courthousenews--2020-07-16--Feds Execute Second Inmate This Week After High Court Clears Way

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — The U.S. government executed the second federal inmate this week early Thursday morning , carrying out the death sentence for a man whose attorneys claimed he suffered from dementia .
The Supreme Court allowed the Justice Department to proceed with the execution with a 5-4 ruling , after issuing a similar decision earlier this week for the Trump administration to carry out the first federal execution in nearly two decades .
Wesley Ira Purkey , 68 , was declared dead at 8:19 a.m. Eastern time in Terre Haute , Indiana .
The inmate , strapped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was executed by lethal injection for the pain his actions caused his victim and also his adult daughter .
His last words were : “ This sanitized murder really does not serve no purpose whatsoever .
Thank you.
” All four of the liberal justices dissented from Thursday ’ s ruling , echoing similar concerns voiced over the eleventh-hour execution of Daniel Lewis Lee on Tuesday .
“ Proceeding with Purkey ’ s execution now , despite the grave questions and factual findings regarding his mental competency , casts a shroud of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injuries , ” Justices Sonia Sotomayor wrote , joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan .
The Supreme Court decision also made way for the government to execute a third inmate , Dustin Lee Honken , by lethal injection on Friday , and Keith Dwayne Nelson on Aug. 28 .
Breyer , in a separate dissent joined by Ginsburg on Thursday , said the cases before the court this week exemplified serious legal defects that plague the use of capital punishment .
“ That these problems have emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ product not of any particular jurisdiction or the work of any particular court , prosecutor , or defense counsel , but of the punishment itself , ” Breyer wrote .
Purkey ’ s lawyers had claimed he suffered from advanced Alzheimer ’ s disease and dementia , and no longer understood why he was being executed .
The inmate was convicted of kidnapping and murdering a 16-year-old girl , and was also found guilty on state charges for the murder of an 80-year-old woman .
His death follows several attempts for a district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Purkey , Lee and two other federal inmates remained pending before the Washington court .
The two injunctions from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan , a Barack Obama appointee , set off a series of appeals and emergency motions in recent days , with the Trump administration quickly turning to the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to clear the way for the executions to proceed .
The petitioners had argued new protocols taken up by the Trump administration last year to execute all four men using a single-lethal chemical dose violated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to not face cruel and unusual punishment for their crimes .
Cassandra Stubbs , director of the ACLU ’ s Capital Punishment Project , said the two executions carried out this week marked a dark period in American history .
“ After a rushed and truncated review , the courts abandoned the constitutional prohibition on executing people who lack rational understanding of the reason for their execution in order to allow the government to proceed with the shameful execution of Wes Purkey , despite his pending competency appeal , ” Stubbs said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also criticized the government for carrying out the sentence during the coronavirus pandemic , forcing the Buddhist priest who had ministered to the prisoner to risk his own health to be present at the execution .
“ There was no reason for this administration to restart federal executions now — after a nearly two-decade hiatus , during the worst public health crisis of our lifetime — except to distract from its many failings , particularly its failure to keep people safe during this pandemic , ” Stubbs said .

The U.S. government executed the second federal inmate this week early Thursday morning, carrying out the death sentence for a man whose attorneys claimed he suffered from dementia.
WASHINGTON (CN) — The U.S. government executed the second federal inmate this week early Thursday morning, carrying out the death sentence for a man whose attorneys claimed he suffered from dementia.
The Supreme Court allowed the Justice Department to proceed with the execution with a 5-4 ruling, after issuing a similar decision earlier this week for the Trump administration to carry out the first federal execution in nearly two decades.
Wesley Ira Purkey, 68, was declared dead at 8:19 a.m. EST in Terre Haute, Indiana. The inmate, strapped to a gurney, expressed remorse before he was executed by lethal injection for the pain his actions caused his victim and also his adult daughter.
His last words were: “This sanitized murder really does not serve no purpose whatsoever. Thank you.”
All four of the liberal justices dissented from Thursday's ruling, echoing similar concerns voiced over the eleventh-hour execution of Daniel Lewis Lee on Tuesday.
“Proceeding with Purkey’s execution now, despite the grave questions and factual findings regarding his mental competency, casts a shroud of constitutional doubt over the most irrevocable of injuries,” Justices Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
The Supreme Court decision also made way for the government to execute a third inmate, Dustin Lee Honken, by lethal injection on Friday, and Keith Dwayne Nelson on Aug. 28.
Breyer, in a separate dissent joined by Ginsburg on Thursday, said the cases before the court this week exemplified serious legal defects that plague the use of capital punishment.
“That these problems have emerged so quickly suggests that they are the product not of any particular jurisdiction or the work of any particular court, prosecutor, or defense counsel, but of the punishment itself,” Breyer wrote.
Purkey’s lawyers had claimed he suffered from advanced Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, and no longer understood why he was being executed. The inmate was convicted of kidnapping and murdering a 16-year-old girl, and was also found guilty on state charges for the murder of an 80-year-old woman.
His death follows several attempts for a district judge to delay the proceeding while claims from Purkey, Lee and two other federal inmates remained pending before the Washington court.
The two injunctions from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee, set off a series of appeals and emergency motions in recent days, with the Trump administration quickly turning to the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to clear the way for the executions to proceed.
The petitioners had argued new protocols taken up by the Trump administration last year to execute all four men using a single-lethal chemical dose violated federal law, including their Eighth Amendment right to not face cruel and unusual punishment for their crimes.
Cassandra Stubbs, director of the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project, said the two executions carried out this week marked a dark period in American history.
“After a rushed and truncated review, the courts abandoned the constitutional prohibition on executing people who lack rational understanding of the reason for their execution in order to allow the government to proceed with the shameful execution of Wes Purkey, despite his pending competency appeal,” Stubbs said in a statement.
The ACLU attorney also criticized the government for carrying out the sentence during the coronavirus pandemic, forcing the Buddhist priest who had ministered to the prisoner to risk his own health to be present at the execution.
“There was no reason for this administration to restart federal executions now — after a nearly two-decade hiatus, during the worst public health crisis of our lifetime — except to distract from its many failings, particularly its failure to keep people safe during this pandemic,” Stubbs said.


courthousenews--2020-07-16--Top EU Court Throws Out US Data-Sharing Pact for Flouting Privacy

