Daily Archives: May 28, 2023

In a recent opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana (SRA-L) is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.[1]

SRA-L was a named defendant in a suit by plaintiffs who own land in Louisiana and Texas. Plaintiffs levied allegations that years-long mismanagement of the Toledo Bend reservoir by SRA-L[2] culminated in damage to plaintiffs properties via flooding, violating their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs alleged that despite advance knowledge of the likelihood for significant downstream flooding, SRA-L decided to open spillway gates freeing water from the reservoir into the Sabine River to alleviate elevated reservoir volumes from a cataclysmic rain storm in March of 2016.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the federal district courts order denying[3] SRA-Ls Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by applying the Circuits well-established six-factor test of Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736, 744-45 (5th Cir. 1986). An entity classified as an arm of the state would be entitled to sovereign immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment; in contrast, a political subdivision is not afforded the same protection. The burden of proof falls on the entity seeking immunity and SRA-L failed to meet its burden.

The six Clark factors are as follows:

(1) whether state statutes and case law characterize the agency as an arm of the state;

(2) the source of funds for the entity;

(3) the degree of local autonomy the entity enjoys;

(4) whether the entity is concerned primarily with local, as opposed to statewide, problems;

(5) whether the entity has authority to sue and be sued in its own name; and

(6) whether the entity has the right to hold and use property.[4]

In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit considered each factor in turn, focusing primarily on factor number twothe most significant of the six. Since one of the Eleventh Amendments primary objectives is preservation of the state treasury, the main question when determining whether an entity is considered as an organ of the State is its source of funding (i.e. who will be liable for payment of a judgment levied against it). By analyzing various Louisiana Statutes pertaining to the SRA-L,[5] the Fifth Circuit concluded that SRA-L appears to have near-total financial independence.[6] The Fifth Circuit found SRA-L failed to meet its burden of showing that the state would be liable for a judgment against it either directly or indirectly (via responsibility for general debt or because the state provides the majority of the levee districts budget).

As for the five other factors, only one weighed in favor of finding the SRA-L as an arm of the state as opposed to a political subdivision, and only slightly. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that state statutes and case law characterize SRA-L as an arm of the state; but caveated that the factor was restricted and given the inconsistent descriptions in the same statutes and the lack of a more-definite characterization in either statute or case law.[7] The Fifth Circuit noted that even though the SRA-L was made part of the umbrella of the executive branch via its placement in the Department of Transportation and Development after its creation, it maintained substantial control over its operations. That retention of autonomy tilted against finding SRA-L an arm of the state.

To support its position regarding the third factorthe degree of local autonomy the entity enjoysSRA-L harped on the fact that its thirteen board members are gubernatorial appointees confirmed by the state senate with no involvement by local governing bodies or local legislators. The lower court found that although SRA-L board members were susceptible to state influence on account of their serving at the governors behest, the parish residency requirement for board members imposed sufficient limits on the governors control. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, finding that this factor weighed minimally against finding SRA-L as an arm of the state, but for a different reason. The Fifth Circuit focused on the autonomy the SRA-L enjoys in its functional decision-making such as acquiring property, incurring debts, borrowing money, entering contracts, and even establishing an enforcement division. To the extent that independent management authority mattered more than commissioner/board member autonomy, the Fifth Circuit found this factor ultimately weighed toward SRA-L being a political subdivision rather than an arm of the state.

Regarding whether the entity principally focuses on local (as opposed to statewide) issues, the Fifth Circuit found the case cited by SRA-L in support of this factor inappositewherein a state university was afforded Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The Fifth Circuit determined that the SRA-L primarily dealt with local or regional concerns, unlike a state university fulfilling statewide higher education demands.

The last two factors hold the least weight. SRA-L did not contest the lower courts finding that the fifth factor did not aid in a finding of SRA-L being an arm of the state. La. R.S. 38:232(B)(2) clearly delineates SRA-Ls authority to sue and be sued in its own name. As for the sixth and final factor, though SRA-L pointed to La. R.S. 38:2325(B) which states that it holds property as an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana[;] the Fifth Circuit pointed out that the statute also states [t]itle to all property acquired by the Authority shall be taken in its corporate name. The argument that the property ultimately belongs to the State and thus weighs in favor of sovereign immunity has been previously rejected by the Circuitand was rejected again here.[8] The pertinent issue is whether the entity has the power to hold property in its name and under state statutes, which the SRA-L clearly does.

