Daily Archives: March 17, 2022

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On March 15, 2022, Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. (the "Company"), aDelaware corporation, entered into the Fifth Amendment to Tax Asset ProtectionPlan (the "Fifth Amendment") between the Company and Computershare TrustCompany, N.A. (the "Rights Agent") that amends the Tax Asset Protection Plandated May 5, 2017, as amended (the "TAPP") between the Company and the RightsAgent.

The Fifth Amendment amends the definition of "Final Expiration Date" under theTAPP to extend the duration of the TAPP and makes associated changes inconnection therewith. Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, the Final Expiration Dateshall be the close of business on the earlier of (i) December 31, 2023 or (ii)December 31, 2022 if stockholder approval has not been obtained prior to suchdate.

The foregoing description of the Fifth Amendment is qualified in its entirety byreference to the full text of the Fifth Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit4.6 and incorporated herein by reference.

Item 3.03 Material Modification to Rights of Security Holders.

See the description set out under "Item 1.01 - Entry into a Material DefinitiveAgreement," which is incorporated by reference into this Item 3.03.

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

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read the original post:
ADVANCED EMISSIONS SOLUTIONS, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Material Modification to Rights of Security Holders (form 8-K) -...

March 16, 2022, 8:09 AM

4 min read

As the Browns' brass flew back from a meeting with whom they hope will be their future quarterback, Deshaun Watson, their current quarterback, Baker Mayfield, posted a statement to social media on Tuesday night thanking the city of Cleveland and its fans "who truly embraced who I am."

"With many uncertainties, here is where my head and heart is," Mayfield wrote as an introduction to his message, which he addressed to Cleveland and posted to his Instagram and Twitteraccounts.

"The past 4 years have been nothing short of truly life changing since I heard my name called in the draft to go to Cleveland. This is not a message with hidden meaning. This is strictly to thank the city of Cleveland for embracing my family and me," he said. "We have made many memories and shared growing in this process through all the ups and downs.

"I have no clue what happens next, which is the meaning behind the silence I have had during the duration of this process. I can only control what I can, which is trusting in God's plan throughout this process. I have given this franchise everything I have. That is something I've always done at every stage, and at every level. And that will not change wherever I take my next snap. Whatever happens ... I just want to say thank you to the fans who truly embraced who I am and the mentality that aligned so well with this city's hard working people.

"Cleveland will always be a part of Emily and my story. And we will always be thankful for the impact it has had and will have in our lives. Sincerely, Baker Reagan Mayfield."

The Browns flew to Houston on Tuesday to pitch Watson on waiving his no-trade clause to come to Cleveland, a league source told ESPN. The Browns are one of four teams, along with the New Orleans Saints, Carolina Panthers and Atlanta Falcons, who are attempting to land Watson in a trade with the Texans. Watson has already met with the Saints and Panthers and is scheduled to meet with the Falcons on Wednesday.

Watson did not play at all last season following an offseason request to be traded and the emergence of 22 civil lawsuits against him alleging sexual assault and inappropriate conduct during massage sessions. A grand jury in Texas on Friday declined to indict Watson on criminal charges, signaling the end of criminal proceedings related to him in Harris County, where Houston is located.

Before meeting with the Browns on Tuesday, Watsonanswered questions on two of the 22 lawsuits filed against him during ongoing depositions, the plaintiffs' attorney, Tony Buzbee, told KHOU 11. Watson had invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when sitting for two sessions of depositions that began Friday.

Browns general manager Andrew Berry and head coach Kevin Stefanski have publicly declared that Mayfield would remain their quarterback, up through the NFL scouting combine in Indianapolis.

"We fully expect Baker to be our starter and bounce back," Berry said in January.

But that equation appeared to change Friday when the grand jury declined to indict Watson, leaving Mayfield's future in limbo with the franchise that selected him No. 1 overall in the 2018 draft.

Mayfield has endured a tumultuous, up-and-down tenure in Cleveland over four seasons. He played under four different head coaches through his first three seasons in the league. Despite that, Mayfield led Cleveland to its first playoff victory in 26 years during the 2020 season.

But in Week 2 of the 2021 season, he suffered a torn labrum in his non-throwing left shoulder and struggled the rest of the way. He wound up finishing 27th in the league in QBR, as the Browns missed the playoffs and finished with a disappointing 8-9 record.

Mayfield, who underwent surgery to repair the labrum on Jan. 19 and is expected to be fully cleared well before training camp, is entering the final year of his rookie deal, which will pay him $19 million in 2022.

Excerpt from:
QB Baker Mayfield posts message thanking Cleveland fans on same day Browns' brass meets with Deshaun Watson - ABC News

OPINION:

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration has undertaken a vast scheme against Russian economic actors, which it characterizes as sanctions. The scheme consists in seizing assets, freezing assets and prohibiting lawful and constitutionally protected commercial transactions.