LUXEMBOURG ( CN ) — Swayed by evidence that U.S. intelligence authorities surveil users illegally , the EU ’ s highest court struck down a pact that lets companies move data between the United States and European Union .
The European Commission had signed off on the agreement known as the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield , but the European Court of Justice ruled that the deal lacks safeguards required by the General Data Protection Regulation .
Adopted in 2016 , the GDPR says transfers of personal data to a country outside the EU may only take place if the country has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The long-awaited judgment released this morning marks the Luxembourg-based court ’ s second rejection of a data-sharing arrangement with the EU — both based on complaints from Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems .
His challenges stemmed from information leaked by Edward Snowden , the former National Security Agency contractor , in 2013 that U.S. government intelligence agencies had used a program called Prism to collect huge swaths of electronic communications about internet users from private businesses .
“ The Commission found … that ‘ while individuals , including EU data subjects … have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have been the subject of unlawful ( electronic ) surveillance for national security purposes , it is equally clear that at least some legal bases that U.S. intelligence authorities may use ( e.g .
E.O .
12333 ) are not covered , ’ ” Thursday ’ s ruling from the Grand Chamber states .
“ Thus , as regards E.O .
12333 , the commission emphasized … the lack of any redress mechanism .
In accordance with the case-law … the existence of such a lacuna in judicial protection in respect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential decree makes it impossible to conclude , as the commission did in the Privacy Shield Decision , that United States law ensures a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter.
” Facebook and other tech companies rely on data pacts to transfer data from countries in the European Union to the United States or elsewhere in the world .
The EU has reached such deals with only 11 countries , including Japan , prompting disappointment Thursday on both sides of the Atlantic .
U.S. Commerce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue to work with the European Commission on the matter , touting a desire to shield what is a “ $ 7.1 trillion transatlantic economic relationship.
” “ As our economies continue their post-Covid-19 recovery , it is critical that companies — including the 5,300+ current Privacy Shield participants — be able to transfer data without interruption , ” Ross said in a statement .
“ Today ’ s decision is nothing short of irresponsible , ” said Eline Chivot of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation said in a statement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies that now must scrambling to comply with the ruling .
“ In the midst of a global pandemic during which global data flows are more vital than ever , it puts all global data transfers from the EU at risk and wreaks havoc on the digital economy , ” Chivot said in a statement .
An Austrian lawyer , Schrems filed his original complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commission as Facebook has its European headquarters there .
“ It is clear that the U.S. will have to seriously change its surveillance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to play a role in the EU market , ” Schrems said in a statement Thursday .
Following the ruling known as Schrems I — in which the European court tossed out the previous U.S.-EU data-sharing arrangement called the Safe Harbor Framework — Facebook and other tech companies switched to using standard contractual clauses that let users give permission to transfer their data outside of the EU .
The EU later put in place the Privacy Shield Framework , which it claims was more robust than its predecessor .
“ We do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard contractual clauses , but we call for them to enforce the existing rules , ” one of Schrems ’ lawyers , Eoin McCullough , told the court in a hearing last year .
In response to the Thursday ’ s outcome , an EU official did not go so far as to promise a third pact .
“ Our ambition is to respond together and figure out ways we can adapt to the decision , ” the EU ’ s Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders said in a statement .
In addition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more technical standard contractual clauses to govern user data expectations .
Though Thursday ’ s warning upholds such clauses , the court did warn that their validity depends on whether countries “ ensure compliance with the level of protection required by EU law.
” Regarding the framework for contractual clauses , the court said it “ provides for effective mechanisms which , in practice , ensures that the transfer to a third country of personal data … is suspended or prohibited where the recipient of the transfer does not comply with those clauses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Facebook took heart in this silver lining on contractual clauses but said the new ban on Privacy Shield will require further attention .
“ We look forward to regulatory guidance in this regard , ” Eva Nagle , the company ’ s associate general counsel , said in a statement .
As compared with a bilateral deal like Privacy Shield , however , contractual clauses are far more legally cumbersome .
The court “ removed from the table one of the few , and most trusted , ways to transfer data across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director general for policy in Europe at BSA The Software Alliance , whose members include Microsoft and Oracle , said in a statement .
Schrems called Thursday ’ s decision “ a total blow to the Irish DPC and Facebook , ” using an abbreviation for the Data Protection Commissioner .
CCIA , a U.S. trade group for the tech industry , lamented the legal uncertainty that flows from Thursday ’ s ruling .
“ We trust that EU and US decision-makers will swiftly develop a sustainable solution , in line with EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data flows which underpins the transatlantic economy , ” CCIA said in a statement .
Because contractual clauses remain legal , the industry predicts little immediate fallout .
Julie Brill , a vice president at Microsoft , touted the U.S. software giant ’ s “ overlapping protections ” that use both the clauses and Privacy Shield .
“ We want to be clear : if you are a commercial customer , you can continue to use Microsoft services in compliance with European law , ” she said in a statement .
Thursday ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a court magistrate last year that backed the validity of U.S.-EU data transfers .
On Wednesday , the European court sided with Ireland and Apple over an accusation from the U.S. that the island nation was providing illegal state aid in the form of a sweetheart tax deal .

Swayed by evidence that U.S. intelligence authorities surveil users illegally, the EU’s highest court struck down a pact that lets companies move data between the United States and European Union.
LUXEMBOURG (CN) — Swayed by evidence that U.S. intelligence authorities surveil users illegally, the EU’s highest court struck down a pact that lets companies move data between the United States and European Union.
The European Commission had signed off on the agreement known as the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, but the European Court of Justice ruled that the deal lacks safeguards required by the General Data Protection Regulation.
Adopted in 2016, the GDPR says transfers of personal data to a country outside the EU may only take place if the country has an adequate level of data protection.
The long-awaited judgment released this morning marks the Luxembourg-based court’s second rejection of a data-sharing arrangement with the EU — both based on complaints from Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems. His challenges stemmed from information leaked by Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, in 2013 that U.S. government intelligence agencies had used a program called Prism to collect huge swaths of electronic communications about internet users from private businesses.
“The Commission found ... that ‘while individuals, including EU data subjects ... have a number of avenues of redress when they have been the subject of unlawful (electronic) surveillance for national security purposes, it is equally clear that at least some legal bases that U.S. intelligence authorities may use (e.g. E.O. 12333) are not covered,’” Thursday’s ruling from the Grand Chamber states. “Thus, as regards E.O. 12333, the commission emphasized ... the lack of any redress mechanism. In accordance with the case-law ... the existence of such a lacuna in judicial protection in respect of interferences with intelligence programs based on that presidential decree makes it impossible to conclude, as the commission did in the Privacy Shield Decision, that United States law ensures a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter.”
Facebook and other tech companies rely on data pacts to transfer data from countries in the European Union to the United States or elsewhere in the world. The EU has reached such deals with only 11 countries, including Japan, prompting disappointment Thursday on both sides of the Atlantic.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Thursday that America will continue to work with the European Commission on the matter, touting a desire to shield what is a "$7.1 trillion transatlantic economic relationship."
"As our economies continue their post-Covid-19 recovery, it is critical that companies — including the 5,300+ current Privacy Shield participants — be able to transfer data without interruption," Ross said in a statement.
Industry sources were less politic.
"Today's decision is nothing short of irresponsible," said Eline Chivot of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation said in a statement, counting more than 5,000 European and U.S. companies that now must scrambling to comply with the ruling.
"In the midst of a global pandemic during which global data flows are more vital than ever, it puts all global data transfers from the EU at risk and wreaks havoc on the digital economy," Chivot said in a statement.
An Austrian lawyer, Schrems filed his original complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commission as Facebook has its European headquarters there.
“It is clear that the U.S. will have to seriously change its surveillance laws if U.S. companies want to continue to play a role in the EU market,” Schrems said in a statement Thursday.
Following the ruling known as Schrems I — in which the European court tossed out the previous U.S.-EU data-sharing arrangement called the Safe Harbor Framework — Facebook and other tech companies switched to using standard contractual clauses that let users give permission to transfer their data outside of the EU.
The EU later put in place the Privacy Shield Framework, which it claims was more robust than its predecessor.
“We do not want to have the EU stop using standard contractual clauses, but we call for them to enforce the existing rules,” one of Schrems’ lawyers, Eoin McCullough, told the court in a hearing last year.
In response to the Thursday's outcome, an EU official did not go so far as to promise a third pact. "Our ambition is to respond together and figure out ways we can adapt to the decision," the EU's Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders said in a statement.
In addition to Privacy Shield, many companies ruling also more technical standard contractual clauses to govern user data expectations. Though Thursday's warning upholds such clauses, the court did warn that their validity depends on whether countries “ensure compliance with the level of protection required by EU law.”
Regarding the framework for contractual clauses, the court said it “provides for effective mechanisms which, in practice, ensures that the transfer to a third country of personal data ... is suspended or prohibited where the recipient of the transfer does not comply with those clauses or is unable to comply with them.”
Facebook took heart in this silver lining on contractual clauses but said the new ban on Privacy Shield will require further attention. "We look forward to regulatory guidance in this regard," Eva Nagle, the company's associate general counsel, said in a statement.
As compared with a bilateral deal like Privacy Shield, however, contractual clauses are far more legally cumbersome.
The court "removed from the table one of the few, and most trusted, ways to transfer data across the Atlantic," Thomas Boue, director general for policy in Europe at BSA The Software Alliance, whose members include Microsoft and Oracle, said in a statement.
Schrems called Thursday’s decision “a total blow to the Irish DPC and Facebook," using an abbreviation for the Data Protection Commissioner.
CCIA, a U.S. trade group for the tech industry, lamented the legal uncertainty that flows from Thursday's ruling.
"We trust that EU and US decision-makers will swiftly develop a sustainable solution, in line with EU law, to ensure the continuation of data flows which underpins the transatlantic economy," CCIA said in a statement.
Because contractual clauses remain legal, the industry predicts little immediate fallout.
Julie Brill, a vice president at Microsoft, touted the U.S. software giant's "overlapping protections" that use both the clauses and Privacy Shield.
"We want to be clear: if you are a commercial customer, you can continue to use Microsoft services in compliance with European law," she said in a statement.
Thursday’s ruling follows an advisory opinion of a court magistrate last year that backed the validity of U.S.-EU data transfers.
On Wednesday, the European court sided with Ireland and Apple over an accusation from the U.S. that the island nation was providing illegal state aid in the form of a sweetheart tax deal.


courthousenews--2020-07-16--Community Groups Weigh in on Minneapolis Police Reform Amendment

