethics probe into Paxton accepting a $100,000 gift for his legal defense fund from James Webb, the leader of a company that was being investigated for Medicaid fraud.


courthousenews--2020-12-11--Trump Issues Order to ‘Rebrand’ Foreign Aid

( CN ) — Seeking to “ rebrand ” America ’ s foreign assistance , President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to mark all packaging of U.S. aid distributed to other countries with a single logo of his choosing .
The White House says the move is intended to “ foster goodwill between the recipients of United States foreign assistance and the American people , and to encourage the governments of nations that are receiving foreign assistance to support the United States.
” The order , which applies to 22 U.S. government agencies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to forgo their various individual logos and attach a new , standardized mark to foreign assistance related goods and packaging .
Trump gave himself 30 days to personally select a single logo that “ embodies the values and generosity of the American people.
” The logo is to be “ prominently displayed ” on all materials related to U.S. foreign assistance programs , projects and activities .
That includes all goods , packaging , communications and public affairs materials related to foreign assistance .
Suggesting that the goal of this rebranding is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House said on Thursday that it ’ s “ essential ” for foreign recipients to be aware that the efforts of American taxpayers are behind the aid they receive .
“ To further this awareness and to ensure United States foreign assistance supports the foreign policy objectives of the United States and maintains American influence and leadership , such assistance must appropriately and conspicuously be identified as American aid , ” the order states .
The heads of the affected federal agencies will be allowed to waive the single-logo requirement if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political , safety , or security concerns ” in a particular geographic area or attached to a certain type of aid .
John Barsa , Acting Deputy Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development , commended the order in a statement on Thursday .
“ By requiring U.S. Government Departments and Agencies to use a single logo for all U.S. foreign assistance , the President has taken an important step in promoting awareness about the compassion and generosity of the American people around the world , ” he said .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president picks will need to be implemented by USAID and the Secretary of State within a 120-day window .
But Trump doesn ’ t have that much time left in office , meaning his successor could make changes before the rule is applied .
The implementation processes will stretch into President-elect Joe Biden ’ s term when he will be inaugurated on Jan. 20 .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement that his department looks forward to coordinating with USAID and other departments and agencies in order to implement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. branding will also be an essential tool to counter strategic competitors seeking greater visibility and influence , ” he said .

Seeking to “rebrand” America’s foreign assistance, President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to mark all packaging of U.S. aid distributed to other countries with a single logo of his choosing.
(CN) — Seeking to “rebrand” America’s foreign assistance, President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to mark all packaging of U.S. aid distributed to other countries with a single logo of his choosing.
The White House says the move is intended to “foster goodwill between the recipients of United States foreign assistance and the American people, and to encourage the governments of nations that are receiving foreign assistance to support the United States.”
The order, which applies to 22 U.S. government agencies that render aid abroad, will require agencies to forgo their various individual logos and attach a new, standardized mark to foreign assistance related goods and packaging.
Trump gave himself 30 days to personally select a single logo that “embodies the values and generosity of the American people.”
The logo is to be “prominently displayed” on all materials related to U.S. foreign assistance programs, projects and activities.
That includes all goods, packaging, communications and public affairs materials related to foreign assistance.
Suggesting that the goal of this rebranding is to “advance American influence,” the White House said on Thursday that it’s “essential” for foreign recipients to be aware that the efforts of American taxpayers are behind the aid they receive.
“To further this awareness and to ensure United States foreign assistance supports the foreign policy objectives of the United States and maintains American influence and leadership, such assistance must appropriately and conspicuously be identified as American aid,” the order states.
The heads of the affected federal agencies will be allowed to waive the single-logo requirement if they believe the mark would “raise compelling political, safety, or security concerns” in a particular geographic area or attached to a certain type of aid.
John Barsa, Acting Deputy Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, commended the order in a statement on Thursday.
“By requiring U.S. Government Departments and Agencies to use a single logo for all U.S. foreign assistance, the President has taken an important step in promoting awareness about the compassion and generosity of the American people around the world,” he said.
According to the executive order, whatever design the president picks will need to be implemented by USAID and the Secretary of State within a 120-day window.
But Trump doesn’t have that much time left in office, meaning his successor could make changes before the rule is applied.
The implementation processes will stretch into President-elect Joe Biden’s term when he will be inaugurated on Jan. 20.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement that his department looks forward to coordinating with USAID and other departments and agencies in order to implement the new logo rule.
“Consistent U.S. branding will also be an essential tool to counter strategic competitors seeking greater visibility and influence,” he said.