All of this is aimed at dissuading Russian President Vladimir Putin from his determination to use extreme state violence to neutralize the government of Ukraine and install a government more favorable to the Kremlin. Yet, the targets of these sanctions are neither Mr. Putin nor the Russian state. Rather, his friends and political supporters, as well as Russian banks and commercial entities, and even American banks and commercial entities, have been targeted and hundreds of millions of consumers and investors have been harmed.

By prohibiting the use of assets and international money transfers, the sanctions have severely harmed folks in Russia who have nothing to do with Putins war by radically reducing their purchasing power and eliminating many everyday choices from their spending options. All of this was done by presidential edict.

Can the president constitutionally prevent Americans and foreign persons from the lawful use of their own assets and from engaging freely in lawful commercial transactions? In a word: No.

Here is the backstory.

The Constitution was written to establish the federal government and to limit it. The same document that delegates to Congress the power to keep interstate and foreign commerce regular also prohibits the states in the Contracts Clause from interfering in private contracts. But there was originally no comparable prohibition restraining the federal government.

In 1791, James Madison, the author of the Constitution, argued as a member of the House of Representatives against legislation establishing the First National Bank of the United States because he feared federal control of commerce. Of course, it became law, caused recessions and was sunset 20 years later.

Yet in 1816, shortly before the end of his second term in the White House, Mr. Madison caved to corporatism and signed into law the Second National Bank of the United States. After its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1824, the feds insinuated themselves into all sorts of economic activity, none of it enhancing personal liberty, all of it favoring their patrons.

While still a congressman, and fearing federal insinuation into commerce, Mr. Madison authored the Bill of Rights the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. He crafted the Fifth Amendment to protect life, liberty and property from the government.

By requiring due process a trial at which the federal government must prove fault prior to interfering with any persons life, liberty or property, Mr. Madison arguably crafted more restraints on the feds than the original Constitution imposed upon the states.

Similarly, by requiring a search warrant issued by a neutral judge based on sworn testimony of probable cause of crime before the feds could seize any person or tangible thing, Madison again added strength and vitality to his understanding of the Constitutions protections of the primacy of the individual with respect to property and privacy.

Both the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments protect all people and every person, not just Americans. This is critical to an understanding of why the sanctions imposed by the Biden administration upon those as to whom there has been no due process or against whom there have been no search warrants issued are profoundly unconstitutional.

For generations, the government argued that the rights to privacy and due process protected Americans only. In the post-World War II era, the feds have lost those arguments.

Thus, when the feds seize a yacht from a person whom they believe may have financed Mr. Putins political rise to power, or even his personal lifestyle, they are doing so in direct violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Similarly, when they freeze foreign assets in American banks, they engage in a seizure, and seizures can only constitutionally be done with a search warrant. As well, when the feds interfere whether by presidential edict or congressional legislation with contract rights by prohibiting compliance with lawful contracts, that, too, implicates due process and can only be done constitutionally after a jury verdict in the governments favor from a trial at which the feds have proven fault.

As if to anticipate these constitutional roadblocks to its interference with free commercial choices by investors, workers and consumers, Congress enacted the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 and the Magnitsky Act of 2016. These constitutional aberrations purport to give the president the power to declare persons and entities to be violators of human rights and, by that mere executive declaration, to punish them without trial.

These laws turn the Fourth and Fifth Amendments on their heads by punishing first and engaging in a perverse variant of due process later.

How perverse? If the feds seize assets or interfere with contracts involving foreign ownership or interests, and the victims want justice, the persons or entities whose assets have been seized or whose contractual rights have been diminished must consent to the jurisdiction of American courts and prove that they are not human rights violators. These statutes are a federal version of Alice in Wonderland, whereby the punished person or entity must prove innocence. Such a burden defies all American concepts of property ownership, fairness and due process. It is antithetical to our history, repugnant to our values and mocks the Constitution that all in government have sworn to uphold. All persons are presumed innocent. The government must always prove fault. The restrictions that the Constitution imposes upon the federal government have no emergency exceptions, nor are they theoretical or fanciful. They were crafted by men who knew and had tasted the torments of unbridled government power. They wrote the restrictions to assure that the new federal government could not do to Americans what the British had done to them. They failed.

Andrew P. Napolitano is a former professor of law and judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey who has published nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

The rest is here:
U.S. sanctions on Russia violate the Constitution - Washington Times

Attribution: AFP via Getty Images

Flynn knows lying to the feds is bad news, invokes Fifth before Jan. 6 probe

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn gave the January 6 Committee bupkis Thursday when he appeared for his closed-door deposition, opting to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The committee investigating the deadly Capitol attack that unfolded in D.C. 14 months ago, issued its initial subpoena to Flynn back in November after reports surfaced that he attended ameeting in the Oval Office with other Trump White House officials to discuss the seizure ofvoting machines that theTrump campaign deemed fraudulent.