MINNEAPOLIS ( CN ) — Abolishing or reworking the Minneapolis Police Department received broad-based acclaim from commentators at a Wednesday night public hearing for a city charter amendment that would enable it , but the amendment itself was a little more controversial .
The Minneapolis Charter Commission is the first hurdle for the council ’ s plan to rework public safety in Minneapolis .
A proposed amendment would remove the requirement for a mayor-commanded police force with a minimum employee-to-resident ratio of 0.00017 and establish a separate Community Safety and Violence Prevention department under the city council ’ s authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the commission in order to secure a spot on the ballot , and do so in double-time to be voted on this November .
Wednesday ’ s meeting , the first of two , had over 200 people sign up to make one-minute comments , many of whom were stymied by technical difficulties .
Of the approximately 190 commenters who made it through to say their piece , the majority were supportive of the amendment , but some said it did not go far enough or dismissed it as a power grab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few denounced the idea of police abolition entirely and others decried its timing .
“ I ’ ve seen the MPD ’ s contempt for our communities taken out on the bodies of my students , ” Cynthia Gomez , a teacher and resident of Powderhorn Park , the neighborhood where George Floyd ’ s deadly arrest took place .
“ They can ’ t help themselves even when the cameras are rolling .
What are we supposed to do with a toxic force rotten with racist and white nationalist elements , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Several members of Reclaim the Block , a Black-led community organization which has called for the defunding of MPD since its foundation in 2018 , testified in favor of the amendment .
Lex Horan told the commission that the police have been running out the clock on reforms .
“ MPD has fought to grow its budget year after year by claiming that this is gon na be the year that they ’ ll build trust with the community , by hiring co-responders , implementing a new training , under the leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ And then , seven weeks ago , MPD murdered George Floyd .
We can ’ t keep giving MPD one more chance to build trust .
We need to transition to systems that build trust because of what they do , and not in spite of it .
And right now , the charter is standing in the way of this tremendous change that ’ s needed.
” But some members of Minneapolis ’ Black community , including activists Al Flowers and Nekima Levy-Armstrong , a 2017 mayoral candidate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without consulting the Black community .
“ Do not be bullied by these antics where they ’ ve got a hundred people calling in , ” Flowers said .
“ Do not bow down to the pressure of all these white people calling.
” The meeting was held online , with commenters phoning in their comments to a blank screen and largely silent commissioners .
Struggles with the phone system plagued the meeting as callers repeatedly asked if commissioners could hear them or dropped off entirely .
Abolitionist Jess Linden pointed out that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t guarantee any actual defunding .
“ The proposed amendment gives us a fill-in-the blank , and just wants us to trust that it ’ s the change that we ’ ve been looking for , ” she said .
“ It does nothing but give some power to the city council , who we can not trust , because they are the ones who could have done something about it , the mayor could have done something about these killer cops , and they didn ’ t , ” she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually puts power in the hands of the people to hold killer cops accountable.
” A few other callers mocked abolitionists .
Dale Hume , a North Minneapolis resident , signed off with “ Alexa , give me the number of a private security firm.
” Meanwhile , several advocates asked why the charter commission was a necessary step at all , and expressed concern that some commissioners , whose duty is to determine whether the amendment is fit to go on the ballot , had been publicly arguing against its merits .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Al Giraud-Isaacson ’ s confusion of the two black men on the City Council , Phillipe Cunningham and Jeremiah Ellison in a tweet last week .
Giraud-Isaacson quickly offered a public apology to Cunningham .
“ I ’ m a white Southwest Minneapolis resident who had no idea that a unanimous , veto-proof vote by the city council could run up against such a secretive , unelected and unrepresentative body as the charter commission , ” June Tiemann said .
If the amendment does not go on the ballot , she added , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many voters , like me , will want to figure out how we can change the Minneapolis Constitution to remove secretive , unelected , unrepresentative bodies like the charter commission.
” Giraud-Isaacson , in a tweet after the hearing , attempted to demystify the commission .
“ How did I find out about the secret society of the Charter Commission ?
” he wrote .
“ It was easy .
I searched “ Minneapolis Boards and Commissions ” found the city web page listing them all and applied.
” Another public hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the commission delays past Aug. 21 , any charter amendment votes will have to be delayed until 2021 at the earliest .

Abolishing or reworking the Minneapolis Police Department received broad-based acclaim from commenters at a Wednesday night public hearing for a city charter amendment that would enable it, but the amendment itself was a little more controversial.
MINNEAPOLIS (CN) — Abolishing or reworking the Minneapolis Police Department received broad-based acclaim from commentators at a Wednesday night public hearing for a city charter amendment that would enable it, but the amendment itself was a little more controversial.
The Minneapolis Charter Commission is the first hurdle for the council’s plan to rework public safety in Minneapolis.
A proposed amendment would remove the requirement for a mayor-commanded police force with a minimum employee-to-resident ratio of 0.00017 and establish a separate Community Safety and Violence Prevention department under the city council’s authority.
That amendment needs to pass muster with the commission in order to secure a spot on the ballot, and do so in double-time to be voted on this November.
Wednesday’s meeting, the first of two, had over 200 people sign up to make one-minute comments, many of whom were stymied by technical difficulties.
Of the approximately 190 commenters who made it through to say their piece, the majority were supportive of the amendment, but some said it did not go far enough or dismissed it as a power grab by the Minneapolis City Council. A few denounced the idea of police abolition entirely and others decried its timing.
“I’ve seen the MPD’s contempt for our communities taken out on the bodies of my students,” Cynthia Gomez, a teacher and resident of Powderhorn Park, the neighborhood where George Floyd’s deadly arrest took place. “They can’t help themselves even when the cameras are rolling. What are we supposed to do with a toxic force rotten with racist and white nationalist elements, even if there are some good cops?”
Several members of Reclaim the Block, a Black-led community organization which has called for the defunding of MPD since its foundation in 2018, testified in favor of the amendment. Lex Horan told the commission that the police have been running out the clock on reforms.
“MPD has fought to grow its budget year after year by claiming that this is gonna be the year that they’ll build trust with the community, by hiring co-responders, implementing a new training, under the leadership of a new chief,” she said.
“And then, seven weeks ago, MPD murdered George Floyd. We can’t keep giving MPD one more chance to build trust. We need to transition to systems that build trust because of what they do, and not in spite of it. And right now, the charter is standing in the way of this tremendous change that’s needed.”
But some members of Minneapolis’ Black community, including activists Al Flowers and Nekima Levy-Armstrong, a 2017 mayoral candidate, said the amendment had been put together without consulting the Black community.
“Do not be bullied by these antics where they’ve got a hundred people calling in,” Flowers said. “Do not bow down to the pressure of all these white people calling.”
The meeting was held online, with commenters phoning in their comments to a blank screen and largely silent commissioners. Struggles with the phone system plagued the meeting as callers repeatedly asked if commissioners could hear them or dropped off entirely.
Abolitionist Jess Linden pointed out that the council’s proposed amendment didn’t guarantee any actual defunding.
“The proposed amendment gives us a fill-in-the blank, and just wants us to trust that it’s the change that we’ve been looking for,” she said.
Linda Galloway agreed.
“It does nothing but give some power to the city council, who we cannot trust, because they are the ones who could have done something about it, the mayor could have done something about these killer cops, and they didn’t,” she said. “We need specific language that actually puts power in the hands of the people to hold killer cops accountable.”
A few other callers mocked abolitionists. Dale Hume, a North Minneapolis resident, signed off with “Alexa, give me the number of a private security firm.”
Meanwhile, several advocates asked why the charter commission was a necessary step at all, and expressed concern that some commissioners, whose duty is to determine whether the amendment is fit to go on the ballot, had been publicly arguing against its merits.
One commenter also took note of commissioner Al Giraud-Isaacson’s confusion of the two black men on the City Council, Phillipe Cunningham and Jeremiah Ellison in a tweet last week. Giraud-Isaacson quickly offered a public apology to Cunningham.
“I’m a white Southwest Minneapolis resident who had no idea that a unanimous, veto-proof vote by the city council could run up against such a secretive, unelected and unrepresentative body as the charter commission,” June Tiemann said.
If the amendment does not go on the ballot, she added, “I think it’s possible that many voters, like me, will want to figure out how we can change the Minneapolis Constitution to remove secretive, unelected, unrepresentative bodies like the charter commission.”
Giraud-Isaacson, in a tweet after the hearing, attempted to demystify the commission.
“How did I find out about the secret society of the Charter Commission?” he wrote. “It was easy. I searched "Minneapolis Boards and Commissions" found the city web page listing them all and applied.”
Another public hearing is scheduled for July 21. If the commission delays past Aug. 21, any charter amendment votes will have to be delayed until 2021 at the earliest.


Split-Jury Verdict

GRETNA , La .
— A Louisiana appeals court ruled Ronald Gasser , who killed NFL player Joe McKnight in @ @ @ @ @ a new trial because his manslaughter conviction was delivered by a split jury .
The @ @ @ @ @ verdicts in April .

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.


courthousenews--2020-07-17--Israeli Company Accused of Spying on Journalists, Human Rights Advocates Can’t Duck Whatsapp Lawsuit

( CN ) — A federal judge in California on Thursday refused to dismiss an Israeli software company from a @ @ @ @ @ that claims the company used malware to spy on the messenger service ’ s users @ @ @ @ @ and journalists .

