Daily Archives: November 2, 2020

Nearly <https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/> every American<https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/> owns a cell phone that can track their every movement and store sensitive information. But this convenience doesnt mean Michiganders give up their expectation of privacy. On Nov. 3, voters have a chance to ensure that our right to privacy in digital matters is respected by law enforcement when they vote on Proposal 2.

This ballot proposal would require law enforcement to acquire a search warrant before accessing a persons electronic data and communications. This may seem like a commonsense protection of privacy. But, currently, law enforcement is able to access Michiganders data essentially at will.

This issue has been a big deal in Michigan for the better part of a decade. In 2011, as a result of suspected criminal activity in Detroit, the <https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-carpenter-supreme-court-decision> FBI acquired<https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-carpenter-supreme-court-decision> several months worth of Timothy Carpenters cellphone location records without a warrant. These records revealed over 13,000 locations Carpenter had visited, yet the FBI didnt even have to ask a judge to get that information.

Fortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union took on Carpenters case, which went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In 2018, the court held that Fourth Amendment protections apply to cellphone location records and that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant before accessing this sensitive information.

But heres the problem: The Supreme Courts decision only applied to location data. It didnt apply to the rest of the data that people access every day financial documents, photos, calendar appointments, and more. Law enforcement can still access this information without a warrant. In fact, law enforcement could conceivably access enough information to put together a profile of virtually every citizen in the state. Location data may be protected, but so much other data that paints an even better picture of a person is still open to access and abuse.

One thing is certain: Americans dont like the status quo. Approximately <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/> 88% of Americans<https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/> say it is important that there isnt anyone watching or listening to them without their permission. Unfortunately, the law hasnt caught up.

Other states have taken steps to solve this problem. It started in Missouri in 2014. After the passage of a bill in the state legislature, a remarkable 75%<https://time.com/3087608/missouri-electronic-privacy-amendment/> of voters added much broader data protections to the state constitution through a referendum.

Last year, Utah followed suit. Lawmakers introduced a bill stating that a government entity may not obtain, use, copy, or disclose any third-party data without first obtaining a warrant unless the owner has consented or a judicially recognized exception to a warrant exists. After unanimous support from the Utah Legislature, the bill became law.

Now Michigan has a chance to set the standard. In June 2019, Michigan state Sen. Jim Runestad introduced <http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zoatowoaywtmbnhskxax21bk))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2019-SJR-G> Senate Resolution G<http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zoatowoaywtmbnhskxax21bk))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2019-SJR-G>, which is similar to the protection enacted in Missouri. After a year in the Michigan Legislature, it passed and has become <https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2,_Search_Warrant_for_Electronic_Data_Amendment_(2020)> Michigan Proposal 2: Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment<https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2,_Search_Warrant_for_Electronic_Data_Amendment_(2020)>.

Justice Samuel Alito once wrote, It would be very unfortunate if privacy protection in the 21st century were left primarily to the federal courts using the blunt instrument of the Fourth Amendment. Legislatures, elected by the people, are in a better position than we are to assess and respond to the changes that have already occurred and those that almost certainly will take place in the future.

Rather than punt this issue to the slow-moving courts, its imperative that state legislatures continue discussing, as well as passing these updated protections for the electronic communications and data of various individuals.

Jarrett Skorup is director of marketing and communications at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market research and educational institute in Midland, MI. Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute, a free-market think tank in Utah.

See more here:
Column: Michigan can bring privacy into the 21st century - The Oakland Press

In this Novembers general election, voters will get to decide the fate of six statewide amendments to the Constitution of Alabama.

Yellowhammer News has prepared a guide to each statewide amendment and its impact on Alabama if enacted.

The six amendments mentioned will be on every ballot handed to an Alabamian on Election Day. Other local amendments may appear on the ballot in certain counties.

How the first amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to amend Article VIII of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 177 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, to provide that only a citizen of the United States has the right to vote.

More directly, the Alabama constitution would be changed to say only a citizen of the United States who meets certain qualifications has the right to vote

It currently says every citizen of the United States who meets certain qualifications has the right to vote.