Flynns attorney David Warrington described the hearingThursday as a farce and accused the committee of harassment.

Most of the questions lacked any relation to the legislative purpose contained in House Resolution 503, and many were clearly sourced from finger news and conspiracy websites and rumors, Warrington told CNN.

The statement by Warrington echoes just about the only argument that has been offered by allies to the former president who have come under the probes microscope. In fact, as injunctions to stop subpoenas have been duked out in federal courts for the last year, courts have found time and again that the committee was properly founded and is properly authorized to conduct its review.

In addition to questions about Flynnsgambit to have Trump seize voting machines, the committee also wants to learn about his campaign to have Trump declare a national emergency or invoke martial law to pull off the seizure.

[Related: Whos who: A rolling guide to the targets of the Jan. 6 Committee]

Flynn sued the committee in December to stop its subpoena, saying it violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. Afederal judge rejected the request in just a day, noting that Flynn failed to even notice the committee that he did not intend to cooperate. He also failed to explain why he should be exempt from providing that notice since it's a requirement under federal rules.

By invoking his FifthAmendment, Flynn is not making an admission of guilt. Invoking the right is a bedrock principle of the Constitution and afforded to all who wish not to incriminate themselves should they speak.

In the Jan. 6 probe, Flynn is far from the only ex-Trump official to invoke this right. Jeffrey Clark, aTrump DOJ attorney, invoked it as he faced more than 100 questions from the committee. Clark pushed to have his superior at the department removed at Trumps behest when a ploy to declare fraud in Georgias election results fizzled.

Conservative attorney John Eastman also invoked his Fifth Amendment. Eastman is now in the middle of a fraught legal battleto keep the committee away fromemails sent and received between himself and Trump from Jan. 4 to Jan. 7.

GOP operative Roger Stone has invoked the right as well as right-wing bombast Alex Jones.

[Related: Alex Jones might be the undoing of Alex Jones]

Flynns decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment right may not be good for the committee but it is prudent. Flynn pleaded guilty in federal court to making false statements after it emerged in 2017 that he lied to the FBI and then Vice President Mike Pence about his contacts with Russian officials.

Flynn was fired from his national security role at the White House and later pardoned by the former president.

See more here:
Flynn knows lying to the feds is bad news, invokes Fifth before Jan. 6 probe - Daily Kos

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

What's next for Jussie Smollett after his release from jail on Wednesday? Several legal experts gave their opinions in interviews with Fox News Digital.

Smollett was granted a release on bond from the Cook County Jail in Illinois pending the appeal of his conviction. A panel of three appellate judges came down with the ruling in a 2-1 decision granting the former "Empire" stars release after posting a personal recognizance bond of $150,000.

It is nearly the amount of the $120,106 restitution Smollett was ordered to repay after he was convicted of lying to Chicago police about being the victim of a hate crime in 2019.

As the appellate judges have released Smollett on his own recognizance, he will not fork over any of the amounts so long as he agrees to appear in court as required.

The legal experts who weighed in on the court's decision as news of Smolletts release swiftly spread raised questions as to why the three-judge panel elected to spring the actor from jail, as well as what this could potentially mean for his conviction appeal.

JUSSIE SMOLLETT RELEASED FROM JAIL PENDING APPEAL: UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CHARGE SOMEONE TWICE, LAWYER SAYS

According to one criminal defense attorney, while Smolletts celebrity status hurt him in his trial and the subsequent sentencing handed down by Judge James Linn, the decision to free him pending his appeal was "a great sign" for the embattled singer and performer after he was recentlysentenced to 150 days in jail and 30 months of felony probation in addition to the restitution.

Jussie Smollett is released from Cook County Jail on March 16. (FOX 32 Chicago)

Los Angeles-based defense attorney Lara Yeretsian who is not involved in the case told Fox News Digital minutes after the release order was granted Wednesday that she believes Smollett, 39, "has got some really good grounds for his release."

During Smolletts sentencing hearing on March 10, his legal counsel argued he had been the victim of a double jeopardy conviction based on the Fifth Amendment Clause and doubled down on the idea in court that it was "unconstitutional to charge someone twice" for the same offense.

JUSSIE SMOLLETT SENTENCE: OSUNDAIRO BROTHERS BREAK SILENCE, HOPE RULING BRINGS CLOSURE TO PEOPLE OF CHICAGO

At a Wednesday news conference held outside the Cook County Jail in Chicago, double jeopardy arguments from Smolletts legal team were mentioned again and were based on Cook County state's attorney Kim Foxx originally dismissing the indictment against Smollett in exchange for him forfeiting his $10,000 bond.