A federal judge in California on Thursday refused to dismiss an Israeli software company from a lawsuit brought by Facebook-owned Whatsapp that claims the company used malware to spy on the messenger service's users, particularly human rights advocates and journalists.
(CN) — A federal judge in California on Thursday refused to dismiss a suit brought by WhatsApp and Facebook against an Israeli software company that claims the company used WhatsApp to send surveillance malware to over 1,000 devices, including devices used by journalists, human rights activists and senior foreign government officials.
Last October, the messaging platform WhatsApp and its owner Facebook brought a lawsuit against NSO Group Technologies Limited, claiming that the software company used WhatsApp to send malware to roughly 1,400 devices used by lawyers, activists and diplomats.
The malware was designed to be a form of surveillance software that was used to spy on the users of the infected devices, according to the complaint.
WhatsApp claims that NSO accomplished this by using WhatsApp’s servers to initiate calls with the devices being targeted that could infect them with malware once the call was complete – even those being targeted who never picked up the phone.
“Disguising the malicious code as call settings enabled Defendants to deliver it to the Target Device and made the malicious code appear as if it originated from WhatsApp Signaling Servers,” the original complaint stated. “Once Defendants’ calls were delivered to the Target Device, they injected the malicious code into the memory of the Target Device—even when the Target User did not answer the call.”
Based on this, WhatsApp and Facebook requested in their complaint that NSO be ordered to stop their activities and pay the companies a series of compensatory, statutory and punitive damages.
NSO asked U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District of California to dismiss the claims brought against the software company, but Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, largely denied the company’s request and allowed the lawsuit to continue.
One notable argument NSO sought to use in its dismissal request was that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The company claims that the conduct that gave rise to the complaint was conducted by “foreign sovereigns” and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act bars lawsuits on those grounds.
The company claims that they were contractors of the foreign sovereigns and these protections should therefore be afforded to them.
The judge, however, was not convinced.
Judge Hamilton said the company fails the content-based prong of the foreign official immunity test and are not entitled to any form of sovereign immunity.
NSO further claimed that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing several legal points regarding the exact language of the agreed upon terms of service for WhatsApp and the exact forum the alleged harm took place in.
That argument also failed to pass muster. Hamilton found that while some factors did tip slightly in favor of NSO, there was enough brought in WhatsApp’s complaint to show exactly who was targeted by the alleged conduct and that personal jurisdiction over the matter was well established.
NSO also attempted to argue that the case should be tossed for a simple failure to state a claim and that WhatsApp did not suffer an actual loss under the relevant law.
WhatsApp contends however, and the judge agreed, that one of their key losses in all of this was spending resources to identify and fix the problems caused by the malware in the first place.
WhatsApp also claims that had to spend time and money on upgrading the entire WhatsApp system in response to NSO’s alleged intrusions, spending resources that more than justify a legal claim for losses.
Judge Hamilton was not completely unsympathetic to NSO’s arguments, as she was persuaded by the software company on one key claim. WhatsApp brought trespass to chattels claims against NSO, which essentially says that NSO’s conduct damaged WhatsApp’s servers and property.
But the judge did not find this to be the case. Hamilton said that WhatsApp did not bring enough forward in their complaint to show that the alleged activity by NSO resulted in actual damage to WhatsApp’s property or caused any access damage to WhatsApp’s computers or servers.
As a result, she granted NSO’s request to have that claim dismissed – though WhatsApp has been given the opportunity to amend the complaint.
Attorneys for WhatsApp and NSO did not immediately respond to request for comment by press time Thursday evening.


courthousenews--2020-07-17--Oakland to Pay Out $32.7 Million to Survivors of Ghost Ship Warehouse Fire

OAKLAND , Calif. ( CN ) — In a settlement announced late Thursday , the City of Oakland has agreed to pay $ 32.7 million to families with loved ones who perished in the 2016 Ghost Ship warehouse fire , along with one survivor who continues to battle with severe lifelong injuries .
“ I don ’ t think any amount of money can compensate them for what they ’ ve been through it ’ s a terrible , tragic , horrible loss .
But it does bring a sense of some justice to the families , ” the plaintiffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by phone Thursday evening .
“ This money can help soften their lives a little bit and give them that sense of justice .
The settlement resolves a raft of civil lawsuits against the city for failing to inspect and shut down the Ghost Ship — which had been illegally converted into a live-work space for about 25 artists — for not being up to code , though police and fire personnel visited repeatedly before the fire , and the planning and building department received multiple reports of dangerous conditions there .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 , 2016 , where over 100 people were attending an electronic music concert on the upper floor , leaving 36 people dead .
According to the plaintiffs , the warehouse was cluttered with flammable materials and debris ; received its power from an adjacent building via an overloaded cable snaked through a hole in the wall ; lacked overhead sprinklers and emergency exits and had only two rickety stairwells , one of which had been blocked off before the party .
Under the settlement , the victims ’ families will receive $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survived the fire but suffered terrible injuries , will receive $ 9.2 million .
The city continues to claim it is not liable for the fire and said in a statement through the city attorney ’ s office that it agreed to settle the claims after a cost-benefit analysis .
“ This was a horrific tragedy that deeply impacted every corner of our community , ” said a press release from the city of Oakland .
“ Mayor [ Libby ] Schaaf , the City Council , city attorney , and city administrator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the families , whose losses are unimaginable.
” A criminal case against the Ghost Ship ’ s master tenant Derek Almena is still set for October 2020 in Alameda County Superior Court .
This past September , 12-person jury could not agree on whether to convict Almena on 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter , hanging 10-2 in favor of guilt and forcing Judge Trina Thompson to declare a mistrial .
The same jury acquitted Almena ’ s co-defendant Max Harris , who lived at the Ghost Ship warehouse and helped Almena run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit against the city brought by 12 people who lived at the Ghost Ship is still ongoing .
“ The people who lived there and had to run for their lives are still suing the city , so this doesn ’ t settle everything , ” she said .
“ We ’ re still going to trial against the city in February .
”

In a settlement announced late Thursday, the City of Oakland has agreed to pay $32.7 million to families with loved ones who perished in the 2016 Ghost Ship warehouse fire, along with one survivor who continues to battle with severe lifelong injuries.
OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — In a settlement announced late Thursday, the city of Oakland has agreed to pay $32.7 million to families with loved ones who perished in the 2016 Ghost Ship warehouse fire, along with one survivor who continues to battle with severe lifelong injuries.
“I don’t think any amount of money can compensate them for what they’ve been through it’s a terrible, tragic, horrible loss. But it does bring a sense of some justice to the families,” the plaintiffs’ lead liaison attorney Mary Alexander said by phone Thursday evening. “This money can help soften their lives a little bit and give them that sense of justice."
The settlement resolves a raft of civil lawsuits against the city for failing to inspect and shut down the Ghost Ship — which had been illegally converted into a live-work space for about 25 artists — for not being up to code, though police and fire personnel visited repeatedly before the fire, and the planning and building department received multiple reports of dangerous conditions there.
A fire ripped through the warehouse on Dec. 2, 2016, where over 100 people were attending an electronic music concert on the upper floor, leaving 36 people dead.
According to the plaintiffs, the warehouse was cluttered with flammable materials and debris; received its power from an adjacent building via an overloaded cable snaked through a hole in the wall; lacked overhead sprinklers and emergency exits and had only two rickety stairwells, one of which had been blocked off before the party.
Under the settlement, the victims’ families will receive $23.5 million. Sam Maxwell, who survived the fire but suffered terrible injuries, will receive $9.2 million.
The city continues to claim it is not liable for the fire and said in a statement through the city attorney’s office that it agreed to settle the claims after a cost-benefit analysis.
“This was a horrific tragedy that deeply impacted every corner of our community,” said a press release from the city of Oakland. “Mayor [Libby] Schaaf, the City Council, city attorney, and city administrator express their deepest sympathies to Mr. Maxwell and the families, whose losses are unimaginable.”
A criminal case against the Ghost Ship’s master tenant Derek Almena is still set for October 2020 in Alameda County Superior Court.
This past September, 12-person jury could not agree on whether to convict Almena on 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter, hanging 10-2 in favor of guilt and forcing Judge Trina Thompson to declare a mistrial.
The same jury acquitted Almena’s co-defendant Max Harris, who lived at the Ghost Ship warehouse and helped Almena run the collective.
Alexander said a civil lawsuit against the city brought by 12 people who lived at the Ghost Ship is still ongoing, as are lawsuits against Ghost Ship landlords Chor Nar Siu Ng and her children Eva Ng and Kai Ng.
“The people who lived there and had to run for their lives are still suing the city, so this doesn’t settle everything,” she said. “We’re still going to trial against the city in February.”


