There are the cold-hearted and the warm-hearted, the kind-hearted and the cruel-hearted, the soft-hearted and the hard-hearted among us. Do hearts matter when it comes to leadership?

Author Clifton Taulbert, who grew up in Glen Allan, Mississippi, thinks so. In 1997, he wrote a book entitled Eight Habits of the Heart gleaned from the people who made a difference in his early life. They told me I was good and that my life had a value.

The people in my small colored community had a thousand reasons not to build, but they ignored that reality and built their lives for my benefit, he wrote. When one builds people, a good community will emerge, one that will leave its imprint beyond our front rooms, far beyond the classroom, beyond the gym, beyond our offices, and, in some cases, beyond geographical boundaries. The Eights Habits of the Heart practiced and lived out in our daily lives builds people and creates a good community.

Those habits are nurturing attitude, responsibility, dependability, friendship, brotherhood, high expectations, courage, and hope.

Pause, now, and re-focus from this heartfelt exposition to our leadership in America today.

Are Taulberts eight habits the traits you sense from them? Or something different?

Back when sit-ins and demonstrations dominated the early 60s in America, the person who led Indias movement to independence from Britain was the often quoted guru of non-violent civil disobedience. He inspired worldwide freedom movements as he campaigned for reconciliation among sub-continent religious sects. Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated at age 79 by a religious zealot.

Gandhi spent two decades of his early life in South Africa before he returned to India. It was there campaigning for the oppressed that he began to formulate his non-violent approach to change. South African History Online writes that Gandhi, harboured no hatred in his heart and was always ready to help people in distress. It was this rare combination of readiness to resist wrong and capacity to love his opponent which baffled his enemies and compelled their admiration.

Hmmm.

These days all sorts of Americans gather as they did in the 60s to demonstrate against what they see as wrong in our society. They have a First Amendment right to do so. The key is such assemblies must be peaceable. Most are, but some have escalated into violence.

One of Taulberts habits is brotherhood. He teaches that brotherhood is the habit that reaches beyond comfortable relationships to extend a welcome to those who may be different from yourself. Jesus told us to love each other including our enemies.

While violence is unacceptable, the leadership challenge today is to manage demonstrations using welcoming security methods that encourage peaceable behavior, not incite violence.

So, are our leaders hearts exhibiting a welcoming spirit and nurturing love for our demonstrating citizens who think differently? Are our leaders telling demonstrators their lives have value? Well, besides those who automatically label them animals, terrorists, agitators, and lowlifes.

Gandhi said, It is better in prayer to have a heart without words than words without a heart.

Regrettably, the heartless are among us, too.

Be patient, bearing with one another in love Ephesians 4:2.

Bill Crawford is a syndicated columnist from Jackson.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

More here:

BILL CRAWFORD: What sort of hearts lead us today? - Meridian Star

Hi Neighbor,

Last week, we visited with Staten Island Patriot Artist Scott LoBaido. I took issue with Schotts Blue Lives line down Hylan Boulevards center median in front of the 122nd Precinct stationhouse.

Readers sounded off. Dozens. Loudly. One things certain: Mr. LoBaido has support.

DEAR MR LALINE, one began. YOUR BASHING SCOTT LOBAIDO IS TYPICAL OF WHAT THE LEFT IS DOING ON A DAILY BASIS TO DESTROY AMERICA .... WHY IS IT IF A PERSON SHOWS ANYTHING PATRIOTIC THEY ARE DEMONIZED .... TOTALLY DISGUSTING... " (caps courtesy of the author).

But then, Your column about Scott was not only well said but it was written while maintaining a deep respect for this extremely talented artist. I completely agree with your sentiment. I have also followed Scott for the last 30 years. I ask What could he be thinking? when I see some of his work. He is passionate but at times his message seems misdirected.

And then, when I thought I heard it all from both sides, the President of the United States weighed in. You do one blue line and they make it like its a mortal sin, President Trump told a group of law enforcement leaders in the White House. Take that, Bill de Blasio!

Now its time to hear from Scott himself. He asked time for a rebuttal and Im happy to provide. So, as Ive boomed over the microphone at many fundraisers, with Scott behind the curtain, itching to start painting . . . Heeeeres Scott!!

Respectfully, Brian, I hear every single note.

Ahhhh, the sweet/bitter taste of Amendment 1. It is indeed DELICIOUS.

I want to thank you for the very kind words in your column last week and for giving me an opportunity to rebut some of the other points you brought up.

Yes, Brian, we go back a long time, and like all friends, there have been tiffs, disagreements, misquotes, and worst of all, forgetting the capital B in my last name (lol). But as an editor you have been fair and have ALWAYS pushed through to get my art, activism, antics, rants, and compassion onto the pages of our hometown newspaper -- the Staten Island Advance. For that I am truly grateful.

DEMYANS CAVES

I remember the first article the Advance wrote about my giant, surreal mural on the face of The Caves (former Hofbrau house owned by the late, great artist, Jack Demyan) back in the 80s. The next story was when I painted my first flag mural on the side of the Victory Diner (God, I do miss that place). Not everyone appreciates my art. But I AM an artist whether you agree with my style or not!

Staten Island has many great artists -- Murphy, Yuster, Padovano, and many more. They are genius at their execution in their non-aggressive subjects. My early work was oddly fun and surreal with a dash of Americana because since childhood I can always remember a crisp, snappy flag waving from a pole outside my Nana's house where I spent most of my time.