The change that would occur if Amendment 1 passes is primarily technical; legal scholars agree current Alabama law permits only citizens to vote. Proponents of the amendment say the change is a needed clarification.

Alabama Senate Pro Tem. Del Marsh (R-Anniston) sponsored Amendment 1, and it passed the upper chamber unanimously. Marsh told Yellowhammer News at the time that his goal was to affirm that only citizens can vote in Alabamas elections.

How the second amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to increase the membership of the Judicial Inquiry Commission and further provide for the appointment of the additional members; further provide for the membership of the Court of the Judiciary and further provide for the appointment of the additional members; further provide for the process of disqualifying an active judge; repeal provisions providing for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices and appellate judges and the removal for cause of the judges of the district and circuit courts, judges of the probate courts, and judges of certain other courts by the Supreme Court; delete the authority of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to appoint an Administrative Director Courts; provide the Supreme Court of Alabama with authority to appoint an Administrative Director of Courts; require the Legislature to establish procedures for the appointment of the Administrative Director of Courts; delete the requirement that a district court hold court in each incorporated municipality with a population of 1,000 or more where there is no municipal court; provide that the procedure for the filling of vacancies in the office of a judge may be changed by local constitutional amendment; delete certain language relating to the position of constable holding more than one state office; delete a provision providing for the temporary maintenance of the prior judicial system; repeal the office of circuit solicitor; and make certain nonsubstantive stylistic changes.

The Fair Ballot Commission summarized in plain language the six primary changes that would be made by Amendment 2:

1. It provides that county district courts do not have to hold city court in a city with a population of less than 1,000.

2. It allows the Alabama Supreme Court, rather than the chief justice, to appoint the administrative director of courts.

3. It increases from nine to 11 the total membership of the Judicial Inquiry Commission and determines who appoints each member (the Judicial Inquiry Commission evaluates ethics complaints filed against judges).

4. It allows the governor, rather than the lieutenant governor, to appoint a member of the Court of the Judiciary (the Court of the Judiciary hears complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission).

5. It prevents a judge from being automatically disqualified from holding office simply because a complaint was filed with the Judiciary Inquiry Commission.

6. It provides that a judge can be removed from office only by the Court of the Judiciary.

Amendment 2 also changes the statutes governing Alabamas constables; these changes are opposed by the Alabama Constables Association.

The amendment was sponsored by State Senators Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) and Cam Ward (R-Alabaster).

Amendment 2 is the result of work done by a task force comprised of legislators and members of the judicial branch of government.

Advocates for the amendment say it simplifies several administrative procedures that govern Alabamas judicial system, which they argue is needed since many of the current procedures were written several decades ago and are no longer relevant.

Opponents of the measure argue that removing municipal courts from small towns with less than 1,000 residents will inconvenience the people who live there.

They also say that removing the legislatures ability to impeach judges the amendment makes the Judicial Inquiry Commission the only institution that can do so takes away the ability of the peoples representatives to get rid of bad judges.

More information on what the Judicial Inquiry Commission is and what it does can be found here.

How the third amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that a judge, other than a judge of probate, appointed to fill a vacancy would serve an initial term until the first Monday after the second Tuesday in January following the next general election after the judge has completed two years in office.

Most simply, the amendment would extend the time that judges who are appointed to fill an empty seat may serve.

If Amendment 3 is approved, appointed judges would run for reelection in the first general election after they have served two years in their appointed job.

Currently, appointed judges run in the first general election to occur after they have served for one year.

Tom Spencer of the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama (PARCA)authored a report on the proposed amendments.

He noted with regards to Amendment 3, This change might make it more attractive for nominees to accept a judicial appointment. At the same time, this change gives the appointee longer to build up the advantage of incumbency before running for a full term.

Judgeships come open when a sitting judge dies, resigns, retires or is removed. The amendment would not apply to probate judges.

Amendment 3 was sponsored by State Representative David Faulkner (R-Mountain Brook) and co-sponsored by State Representative Matt Fridy (R-Montevallo).

How the fourth amendment will appear on the ballot:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to authorize the Legislature to recompile the Alabama Constitution and submit it during the 2022 Regular Session, and provide a process for its ratification by the voters of this state.