Following Foxx's dismissal of the initial charges, special prosecutor Dan Webb was appointed to the case, and he ultimately charged Smollett. However, the actors lawyers argued that jeopardy had already been attached, and he couldn't be prosecuted a second time.

Now, Smollett's defense attorney Nenye Uche is seeking to file an appeal of the verdict.

"We are very happy with the ruling made by the Illinois District Appellate Court," Uche said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "We are pleased that sensationalism and politics will be put aside and we can finally have an intellectual discussion about our laws with our esteemed appellate court.

"Three years ago, Jussie and the State of Illinois reached a deferred prosecution agreement in which he paid a $10,000 fine and performed community service. As a result, the case was dismissed,"the statement continued. "To be recharged and prosecuted for the exact same thing, a second time, is not just morally wrong, but certainly double jeopardy and thus unconstitutional especially as it concerns an innocent man."

A jury convicted actor Jussie Smollett of five counts of disorderly conduct for staging a racist, anti-gay attack in Chicago and lying to police. (Associated Press graphic)

Yeretsian believes Smolletts lawyers have a firm point and that the three-judge panel might have felt similarly as the justice system should take only the law and the Constitution into account.

"The one aspect that really, really sticks out for me as far as appeals go is the special prosecution I mean, it's almost unheard of," she explained of the appointment of special prosecutor Webb. "Smollett had a deal. He took the deal. He met his part. He had a contract with the prosecution to do community service and he forfeited his $10,000 bond and in return, they gave him a diversionary deal and once he finished his community service and forfeited his bond, this case was dismissed the same counts."

COURT ORDERS JUSSIE SMOLLETT BE RELEASED FROM JAIL ON BOND PENDING HIS HATE CRIME HOAX CONVICTION APPEAL

Webb did not immediately respond to Fox News Digitals request for comment.

Furthermore, West Coast Trial Lawyers President Neama Rahmani who is also an uninvolved spectator to the Smollett saga relayed to Fox News Digital that for the three-panel committee to come back with a ruling releasing the actor from jail, "there has to be a clear legal error" allegedly on the part of Judge Linn or prosecutors that pointed to a reason for Smolletts release.

"There are a lot of people unhappy at Kim Foxx," Rahmani explained of the confusion surrounding the "deal" from Foxx that Smollett agreed to but did not officially plead to in signing.

"[Smollett] didn't take a plea, that's why it's a weird issue," Rahmani pressed. "He didn't take a plea. [Foxx] said, 'Listen, forfeit your bond and if you agree to do some community service, I'm going to dismiss.' So that's why it's a weird legal issue."

Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx. (Associated Press)

JUSSIE SMOLLETT SHOUTS HE'S INNOCENT,' NOT SUICIDAL AFTER BEING SENTENCED TO JAIL

Asked point-blank if he believes Smollett now has a decent case for getting his conviction overturned based on his team's Fifth Amendment argument, Rahmani agreed simply based on the decision from the appellate justices.

"Yes, it's a good case, and we know it's a good case because he's already got two out of three justices who are saying that he should be released on bond and his sentence should be stayed while this appeals process is being heard," Rahmani said. "So he's got a very good legal argument for getting his conviction overturned."

Actor Jussie Smollett, center, leaves the Cook County Jail on Wednesday, March 16, 2022. (Associated Press)

Meanwhile, on the side of prosecutors, Rahmani maintained that he understands the proverbial gray area the case straddles, and added that the prosecution was more than fair in raising the fact that Smollett hadnt signed any plea agreement, thus double jeopardy shouldnt apply.

"The trial judge said [Smollett] didn't plead, he wasn't punished, so the jeopardy never attached but what I think the appellate judges are going to say is that by making him forfeit his bond, that's considered punishment jeopardy attaches and you can't [charge him again]," Rahmani said.

Rahmani pointed to Smolletts forfeiture of his $10,000 bond as a litmus not only for punishment but acceptance of the Foxx agreement.

"This one was very sort of nonstandard. Normally, the deals aren't in exchange for forfeiting your bond," he said. "So it's a very atypical case and I think that's why the trial judge [Linn] said, jeopardy didn't attach because [Smollett] never came in here and pled in my courtroom with a plea agreement and all the things that are normally involved with the dismissal."

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

Following the news conference on Wednesday, Tina Glandian of Geragos & Geragos, who is also representing Smollett, told Fox News Digital in a statement: "We are gratified that Jussie will be back with his family and loved ones and look forward to a dispassionate review and reversal of the serial injustices visited upon him."

The courts decision marks the latest chapter in a strange story that began in January 2019 when Smollett reported to Chicago police that he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack by two men wearing ski masks. The manhunt for the attackers soon turned into an investigation of Smollett himself and his arrest on charges that hed orchestrated the attack and lied to police about it.