Rosalyn (Nana) always made it clear that grandpa was in the "big one" (WW ll) and we should have fun but always be GRATEFUL for whatever we had because we were American. In Nana's basement kitchen, the town hall -- open every day -- three portraits hung on the wall: Pope John ll, President Ronald Reagan and Frank Sinatra. Those portraits, the flag and the lessons I learned in that kitchen will stay with me forever.

It wasnt until the 90s that I found my niche in this complicated world of art. I was in a Manhattan art gallery that had an American flag as a welcome mat, beckoning people to wipe their feet on it.

I was appalled, but no one else was.

A new trend of political correctness had taken hold of the art world along with the sentiment that, everything is bad in life because of America.

In their opinion, the American flag was taboo because it stood for oppression. This HATE America thing was really getting some teeth. I wondered why artists were so eager to speak out against America, our military, and our flag. I didn't get it because artists have more freedom in America than in any other country on earth. We should be the most patriotic rather than biting the hand that feeds our wonderful right to test the boundaries and express ourselves.

My young brain struggled to understand how I could remain in the art world while continuing to demonstrate my love for America -- then BAM - I heard my calling.

That was my purpose! I would say goodbye to the intolerant art club, go it on my own and use my God given gift to shine a spotlight on what is GOOD about America, what is awesome about our flag.

I was going to paint it big and bold and 3-D so it knocks you down when you see it.

ACROSS THE USA

And so it began -- the tours across America, sleeping in my truck, no heat or AC, only eating due to the kindness of strangers and donors who shared my vision. Countless hours sitting with veterans, painting their posts and raising money for their causes. Getting arrested for speaking up for America against the PC culture that was hell bent on destroying her. The photos of me being led out of the courthouse in handcuffs splashed across the front page of the Advance. My peers snicker, There goes that crazy Scott LoBaido, again and again and again. Twenty five years later the PC beast has devoured our way of life despite my efforts and continuous warnings that this day would come.

Racist -- a horrible yet important word which is now being used 24/7 to label anyone WHO HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION than the PC mob. Those of us who support America and respect our flag, our anthem and our President are being labeled as racists without consideration for who we are.

The word "racist" is being used against leaders of corporations. It's being used to get people fired from their job. It's being used to strike fear into people so they grovel on their knees and apologize for the way they were born and the color of their skin.

The word racist is being used as a club to ground out our FIRST AMENDMENT right to hold and express a different opinion -- and the artworld is leading the pack.

But isn't this exactly opposite of what the artworld and the PC mob is supposed to stand for? Weren't we preaching for compassion, tolerance and acceptance for gay rights, women's rights and the rights for everyone no matter their religion or ethnic background? Aren't the artists supposed to stand up and defend the act of self expression, starve for their cause and die fighting?

It is unfortunate that you and others consider my "Thin Blue Line" down the median of Hylan Boulevard as divisive. It may be seen by some as provocative, but it is not divisive. If I painted it over or next to the BLM street art, that would be divisive. But I didn't. My purpose was not to silence that message. It was to ensure that everyone had an opportunity to hear another message. A message of LOVE for a group of human beings who are being humiliated and demoralized because they wear a blue uniform.

You can LOVE the police and believe that Black lives matter. The two are not mutually exclusive and they should not be made out to be. Just like you can be an artist and still love America because it is the one country that supports your right to express yourself freely even when that means speaking against her.

I am not a divider, my good friend. Balancer would suit me better. I cannot and should not be pressured into collaborating with people who are confused about their message to the extent that we have all but forgotten that it was the murder of George Floyd that started this discussion. And yes, my good friend, I am a voice for the regular guy who is just trying to make a living, feed his or her family, pay the mortgage and whose quality of life is being annihilated by ultra-radical mayors and governors who have more sympathy for criminals than the law abiding citizens they are sworn to protect.

LIKE ROME . . .

We are a free nation, but a nation of laws. Yes, I have stepped over that line as a protester, and I LOOOOOVVEE those that do as well, but to destroy, burn, maim, and take over a community and kill it, Like Rome, we lose it all.

And that is where we are at.

The discussion on race relations cannot happen in good faith until the monster PC mob stands down. The message is confusing. Whether we are artists or police, immigrants or native, wealthy or poor, we all want America to grow and evolve, to be the best that she can be.

That can only happen through honest, raw dialogue, mutual respect and tolerance of differing opinions -- exactly what artists throughout history have been fighting for.

However, that conversation cannot happen within the laws being laid out by the PC mob who seek to wipe out our history and direct our souls until we all act, look and express ourselves the same.

America is a beautiful mosaic, filled with individuals who yearn for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not everyone gets everything he or she wants, but everyone has the opportunity to try.

For 30 years I have been using my talent to help others. I've raised millions of dollars for worthy causes, and will continue to do so happily. Now I am selling my art so I can be free to help others without having to beg for the funds to do so. No shame in being a capitalist. After all, the Advance sells papers and gets tons of click$$ when my work is featured. Ahhhh the sweet taste of opportunity.

As always, I look forward to running into you at our local restaurants, give each other that usual head shake and smirk and have a martini together,

Your friend, The one and only, Citizen Scott LoBaido

Oh by the way: I did not protest the artist or his work at the Brooklyn museum. I protested against the museum directors decision to regularly bash one religion (Christianity) in a publicly funded institution.