If Amendment 4 is passed, state legislators would have permission to rearrange the state constitution to do four things, per the Fair Ballot Commission:

1. Remove racist language.2. Remove language that is repeated or no longer applies.3. Combine language related to economic development.4. Combine language that relates to the same county.

Only changes in those four categories could be made.

The proposed changes would be submitted during the 2022 legislative session for approval by both chambers of the legislature.

If the updated constitution is approved by the legislature, it would then be voted on by the people of Alabama in the 2022 general election.

Only if the legislature and the people of Alabama give the updated constitution their approval in 2022 would the changes become permanent. Amendment 4 could be thought of as permission for lawmakers and legislative staff to get started on the process.

As such, Amendment 4 will not affect how the state is governed; it only permits cosmetic changes and even those have to be approved by the public in two years.

Proponents say removing racist and redundant language is a worthy change to the states primary governing document.

Amendment 4 comes from a bipartisan place; it was sponsored by State Representative Merika Coleman (D-Birmingham) and co-sponsored by State House Speaker Mac McCutcheon (R-Monrovia), among others.

How the fifth and sixth amendments will appear on the ballot:

Relating to Franklin County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that a person is not liable for using deadly physical force in self-defense or in the defense of another person on the premises of a church under certain conditions.

Statewide Amendment 6 reads in full:

Relating to Lauderdale County, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that a person is not liable for using deadly physical force in self-defense or in the defense of another person on the premises of a church under certain conditions.

Both amendments would create special stand your ground laws for the churches in their respective counties.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall already interprets Alabamas statewide stand your ground law as applicable to churches.

Local legislators in both Franklin and Lauderdale counties believe an additional measure stating the stand your ground law applies to churches in their counties is needed as a form of clarification.

The passage of Amendment 5 and Amendment 6 requires a majority of Alabama voters and a majority of the voters in the relevant counties.

The Fair Ballot Commissions breakdown, in plain language, of all six amendments is available here, and the full analysis from PARCA is available here.

The Fair Ballot Commission is an independent state entity that receives technical assistance from several agencies, but primarily the secretary of states office.

Sample ballots for each of Alabamas 67 counties can be found here.

Yellowhammer received guidance from Jason Isbell, a lawyer in Montgomery and a member of the Fair Ballot Commission, in putting this guide together.

Henry Thornton is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can contact him by email: henry@yellowhammernews.comor on Twitter@HenryThornton95

Go here to see the original:
A guide to the statewide constitutional amendments on the ballot in November 2020 - Yellowhammer News

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed IMPD from the lawsuit, citing that city agencies are protected from certain laws

INDIANAPOLIS A judge has dismissed IMPD from a wrongful death lawsuit in the shooting death of Dreasjon Reed.

The lawsuit alleges four IMPD officers, the city of Indianapolis and IMPD used "excessive force" in violating Reed's Fourth Amendment rights.

The four officers listed are IMPD Chief Randal Taylor, IMPD Deputy Chief Kendale Adams, IMPD Officer De'Joure Marquise Mercer, and IMPD Officer Steven Scott.

IMPD claims Reed was running from police, shot at an officer, and the officer returned fire, killing Reed. The incident was caught on a live video on Facebook that Reed was filming at the time.

Reed's mother, Demetree Wynn, filed the federal lawsuit in June.

On Tuesday, Oct. 27, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed IMPD from the lawsuit, citing that city agencies are protected from certain laws.

"Defendants argue that the IMPD is not a suable entity, and therefore all claims against it must be dismissed. [Filing No. 16 at 3.] Specifically, Defendants assert that although municipal corporations have the capacity to sue and be sued under Indiana law, their individual departments and agencies do not, and courts have consistently recognized that the IMPD is not suable except in the context of lawsuits for access to public records, which is not the case here."

Here are the claims that have been dismissed from the lawsuit:

Following the court's decision, here is what remains in the wrongful death lawsuit:

Link:
IMPD dismissed from Dreasjon Reed lawsuit - WTHR

John Jeffrey Sipos and his wife Susanne bought their home in October 2003 on Cobbler Road in North Whitehall Township, property records show..