Authorities said Smollett paid two men he knew from work on the TV show "Empire" to stage the attack. Prosecutors said he told them what racist and homophobic slurs to shout, and to yell that Smollett was in "MAGA Country," a reference to the slogan of Donald Trumps 2016 presidential campaign.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A jury convicted Smollett in December on five felony counts of disorderly conduct the charge filed when a person lies to police. He was acquitted on a sixth count. Judge Linn sentenced Smollett last week to 150 days in jail with good behavior he could have been released in as little as 75 days.

Smollett maintained his innocence during the trial.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Go here to read the rest:
Jussie Smollett released from jail: Will he successfully appeal conviction? Legal experts weigh in - Fox News

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On March 10, 2022, Novanta Inc. (the "Company"), Novanta Corporation (the "LeadBorrower"), Novanta UK Investments Holding Limited (the "U.K. Borrower"), andNovanta Europe GmbH (the "German Borrower" and together with the Company, theLead Borrower and the U.K. Borrower, the "Borrowers") and certain of theCompany's wholly owned subsidiaries as Guarantors entered into an amendment (the"Fifth Amendment") to the Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated asof December 31, 2019 (as amended, the "Credit Agreement") with Bank of America,N.A., as Administrative Agent, Swing Line Lender, L/C Issuer and lender, and theother parties thereto. The Fifth Amendment amends the Credit Agreement to extendthe maturity date thereof from December 31, 2024 to March 10, 2027, update thepricing grid, replace LIBOR with SOFR as the reference rate for US dollarborrowings, increase the uncommitted accordion option from $200 million to $350million, and add the Company as a Borrower.

The foregoing description of the Fifth Amendment does not purport to be completeand is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full amendment attached asExhibit 10.1 hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

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

The information set forth in Item 1.01 in connection with the Fifth Amendment isincorporated in this Item 2.03 by reference.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d) Exhibits.

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

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read the original here:
NOVANTA INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet...

LMPD Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly speaks out in exclusive interview

Mattingly spoke exclusively to The Courier Journal and ABC News Tuesday in an interview with ABC's Michael Strahan and with Courier Journal reporters.

ABC NEWS/The Courier Journal

LOUISVILLE, Ky. The list of people on Jonathan Mattingly's bad side is long.

The retired Louisville cop who was injured in the infamous Breonna Taylor raid lays out his grievances in a new book published Tuesday, going aftereveryone from local leaders like Mayor Greg Fischer and Metro Council President David Jamesto big-name celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey, George Clooneyand LeBron James.

Mattingly, one of the three Louisville Metro Police officers who fired shots during the attempted searchof Taylor's apartment in March 2020, published the book through DW Books, a division of conservative media organization, The Daily Wire.

The book, "12 Seconds In The Dark: A Police Officers Firsthand Account of the Breonna Taylor Raid," is Mattingly's telling of his 20-year police career, the night Taylor died and the fallout that followed.

"It's amazing that as long as the media and woke mob aren't hounding you, you have politicians' support," he wrote, "but as soon as the tide turns and it's not in their best interest, they disappear, never to be heard from again."

The now-retired sergeantfired six rounds that night, striking Taylor, who wasn't armed, at least once, after he was shot by her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker. Mattingly required emergency surgery to repair his severed femoral artery.

Walker has maintained he did not know it was police at the door, and criminal charges filed against him that night were later dismissed.

The book's release comes just two days after the second anniversary of Taylor's death and about two weeks after another officer from the shooting, Brett Hankison, was acquitted of endangering Taylor's neighbors.

'They would love for us to ... go away': What really changed since Breonna Taylor's death

The book quicklycharted on Amazon, cracking the Top 100 bestsellers in books.

"I will not be silent, and I will continue to fight," he wrote. "We were used as pawns in the mayor and city council's political careers. In the meantime, that game is destroying or at least forever altering people's lives."

LMPD acknowledged the book's publication said the department, "respectfully declines comment."

A spokesperson for Mayor Greg Fischer told The Courier Journal "The mayor has not read the book," when asked for a response to Mattingly's comments.

The Courier Journal obtained a copy of Mattingly's book Tuesday. Here are some key points:

For those hoping to find out more details about what unfolded just before 1 a.m. March 13, 2020, at Taylor's apartment, Mattingly's 141-page book offers little new information.

Of the 13 chapters, three are devoted to that fatal raid: one to the lead-up, one to the attempted search and one to the immediate aftermath of the shooting.

Avid followers of the case will recognize much of what Mattingly writes from previously published interviews he gave to LMPD investigatorsand to ABC News and The Courier Journal.

Notably, Mattingly refused recently to testify as a witness in Hankison's trial, citing his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The FBI investigation into Taylor's death remains open and ongoing.

Mattingly wrote he was "amazed" at "how clear my recollection of the events from the incident were in my head."