courthousenews--2020-07-16--PG&E Equipment Blamed for 2019 California Wildfire

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — Less than three weeks after it emerged from bankruptcy brought on by crushing wildfire liabilities , California fire officials on Thursday blamed Pacific Gas and Electric ’ s equipment for causing another blaze — the Kincade Fire that scorched over 77,000 acres in Sonoma County in 2019 .
In a brief statement issued Thursday , the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection , or CalFire , said its investigators found the blaze was caused by PG & E transmission lines northeast of Geyserville , an unincorporated community about 70 miles north of San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 23 , 2019 , and burned for 12 days , destroying 374 structures and forcing nearly 200,000 people to evacuate .
“ Tinder dry vegetation and strong winds combined with low humidity and warm temperatures contributed to extreme rates of fire spread , ” CalFire said in its statement .
A CalFire spokeswoman said the agency turned its investigative report over to the Sonoma County District Attorney ’ s Office and is not releasing the report publicly at this time .
PG & E said in a statement Thursday that it does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report or the evidence it collected , but it looks forward to reviewing those materials “ at the appropriate time.
” “ We appreciate all the heroic efforts of the first responders who fought the 2019 Kincade Fire , helped local citizens evacuate and made sure no one perished in the fire , ” PG & E spokesperson Ari Vanrenen said .
“ We want our customers and communities to know that safety is our most important responsibility and that we are working hard every day to reduce wildfire risk throughout our service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 50 businesses sued the utility giant in Sonoma County Superior Court last week seeking compensation for property damage caused by the Kincade Fire .
This could be one of the first fires in which damages will be covered by a multibillion-dollar insurance account created by the California ’ s Assembly Bill 1054 .
The insurance account is funded equally by private utility shareholders and ratepayers through a $ 2.50 surcharge on monthly utility bills .
PG & E just gained the right to participate in the wildfire fund by meeting a June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed .
The utility acknowledged in October 2019 that a broken jumper cable on one of its transmission towers in Sonoma County likely sparked the Kincade Fire .
This past February , the federal judge overseeing PG & E ’ s probation for felony convictions related to the 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion ordered PG & E to answer questions about its maintenance and inspections of jumper cables .
In April , U.S. District Judge William Alsup cited the “ problematic ” jumper cable as one of several reasons why the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probation terms , including conditions that it keep records on the age of every piece of transmission line equipment and videotape all inspections .
Alsup has since postponed imposing those conditions while awaiting feedback from PG & E , California regulators , and other stakeholders on the feasibility of implementing those changes and alternative recommendations .
PG & E exited bankruptcy with a new interim CEO and board of directors on July 1 after paying $ 25.5 billion in settlements for wildfires sparked by the company ’ s equipment in 2015 , 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1 billion to regional and local government entities , $ 11 billion for insurers who covered wildfire losses and $ 13.5 billion through a mixture of cash and stock for all other wildfire victims .
A 20 % drop in the company ’ s stock price over the last two months has raised doubts as to whether fire victims will get the full $ 6.75 billion in stock that was expected .
The California Public Utilities Commission hit PG & E with a record $ 2 billion fine in May for its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wildfires in 2017 and 2018 .
In June , the company also pleaded guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter and one count of recklessly starting the Camp Fire , the most deadly and destructive fire in California history .
A Butte County grand jury investigation found the company repeatedly ignored warning signs about its antiquated power equipment , failed to learn from past tragedies and conducted inadequate inspections as it focused on profits over safety .
The Kincade Fire was the largest wildfire in Sonoma County history , burning more than twice the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 .
The Tubbs Fire was more deadly and destructive , killing 22 people and destroying more than 5,600 buildings .
No people were killed in the Kincade Fire .

Less than three weeks after it emerged from bankruptcy brought on by crushing wildfire liabilities, California fire officials on Thursday blamed Pacific Gas and Electric’s equipment for causing another blaze — the Kincade Fire that scorched over 77,000 acres in Sonoma County in 2019.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Less than three weeks after Pacific Gas and Electric emerged from bankruptcy brought on by crushing wildfire liabilities, California fire officials on Thursday blamed PG&E equipment for causing another blaze — the Kincade Fire that scorched over 77,000 acres in Sonoma County in 2019.
In a brief statement issued Thursday, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CalFire, said its investigators found the blaze was caused by PG&E transmission lines northeast of Geyserville, an unincorporated community about 70 miles north of San Francisco.
The fire started on Oct. 23, 2019, and burned for 12 days, destroying 374 structures and forcing nearly 200,000 people to evacuate.
“Tinder dry vegetation and strong winds combined with low humidity and warm temperatures contributed to extreme rates of fire spread,” CalFire said in its statement.
A CalFire spokeswoman said the agency turned its investigative report over to the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office and is not releasing the report publicly at this time.
PG&E said in a statement Thursday that it does not have access to CalFire’s investigative report or the evidence it collected, but it looks forward to reviewing those materials “at the appropriate time.”
“We appreciate all the heroic efforts of the first responders who fought the 2019 Kincade Fire, helped local citizens evacuate and made sure no one perished in the fire,” PG&E spokesperson Ari Vanrenen said. “We want our customers and communities to know that safety is our most important responsibility and that we are working hard every day to reduce wildfire risk throughout our service area.”
The report comes after more than 50 businesses sued the utility giant in Sonoma County Superior Court last week seeking compensation for property damage caused by the Kincade Fire.
This could be one of the first fires in which damages will be covered by a multibillion-dollar insurance account created by the California’s Assembly Bill 1054. The insurance account is funded equally by private utility shareholders and ratepayers through a $2.50 surcharge on monthly utility bills.
PG&E just gained the right to participate in the wildfire fund by meeting a June 30 deadline to get its bankruptcy plan confirmed.
The utility acknowledged in October 2019 that a broken jumper cable on one of its transmission towers in Sonoma County likely sparked the Kincade Fire.
This past February, the federal judge overseeing PG&E’s probation for felony convictions related to the 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion ordered PG&E to answer questions about its maintenance and inspections of jumper cables.
In April, U.S. District Judge William Alsup cited the “problematic” jumper cable as one of several reasons why the company should be forced to submit to stricter probation terms, including conditions that it keep records on the age of every piece of transmission line equipment and videotape all inspections. Alsup has since postponed imposing those conditions while awaiting feedback from PG&E, California regulators, and other stakeholders on the feasibility of implementing those changes and alternative recommendations.
PG&E exited bankruptcy with a new interim CEO and board of directors on July 1 after paying $25.5 billion in settlements for wildfires sparked by the company’s equipment in 2015, 2017 and 2018. PG&E paid $1 billion to regional and local government entities, $11 billion for insurers who covered wildfire losses and $13.5 billion through a mixture of cash and stock for all other wildfire victims. A 20% drop in the company’s stock price over the last two months has raised doubts as to whether fire victims will get the full $6.75 billion in stock that was expected.
The California Public Utilities Commission hit PG&E with a record $2 billion fine in May for its role in sparking a series of destructive wildfires in 2017 and 2018.
In June, the company also pleaded guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter and one count of recklessly starting the Camp Fire, the most deadly and destructive fire in California history. A Butte County grand jury investigation found the company repeatedly ignored warning signs about its antiquated power equipment, failed to learn from past tragedies and conducted inadequate inspections as it focused on profits over safety.
The Kincade Fire was the largest wildfire in Sonoma County history, burning more than twice the 36,800 acres scorched by the Tubbs Fire in 2017. The Tubbs Fire was more deadly and destructive, killing 22 people and destroying more than 5,600 buildings. No people were killed in the Kincade Fire.


courthousenews--2020-07-16--Apple Says Jury Trial on Phone Radiation Would Undermine FCC Authority