And they lived there for the next 17 years without brushing up against the law until Pennsylvania State Police came knocking on Oct. 24 with an arrest warrant from a judge in San Diego.

The 75-year-old John Sipos, San Diego police would later announce, was a suspect in the late November 1969 killing of Mary Scott.

Cold case units from the San Diego Police Department and the California countys district attorneys office evaluated the case and were able to use forensic genealogy to identify a possible suspect, according to a brief news release from police on Tuesday. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported Scotts younger sister, having read stories about how DNA and genealogy had led to the arrest of killers, had around the 50th anniversary of her sisters death ... reached out to a law enforcement friend to help get her sisters folder to the top of the cold-case pile.

Parabon NanoLabs and its Chief Genetic Genealogist CeCe Moore werent involved in this investigation, but they are pioneers in the field.

The science -- which Moore says is properly called investigative genetic genealogy -- is about 10 years old and was initially developed to help adoptees learn about their roots.

Its an extremely powerful tool for any type of human identification, Moore, who heads Parabons Genetic Genealogical Services for law enforcement, said in an interview with lehighvalleylive.com from her home in California.

About two and a half years ago, that unit of Parabon entered the world of criminal investigations and has an unparalleled record of over 130 successful identifications in criminal cases, according to background Moore provided.

Her work led to the first conviction, the first conviction through jury verdict, and the first exoneration in criminal cases where the suspect was identified through investigative genetic genealogy.

Raymond "DJ Freez" Rowe pleaded guilty to killing Christy Mirack many years after the 1992 crime in Lancaster.Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Moore said her first case was the December 1992 murder of school teacher Christy Mirack in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where the DNA and genealogical work in the spring of 2018 would lead to suspect Raymond DJ Freez Rowe, who wasnt on police radar, according to a published report. There was a significant amount of DNA left at the scene after the sexual assault, beating and strangulation. A DNA profile earlier uploaded by Rowes half-sister to a public database would be the key to solving the crime, a published report said.

An arrest would be made in June 2018 and Rowe would admit his guilt to charges of first-degree murder, rape, forced deviate intercourse and burglary. Rowe, now 52, is serving his life sentence in a Pennsylvania state prison.

It was a seminar through the DNA Doe Project that would led Lehigh County Coroner Eric Minnich to the Mirack case and the ongoing efforts to use DNA and genealogy to solve cold cases. In addition to determining the cause and manner of deaths, the coroners office tells families their loved ones have died. Sometimes thats difficult or nearly impossible due to a lack of information about the person who died. The county has one long unidentified body -- a John Doe case -- and Minnich wonders if this is a route to a resolution.

Lehigh County Coroner Eric Minnich.

Its something weve talked about, he said about using genetic genealogy. Its not something weve done anything about yet. ... As new things become available, its good to apply current standards to old cases. Identification is huge. Currently we use DNA to identify people by comparison from potential family members, but we have to know something. When we dont know anything, theres no simple way to compare DNA.

Investigative genetic genealogy is new to me, he said. Im learning about it too.

But to not consider the evolving science, you might miss an opportunity for identification, Minnich said.

So what changed from the days of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) that is the most commonly known DNA repository for crime cases -- but is limited to criminals -- and the development of Parabons work?

The first thing Moore points out is the field is more about genealogy than DNA.

The goal, either way, is to bring answers to people, at first, years back, in family mystery cases and later in such groundbreaking efforts as the Golden State Killer case, which was not a Parabon case but an early and well publicized example of proof of concept. Parabon, based in Reston, Virginia, at that point was in the business of making facial sketches from crime-scene DNA, wired.com reported.

When that case went public, law enforcement really sat up and took notice, Moore said.

CODIS, for example, works with a small portion of a persons genome -- 20 genetic markers, Moore said.

Were looking at hundreds of thousands of genetic markers, she said about the companys work in 2020.

It allows us to detect and predict much more distant relatives, she said. We can predict third, fourth cousins and we can re-engineer the family tree. Were looking at piecing the common ancestors back together that points to one family or one person.

The challenge at first was the DNA pool.

And years ago scientists such as Moore would have to become promoters.