courthousenews--2020-12-11--Feds Defend Permanent Water Contracts to Benefit Agriculture

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — Defending the decision to give farm irrigation districts permanent access to low-cost , federally pumped water in California , a Justice Department lawyer urged a federal judge Thursday to flush a Native American tribe ’ s lawsuit against the endless entitlements .
The Hoopa Valley Tribe sued the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in August , claiming the Trump administration ’ s conversion of 14 time-limited contracts for Central Valley Project water into permanent deals violated a host of federal laws .
The contracts were made permanent in February .
Another 26 agreements are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deals .
According to the tribe , the unending contracts do not prioritize water for Trinity River in-basin flows or require contractors to pay for fish restoration and wildlife preservation programs as mandated by a 1992 law , the Central Valley Project Improvement Act .
Without those protections , the tribe says more water could be diverted from the Trinity River to the Central Valley and have a “ devastating impact on the fish , water and other environmental resources.
” Arguing in a virtual courtroom Thursday , Justice Department lawyer Thomas Scott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obligations does not pertain to permanent contracts because they are neither new deals nor contract renewals as defined by the law .
“ It does not apply to the conversion of an existing contract into a no-term repayment contract , ” he said .
Representing the Hoopa Valley Tribe , attorney Thane Somerville called that position “ absurd.
” He said Congress wanted the law to apply to all long-term contracts , which are defined as agreements with a term of 10 years or more .
“ It was intended to protect the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Somerville said .
Somerville is with the firm Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville in Seattle .
Congress passed the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act in 2016 .
The law directs the Bureau of Reclamation to convert existing Central Valley Project water contracts into permanent deals if a contractor requests it .
But the 2016 law also states that it does not alter obligations imposed by other statutes , including requirements that contractors help fund environmental restoration and preservation programs for the Trinity River .
The failure to explicitly include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violates the law , Somerville argued .
“ The tribe is constantly forced to fight over water deliveries that they are entitled to under federal law , funding they are entitled to receive under federal law , ” he said .
“ That ’ s why it ’ s so important to have specific provisions in the contracts that will bind the contractors to these terms that are required under federal law.
” Assuming the government was obligated to include those terms in its contracts , Jeffrey said the lawsuit should still be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sue .
He said the tribe complains about a purely technical violation of law that has not caused it to suffer any real-world harm .
Somerville insisted the mere approval of contracts that flout laws designed to protect the tribe ’ s natural resources is a concrete injury .
“ The Trinity River goes right through their lands , ” Somerville said .
“ It has specifically affected their interests for decades.
” The Bureau of Reclamation also maintains that the lawsuit can not move forward unless the water districts , whose contractual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , are added to the case .
The tribe argues that because the contracts have not been validated under California state law , they are not in effect yet .
The water districts are still operating under the terms of interim contracts , Somerville said .
The tribe further insists that the water districts are not necessary parties because the U.S. government is well suited to champion their interests in the lawsuit .
“ The parties are adequately represented by the defendant in this case , ” Somerville said .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case to the Eastern District of California where two similar lawsuits are pending , U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said he was inclined to deny that motion .
Beyond finding that the plaintiff ’ s choice of forum carries some weight , Seeborg cited a “ judicial emergency ” in the Eastern District of California as a factor that strongly supports keeping the case in San Francisco .
The Eastern District ’ s chief judge , Kimberly Mueller , declared a judicial emergency in March as the district faced a growing backlog of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the Fresno division , where the related lawsuits are pending , U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd issued a standing order in February stating he will not hold any trials or hearings on motions in civil cases until the situation improves .
“ All the judicial efficiency arguments evaporate when you ’ re talking about the district where the transfer would be going to is in dire straits , ” Seeborg said .