The Fifth Circuits ruling in Bonin will impact future flood-damage litigation by making it easier for plaintiff landowners to bring claims against various State River Authorities for decisions made in the maintenance, conservation, and supervision of dams, reservoirs, rivers, and streams in their respective watersheds.

Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm of Liskow & Lewis, APLC (Liskow & Lewis) and the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice as to an identified problem or issue. By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney-client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.

Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database. If at any time you would like to unsubscribe, please use the SafeUnsubscribe link located at the bottom of every email that you receive.

[1] Perry Bonin, et al., v. Sabine River Auth., State of Louisiana, No. 20-40138 c/w No. 22-40433 (5th Cir. 2023).

[2] After its creation by the Louisiana legislature in 1950 as a conservation and reclamation district, the SRA-L entered a joint venture with the Sabine River Authority, Texas (SRA-T) to build a dam and reservoir to provide electrical power, promote industrial development in both States, conserve water for agricultural purposes, and create fishing, recreation, and commercial development. Stallworth v. McFarland, 350 F. Supp. 920, 926 (W.D. La. 1972).

[3] Denials of motions to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds fall within the collateral order doctrine, and are thus immediately appealable. Texas v. Caremark, Inc., 584 F.3d 655, 658 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing McCarthy ex rel. Travis v. Hawkins, 381 F.3d 407, 411-12 (5th Cir. 2004)).

[4] Voyt v. Board of Comrs of Orleans Levee Dist., 294 F.3d 684, 690 n. 4 (5th Cir. 2002).

[5] E.g. La. R.S. 38:2324 (B)(1) and 2325(A)(5).

[6] Bonin at 9.

[7] Bonin at 7.

[8] See Voyt v. Board of Comrs of Orleans Levee Dist., 294 F.3d 684, 696 (5th Cir. 2002).

See the rest here:
Louisiana's Sabine River Authority Not Entitled To Sovereign Immunity - The Energy Law Blog

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit this week reversed a district court decision finding the criminal reentry provision in section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was enacted with a discriminatory purpose and that the law has a disparate impact on Latinx persons and that the government had failed to show that the provision would not have been enacted absent racial animus. Its a triumph of law and common sense over a results-oriented determination that had cherry-picked the legislative record, and one that the presidents immigration advisors should take note of.

The Facts. The case is a criminal matter captioned U.S. v. Carrillo-Lopez, and the defendant Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez is a citizen of Mexico.

He had been removed from the United States on two occasions, first in 1999 and again in 2012. Prior to that 2012 removal, Carrillo-Lopez had been convicted of an unspecified felony drug possession offense, as well as a misdemeanor offense for infliction of corporal injury on a spouse.

At some point after he was removed, he returned illegally to the United States. For reasons unclear from either decision, his residence was searched in June 2019 and officers found two firearms and plastic bags containing methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin. He subsequently pled guilty to a single drug-trafficking count, although again it is unclear whether that was a state or federal charge.

It was likely a state charge, because thereafter Carrillo-Lopez was indicted on federal charges in Nevada for illegal reentry under section 276 of the INA, with a sentence enhancement for his prior convictions.

Section 276 of the INA. Section 276(a) of the INA states:

(a) In general Subject to subsection (b), any alien who-

(1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter

(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless (A) prior to his reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien's reapplying for admission; or (B) with respect to an alien previously denied admission and removed, unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under this chapter or any prior Act,

shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

On its face, the provision is neutral with respect to nationality, race, gender, or any other immutable factor. The only prerequisites for application of the criminal penalties therein are that the alien have been removed under an order of removal and have reentered without permission.

As an important aside, note that those criminal penalties apply not only to an alien apprehended reentering the United States, but also to an alien at any time found in this country after removal. The circuit court quoted prior Ninth Circuit precedent, which explained this is a continuing offense that commences with the illegal entry, but is not completed until the defendant is discovered.

Keep that in mind the next time that you hear that aliens who have entered the United States illegally arent committing an ongoing criminal act in remaining here. In the case of previously removed aliens, thats not true because the crime a felony continues.

Orders of removal traditionally have been entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, and thus will pop up when a state or local cop encounters such individuals. When sanctuary jurisdictions refuse to inform immigration authorities of the presence of such individuals they encounter, they are essentially shielding criminals in the act of a federal felony offense.

The District Court Decision. In his federal criminal proceedings at the district court, Carrillo-Lopez moved to dismiss the charges against him on the ground that section 276 violates the Fifth Amendment because it discriminates against Mexicans and other Central and South Americans.