Read the original here:

And now a word from Citizen Scott: Why I love the USA | From the editor - SILive.com

TIVERTON -- Amy Mullen has her job back with the Tiverton School Department.

U.S. District Court Chief Justice John J. McConnell Jr., ruling on a preliminary injunction Friday morning, said Mullens First Amendment rights were violated when she was terminated from her teaching job April 15 for speaking up about wanting to discuss distance learning as it pertained to her member teachers. Mullen is the head of the teachers union.

In granting the preliminary injunction filed by attorney Elizabeth Wiens, the judge ordered that Mullen be restored as a teacher until further notice. No doubt Ms. Mullen was retaliated against because of her First Amendment speech, McConnell said from the bench at the end of a virtual hearing.

Never once was her teaching called into question in the 25 years Mullen has worked for the district as a special education teacher, McConnell said, adding that she is considered an exemplary teacher.

Four attorneys were representing the School Department two were from the Interlocal Trust, the insurance carrier for the town. There was no ruling on their motion to dismiss the case Mullen brought against the district.

McConnell said he would take the motion to dismiss under advisement but at least part will be denied, he said. He said he was bothered by the individual suits against individual members of the School Committee who voted to terminate Mullen on the recommendation of Superintendent Peter Sanchioni.

Shell be back on the payroll as of today, School Committee attorney Stephen Robinson said Friday afternoon. We clearly will respect the courts orders, Robinson said, but added they respectfully disagree with the judge in his findings of fact and conclusions of law. We will explore our options.

Wiens wrote in the motion for preliminary injunction that Mullen should be reinstated immediately, noting in the 15-page motion that less than two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that union speech is overwhelmingly of substantial public concern.

Wiens also wrote that there can be no doubt that speech relating to public education, including the creation of a Distance Learning Plan for students during a global pandemic is a matter of public concern. Mullens speech, Wiens wrote, was the sole factor in her termination.

In providing background, Wiens said Sanchioni repeatedly violated the collective bargaining agreement between the School Department and NEA-Tiverton, and because of numerous grievances and unfair labor practice complaints filed by the union, there was animus towards Mullen.

On March 12, 2020, Mullen attended a professional development committee meeting and communicated to the superintendent that online learning plans need to be negotiated with the union. She learned of a March 18 meeting for a distance learning plan and she arrived early to say the union should be part of the discussion.

Sanchioni raised his voice, told Mullen she was not invited to the meeting and told her he would write her up for insubordination if she did not leave, according to the motion.

She was placed on paid administrative leave on March 21 and told to cease and desist all communications with parents, teachers and administrators, or there would be further discipline, Wiens wrote. An April 6 letter to Mullen from the superintendent notified her of his intent to recommend to the School Committee that she be suspended without pay for her persistent disruption and insubordination. A Facebook post she made violated the gag order, it was later charged.

The School Committee voted unanimously April 14 to terminate Mullen, but voted again at a meeting in May to suspend without pay and terminate her at the end of the 2020-2021 school year. That vote was 4-0, with committee member Sally Black abstaining. Voting in favor was Chairman Jerome Larkin, Vice Chairwoman Diane Farnworth, Deborah Pallasch and Elaine Pavao.

Mullen filed suit soon after her termination, saying she was retaliated against by the district for speaking on behalf of her union members. The district said she was terminated for unprofessional and disruptive behavior.

In a June 17 email to Mullen, who wanted to be on the School Reopening Committee as a representative of the teachers union, she was advised by School Department legal counsel that she was not allowed on school property and not permitted to speak with school staff or administrators because of her suspension, Wiens wrote.

Much of the discussion at the hearing Friday morning centered on whether Mullen was speaking as an employee of the district, or as a private citizen at the distance learning meetings.

The speech took place in the workplace. It had to do with work-related issues, said attorney Marc DeSisto, representing the Interlocal Trust. When a union president speaks, that union official is speaking in a workplace official capacity and not as a private citizen, DeSisto argued, saying union and public employee are symbiotic.

He said the court was crossing out union and making it outside the employee realm. It goes back to whether she spoke as a private citizen and was protected by First Amendment speech, or spoke as an employee subject to disciplinary action.

Wiens told the judge that every court has found that speech as a union representative is not speech as an employee. We allege Amy Mullen was terminated because of her association with the union. The reason for the termination was her status as union president.

Wiens also argued the Tiverton School Department and the individual members of the School Committee who voted to terminate her and thus violated her First Amendment rights, should be held liable for damages for violating the Constitution.

See the original post:

Fired Tiverton teacher gets her job back - Wicked Local Watertown

PreambleFirst AmendmentSecond AmendmentThird AmendmentFourthAmendmentFifthAmendmentSixthAmendmentSeventh AmendmentEighthAmendmentNinthAmendmentTenthAmendment

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."

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

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States Constitution: the 11th and Following Amendments

Read the original post:

The United States Bill of Rights: First 10 Amendments to ...

Employees of Whole Foods, Starbucks (for a short time) and other companies have complained about being forbidden to wear "Black Lives Matter" masks at work. They believe, as many Americans do, that the First Amendment protects their right to express their political opinions on the job. After all, as the saying goes, "It's a free country."