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — Pushing to defeat a class action claiming Apple failed to warn consumers about dangerous radiation from iPhones , an Apple attorney told a federal judge Thursday that bringing the case to a jury will undermine the Federal Communications Commission ’ s authority .
“ Plaintiffs are asking for a jury to second guess the FCC , ” Apple lawyer Christina Sarchio , of Dechert LLP , argued during a summary judgment hearing via telephone Thursday .
Lead plaintiff Andrew Cohen sued cellphone makers Apple and Samsung in August 2019 after the Chicago Tribune revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radiofrequency radiation exposure from iPhone and Galaxy smartphones surpassed federal safety limits .
Samsung was voluntarily dismissed as a defendant in the case in January .
The plaintiffs commissioned their own independent tests in 2019 and cited tests conducted by the Canadian Broadcasting Company in 2017 and French National Frequencies Agency in 2018 , all of which found radiofrequency radiation exposure from iPhones exceeded federal safety limits .
In February , U.S. District Judge William Alsup denied Apple ’ s motion to dismiss the case , finding more evidence was needed to determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when using the same guidelines to test identical iPhones .
The plaintiffs say Apple has defied Alsup ’ s directive by refusing to hand over a single non-public document it gave the FCC before the agency concluded that iPhones do not pose radiation-exposure risks .
On Thursday , Alsup questioned why the world ’ s third largest supplier of smartphones is refusing to turn over those documents .
“ Why would it be disruptive for the public to know what statements and representations Apple made to the FCC , ” Alsup asked .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be horrified at the statements ?
I don ’ t understand why you ’ re hiding them.
” Sarchio said her client is not hiding anything but believes the plaintiffs are not entitled to view documents that may contain trade secret information so they can double check the FCC ’ s work .
“ Plaintiffs are not permitted to second-guess the certification process , ” Sarchio insisted .
“ It undermines the FCC certification regime.
” Alsup ordered Apple to disclose all communications between it and the FCC on the Chicago Tribune ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling issued after the hearing Thursday .
Apple maintains the lawsuit is preempted under federal law because the FCC ’ s finding that iPhones are safe supersedes any state law that might require the company to warn consumers about radiation risks .
“ They ’ re asking for disclosures that undermine and conflict with what the FCC said , ” Sarchio argued .
The plaintiffs say they are not challenging FCC ’ s safety standards but rather seeking to make Apple disclose that its phones do not comply with those standards .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Ninth Circuit ’ s 2019 ruling in CTIA v. Berkeley , which upheld a local ordinance requiring retailers to warn consumers about the dangers of cellphone radiation .
A divided Ninth Circuit panel found the ordinance does not conflict with the FCC standard but rather “ complements and reinforces it.
” The FCC filed a 20-page brief in the Cohen v. Apple case in April arguing that if the court were to require radiation exposure warnings , it could “ mislead ” consumers into believing iPhones are unsafe , a finding at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The FCC retested iPhones after the Chicago Tribune investigation was published last year and found the phones did not exceed safety limits .
Representing the plaintiffs , attorney Jessica Meeder of Fergan Scott LLC insisted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly prohibits FCC regulations from preempting state laws .
The statute only allows preemption after the agency goes through a formal rulemaking process that includes notice and an opportunity for public comment , she argued .
“ Nothing in the legislative history said Congress intended the FCC to regulate the information a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ product , ” Meeder said .
Sarchio countered that the FCC ’ s preemption power stretches back to the Communications Act of 1934 , which gives the agency unfettered authority to regulate devices used for wireless radio communications and any related emissions .
She noted that the FCC used a wide safety margin when it established the radiofrequency specific absorption rate limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram of human tissue .
That rate is 50 times below the level at which adverse effects were detected in laboratory animal tissue .
“ Even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re still safe , ” Sarchio said of iPhones .
Alsup took the arguments under submission and did not indicate when he will issue a ruling .

Pushing to defeat a class action claiming Apple failed to warn consumers about dangerous radiation from iPhones, an Apple attorney told a federal judge Thursday that bringing the case to a jury will undermine the Federal Communications Commission’s authority.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Pushing to defeat a class action claiming Apple failed to warn consumers about dangerous radiation from iPhones, an Apple attorney told a federal judge Thursday that bringing the case to a jury will undermine the Federal Communications Commission’s authority.
“Plaintiffs are asking for a jury to second guess the FCC,” Apple lawyer Christina Sarchio, of Dechert LLP, argued during a summary judgment hearing via telephone Thursday.
Lead plaintiff Andrew Cohen sued cellphone makers Apple and Samsung in August 2019 after the Chicago Tribune revealed an FCC-certified lab’s findings that radiofrequency radiation exposure from iPhone and Galaxy smartphones surpassed federal safety limits. Samsung was voluntarily dismissed as a defendant in the case in January.
The plaintiffs commissioned their own independent tests in 2019 and cited tests conducted by the Canadian Broadcasting Company in 2017 and French National Frequencies Agency in 2018, all of which found radiofrequency radiation exposure from iPhones exceeded federal safety limits.
In February, U.S. District Judge William Alsup denied Apple’s motion to dismiss the case, finding more evidence was needed to determine why two FCC-certified labs reached opposite conclusions when using the same guidelines to test identical iPhones.
The plaintiffs say Apple has defied Alsup’s directive by refusing to hand over a single non-public document it gave the FCC before the agency concluded that iPhones do not pose radiation-exposure risks.
On Thursday, Alsup questioned why the world’s third largest supplier of smartphones is refusing to turn over those documents.
“Why would it be disruptive for the public to know what statements and representations Apple made to the FCC,” Alsup asked. “Are you afraid the public would be horrified at the statements? I don’t understand why you’re hiding them.”
Sarchio said her client is not hiding anything but believes the plaintiffs are not entitled to view documents that may contain trade secret information so they can double check the FCC’s work.
“Plaintiffs are not permitted to second-guess the certification process,” Sarchio insisted. “It undermines the FCC certification regime.”
Alsup ordered Apple to disclose all communications between it and the FCC on the Chicago Tribune’s investigation within seven days in a ruling issued after the hearing Thursday.
Apple maintains the lawsuit is preempted under federal law because the FCC’s finding that iPhones are safe supersedes any state law that might require the company to warn consumers about radiation risks.
“They’re asking for disclosures that undermine and conflict with what the FCC said,” Sarchio argued.
The plaintiffs say they are not challenging FCC’s safety standards but rather seeking to make Apple disclose that its phones do not comply with those standards.
To support their argument, the plaintiffs cited the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 ruling in CTIA v. Berkeley, which upheld a local ordinance requiring retailers to warn consumers about the dangers of cellphone radiation. A divided Ninth Circuit panel found the ordinance does not conflict with the FCC standard but rather “complements and reinforces it.”
The FCC filed a 20-page brief in the Cohen v. Apple case in April arguing that if the court were to require radiation exposure warnings, it could “mislead” consumers into believing iPhones are unsafe, a finding at odds with the FCC’s conclusion. The FCC retested iPhones after the Chicago Tribune investigation was published last year and found the phones did not exceed safety limits.
Representing the plaintiffs, attorney Jessica Meeder of Fergan Scott LLC insisted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly prohibits FCC regulations from preempting state laws. The statute only allows preemption after the agency goes through a formal rulemaking process that includes notice and an opportunity for public comment, she argued.
“Nothing in the legislative history said Congress intended the FCC to regulate the information a manufacturer must give a consumer about the product,” Meeder said.
Sarchio countered that the FCC’s preemption power stretches back to the Communications Act of 1934, which gives the agency unfettered authority to regulate devices used for wireless radio communications and any related emissions.
She noted that the FCC used a wide safety margin when it established the radiofrequency specific absorption rate limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram of human tissue. That rate is 50 times below the level at which adverse effects were detected in laboratory animal tissue.
“Even if they exceeded the regulatory threshold, they’re still safe,” Sarchio said of iPhones.
Alsup took the arguments under submission and did not indicate when he will issue a ruling.


courthousenews--2020-07-16--Judge Orders Transparent Masks for Witnesses in Criminal Trial