In August 2021, the judge hearing the case, Chief Judge Miranda Du of the U.S. District Court of the District of Nevada, issued a decision in which she concurred with the defendants arguments.

Specifically, she found that section 276 of the INA: has a disparate impact on Latinx individuals; that the predecessor criminal ground for illegal reentry after deportation was first included in the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929 (1929 Act), a law that was first enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose; that the INA of 1952 the source for much of the current section 276 of the INA, adopts language from the Act of 1929 almost word for word; and that the 1952 reenactment of section 276 did not cleanse it of what she termed its racist origins and was also motivated by discriminatory intent.

Note that it appears immigrant advocates had peddled similar claims to other district court judges, each of which had rejected them. Judge Du nonetheless pressed ahead, disagreeing with those courts conclusions.

Finally, she rejected the governments argument that section 276 of the INA would have been enacted absent the discriminatory motivation.

The Circuit Court Disagrees. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that Carrillo-Lopez had failed to carry his burden of showing that section 276 of the INA violated Fifth Amendment equal protection guarantees and was thus facially invalid, and concluding that Judge Du erred factually and legally in holding otherwise.

Note that Judge Du in her decision had taken a dive into selected legislative documents related to the 1929 Act, the INA of 1952, and the provision in question, but nowhere near as deeply as the three-judge panel did in its 39-page opinion.

It went all the way back to the (925-page) 1947 Senate report that formed the basis for the 1952 act, itself a survey of immigration law to that point.

In discussing the characteristics of the U.S. population in Part 1 of that report, the Senate did include an overview of specified characteristics of different population groups in the Americas, including Canadians and Mexicans, but the circuit panel noted that each of the sections all followed the same template for each population group.

Much of that Senate report examined the then-existing immigrant national-origin quota system (which did not apply to nationals of Western Hemisphere countries), a system, as the circuit court found, the report acknowledged to be controversial because some opponents labeled it as discriminatory in the treatment of certain nationalities of Europe.

Later congressional debates on the 1952 act, the circuit panel explained, focused on the national-origin quota system, which critics as the court noted decried as arbitrary because it favored the so-called Nordic strain of immigrants but disfavored people from southern or eastern Europe.

What those debates failed to mention, the circuit court noted, was either the criminal reentry provision at issue or the (similar and related) criminal prohibition against improper entry in section 275 of the INA.

The district court had made much of the fact that the 1952 act was passed over then-President Trumans veto, explaining: The Court does not rely solely on the evidence from 1929, but also considers contemporaneous evidence from 1952 including Congress failure to revise the 1952 act in the face of President Truman's veto statement calling for a reimagination of immigration policy.

The circuit court noted, however, that Trumans veto statement largely focused on the continuing national origins quota system, although he had no problem with quotas generally. Specifically, he complained that the system perpetuated by the bill discriminated against people of Southern and Eastern Europe, in favor of immigrants from England, Ireland, and Germany, which he argued was improper both on moral and political grounds.

As the circuit panel underscored, however: President Truman did not mention Mexicans or other Central and South Americans, to whom the national-origin quota system did not apply. Nor did he mention the provision criminalizing reentry, Section 276.

The circuit also rejected the district courts finding that the 1952 version of the criminal reentry provision was basically just a cut-and-paste version of the 1929 provision, finding there were significant differences between the two.

In any event, the circuit panel disagreed that Carrillo-Lopezs selected reference to the legislative documents surrounding the enactment of the 1952 act evidenced Congresss desire to discriminate against Mexicans or other Central and South Americans.

Similarly, it abjured his contentions that the 1929 act tainted the 1952 INA, specifically noting that the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that a new enactment can be deemed to be tainted by the discriminatory intent motivating a prior act unless legislators expressly disavow the prior acts racism.

Lastly, it discounted the defendants argument that section 276s disproportionate impact on Mexicans and other Central and South Americans is evidence that Congress was motivated by a discriminatory intent in enacting the statute, first because disproportionate impact on an identifiable group is generally not adequate to show a discriminatory motive, and second on the ground that the evidence he had presented to show that Congress knew of and intended such impact in drafting section 276 is highly attenuated.

Even if Carrillo-Lopez had shown that section 276 of the INA had such an impact on such groups, the circuit court continued, he would still not carry his burden of showing that Congress enacted section 276 because of its impact on this group, because the clear geographic reason for disproportionate impact on Mexicans and other Central and South Americans undermines any inference of discriminatory motive.