Yes it is, but there are limitations. Nothing in the First Amendment confers a right of unrestricted free speech. It protects citizens from unreasonable governmental restrictions on speech. Speech restrictions by private employers are perfectly legal, as long as they are not discriminatory and do not violate federal labor and employment laws.

The words of the First Amendment are quite clear on this point:

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

Nothing in the text mentions private employers.

Businesses across the country are now confronting how to handle employees who want to express their views on politics, social justice and other issues at work. It's not necessarily an easy call (indeed, after initially prohibiting BLM attire, Starbucks reversed its position earlier this month). Even an employer who shares employees' views on an issue like Black Lives Matter, for example, must think about the cost of angering or alienating customers.

The pandemic has left businesses desperate to hold on to customers, not to antagonize them. But a corporate policy viewed as racist and hostile to people of color may cause a loss of business.

Traditionally, many businesses have prohibited employees from using their clothing to express political views at work. Some likely fear that if they allow workers to wear the words "Black Lives Matter,'' then other employees may show up with "White Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" masks, or even "Keep America Great" masks. Free speech cuts both ways.

Businesses may also fear that the proliferation of mask slogans will harm productivity by causing discord and bad feelings among their workers. The safest bet for big companies has traditionally been to steer well clear of politics by keeping company attire nonpartisan.

Proponents of the "Black Lives Matter" slogan counter that the words are not mere politics but a call for social justice. They view the phrase "White Lives Matter" as a sneering response by those who use their "white privilege" to oppress Blacks and other minority groups in the United States. Worse still, the phrase "Blue Lives Matters" may be viewed as an endorsement of police brutality and shootings in the Black community. Given the probability of conflicting opinions, workplace discord would appear inevitable.

It's no wonder employers feel trapped in a swirling cauldron of racial, political and socioeconomic divisions when enforcing dress codes that never caused problems before. Enter creative lawyers who have no need to rely on First Amendment speech protections, when civil rights and race discrimination class-action theories can be stretched to obtain lucrative damage awards and protective court orders permitting the display of the prohibited slogans on their clients' attire.

The latest example is a class-action lawsuit filed last Monday in federal district court in Boston on behalf of 14 Whole Foods workers in California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Washington. The lawsuit claims the workers allegedly suffered "race discrimination" and "retaliation" because they wore "Black Lives Matter" masks and other apparel at work.

The 17-page complaint alleges violations of Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The same employees filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board.

Whole Foods has already signaled its likely defense that its dress code is non-discriminatory since, as reported in the New York Times, the "Whole Foods dress code prohibits visible slogans, messages, logos and advertising that are not company-related on any article of clothing" and exists to "prioritize operational safety."

In short, since everybody's slogan masks are prohibited, Whole Foods can argue that it is not discriminating against anyone. The company said in a statement that while it could not comment pending litigation, "it is critical to clarify that no Team Members have been terminated for wearing Black Lives Matter face masks or apparel."

Even if Whole Foods has a strong defense, class-action litigation is notoriously expensive and would subject Whole Foods and its parent company Amazon to many months or years of adverse publicity. Under these circumstances the company is likely to negotiate a swift settlement.

Regardless of outcome, this class-action lawsuit is a warning shot fired in the direction of corporate America regarding employee free speech rights in 21st century America. Like that famous rifle shot fired in 1775 in Lexington, Massachusetts, it suggests protracted battles in the years ahead over highly contentious social and political issues in the American workplace.

That reality was brought home for anyone who may have sought the respite of baseball from the politics of COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter protest movement.

At the season's opener on July 23, all the players and coaches of the New York Yankees and Washington Nationals knelt for 20 seconds while holding a long black banner before a recording of the National Anthem was played to an otherwise empty stadium. Team owners permitted players to wear Black Lives Matter T-shirts with a silhouetted Black player and an inverted MLB symbol and wrist bands.

The Founding Fathers might be proud that free speech was alive and well in the nation they created in the bloody revolution that followed Lexington and Concord. They might not have shared their enthusiasm for Dr. Anthony Fauci's red Washington Nationals mask or his ceremonial first pitch.

Paul Callan is a CNN legal analyst.

Go here to read the rest:

There is no constitutional right to wear a Black Lives Matter mask at work? - The Philadelphia Tribune

Ghislaine Maxwell, who faces federal criminal charges of enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts, transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy, and perjury, is accusing the Miami Herald of trashing her reputation and, in essence, of attempting to destroy her right to receive a fair trial. The Herald and its investigative reporter, Julie K. Brown, have been widely praised and awarded (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4) for their aggressive coverage of the now-dead and infamous pedophile sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and, concomitantly, of Maxwell, his longtime associate.

Maxwell levied the complaints against the Herald in a lawsuit to determine whether a second cache of documents in a defamation case between Maxwell and her accuser Virginia Giuffre Roberts will be unsealed by Monday. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday issued a stay on the documents release pending an appeal; in essence, the court pumped the brakes on the release of the highly anticipated materials.

The following words appear in a document filed by Maxwells lawyers on Friday before the Second Circuit. Maxwells lawyers are arguing in favor of keeping the documents secret:

As Ms. Maxwell said in her Motion to Stay, [t]he media has all but convicted her. In hindsight, this appears to have been an understatement.