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — Witnesses testifying in an upcoming criminal trial will be required to wear transparent face masks to keep the court in compliance with San Francisco ’ s public health directive , a state court judge ruled Thursday .
“ This court ’ s number one priority is the health and safety of those who enter the courthouse and the prisoners in county jails , ” San Francisco Superior Court Judge Vedica Puri said at a pretrial hearing at the Hall of Justice Thursday morning .
Holding up a bundle of transparent masks wrapped in plastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds this to be a solution.
” Puri ’ s ruling comes in response to a motion filed by Deputy Public Defender Sierra Villaran to allow face shields to be used during the critical moments of a jury trial for a man accused of residential burglary .
Villaran had proposed that the court require both cloth face masks and transparent shields for witnesses , who would remove the masks on the stand and testify while wearing just the shields , so jurors could still read their facial expressions and assess their credibility .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Micro-expressions are so critical , ” Villaran said , adding that her client has the constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to confront witnesses in open court .
But Puri said “ transparent masks more than suffice to protect the right to confrontation.
” She cited Maryland v. Craig , where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a criminal defendant the absolute right to a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses .
Puri said protecting the public from a deadly virus is also the court ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment ’ s confrontation clause must be interpreted in that context .
“ I was a trial lawyer .
I ’ m very sympathetic to the notion of reading faces — jurors ’ faces , witnesses ’ faces , everyone ’ s faces , ” Puri said .
“ But we are in a pandemic and that takes precedence.
” The Covid-19 pandemic and resulting stay-at-home orders has thrown a wrench into the whole process of holding a jury trial .
Courts throughout California put trials on hold while they tried to figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have multiple attorneys , court employees , bailiffs , and the press and public in one place while keeping everyone six feet apart .
“ We have adapted to a new way of life , ” Puri said .
“ The very way we have been functioning has been upended and has forced us to change .
So must our court operations.
” The judge nixed the face shield idea , saying it wasn ’ t up to her to determine whether shields are more or less effective than masks at preventing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not for me to undo the current order we are under , ” she said .
Villaran had filed a declaration from Dr. Peter Chin-Hong , an infectious disease specialist and professor at the UCSF School of Medicine , who said face shields could keep people safe in the courtroom for hours .
Puri found Chin-Hong ’ s declaration conclusory and noted that San Francisco ’ s public health order on face coverings makes no mention face shields as an option .
Villaran had also asked that jurors be given face shields @ @ @ @ @ @ @ client be allowed to wear only a face shield during the trial to inhibit juror bias .
When Puri wondered how Villaran ’ s client , David Brown , would be prejudiced by wearing a face covering when masks will be required by everyone in the courtroom , Villaran said , “ Cultural bias runs deep.
” Jurors often watch defendants for facial cues during trial , Villaran said , noting their reactions to rulings , testimony , and exhibits .
Villaran also worries that jurors may have a biased reaction to seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covered .
Puri drew a comparison between the potential prejudicial impact of face coverings with a defendant ’ s refusal to take the stand in their own defense .
“ A lot could read into that , ” she said , adding that judges usually instruct the jury not to consider a defendant ’ s lack of testimony in evaluating their guilt or innocence .
“ How does that not cure the problem ?
” Puri asked .
“ It ’ s shifting the burden for Mr. Brown to be expressive in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a visual cue that could trigger things in jurors ’ minds.
” But Puri didn ’ t waver and said Brown would have to wear a mask — though he can opt for a transparent one provided by the court .
“ We ’ ll make it abundantly clear that the reason the defendant is wearing a mask is because he is under a court order because of the pandemic , ” Puri said .
“ Is it going to be perfect ?
No , not given the circumstances we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courtroom will be under the same masking order.
” On Monday , prospective jurors will assemble for voir dire in a courtroom set up for social distancing with orange numbered placards on chairs spaced six feet apart .
The main courtroom has the same arrangement .
Puri did not explicitly order jurors to wear transparent masks during questioning , but their faces will have to be covered .
One other thing is for certain — Brown won ’ t be allowed to sit next to his attorney .
In the courtroom Thursday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light blue button-down shirt and an orange face mask , sat to the side of the counsel table conspicuously apart from Villaran , who objected to the new arrangement .
“ I don ’ t think there ’ s any way for Mr. Brown to have a fair trial from six feet away , ” said Villaran .
“ The perception of the jury is that I don ’ t trust him , that I don ’ t want to be near him .
There ’ s an implication of guilt.
” Villaran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown from conferring with counsel during the trial .
Puri said she had been remiss in not ordering Brown and Villaran to stay six feet apart earlier .
“ Nothing is the same , ” she said .
“ The days of counsel whispering to a client seated next to them with the pandemic is bluntly , over .
I can not take a chance at allowing a break in social distancing.
” As a compromise , Puri said she would allow as many breaks as necessary for Brown to confer with Villaran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office and the district attorney have also looked at using the same devices as interpreters use to communicate with non-English speakers .
Outside the courtroom , Villaran said she still preferred a face shield and was disappointed that Puri had not allowed Chin-Hong to testify about their efficacy .
She also noted Governor Gavin Newsom ’ s statewide face-covering guidance , which supersedes any local public health orders , allows for face shields as an alternative to masks .
But she seemed hopeful about Puri ’ s transparent face mask solution .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they pan out , ” she said .
“ It ’ s not a bad alternative .
”

Witnesses testifying in an upcoming criminal trial will be required to wear transparent face masks to keep the court in compliance with San Francisco’s public health directive, a state court judge ruled Thursday.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Witnesses testifying in an upcoming criminal trial will be required to wear transparent face masks to keep the court in compliance with San Francisco’s public health directive, a state court judge ruled Thursday.
“This court’s number one priority is the health and safety of those who enter the courthouse and the prisoners in county jails,” San Francisco Superior Court Judge Vedica Puri said at a pretrial hearing at the Hall of Justice Thursday morning.
Holding up a bundle of transparent masks wrapped in plastic, she added, “The court finds this to be a solution.”
Puri’s ruling comes in response to a motion filed by Deputy Public Defender Sierra Villaran to allow face shields to be used during the critical moments of a jury trial for a man accused of residential burglary.
Villaran had proposed that the court require both cloth face masks and transparent shields for witnesses, who would remove the masks on the stand and testify while wearing just the shields, so jurors could still read their facial expressions and assess their credibility. Witnesses will also sit behind plexiglass panels.
“Micro-expressions are so critical,” Villaran said, adding that her client has the constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to confront witnesses in open court.
But Puri said “transparent masks more than suffice to protect the right to confrontation.”
She cited Maryland v. Craig, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a criminal defendant the absolute right to a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses.
Puri said protecting the public from a deadly virus is also the court’s primary concern, and that the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause must be interpreted in that context.
“I was a trial lawyer. I’m very sympathetic to the notion of reading faces — jurors’ faces, witnesses’ faces, everyone’s faces,” Puri said. “But we are in a pandemic and that takes precedence.”
The Covid-19 pandemic and resulting stay-at-home orders has thrown a wrench into the whole process of holding a jury trial. Courts throughout California put trials on hold while they tried to figure out how to safely assemble jurors and have multiple attorneys, court employees, bailiffs, and the press and public in one place while keeping everyone six feet apart.
“We have adapted to a new way of life,” Puri said. “The very way we have been functioning has been upended and has forced us to change. So must our court operations.”
The judge nixed the face shield idea, saying it wasn’t up to her to determine whether shields are more or less effective than masks at preventing the spread of Covid-19. “It’s not for me to undo the current order we are under,” she said.
Villaran had filed a declaration from Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the UCSF School of Medicine, who said face shields could keep people safe in the courtroom for hours. Puri found Chin-Hong’s declaration conclusory and noted that San Francisco’s public health order on face coverings makes no mention face shields as an option.
Villaran had also asked that jurors be given face shields during voir dire, and that her client be allowed to wear only a face shield during the trial to inhibit juror bias.
When Puri wondered how Villaran’s client, David Brown, would be prejudiced by wearing a face covering when masks will be required by everyone in the courtroom, Villaran said, “Cultural bias runs deep.”
Jurors often watch defendants for facial cues during trial, Villaran said, noting their reactions to rulings, testimony, and exhibits. Villaran also worries that jurors may have a biased reaction to seeing a young Black man with his face covered.
Puri drew a comparison between the potential prejudicial impact of face coverings with a defendant’s refusal to take the stand in their own defense. “A lot could read into that,” she said, adding that judges usually instruct the jury not to consider a defendant’s lack of testimony in evaluating their guilt or innocence. “How does that not cure the problem?” Puri asked.
"It’s shifting the burden for Mr. Brown to be expressive in other ways,” Villaran said. “This is a visual cue that could trigger things in jurors’ minds.”
But Puri didn’t waver and said Brown would have to wear a mask — though he can opt for a transparent one provided by the court.
“We’ll make it abundantly clear that the reason the defendant is wearing a mask is because he is under a court order because of the pandemic,” Puri said. “Is it going to be perfect? No, not given the circumstances we’re under. But everybody in the courtroom will be under the same masking order.”
On Monday, prospective jurors will assemble for voir dire in a courtroom set up for social distancing with orange numbered placards on chairs spaced six feet apart. The main courtroom has the same arrangement.
Puri did not explicitly order jurors to wear transparent masks during questioning, but their faces will have to be covered.
One other thing is for certain — Brown won’t be allowed to sit next to his attorney. In the courtroom Thursday, Brown, clad in khakis, a light blue button-down shirt and an orange face mask, sat to the side of the counsel table conspicuously apart from Villaran, who objected to the new arrangement.
“I don’t think there’s any way for Mr. Brown to have a fair trial from six feet away,” said Villaran. “The perception of the jury is that I don’t trust him, that I don’t want to be near him. There’s an implication of guilt.”
Villaran also said that the distance will impede Brown from conferring with counsel during the trial.
Puri said she had been remiss in not ordering Brown and Villaran to stay six feet apart earlier.
“Nothing is the same,” she said. “The days of counsel whispering to a client seated next to them with the pandemic is bluntly, over. I cannot take a chance at allowing a break in social distancing.”
As a compromise, Puri said she would allow as many breaks as necessary for Brown to confer with Villaran. Both the public defender’s office and the district attorney have also looked at using the same devices as interpreters use to communicate with non-English speakers.
Outside the courtroom, Villaran said she still preferred a face shield and was disappointed that Puri had not allowed Chin-Hong to testify about their efficacy. She also noted Governor Gavin Newsom’s statewide face-covering guidance, which supersedes any local public health orders, allows for face shields as an alternative to masks.
But she seemed hopeful about Puri’s transparent face mask solution.
“We’ll have to see how they pan out,” she said. "It’s not a bad alternative.”