Defending the decision to give farm irrigation districts permanent access to low-cost, federally pumped water in California, a Justice Department lawyer urged a federal judge Thursday to flush a Native American tribe’s lawsuit against the endless entitlements.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Defending the decision to give farm irrigation districts permanent access to low-cost, federally pumped water in California, a Justice Department lawyer urged a federal judge Thursday to flush a Native American tribe’s lawsuit against the endless entitlements.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe sued the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in August, claiming the Trump administration’s conversion of 14 time-limited contracts for Central Valley Project water into permanent deals violated a host of federal laws. The contracts were made permanent in February. Another 26 agreements are in the process of being converted to permanent deals.
According to the tribe, the unending contracts do not prioritize water for Trinity River in-basin flows or require contractors to pay for fish restoration and wildlife preservation programs as mandated by a 1992 law, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
Without those protections, the tribe says more water could be diverted from the Trinity River to the Central Valley and have a “devastating impact on the fish, water and other environmental resources.”
Arguing in a virtual courtroom Thursday, Justice Department lawyer Thomas Scott Jeffrey argued the law that imposes those obligations does not pertain to permanent contracts because they are neither new deals nor contract renewals as defined by the law.
“It does not apply to the conversion of an existing contract into a no-term repayment contract,” he said.
Representing the Hoopa Valley Tribe, attorney Thane Somerville called that position “absurd.” He said Congress wanted the law to apply to all long-term contracts, which are defined as agreements with a term of 10 years or more.
“It was intended to protect the environment from the effects of long-term contracts,” Somerville said.
Somerville is with the firm Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville in Seattle.
Congress passed the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act in 2016. The law directs the Bureau of Reclamation to convert existing Central Valley Project water contracts into permanent deals if a contractor requests it.
But the 2016 law also states that it does not alter obligations imposed by other statutes, including requirements that contractors help fund environmental restoration and preservation programs for the Trinity River.
The failure to explicitly include those terms in the permanent water contracts violates the law, Somerville argued.
“The tribe is constantly forced to fight over water deliveries that they are entitled to under federal law, funding they are entitled to receive under federal law,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important to have specific provisions in the contracts that will bind the contractors to these terms that are required under federal law.”
Assuming the government was obligated to include those terms in its contracts, Jeffrey said the lawsuit should still be dismissed because the tribe lacks standing to sue. He said the tribe complains about a purely technical violation of law that has not caused it to suffer any real-world harm.
Somerville insisted the mere approval of contracts that flout laws designed to protect the tribe’s natural resources is a concrete injury.
“The Trinity River goes right through their lands,” Somerville said. “It has specifically affected their interests for decades.”
The Bureau of Reclamation also maintains that the lawsuit cannot move forward unless the water districts, whose contractual rights would be affected by any court decision, are added to the case.
The tribe argues that because the contracts have not been validated under California state law, they are not in effect yet. The water districts are still operating under the terms of interim contracts, Somerville said.
The tribe further insists that the water districts are not necessary parties because the U.S. government is well suited to champion their interests in the lawsuit.
“The parties are adequately represented by the defendant in this case,” Somerville said.
On the bureau’s motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California where two similar lawsuits are pending, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said he was inclined to deny that motion.
Beyond finding that the plaintiff’s choice of forum carries some weight, Seeborg cited a “judicial emergency” in the Eastern District of California as a factor that strongly supports keeping the case in San Francisco.
The Eastern District’s chief judge, Kimberly Mueller, declared a judicial emergency in March as the district faced a growing backlog of cases exacerbated by two judicial vacancies.
In the Fresno division, where the related lawsuits are pending, U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd issued a standing order in February stating he will not hold any trials or hearings on motions in civil cases until the situation improves.
“All the judicial efficiency arguments evaporate when you’re talking about the district where the transfer would be going to is in dire straits,” Seeborg said.


OC Jail Covid

SANTA ANA , Calif. — An Orange County ( Calif. ) Superior Court judge ordered the sheriff there to reduce @ @ @ @ @ % to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus that causes the Covid-19 disease .


Vegetation Project

MISSOULA , Mont .
— In a federal lawsuit , conservationists say a Montana “ vegetation project ” approved by @ @ @ @ @ limit logging or road density in the area and will adversely affect wildlife .


courthousenews--2020-12-12--California Courts Covid Update

California Courts Covid Update

Dec. 11 , 2020 : Auburn courthouse to be closed Dec. 21-28 due to budget reductions Dec. 11 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ and other appearances due to Covid-19 increase Dec. 10 , 2020 : Order , court @ @ @ @ @ due to Covid-19 stay at home order Dec. 11 , 2020 : Court asks those @ @ @ @ @ exhibits to the court no later than five days before the hearing date , due @ @