If the Miami Herald is to be believed, The documents at issue have been improperly sealed for yearsin a way that allowed . . . Ms. Maxwell[s] . . . abuse of young girls to go on unchallenged and unpunished, and allowed a legal system that protected perpetrators over victims to go unquestioned. This unqualified statement of Ms. Maxwells alleged guilt is precisely the type of unfair and unconstitutional pretrial publicity that will result should the district courts unsealing order go into effect.

[ . . . ]

[I]f the Herald is willing to announce its conclusion that Ms. Maxwell abused young girls even before having access to the sealed deposition materials, that is only a harbinger of what media coverage will result should the material be unsealed, coverage that will prejudice Ms. Maxwells constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

The Maxwell argument further trashes the Heralds assertion that the documents have been improperly sealed for years by blaming you guessed it the Herald.

[T]he Herald entirely ignores its own conduct, Maxwells attorneys argue. [T]he Herald did not move to unseal anything in this case until 2018, one year after the case was closed.

Said another way, Maxwells attorneys are blaming the Herald for not acting fast enough to unseal documents which Maxwells attorneys say should not be unsealed.

Self-styled journalist Michael Cernovich he is also sometimes referred to in other ways rubbished Maxwells argument that the Herald was late to enter the proceeding by telling the Second Circuit that he had long been after the same documents himself:

While the Court should not give any credence to Ms. Maxwells argument in her motion that the First Amendment interests at issue are not harmed because the Herald did not seek to intervene until after the May 2017 settlement, Mr. Cernovich had been seeking to learn what atrocities by Maxwell and Epstein were wrongly concealed on the docket prior to that settlement. Three and a half years is too long to suppress the First Amendment right of access. No stay is warranted.

If the documents are not kept under wraps, Maxwell says her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and in favor of a fair trial with an impartial jury will be irreparably harmed.

Such fears by Maxwell could arguably and easily be seized upon by her critics to imply that Maxwell said something in the still-sealed documents which could come back to haunt her.

That inference, obviously, was not fully developed by Maxwells attorneys. Instead, attention was turned again to the Herald, which is among the independent parties seeking to pry the documents into the light of day. Maxwells attorneys said the Heralds proffered notion that the public interest would be best served by the release of the documents was actually quite backwards:

The Herald trivializes the publics right to see that its justice system provide fair trials, the Maxwell argument concludes. With Ms. Maxwell facing an imminent and very public trial, the justice system should endeavor to do all it can to vindicate the theory of our [trial] system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.'

Read several of the relevant court papers below, including an earlier argument by the Herald in favor of releasing the cache of Maxwell/Epstein documents.

Ghislaine Maxwell Docket #19 2nd Circuit by Law&Crime on Scribd

Ghislaine Maxwell Docket #25 2nd Circuit by Law&Crime on Scribd

Ghislaine Maxwell Second Circuit Stay by Law&Crime on Scribd

[image via Laura Cavanaugh/Getty Images]

[Editors note: internal punctuation and citations within legal quotes have been omitted.]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

View original post here:

Ghislaine Maxwell Bashes the Miami Herald in Document Dispute - Law & Crime

In the Tuesday primary election, Missouri voters will vote on an amendment to the Missouri Constitution to permanently expand Medicaid eligibility. Missouri Right to Life PAC opposes this amendment Amendment 2 on the ballot because it could open the door to taxpayer-funded abortions and threaten state pro-life programs.

Currently, Medicaid dollars are restricted from being used to fund most abortions by the Hyde Amendment, which is an annual rider on a federal appropriations bill. Before Hyde was put in place, an estimated 300,000 abortions nationally were paid for by taxpayers every year.

While the Hyde Amendment has passed for the past 40 years, it is now a target of abortion-rights legislators who have vowed to defeat the measure, which requires only a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress every year. Defeat of the Hyde Amendment is in the Democratic Party platform. The Hyde Amendment is opposed by the leaders of the House and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Its the wrong time to expand Medicaid, when the Hyde Amendment is under attack. If the initiative is approved, and the Hyde Amendment falls after that, the initiative may double the number of surgical abortions that Medicaid would pay for in Missouri.

Even with the Hyde Amendment, expanding Medicaid will greatly increase existing Medicaid payments for pregnancy termination caused by morning after pills.

Because the initiative requires the state to maximize the federal share of Medicaid dollars, the state cannot replace Medicaid programs with its own programs that will not pay abortion providers for nonabortion services. This opens the door to more taxpayer money going to Planned Parenthood.

This provision for maximizing will also prevent the state from paying for lawyers, including the attorney generals staff, to attempt to obtain protection for the unborn if the Hyde Amendment is ended.

It is not surprising that Planned Parenthood and other proabortion organizations are among Amendment 2s most active supporters. Expanding Medicaid would shovel more money into Planned Parenthood and its abortion business.

Amendment 2 proposes a state constitutional amendment that, if adopted, cannot be amended by the Legislature but only by another vote of the people. For all intents and purposes, this Medicaid expansion will be a permanent threat to increasing taxpayer-funded abortions. Thousands of unborn babies will rely on the temporary and threatened protection of the Hyde Amendment.

Medicaid is not free money for the state. Every taxpayer pays taxes to the federal government for the federal share as well as taxes to the state government for the states share. And every payment of federal dollars toward Medicaid expenses must be matched by the states percentage share of those expenses.

The Missouri Department of Social Services estimates that the states cost for the first year of expanded Medicaid services under Amendment 2 would be more than $200 million. Where is the state going to get this money when legislators already had to cut $400 million from the budget because of COVID-19?