"I wish I could have given my statement right then and there so all the naysayers couldn't accuse us of a cover-up and collusion like they have," he said. "I realize this isn't how everyone's body reacts to a traumatic injury like this, but mine did."

The Courier Journal reached out to attorneys for Taylor's family, but they declined to comment.

We are Breonna Taylor: How she changed these Black women's lives

Mattingly placed the blame for Taylor's death "a horrible tragedy, and the exact scenario that every cop fears" squarely on her boyfriend, Walker.

It's not the first time he's done so.

"This tragedy is a culmination of events that led us to a raid on that apartment,along with the criminal actions of Kenneth Walker that night, but that distinction was lost, or rather, buried," Mattingly wrote.

Mattingly also expressed doubt that Walker didn't know who he was shooting at.

"There was no way at this point, a few minutes after the initial incident, that Kenneth Walker didn't know it was the police outside, yet he chose to stay inside the apartment for fifteen minutes before exiting, claiming he didn't know who we were," Mattingly wrote.

Frederick Moore and Steve Romines, attorneys for Walker in his civil suit against Mattingly and other officers, said the book "perpetuates a lie … that Kenny somehow knew who was breaking into Breonna's apartment that night."

"In fact, in an extremely emotional call as Breonna lay dying, Kenny actually called the authorities using 911 and expressed that 'someone' was bashing down the door," they said in a statement. "To blame Kenneth Walker for this tragedy is to deny a Black man the protection of the strong 'stand your ground' law in Kentucky."

Breonna Taylor shooting: Kenneth Walker, Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly speak

Commonwealths Attorney Tom Wine announced his office will move to dismiss all charges against Breonna Taylors boyfriend.

Louisville Courier Journal

Mattingly is suing Romines for defamation because the attorney called Taylor's death a "murder." He's also countersuing Walker, writing, "if the city and department weren't willing to stand up and fight for what's right, I would."

The person receiving the lion's share of Mattingly's ire is Louisville's third-term Democratic mayor, Fischer.

His criticisms of the mayor include that Fischer:

On this last claim, James, the Metro Council president and former police officer, agrees.

Mattingly blasts James for not having a press conference to correct misinformation about Taylor's death before the protests began May 28, 2020.

James told The Courier Journal he wanted to, but Fischer wouldn't release the information he needed to do so.

"If the mayor had been a better leader," James said, "we wouldn't have been in the turmoil that we're in now."

Mattingly also hints at a potential candidacy for Congress, saying he may run for the seat being vacated U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, a Louisville Democrat.

LMPD body camera footage shows chaos after Breonna Taylor shooting

LMPD body camera footage shows the moments of chaos and confusion in the aftermath of the March 13 Breonna Taylor shooting.

Jeff Faughender, Louisville Courier Journal

As Mattingly and The Daily Wire have promoted the book, they've said it "debunks (the) media narrative" and calls out the "movie stars, athletes and performers (who) jumped on the bandwagon."

Ben Crump, a Florida-based attorney who has represented many families of Black Americans killed by police, including Taylor and George Floyd, "seems to sniff out the national stories that can make him a buck," Mattingly wrote.

Crump is high-profile and did play a significant role in bringing attention to Taylor's death, alerting celebrities, politicians and cable news personalities to the case as he spoke about another prominent death Ahmaud Arbery.

Tamika Mallory a co-founder of the activist group Until Freedom and dubbed the queen of the social justice movement by Crump "was one of the main instigators that left Louisville in shambles," Mattingly wrote.

Until Freedom is "pot-stirrers and benefits financially in huge ways," he wrote. "They are, for all intents and purposes, for-profit protesters, and that profit comes from propagating lies and capitalizing on the tragic deaths of people of color."

Neither Until Freedom nor Ben Crump's public relations team returned a Courier Journal request for comment Tuesday.

Others Mattingly skewered include: Cardi B, Kim Kardashian, Amy Schumer, Ice Cube, Jennifer Lawrence, Jada Pinkett Smith and Michael Strahan.

Strahan conducted the on-camera interview with Mattingly for ABC News and The Courier Journal in October 2020. The documentary later released by the partnering news outlets won a Peabody Award.

Mattingly wrote that "every question was as much an accusation or assumption as it was a question.

"It was like three hours on the witness stand being cross-examined by a defense attorney," he wrote. "Strahan's mind was made up before the interview, and his facial expressions and body language showed that."

Mattingly was more forgiving of The Courier Journal, writing "these journalists gave me a fair shake on this interview."

Mattingly also offers up many of his thoughts on crime, policing and reform throughout the book.

"Just when you think you've seen it all, there's a new revelation waiting for you," he wrote. "As a result, just as citizens easily become jaded toward the police and have a one-sided view, the police become jaded as well and have a one-sided view of society. It's unhealthy for both parties."