You already know some of the names of commercial applications. 23 and Me. Ancestry. My Heritage. Family Tree DNA.

You send off your DNA to learn more about your roots. Of those four, Family Tree DNA was the only one that made the information public, Moore said. GEDmatch, which caught the publics attention during the Golden State Killer case, is the other major public database. So, working with citizen scientists," the effort began to get people who were already sending DNA to the retail companies to also send the results to GEDmatch, Moore said.

We had to promote this idea of using DNA in order to resolve family mysteries, she said. It was part of my job to get the word out. It took years to build those databases.

Thousand and thousands of volunteer hours later and the pool was much deeper. Family Tree DNA, where people have to actively opt out or results of the free upload become public, has about a million results, Moore said. The investigative industry saw a setback more than a year ago when GEDmatch, which had about 1 million results public, suddenly changed its default from opt in to opt out of DNA results being made public and thus accessible to law enforcement investigations, Moore said. But its back up to about 300,000, she said.

The issues are Fourth Amendment privacy concerns and company transparency worries, news reports say.

The scope of the new science has limits. Most of the people who have the disposable income and interest to pay to send their DNA to the retail firms tend to have ancestry from northwestern Europe, Moore said.

If someone has deep routes in the United States, its easier to identify them, Moore said. With recent immigrants its harder.

And then theres what may be the tougher reality. Moores oldest case dates to 1967. The Scott case is from 1969.

Nobody in a police uniform was worried about DNA preservation in the late 1960s. Or the 1970s. Even into the 1980s. And remember, the jury didnt buy DNA evidence in the mid-1990s when O.J. Simpson was on trial in the killing of his wife.

Thereve been fires, floods, extreme temperatures and contamination over the decades in police evidence storage areas, she said.

Parabon needs about 60% of a persons DNA to work with.

Some of its been thrown out or ordered by judges to be destroyed, she said.

But if the evidence was kept in paper bags or cardboard boxes in a temperature-controlled space -- the key is to avoid extremes -- the DNA can remain viable over many years, she said. It could just be a matter of luck and benign oversight.

Surprisingly, many have worked out to be usable, Moore said.

The truly crushing part for families is now that the science exists, they learn that the crime-scene DNA no longer does, she said.

Her job begins once the DNA has been determined viable, there is a large enough sample and a raw DNA file has been created, she said.

That file is compared against all the people in the public databases, she said.

If as little as 1% of the DNA matches, we can detect these distant relationships, she said. The search is for a common ancestor.

Perhaps it leads to great-grandparents.

You hope you have enough data to narrow it down, Moore said. Optimal cases have matches for all four grandparents. Somehow all these people fit to make this one person related to all these matches. ... The amount of DNA shared helps us predict the relationship.

And thats when the even more detailed and truly difficult part of the effort begins.

Were using the DNA as a guide, she said. From there on its all genealogy.

Anyone who has ever fooled around with ancestry.com knows what comes next.

Birth records. Death records. Any record that might feed a family tree. But in reverse.

Most people learn their lineage from themselves on back. From what you know to what you dont know.

But Moore has to start deep in a familys history and work forward, building a reverse genealogy, she said.

You have to determine the descendants, she said. How did their children and grandchildren marry?

Family tree after family tree is constructed and considered. Paths are followed until they end. Several groups go one way, but how do they relate to other groups of possible distant relatives?

And then?

With lots of crimes, theres one person who fits, said Moore, who has been a full-time genetic genealogist on the PBS series Finding Your Roots with Louis Gates Jr. and has other television credits as well. Its also pretty common that its a set of brothers. You cant tell. You have to go out and get the DNA.

Because thats the positive match. You determine whose DNA is a probable match and then police get the real thing, either through the suspects willingness to cooperate or investigators' efforts to find abandoned DNA on a cup or a cigarette or in the trash, she said.

Sometimes if there are brothers who dont look the same, DNA can predict eye color or hair color and be used to rule someone out, she said.

But, in the end, the genetic genealogists work is a guidepost in the investigation. While San Diego police said genetic genealogy was used to develop Sipos as a suspect, there must be other factors that point to his potential guilt, Moore said.