The stress on the Missouri budget would threaten several state anti-abortion programs, such as Show Me Healthy Babies and the tax credits for alternatives to abortion.

Abortion is not health care. It is wrong to ask the people to pay for more abortions as the price for expanding Medicaid coverage in Missouri.

Missouri Right to Life PAC opposes Amendment 2 and urges Missouri voters to vote no on Medicaid Expansion on Tuesday.

Susan Klein is executive director of Missouri Right to Life State Political Action Committee.

See more here:

Susan Klein: Amendment 2 could lead to taxpayer-funded abortions - Joplin Globe

TIVERTON -- Amy Mullen has her job back with the Tiverton School Department.

U.S. District Court Chief Justice John J. McConnell Jr., ruling on a preliminary injunction Friday morning, said Mullens First Amendment rights were violated when she was terminated from her teaching job April 15 for speaking up about wanting to discuss distance learning as it pertained to her member teachers. Mullen is the head of the teachers union.

In granting the preliminary injunction filed by attorney Elizabeth Wiens, the judge ordered that Mullen be restored as a teacher until further notice. No doubt Ms. Mullen was retaliated against because of her First Amendment speech, McConnell said from the bench at the end of a virtual hearing.

Never once was her teaching called into question in the 25 years Mullen has worked for the district as a special education teacher, McConnell said, adding that she is considered an exemplary teacher.

Four attorneys were representing the School Department two were from the Interlocal Trust, the insurance carrier for the town. There was no ruling on their motion to dismiss the case Mullen brought against the district.

McConnell said he would take the motion to dismiss under advisement but at least part will be denied, he said. He said he was bothered by the individual suits against individual members of the School Committee who voted to terminate Mullen on the recommendation of Superintendent Peter Sanchioni.

Shell be back on the payroll as of today, School Committee attorney Stephen Robinson said Friday afternoon. We clearly will respect the courts orders, Robinson said, but added they respectfully disagree with the judge in his findings of fact and conclusions of law. We will explore our options.

Wiens wrote in the motion for preliminary injunction that Mullen should be reinstated immediately, noting in the 15-page motion that less than two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that union speech is overwhelmingly of substantial public concern.

Wiens also wrote that there can be no doubt that speech relating to public education, including the creation of a Distance Learning Plan for students during a global pandemic is a matter of public concern. Mullens speech, Wiens wrote, was the sole factor in her termination.

In providing background, Wiens said Sanchioni repeatedly violated the collective bargaining agreement between the School Department and NEA-Tiverton, and because of numerous grievances and unfair labor practice complaints filed by the union, there was animus towards Mullen.

On March 12, 2020, Mullen attended a professional development committee meeting and communicated to the superintendent that online learning plans need to be negotiated with the union. She learned of a March 18 meeting for a distance learning plan and she arrived early to say the union should be part of the discussion.

Sanchioni raised his voice, told Mullen she was not invited to the meeting and told her he would write her up for insubordination if she did not leave, according to the motion.

She was placed on paid administrative leave on March 21 and told to cease and desist all communications with parents, teachers and administrators, or there would be further discipline, Wiens wrote. An April 6 letter to Mullen from the superintendent notified her of his intent to recommend to the School Committee that she be suspended without pay for her persistent disruption and insubordination. A Facebook post she made violated the gag order, it was later charged.

The School Committee voted unanimously April 14 to terminate Mullen, but voted again at a meeting in May to suspend without pay and terminate her at the end of the 2020-2021 school year. That vote was 4-0, with committee member Sally Black abstaining. Voting in favor was Chairman Jerome Larkin, Vice Chairwoman Diane Farnworth, Deborah Pallasch and Elaine Pavao.

Mullen filed suit soon after her termination, saying she was retaliated against by the district for speaking on behalf of her union members. The district said she was terminated for unprofessional and disruptive behavior.

In a June 17 email to Mullen, who wanted to be on the School Reopening Committee as a representative of the teachers union, she was advised by School Department legal counsel that she was not allowed on school property and not permitted to speak with school staff or administrators because of her suspension, Wiens wrote.

Much of the discussion at the hearing Friday morning centered on whether Mullen was speaking as an employee of the district, or as a private citizen at the distance learning meetings.

The speech took place in the workplace. It had to do with work-related issues, said attorney Marc DeSisto, representing the Interlocal Trust. When a union president speaks, that union official is speaking in a workplace official capacity and not as a private citizen, DeSisto argued, saying union and public employee are symbiotic.

He said the court was crossing out union and making it outside the employee realm. It goes back to whether she spoke as a private citizen and was protected by First Amendment speech, or spoke as an employee subject to disciplinary action.

Wiens told the judge that every court has found that speech as a union representative is not speech as an employee. We allege Amy Mullen was terminated because of her association with the union. The reason for the termination was her status as union president.

Wiens also argued the Tiverton School Department and the individual members of the School Committee who voted to terminate her and thus violated her First Amendment rights, should be held liable for damages for violating the Constitution.

More:

Fired Tiverton teacher gets her job back - Wicked Local Hanover

The Harpers letter (7/7/20) decried a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.

A short and rather vaguely worded open letter published in Harpers Magazine (7/7/20) earlier this month caused an unlikely media storm that continues to rumble on. Glossing over right-wing threats to the First Amendment, the letter, signed by 150 writers, journalists and other public figures, decried a new intolerance to dissent and a threat to freedom of speech coming from the left.