courthousenews--2020-12-11--Lil Wayne Pleads Guilty to Possessing Gun as Felon

MIAMI ( CN ) — Rapper Lil Wayne is facing another prison stint after pleading guilty to a gun charge in Florida federal court Friday .
Dwayne Michael Carter aka Lil Wayne announced the guilty plea as part of a deal with prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida .
Carter ’ s raspy voice – which helped him sell millions of albums over more than two decades in the music business – sounded resigned during his Friday teleconference hearing .
Prosecutors had hit him with a charge of illegal possession of a firearm by a felon , stemming from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purportedly found a gold-plated gun and cocaine on his private plane at Miami Opa-locka Executive Airport .
Under the plea deal , prosecutors will recommend that the rapper receive a prison term at the low end of the sentencing range .
In a 2019 reporting period , the average sentence for a standard felon-in-possession charge in federal court was about five years , according to the U.S .
Sentencing Commission .
The lower range of sentences handed down on the charge hovers around one to two years .
Less than 3 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , according to the Sentencing Commission report .
Lil Wayne ’ s attorney Howard Srebnick said Friday that the rapper has opted not to pursue what Srebnick considered to be a solid argument for illegal search-and-seizure in connection with the raid .
“ From the first moment [ Carter ] was approached by the police , he owned up to the weapon , ” Srebnick said during the hearing .
Carter ’ s sentencing is tentatively set for Jan. 28 .
He will be out on a $ 250,000 personal bond in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight months in prison in 2010 on a New York gun charge .
While serving out that sentence on Rikers Island , he pleaded guilty to an Arizona drug possession charge that arose after law enforcement in Yuma found ecstasy and cocaine on his tour bus back in 2008 .
The rapper has reportedly sold more than 100 million records worldwide .
In 2009 , his album “ Tha Carter III ” was certified triple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America and garnered three Grammy Awards .

Rapper Lil Wayne is facing another prison stint after pleading guilty to a gun charge in Florida federal court Friday.
MIAMI (CN) — Rapper Lil Wayne is facing another prison stint after pleading guilty to a gun charge in Florida federal court Friday.
Dwayne Michael Carter aka Lil Wayne announced the guilty plea as part of a deal with prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida. Carter's raspy voice – which helped him sell millions of albums over more than two decades in the music business – sounded resigned during his Friday teleconference hearing.
Prosecutors had hit him with a charge of illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, stemming from a December 2019 raid in which police purportedly found a gold-plated gun and cocaine on his private plane at Miami Opa-locka Executive Airport.
Under the plea deal, prosecutors will recommend that the rapper receive a prison term at the low end of the sentencing range.
In a 2019 reporting period, the average sentence for a standard felon-in-possession charge in federal court was about five years, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The lower range of sentences handed down on the charge hovers around one to two years. Less than 3% of defendants convicted of the charge avoided prison time, according to the Sentencing Commission report.
Lil Wayne's attorney Howard Srebnick said Friday that the rapper has opted not to pursue what Srebnick considered to be a solid argument for illegal search-and-seizure in connection with the raid.
"From the first moment [Carter] was approached by the police, he owned up to the weapon," Srebnick said during the hearing.
Carter's sentencing is tentatively set for Jan. 28. He will be out on a $250,000 personal bond in the meanwhile.
The rapper previously served eight months in prison in 2010 on a New York gun charge. While serving out that sentence on Rikers Island, he pleaded guilty to an Arizona drug possession charge that arose after law enforcement in Yuma found ecstasy and cocaine on his tour bus back in 2008.
The rapper has reportedly sold more than 100 million records worldwide. In 2009, his album “Tha Carter III” was certified triple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America and garnered three Grammy Awards.