Her work is not evidence for court, she said.

This is a tool to point them in the right direction, she said.

The ensuing DNA test would be the evidence, she said.

So, whats all this cost? Sounds expensive.

I guess it depends on perspective, she replied in a followup email. It is extremely inexpensive if it helps solve a case that has been worked for years or decades, using a huge amount of public resources.

Then again, for underfunded departments ... it can be expensive. For this reason, we started JusticeDrive.org to help agencies crowd fund, she said.

The cost varies, Moore continued. It is about $1,500 for the DNA processing and about $3,500 for the genetic genealogy research on most of our cases, so a total of approximately $5,000.

Law enforcement agencies who collect DNA evidence would only have to pay a lab for the DNA analysis and processing, she noted. Man-hours can easily add up to more than $3,500, however, if officers have to trace the genealogy.

Thank you for relying on us to provide the journalism you can trust. Please consider supporting lehighvalleylive.com with a subscription.

Tony Rhodin can be reached at arhodin@lehighvalleylive.com.

Excerpt from:
It led police to John Sipos 51 years after Mary Scotts killing. So, what is investigative genetic genealogy? - lehighvalleylive.com

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement

On October 26, 2020, the Company entered into a Fifth Amendment to CreditAgreement (the "Fifth Amendment") which amends its existing Credit Agreement,dated as of February 2, 2017, as amended by the First Amendment thereto, datedas of September 18, 2019, the Second Amendment thereto, dated as of March 27,2020, the Third Amendment thereto, dated as of May 7, 2020 (the "ThirdAmendment"), and the Fourth Amendment thereto, dated as of May 18, 2020, withcertain direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company as guarantors, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as administrative agent, and the lenders andother agents party thereto.

The Fifth Amendment extended the term of the agreement by one year to February2, 2023, reduced the revolving credit facility to $120.0 million, adjusted themonthly liquidity covenant, added a provision to allow for non-maintenancecapital expenditures based on quarterly EBITDA performance and added provisionsto the Credit Agreement to address the contemplated phase out of LIBOR. Aftergiving effect to the Fifth Amendment, the credit facility will continue toprovide for a $5.0 million subfacility of letters of credit and a $5.0 millionsubfacility for swingline loans. The Fifth Amendment did not change theConsolidated Leverage Ratio and Fixed Coverage Charge Ratio requirements. TheConsolidated Leverage Ratio and Fixed Coverage Charge Ratio requirements fromthe Third Amendment remain in effect through February 2, 2023.

The Fifth Amendment requires the Company and its subsidiaries to meet minimumaggregate cash holding requirements through March 2021 in an amount equal to thefollowing amount for each month set forth below:

The Fifth Amendment also removes the requirement that the Company use 50% of theaggregate net cash proceeds from equity issuances after May 7, 2020 in excess of$30.0 million to repay loans outstanding until the Company could demonstratecompliance with certain financial covenants.

The Fifth Amendment now allows for non-maintenance capital expenditures when theLeverage Ratio is 2.50 to 1.0 or greater with 75% of consolidated EBITDA earnedduring a fiscal quarter in excess of $7.5 million ("Excess EBITDA"). The Companyand its subsidiaries may make non-maintenance capital expenditures with ExcessEBITDA at any time after such Excess EBITDA is earned until the Leverage Ratiohas been reduced to less than 2.50 to 1.0. Prior to the Fifth Amendment, theCredit Agreement had prohibited all non-maintenance capital expenditures whenthe Leverage Ratio was 2.50 to 1.0 or greater. As was also the case before theFifth Amendment, the credit agreement provides that the Company and itssubsidiaries may make capital expenditures in any fiscal year in an amount equalto 75% of consolidated EBITDA for the immediately preceding fiscal year when theLeverage Ratio is equal to or greater than 1.50 to 1.0 but less than 2.50 to1.0. When the Leverage Ratio is less than 1.50 to 1.0, the Company and itssubsidiaries may make capital expenditures in an unlimited amount.

In connection with the closing of the Fifth Amendment, the Company repaid $20.2million in loans so that a total of $115.0 million (excluding $4.8 million inletters of credit) is currently outstanding under the credit facility. Thecurrent interest rate for borrowings under the revolving credit facility is3.75%.