Officers, he said, would love to redirect some calls for service to other agencies that could help. (Louisville is exploring a deflection program that would do just that.)

"Police nationwide would love to simply enforce laws and protect their community," he wrote. "We hate being a jack-of-all-trades as well."

To the officers with "zero discernment" who hate their jobs or are scared of it, Mattingly says, "find a new one."

He also wrote that "today's police officer is the least corrupt that it's ever been in the history of our country" and that "sometimes officers need to lose their jobs or go to prison, but that's not a common ordeal."

"I want my story to make a difference," Mattingly wrote. "I want society to stop insisting on someone to blame for every crisis and tragedy.

"I don't want another Breonna Taylor or another John Mattingly."

Reach Tessa Duvall at tduvall@courier-journal.com and 502-582-4059. Twitter: @TessaDuvall.

Read more from the original source:
Grievances abound in ex-Louisville cop's tell-all book on the Breonna Taylor shooting - Courier Journal

The JQC complaint also alleges that Coomer drafted a series of wills for Filhart that designated Coomer and his wife and children as beneficiaries. This occurred when Coomer had a private law practice in Cartersville and while he served as a member of the state House. Other ethics charges allege Coomer improperly transferred money from his campaign account to his law firm account.

In court filings, Coomers lawyers said their client denies any wrongdoing and they had previously asked the JQC hearing panel to throw out the charges. But the panel, in a decision written by Fulton County Judge Robert McBurney, found JQC rules allow the agency to bring charges over alleged misconduct that occurred before a judge took the bench.

Because the trial before the hearing panel is a civil proceeding, Coomer can be called to testify by JQC attorneys. This could put Coomer in a difficult position because, as The Atlanta Journal-Constitution previously reported, federal authorities are conducting a criminal investigation against him.

Whatever Coomer says under oath in the JQC proceeding could possibly be used against him in the federal criminal investigation.

This is a typical, and classic, problem of parallel proceedings one criminal, the other civil, said Atlanta criminal defense attorney Don Samuel, who is not involved in the case.

In a criminal case, a defendant has the right to assert his Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions and be a witness against himself. If that occurs, the fact finder, such as a jury, will not even be made aware a defendant has invoked the privilege.

In a civil case, however, the fact finder, such as a JQC hearing panel, will know when someone chooses to assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, Samuel said. And not only do they learn about it, they can actually infer that the refusal to answer is incriminating.

Read more from the original source:
Georgia appellate judge to stand trial on ethics charges - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

(Photo by Nic Antaya/Getty Images)

It is Tuesday, March 15, 2022, and the giant news headline breaking overnight is that Houston Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson is meeting with the Cleveland Browns today.

This story broke overnight and is the lead for Tuesdays edition of Browns Nation news and notes.

ESPNs Kimberley A. Martin reported that Watson is meeting with the Browns on Tuesday.

#Saints and #Panthers may have met with Deshaun Watson already, but dont sleep on CLE.

The #Browns are in play for Watson and plan to meet with the #Texans QB on Tuesday

KimberlEY A. Martin (@ByKimberleyA) March 15, 2022

He met with New Orleans and Carolina on Monday.

Watson has a no-trade clause in his contract.

It is not clear what the Browns will offer.

The Texans are seeking at a minimum three first-round picks in exchange for Watson as reported by Aaron Wilson of Pro Football Network.

The Texans still want a package of three first-round draft picks, other draft capital and players in exchange for Watson. One player that sources predict would likely be part of a potential Saints trade is offensive tackle Ryan Ramczyk

Aaron Wilson (@AaronWilson_NFL) March 13, 2022

Watson invoked the Fifth Amendment until he was cleared of criminal charges.

Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports is reporting that Watson will answer questions during a civil deposition on Tuesday morning.

Though it is a closed session, interested NFL teams and the league itself are keeping a close eye on this.

The NFL is reportedly investigating whether Watson violated league policy; a suspension is yet to be defined or determined.

#NFL teams interested in Deshaun Watson are focused on his civil deposition Tuesday, which is expected to proceed without him taking the Fifth in testimony. Teams also believe an #NFL suspension remains possible, despite a grand jury declining indictment. https://t.co/tJNuKFGEFo

Charles Robinson (@CharlesRobinson) March 14, 2022

Fans are torn about what it would mean if Watson was traded to the Browns.

#Browns Twitter has been vocal on both sides of the issue.

Cleveland sports personality Ken Carman articulated the conflict on the air at Fox 8 on Monday evening.

Thank you, @KenCarman, for your commentary tonight on Deshaun Watson. I appreciate your candor, your commonsense and your compassion, and I'm proud to have you as a colleague. pic.twitter.com/gFBkCJSTMt

Jen Steer (@jensteer) March 14, 2022

There are still a lot of other moving parts in free agency.