courthousenews--2020-12-11--Supreme Court Denies Texas Bid to Overturn Election

( CN ) — Finding Texas and more than a dozen other red states had no business interfering in the election processes of other states , the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed their request to have the election results from Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin and Georgia tossed .
“ Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections , ” the court wrote in a brief unsigned order .
The ruling from the high court , coming just days before the Electoral College meets Monday to formally elect Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was a stinging rebuke to a long-shot challenge that drew swift condemnation from legal experts but a wide-ranging chorus of support from Republicans in recent days .
In a brief dissent , conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have allowed the court to hear the case , but would not have granted Texas any other relief .
“ In my view , we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction , ” Alito @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement .
“ I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief , and I express no view on any other issue.
” The case led by Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was roundly seen as a desperate , last-ditch effort to overturn the will of millions of voters in the four states targeted by the lawsuit .
Those states blasted Paxton ’ s effort in filings to the high court this week , with Democratic Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro describing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the judicial process.
” Shapiro quickly praised the court ’ s ruling in a post on Twitter , echoing those same words .
“ Our nation ’ s highest court saw through this seditious abuse of our electoral process , ” he wrote .
“ This swift denial should make anyone contemplating further attacks on our election think twice.
” Paxton responded to the high court ’ s decision in a statement Friday evening .
“ It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court decided not to take this case and determine the constitutionality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow federal and state election law , ” he wrote .
The Supreme Court ’ s refusal to take up the Texas case came just three days after the court also rejected a bid to overturn Pennsylvania ’ s election results .
President Trump had pinned his hopes on the Texas case , calling it “ the big one.
” More than 100 House Republicans had pledged their support for the effort as well , claiming that “ unconstitutional irregularities ” in the November election “ cast doubt upon its outcome.
” Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other lawsuits filed by President Trump and his allies over the past month , members of Trump ’ s own administration have acknowledged that no evidence of widespread fraud in the election exists .
On Nov. 12 , a coalition of top federal and state officials plainly rejected the notion of any systemic problems with the election , calling it “ the most secure in American history.
” Trump later fired the top federal cybersecurity official who oversaw efforts to review the election ’ s security .
The president ’ s own Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of widespread voter fraud in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this month .
“ To date , we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election , ” Barr told the AP .
In an extraordinary statement after the high court rejected the Texas case Friday , the head of the state ’ s Republican Party seemed to suggest that states opposed to the ruling should secede from the United States .
“ Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the constitution , ” Texas GOP Chair Allen West said .

Supreme Court Denies Texas Bid to Overturn Election
(CN) — Finding Texas and more than a dozen other red states had no business interfering in the election processes of other states, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed their request to have the election results from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia tossed.
“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the court wrote in a brief unsigned order.
The ruling from the high court, coming just days before the Electoral College meets Monday to formally elect Joe Biden as the nation’s next president, was a stinging rebuke to a long-shot challenge that drew swift condemnation from legal experts but a wide-ranging chorus of support from Republicans in recent days.
In a brief dissent, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have allowed the court to hear the case, but would not have granted Texas any other relief.
“In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction,” Alito wrote, with Justice Thomas joining the statement. “I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”
The case led by Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was roundly seen as a desperate, last-ditch effort to overturn the will of millions of voters in the four states targeted by the lawsuit.
Those states blasted Paxton’s effort in filings to the high court this week, with Democratic Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro describing the lawsuit as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”
Shapiro quickly praised the court’s ruling in a post on Twitter, echoing those same words.
“Our nation’s highest court saw through this seditious abuse of our electoral process,” he wrote. “This swift denial should make anyone contemplating further attacks on our election think twice.”
Paxton responded to the high court’s decision in a statement Friday evening.
“It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court decided not to take this case and determine the constitutionality of these four states’ failure to follow federal and state election law,” he wrote.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the Texas case came just three days after the court also rejected a bid to overturn Pennsylvania’s election results. President Trump had pinned his hopes on the Texas case, calling it “the big one.”
More than 100 House Republicans had pledged their support for the effort as well, claiming that “unconstitutional irregularities” in the November election “cast doubt upon its outcome.”
Despite the Texas case and the flurry of other lawsuits filed by President Trump and his allies over the past month, members of Trump’s own administration have acknowledged that no evidence of widespread fraud in the election exists.
On Nov. 12, a coalition of top federal and state officials plainly rejected the notion of any systemic problems with the election, calling it “the most secure in American history.”
Trump later fired the top federal cybersecurity official who oversaw efforts to review the election’s security.
The president’s own Attorney General William Barr also publicly rejected claims of widespread voter fraud in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this month.
“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the AP.
In an extraordinary statement after the high court rejected the Texas case Friday, the head of the state’s Republican Party seemed to suggest that states opposed to the ruling should secede from the United States.
“Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution,” Texas GOP Chair Allen West said.


courthousenews--2020-12-11--11th Circuit Won’t Reinstate Case Brought by School Shooting Survivors