Item 2.03. Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff- Balance Sheet Arrangement of a

Registrant

The discussion of the Fifth Amendment to Credit Agreement set forth underItem 1.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K is incorporated herein by referencein this Item 2.03.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits

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

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Originally posted here:
RUTHS HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an...

Posted on October 30, 2020, at 2:50 p.m. ET

A screenshot from a Chicago Police Department training video.

Regardless of the results of the 2020 election, its possible that the United States will see civil unrest in its aftermath. Some activists fear that police will use the same violent tactics that were used to respond to the Black Lives Matter protests that followed the deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd earlier this year.

To find out how police are preparing to respond to postelection protests, BuzzFeed News filed public records requests with six major departments.

So far, only one has responded.

BuzzFeed News received over 100 pages of documents from the Chicago Police Department, as well as a video, showing how police in the most populous city in the Midwest are preparing for unrest on election night. In many ways, Chicago stands in for any large American city since the materials use official protest guidance from the Department of Homeland Security and the US Army that arent particular to Chicago.

A Chicago police spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that every sworn officer will be on duty on Nov. 3 into the morning of Nov. 4.

In a press conference on Oct. 15, Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown said officers have done several workshops preparing for Election Day. Its unclear if these workshops incorporated the material obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The presence of organization within a team can intimidate the opposition.

We're trying as best we can to anticipate any hazard that might happen including a weather hazard, snow might happen in our city, along with anything related to protests [or] embedded agitators that may loot, cause violence, or destroy property, Brown said.

One 64-page document, titled "Crowd Control and Behavior," contains the outline for an eight-hour course in which officers were taught how to control protests and arrest demonstrators.

The presence of organization within a team can intimidate the opposition, it says. Using team tactics has a military type advantage over larger organized groups.

In addition to the documents, Chicago police released a training video that instructs officers how to push and thrust batons at protesters.

One section of the "Crowd Control and Behavior" document outlines strategies for a Mobile Field Force unit, a group of police officers who carry weapons (like batons and pepper spray) and use platoon-style tactics to address civil disorder.

A military bearing demonstrates to the protesters that the MFF is a well-disciplined and highly trained group, the document says.

The document does note that police must be aware of peoples First and Fourth Amendment rights while they protest. But if the public peace is disturbed, police have the legal right to make arrests. The "Crowd Control and Behavior" document notes that mob action is defined under Illinois law as disturbing the public peace or damaging property while in a group.

Military-style tactics are not unusual within US police departments, and the document covers several different formations that police may use to control crowds. The documents refer to a group of police officers as a platoon, which is led by a sergeant or captain. The formations include column, skirmish, wedge, and encirclement.

The "Crowd Control and Behavior" document also defines several types of demonstrator groups and identifies many by name. It labels ACC, Globalize This, South Dakota Radicals, Food Not Bombs, Black Cat Collective, Black Cross, North Eastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists, and Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) as anarchist groups. It defines anarchists as those who believe private property is theft, state property is an object for the protection of corporate interest, and that both must be destroyed for the creation of a society based on mutual aid and individual liberty.

The "Crowd Control and Behavior" document says that these protesters try to manipulate the media and provoke police by prominently positioning children and older people to gain sympathy and negative portrayals of police dispersal and arrest actions. It also claims that protesters accuse the police of misconduct to avoid arrest and gain the sympathy of the media and bystanders.

The document advises that some violent demonstrators may use wrist rockets, catapults, incendiary devices, impact weapons, mirrors, hazardous substances, battering devices, fireworks and rockets, weapons of mass destruction, suspicious packages, golf balls, bottles, cans of soup, and pieces of concrete as weapons during protests.

Its common to see legal observers, such as lawyers or law students, at a protest. But the document says that legal teams may try to intimidate police by telling them that their tactics are illegal.

The document notes that its legal to use pepper spray on protesters who are passively resisting police officers, even if they arent doing anything violent.

View original post here:
This Is How Chicago Police Are Getting Ready For Election Night Protests - BuzzFeed News