Conflicting reports are circulating about whether the Browns are still in the market for free-agent wide receiver Allen Robinson.

Mary Kay Cabot says the Browns are not vying for Robinson now that they signed Amari Cooper.

#Browns continue to do their homework on Deshaun Watson as he meets with #Saints and #Panthers on Monday; #Browns not in the mix for WR Allen Robinson: Takeaways https://t.co/9ZJ1WxBP8W

Mary Kay Cabot (@MaryKayCabot) March 15, 2022

NFL Networks Tom Pelissero said on the air on Monday that the Browns are still interested in Robinson.

.@TomPelissero says the Lions, Browns and Chiefs are among the teams in on Allen Robinson.

Chris Burke (@ChrisBurkeNFL) March 14, 2022

This is one of many topics to watch today.

Happy Tuesday Browns Fans!

See the rest here:
Browns Nation News And Notes (3/15/22) - Browns Nation

Washington An alleged member of the Patriot Boys militia group charged with multiple crimes stemming from the January 6 Capitol attack said he would plead guilty to one felonycount of assaulting officers with a pole on Monday after prosecutors said they made an unintentional procedural error since initially charging him.

Lucas Denney of Texas was accused of multiple felonies via criminal complaint, a charging document does not require the consensus of a Grand Jury, in December of 2021. Court documents alleged he grabbed a large tube outside the Capitol building and swung it at officers before he made his way to a large police line inside the west tunnel of the Capitol.

Denney was arrested and detained and has remained in jail since December.

Under the Speedy Trial Act, a formal indictment must be brought by a grand jury against any defendant within 40 days of criminal complaint. But in Denneys case, prosecutors failed to do so, instead indicting him on a single count of assaulting or impeding officers on March 7, 2021, months after his initial arrest in December.

LEAH MILLIS / REUTERS

His defense team filed an emergency motion to release him from jail because of the law violation.

Each day Mr. Denney remains in custodial detention is an additional day that his liberty rights are denied without due process in violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment, Denneys defense attorneys wrote, Mr. Denney should not be made to sit in a jail cell even a single day longer while the Government tries to explain away its failure to comply with the law.

In a rare move, prosecutors agreed that they made a mistake in not bringing the indictment quick enough and said Denney should be released and the charges dropped, but asked the judge to do so in a manner that allowed them to present Denneys case to a Grand Jury again. This would leave the possibility of another indictment looming.

The charges alleged were serious and their error was unintentional, the government said, so they should be given another shot to potentially indict Denney.

The charges against Denney are of the utmost seriousness. Those charges arise within the context of the attack on the U.S. Capitol, on January 6, 2021, a criminal offense unparalleled in American history, Mondays filing said.

There is no evidence of bad faith, a pattern of neglect, or something more than an isolated incident that resulted from a number of unfortunate factors, prosecutors added.

But during a court hearing Monday that was initially scheduled as an arraignment where Denney would be given the opportunity to enter a plea on the single count charged in the indictment, his defense attorney William Shipley alleged the government brought the indictment in bad faith after he said they were sent scrambling to get an indictment on the books following their procedural error.

And in yet another unusual move, the attorney indicated his client was ready to admit guilt and plead guilty to the single count on the indictment without entering into an agreement with the government, a move that would effectively prevent prosecutors from bringing any more charges against their client due to double jeopardy rules.

Most of the more than 220 guilty pleas entered in the January 6 investigation have involved cooperation or other legal agreements with the government to avoid going to trial.

Mr. Denney is here, prepared to admit his conduct and plead guilty to the only pending charge, Shipley told Judge Randolph Moss. The defense told the judge they viewed the evidence against their client and said he was ready to admit guilt to one count.

The judge agreed with the defense that Denney had been mistreated, even telling prosecutors, Theres no excuse to treat a person like that. But he stopped short of allowing the defendant to plead guilty on Monday, explaining he needed more time to examine the case law. This was a novel predicament prosecutors got themselves into, the judge reasoned, and he needed more time to rule accurately.

Defense attorney Shipley objected to the proposed delay, telling the judge he feared the government would use the schedule as a way to return a more extensive indictment against his client.

Prosecutor Jennifer Rozzoni told the judge, however, that after discussing the case with a supervisor, the government would not oppose Denneys surprise decision to enter a guilty plea to assaulting an officer with a pole on January 6.

The U.S. Attorneys Office declined to comment for this story.

We appreciated the government conceding its error and acknowledging Mr. Denneys right to plead guilty and will rely on Judge Mosss judgment at sentencing, Shipley told CBS News.

Denneys arraignment, where he will likely plead guilty to the lesser count, is now set for Thursday.

See more here:
January 6 defendant says he will plead guilty to assaulting officers - Sand Hills Express