ATLANTA ( CN ) — The 11th Circuit on Friday rejected a civil rights lawsuit filed by survivors of the 2018 Parkland school shooting , ruling that school and county officials who failed to help students during the shooting did not have a “ custodial duty ” to protect them .
In a unanimous decision , a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court rejected an attempt by 15 former and current students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to revive the suit against Broward County and various officials , including Superintendent of Schools Robert Runcie , former Sheriff Scott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and former school security monitor Andrew Medina .
The students were present at the shooting and say they suffered psychological injuries .
They claim that officials ’ “ incompetent ” failure to protect them was unconstitutional .
In a 17-page opinion , the 11th Circuit ruled that the students did not show that the officials ’ failure to stop accused shooter Nikolas Cruz from entering the school was a violation of their rights under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment .
“ Because the students were not in the officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the officials committed any ‘ arbitrary ’ or ‘ conscience shocking ’ conduct , we agree with the district court that the students failed to state a substantive-due-process claim , ” U.S .
Circuit Judge William Pryor , a George W. Bush appointee , wrote on behalf of the panel .
The Valentine ’ s Day 2018 shooting resulted in the deaths of 17 people and 17 others were injured during the six-minute massacre .
Cruz ’ s trial has been indefinitely delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic .
The students ’ complaint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the school despite recognizing him as a suspicious person and potential shooter .
Cruz reportedly began shooting less than a minute after entering the building .
According to the ruling , Peterson and three unnamed people stood outside the school with guns drawn but did not enter or try to stop the shooting .
Police captain Jan Jordan repeatedly prevented emergency responders from entering the building to stop Cruz or help the victims .
Jordan resigned in 2018 .
Peterson was later fired and charged with child neglect and negligence for failing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the students were not in a “ custodial relationship ” with the officials , even the school ’ s armed school-safety officers .
“ The officers ’ presence on school grounds , whether by itself or in combination with truancy and compulsory attendance laws , does not restrain students ’ freedom to act in a way that is comparable to incarceration or institutional confinement , ” Pryor wrote .
“ Because the students were not in custody at school , they were not in a custodial relationship with the officials.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acted with deliberate indifference and did not demonstrate that the officials ’ split-second decisions during the shooting were undertaken with the purpose to cause harm , the ruling states .
In fact , the judges found that the students ’ lawsuit “ is replete with allegations that disprove the notion that the officials intended to harm them , ” giving the example that Medina alerted others of Cruz ’ s suspicious presence .
Pryor was joined on the panel by Senior U.S .
Circuit Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus , both Bill @ @ @

The 11th Circuit on Friday rejected a civil rights lawsuit filed by survivors of the 2018 Parkland school shooting, ruling that school and county officials who failed to help students during the shooting did not have a “custodial duty” to protect them.
ATLANTA (CN) — The 11th Circuit on Friday rejected a civil rights lawsuit filed by survivors of the 2018 Parkland school shooting, ruling that school and county officials who failed to help students during the shooting did not have a “custodial duty” to protect them.
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court rejected an attempt by 15 former and current students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to revive the suit against Broward County and various officials, including Superintendent of Schools Robert Runcie, former Sheriff Scott Israel, former school-resource officer Scot Peterson, and former school security monitor Andrew Medina.
The students were present at the shooting and say they suffered psychological injuries. They claim that officials’ “incompetent” failure to protect them was unconstitutional.
In a 17-page opinion, the 11th Circuit ruled that the students did not show that the officials’ failure to stop accused shooter Nikolas Cruz from entering the school was a violation of their rights under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
“Because the students were not in the officials’ custody and failed to allege that the officials committed any ‘arbitrary’ or ‘conscience shocking’ conduct, we agree with the district court that the students failed to state a substantive-due-process claim,” U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote on behalf of the panel.
The Valentine’s Day 2018 shooting resulted in the deaths of 17 people and 17 others were injured during the six-minute massacre. Cruz’s trial has been indefinitely delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The students’ complaint alleges that Medina allowed Cruz to enter the school despite recognizing him as a suspicious person and potential shooter. Cruz reportedly began shooting less than a minute after entering the building.
According to the ruling, Peterson and three unnamed people stood outside the school with guns drawn but did not enter or try to stop the shooting. Police captain Jan Jordan repeatedly prevented emergency responders from entering the building to stop Cruz or help the victims.
Jordan resigned in 2018. Peterson was later fired and charged with child neglect and negligence for failing to confront Cruz.
The panel ruled Friday that the students were not in a “custodial relationship” with the officials, even the school’s armed school-safety officers.
“The officers’ presence on school grounds, whether by itself or in combination with truancy and compulsory attendance laws, does not restrain students’ freedom to act in a way that is comparable to incarceration or institutional confinement,” Pryor wrote. “Because the students were not in custody at school, they were not in a custodial relationship with the officials.”
The students failed to show that the officials acted with deliberate indifference and did not demonstrate that the officials’ split-second decisions during the shooting were undertaken with the purpose to cause harm, the ruling states.
In fact, the judges found that the students’ lawsuit “is replete with allegations that disprove the notion that the officials intended to harm them,” giving the example that Medina alerted others of Cruz’s suspicious presence.
Pryor was joined on the panel by Senior U.S. Circuit Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus, both Bill Clinton appointees.