courthousenews--2020-07-16--Judge Considers Blocking California Private Prison Ban

SAN DIEGO ( CN ) — Calling a pair of lawsuits brought by private prison operator GEO Group and the federal government challenging the constitutionality of California ’ s private prison ban “ fascinating and complex , ” a federal judge Thursday suggested she was unlikely to rule the ban discriminates against the federal government or its contractors .
U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino held a marathon 3-hour virtual court hearing Thursday attended by over 100 people anxious to know whether the judge will uphold California ’ s historic legislation , AB 32 .
Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of detention facility contracts with private operators , including private immigration detention facilities operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic .
In a virtual press conference prior to Thursday ’ s court hearing , immigration advocates called AB 32 a “ public health solution ” necessary to prevent the spread of Covid-19 and other diseases in overcrowded private prisons , a 2016 Justice Department report found failed to provide medical care to inmates .
Charles Joseph , an immigrant from Fiji who was detained at the Mesa Verde detention facility in Bakersfield , California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 months he was detained he never saw a janitor come into his dorm .
Detainees were offered to be paid $ 1 a day for cleaning , Joseph noted , another private prison practice being challenged in a separate class action lawsuit also being overseen by Sammartino .
The Justice Department argued in its lawsuit filed earlier this year AB 32 discriminates against the government because carve-outs written into the law apply only to state contracts .
Likewise , GEO Group argued in an earlier lawsuit the law can not supersede the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out “ detention responsibilities.
” Due to their overlapping goals , Sammartino – a George W. Bush nominee – consolidated the two cases Thursday .
At the outset of the court hearing , Sammartino read her tentative order indicating she was unlikely to find AB 32 unfairly discriminates against the federal government or its contractors , though she did note the law was likely preempted regarding privately run facilities for the U.S .
Marshals Service .
Sammartino asked GEO Group attorney Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk whether the Contract Dispute Act governed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing out the case doesn ’ t concern a dispute between the federal government and its contractor but California ’ s interference in the execution of the contract .
Sammartino asked why a full copy of the contract between GEO Group and the federal government wasn ’ t provided to the court , as the contract likely has a provision regarding how contract disputes are to be handled .
Michael Kirk , also representing GEO Group , said they were trying to “ minimize ” the court ’ s exhibit volume but agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Sammartino ’ s review .
When it came time for California to defend its law , Deputy Attorney General Gabrielle Boutin could not say what penalties the federal government or its contractors could face for violating California ’ s private prison ban , only suggesting civil enforcement would likely be utilized .
Boutin did agree the law does not apply to contractors who operate facilities that are federally owned but wouldn ’ t go as far as stipulating the law could not apply to Bureau of Prisons residential reentry facilities .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sammartino ’ s pointed questions about the current status of private detention facilities and how the state is likely to enforce its law , she did address congressional intent in allowing private companies to contract with the federal government regarding detention services .
Boutin said those allowable services were limited mainly to construction of facilities , not the running and operation of them .
“ Did Congress intend for [ Immigration and Customs Enforcement ] and other agencies to use private contractors to detain individuals ?
When we talk about the options Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at the statute , ” Boutin said .
“ Using a private operator is not one of those options , that option is not there , there is not a situation here where there is a clear and manifest intent to provide that option , ” she added .
But Cooper argued the “ impact would not have mattered ” regarding AB 32 ’ s regulation of private contractors , rather than the federal government , because , “ This prohibition , even though it focuses on the person operating the facility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ function , the government function.
” “ The federal contractor stands in the same shoes as if the federal government was doing it , ” Cooper added .
Kirk disputed “ there ’ s simply no way that Congress did not intend to permit ICE to use private contractors , ” noting last fiscal year over 13,000 detainees were held in privately run facilities .
“ The clear conflict here is Congress said ICE is to decide whether private detention facilities are to be used and AB 32 takes that decision away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department attorney Stephen Ehrlich also argued against the California statute .
The matter was taken under submission and a written order will be issued .

Calling a pair of lawsuits brought by private prison operator GEO Group and the federal government challenging the constitutionality of California’s private prison ban “fascinating and complex,” a federal judge Thursday suggested she was unlikely to rule the ban discriminates against the federal government or its contractors.
SAN DIEGO (CN) — Calling a pair of lawsuits brought by private prison operator GEO Group and the federal government challenging the constitutionality of California’s private prison ban “fascinating and complex,” a federal judge Thursday suggested she was unlikely to rule the ban discriminates against the federal government or its contractors.
U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino held a marathon 3-hour virtual court hearing Thursday attended by over 100 people anxious to know whether the judge will uphold California’s historic legislation, AB 32.
Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom last October, the law bars the renewal of detention facility contracts with private operators, including private immigration detention facilities operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.
In a virtual press conference prior to Thursday’s court hearing, immigration advocates called AB 32 a “public health solution” necessary to prevent the spread of Covid-19 and other diseases in overcrowded private prisons, a 2016 Justice Department report found failed to provide medical care to inmates.
Charles Joseph, an immigrant from Fiji who was detained at the Mesa Verde detention facility in Bakersfield, California and recently released, said in the 11 months he was detained he never saw a janitor come into his dorm. Detainees were offered to be paid $1 a day for cleaning, Joseph noted, another private prison practice being challenged in a separate class action lawsuit also being overseen by Sammartino.
The Justice Department argued in its lawsuit filed earlier this year AB 32 discriminates against the government because carve-outs written into the law apply only to state contracts. Likewise, GEO Group argued in an earlier lawsuit the law cannot supersede the federal government’s authority to carry out “detention responsibilities.”
Due to their overlapping goals, Sammartino — a George W. Bush nominee — consolidated the two cases Thursday.
At the outset of the court hearing, Sammartino read her tentative order indicating she was unlikely to find AB 32 unfairly discriminates against the federal government or its contractors, though she did note the law was likely preempted regarding privately run facilities for the U.S. Marshals Service.
Sammartino asked GEO Group attorney Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk whether the Contract Dispute Act governed the case, which Cooper denied, pointing out the case doesn’t concern a dispute between the federal government and its contractor but California’s interference in the execution of the contract.
Sammartino asked why a full copy of the contract between GEO Group and the federal government wasn’t provided to the court, as the contract likely has a provision regarding how contract disputes are to be handled.
Michael Kirk, also representing GEO Group, said they were trying to “minimize” the court’s exhibit volume but agreed to submit the contract in its entirety for Sammartino’s review.
When it came time for California to defend its law, Deputy Attorney General Gabrielle Boutin could not say what penalties the federal government or its contractors could face for violating California’s private prison ban, only suggesting civil enforcement would likely be utilized.
Boutin did agree the law does not apply to contractors who operate facilities that are federally owned but wouldn’t go as far as stipulating the law could not apply to Bureau of Prisons residential reentry facilities.
While Boutin couldn’t answer many of Sammartino’s pointed questions about the current status of private detention facilities and how the state is likely to enforce its law, she did address congressional intent in allowing private companies to contract with the federal government regarding detention services. Boutin said those allowable services were limited mainly to construction of facilities, not the running and operation of them.
“Did Congress intend for [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and other agencies to use private contractors to detain individuals? When we talk about the options Congress gave the agencies, we have to look at the statute,” Boutin said.
“Using a private operator is not one of those options, that option is not there, there is not a situation here where there is a clear and manifest intent to provide that option,” she added.
But Cooper argued the “impact would not have mattered” regarding AB 32’s regulation of private contractors, rather than the federal government, because, “This prohibition, even though it focuses on the person operating the facility, is nonetheless focusing on the federal function, the government function.”
“The federal contractor stands in the same shoes as if the federal government was doing it,” Cooper added.
Kirk disputed “there’s simply no way that Congress did not intend to permit ICE to use private contractors,” noting last fiscal year over 13,000 detainees were held in privately run facilities.
“The clear conflict here is Congress said ICE is to decide whether private detention facilities are to be used and AB 32 takes that decision away from Congress,” Kirk added.
Justice Department attorney Stephen Ehrlich also argued against the California statute.
The matter was taken under submission and a written order will be issued.