The vagueness of the letter was both its genius and its shortcoming, allowing people of all political persuasions to put their names to it, but also for others to read into it virtually anything they wanted. As the Los Angeles Times (7/9/20) described it, the letter became a Rorschach test of subtext.

The letter generated an explosion of takes and counter-takes, hailed as everything from a welcome and long overdue triumph (Washington Times, 7/13/20) to a collective wallowing in self-pity (In These Times, 7/7/20), leading to a debate about open debate and a great deal of speech complaining about speech.

However, much of the public discussion of the Harpers letter misses the fact that it is the powerful, not the masses, who inordinately have the ability to cancel individuals for their actions, and that it is the left and those challenging power who consistently suffer the brunt of the consequences.

Chief among the threats to the First Amendment is the president himself. The Trump administration is currently suing a small news station in northern Wisconsin for running a political ad it (and countless others) aired but did not produce. They are not suing the well-funded Democratic Super PAC who paid for it, but instead are going after the messenger. While legal experts suggest that they have no case, Wisconsin has no laws against frivolous lawsuits, meaning the station will likely be bankrupted defending itself, something that appears to be exactly the point of the exercise: intimidating other media outlets into silence.

The makers of a documentary on ICE say they were warned that the federal government would use its full weight to veto scenes it found objectionable (New York Times, 7/23/20).

The federal government is using the same tactic, using its full weight trying to suppress a Netflix documentary about ICE. The New York Times (7/23/20) reports that the government demanded the removal of scenes that showed the department terrorizing communities and breaking the law during arrests. Notably, the government is deliberately targeting the films small production company, not the giant streaming service, which has the resources to fight back. (Several times, the filmmakers said, the official pointed out that it was their little production company, not the films $125 billion distributor, that would face consequences, the Times reported.)

Yet these direct attacks on the First Amendment received scant coverage in comparison to the Harpers letter, or Times columnist Bari Weiss resignation from her newspaper, citing a stifling liberal atmosphere. Weiss leavetaking has been the subject of four CNN articles and over a dozen on Fox News, whereas the attempt to suppress the ICE documentary has not been covered by Fox, and has been the subject of only one CNN piece (7/29/20)a TV review that mentions the attempted suppression.

The Trump administration has also contravened the First Amendment in attempting to ban the release of material critical of the president. The Department of Justice is currently suing Trumps former National Security Advisor John Bolton for the publication of his memoir, The Room Where It Happened, claiming that Boltons embarrassing anecdotes represent a national security violation. He must pay a very big price for this, as others have before him. This should never happen again!!! Trump tweeted (6/20/20). Bolton faces possible criminal charges, as well as having any profits seized.

Similarly, the Trump family, represented by Donalds brother Robert, used the courts to try to block the publication of Mary Trumps book, Too Much and Never Enough, wherein the presidents psychologist niece diagnoses him as a narcissist with possible antisocial personality disorder.

Perhaps most worryingly, a significant portion of the public is strongly supportive of Trumps destruction of the First Amendment. A plurality of Republicans (43%) believe he should close news outlets engaged in bad behavior, and 13% of Americans (including a quarter of Republicans) think he should immediately close the Washington Post, New York Times and CNN.

The media, who President Trump infamously labeled the enemy of the people, have been subject to a generalized nationwide government assault in recent weeks. According to the US Press Freedom Tracker, there have been at least 585 incidents, including at least 84 journalists arrested, 137 shot by police or National Guard, 80 tear-gassed and 36 pepper-sprayed while covering the George Floyd protests. Some, like photojournalist Linda Tirado, have been left permanently disfigured from police attacks. The onslaught against the press is so bad that the United Nations has gotten involved, its human rights office condemning the arbitrary arrests, and the disproportionate and discriminatory use of force.

If you get fired for saying something like this (Twitter, 7/23/20), opponents of cancel culture wont come to your defense.

But when 9News Denver meteorologist Marty Coniglio also condemned the states repression, he faced immediate consequences. After tweeting, Federal police in citiesnow where have I seen that before? accompanying it with a picture of Nazi troops, he was promptly fired. James Bennets resignation from the New York Times for soliciting and printing an op-ed (that he admits he hadnt read before publishing) calling on the military to crush the protest movement drew worldwide condemnation (even being obliquely mentioned by the Harpers signatories as their primary piece of proof of an intolerant left). But Coniglios case, where he challenged power, not indulged it, has barely been reported outside of Colorado.

Coniglios case is indicative of the fact that the primary victims of cancellation tend to be the left and those challenging power. Earlier this year, David Wright, a longtime political journalist for ABC News, was suspended and permanently pulled from political reporting after he was secretly filmed, in private, criticizing his network and admitting that he is a socialist who likes Bernie Sanders (a popular position among Americans, but not among journalists at corporate outletsFAIR.org, 3/8/16, 2/8/19, 7/26/19).

Those displaying insufficient enthusiasm for state violence from the US or its allies can also suffer immediate consequences. In February, journalist Abby Martin was barred from speaking at Georgia Southern University after refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to the state of Israel (something 28 states already make anyone receiving public money do). CNN fired its contributor Marc Lamont Hill in 2018 for criticizing Israel, and for calling for a free Palestine from the river to the sea. Going further back, Chris Hedges was forced out of the New York Times for his opposition to the Iraq invasion, a fate that also befell MSNBCs Phil Donahue and Jesse Ventura.

Thomas Chatterton Williams, the organizer of the Harpers letter, specifically warned that Donald Trump is the Canceler in Chief, and that his letter only addresses a small part of the threat to a pluralistic public discourse. Unfortunately, most of the debate in elite circles has ignored these far greater dangers in favor of focusing on overzealous Twitter usersperhaps because privileged journalists in corporate media have come to accept objections to their reporting from the powerful as inevitable, if not legitimate, whereas popular challenges to their reporting make them bristle with indignation. While the dangers of leftist cancel culture can be debated, theres no denying the dangers of the governments assault on the core American value of free speech.

Featured image: A scene from the Netflix documentary Immigration Nation.

View post:

Media's 'Cancel Culture' Debate Obscures Direct Threats to First Amendment - FAIR

TIVERTON -- Amy Mullen has her job back with the Tiverton School Department.

U.S. District Court Chief Justice John J. McConnell Jr., ruling on a preliminary injunction Friday morning, said Mullens First Amendment rights were violated when she was terminated from her teaching job April 15 for speaking up about wanting to discuss distance learning as it pertained to her member teachers. Mullen is the head of the teachers union.

In granting the preliminary injunction filed by attorney Elizabeth Wiens, the judge ordered that Mullen be restored as a teacher until further notice. No doubt Ms. Mullen was retaliated against because of her First Amendment speech, McConnell said from the bench at the end of a virtual hearing.

Never once was her teaching called into question in the 25 years Mullen has worked for the district as a special education teacher, McConnell said, adding that she is considered an exemplary teacher.

Four attorneys were representing the School Department two were from the Interlocal Trust, the insurance carrier for the town. There was no ruling on their motion to dismiss the case Mullen brought against the district.

McConnell said he would take the motion to dismiss under advisement but at least part will be denied, he said. He said he was bothered by the individual suits against individual members of the School Committee who voted to terminate Mullen on the recommendation of Superintendent Peter Sanchioni.

Shell be back on the payroll as of today, School Committee attorney Stephen Robinson said Friday afternoon. We clearly will respect the courts orders, Robinson said, but added they respectfully disagree with the judge in his findings of fact and conclusions of law. We will explore our options.

Wiens wrote in the motion for preliminary injunction that Mullen should be reinstated immediately, noting in the 15-page motion that less than two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that union speech is overwhelmingly of substantial public concern.

Wiens also wrote that there can be no doubt that speech relating to public education, including the creation of a Distance Learning Plan for students during a global pandemic is a matter of public concern. Mullens speech, Wiens wrote, was the sole factor in her termination.

In providing background, Wiens said Sanchioni repeatedly violated the collective bargaining agreement between the School Department and NEA-Tiverton, and because of numerous grievances and unfair labor practice complaints filed by the union, there was animus towards Mullen.

On March 12, 2020, Mullen attended a professional development committee meeting and communicated to the superintendent that online learning plans need to be negotiated with the union. She learned of a March 18 meeting for a distance learning plan and she arrived early to say the union should be part of the discussion.

Sanchioni raised his voice, told Mullen she was not invited to the meeting and told her he would write her up for insubordination if she did not leave, according to the motion.

She was placed on paid administrative leave on March 21 and told to cease and desist all communications with parents, teachers and administrators, or there would be further discipline, Wiens wrote. An April 6 letter to Mullen from the superintendent notified her of his intent to recommend to the School Committee that she be suspended without pay for her persistent disruption and insubordination. A Facebook post she made violated the gag order, it was later charged.

The School Committee voted unanimously April 14 to terminate Mullen, but voted again at a meeting in May to suspend without pay and terminate her at the end of the 2020-2021 school year. That vote was 4-0, with committee member Sally Black abstaining. Voting in favor was Chairman Jerome Larkin, Vice Chairwoman Diane Farnworth, Deborah Pallasch and Elaine Pavao.

Mullen filed suit soon after her termination, saying she was retaliated against by the district for speaking on behalf of her union members. The district said she was terminated for unprofessional and disruptive behavior.

In a June 17 email to Mullen, who wanted to be on the School Reopening Committee as a representative of the teachers union, she was advised by School Department legal counsel that she was not allowed on school property and not permitted to speak with school staff or administrators because of her suspension, Wiens wrote.

Much of the discussion at the hearing Friday morning centered on whether Mullen was speaking as an employee of the district, or as a private citizen at the distance learning meetings.

The speech took place in the workplace. It had to do with work-related issues, said attorney Marc DeSisto, representing the Interlocal Trust. When a union president speaks, that union official is speaking in a workplace official capacity and not as a private citizen, DeSisto argued, saying union and public employee are symbiotic.

He said the court was crossing out union and making it outside the employee realm. It goes back to whether she spoke as a private citizen and was protected by First Amendment speech, or spoke as an employee subject to disciplinary action.

Wiens told the judge that every court has found that speech as a union representative is not speech as an employee. We allege Amy Mullen was terminated because of her association with the union. The reason for the termination was her status as union president.

Wiens also argued the Tiverton School Department and the individual members of the School Committee who voted to terminate her and thus violated her First Amendment rights, should be held liable for damages for violating the Constitution.

Read the original post:

Fired Tiverton teacher gets her job back - Fall River Herald News