Put plainly, its a lot easier for such nationals to reenter the United States illegally than it is for citizens of countries outside the Western Hemisphere to reenter. Thus, The district court clearly erred when it relied on the evidence of disproportionate impact without further evidence demonstrating that racial animus was a motivating factor in the passage of the INA.

In support, the circuit court referenced the Supreme Courts 2020 decision in DHS v. Regents (the DACA case) for the proposition that Latinos make up a large share of the unauthorized alien population and thus virtually any generally applicable immigration policy could be challenged on equal protection grounds.

Congress this or any prior one is entitled to a strong presumption of good faith in its statutory enactments, which the district court failed to accord the 1952 Congress. Instead, Judge Du construed evidence in a light unfavorable to Congress, including finding that evidence unrelated to section 276 indicated that Congress enacted that provision due to discriminatory animus against Mexicans and other Central and South Americans.

On these bases, the circuit court reversed.

The White House Should Take Note. Although it would likely argue to the contrary, the current administration is following wildly different immigration and border policies than any of its predecessors. It ignores congressional detention mandates, hobbles ICE enforcement in the interior, and refuses to use the tools Congress gave it to deter illegal immigration in favor of providing aliens with safe, orderly, and legal pathways ... to be able to access our legal system regardless of congressional immigration limits.

No one in the Biden administration, however, has ever explained why it has adopted such policies. That has led to conjectures by Bidens critics that the presidents supporters have, in turn, attacked as evidencing animus in the same manner that Carrillo-Lopez criticized section 276 of the INA.

As I have previously asserted, however, the most logical explanation for those Biden policies is that the president and his advisors believe that the INA is inherently inequitable and discriminatory, again as Carrillo-Lopez argued.

This is not rank speculation. Consider the following from a DHS document that supports the limits that the administration has placed on interior enforcement:

On his first day in office, President Biden affirmed that "advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is the responsibility of the whole of our Government." In the immigration enforcement context, scholars and professors have observed that prosecutorial discretion guidelines are essential to advancing this Administration's stated commitment to "advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality." [Footnotes omitted.]

By its terms and intent, the INA restricts the number and classes of foreign nationals who are allowed to live and work in the United States.

That is deliberate because, as Barbara Jordan explained in 1994, this country must set limits on who can enter and back up these limits with effective enforcement of our immigration law to ensure that our nation can manage immigration so it continues to be in the national interest.

If it is applied in any sense of the term, the Immigration and Nationality Act will never advance equity for all because by its terms its not supposed to and never could anyway. But to its significant credit, Congress has endeavored over the past 71 years to amend the act to serve the interests of the American people free from animus and discrimination, as the Ninth Circuit held on Monday it has done.

Continued here:
Ninth Circuit Finds that Criminal Reentry Provision Not Driven by ... - Immigration Blog

Austin, TX, 51 mins ago The Texas House of Representatives voted to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton by a vote of 121 to 23 on 20 charges of disregard of official duty, misapplication of public resources, constitutional bribery, obstruction of justice, false statements in official records, conspiracy and attempted conspiracy, misappropriation of public resources, dereliction of duty, unfitness for office, and abuse of public trust.

On Thursday, the House General Investigating Committee unanimously adopted House Resolution (HR) 2377, which contains the articles of impeachment. The committee members are Chairman Andrew Murr (R-Junction) as well as Reps. Ann Johnson (D-Houston), Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth), Oscar Longoria (D-Mission), and David Spiller (R-Jacksboro).

After he was impeached, Paxton released a statement on social media decrying the outcome of the vote, saying, I am beyond grateful to have the support of millions of Texans who recognize that what we just witnessed is illegal, unethical, and profoundly unjust. I look forward to a quick resolution in the Texas Senate, where I have full confidence the process will be fair and just.

Phelans coalition of Democrats and liberal Republicans is now in lockstep with the Biden Administration, the abortion industry, anti-gun zealots, and woke corporations to sabotage my work as Attorney General, including our ongoing litigation to stop illegal immigration, uphold the rule of law, and protect the constitutional rights of every Texan.

The following members voted against impeachment:

Two members voted present, not voting, Reps. Harold Dutton Jr. (D-Houston) and Richard Hayes (R-Denton). Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress) had an excused absence.

The Collin County GOP legislative delegation which consists of Reps. Jeff Leach (R-Plano), Matt Shaheen (R-Plano), Justin Holland (R-Rockwall), Candy Noble (R-Lucas), and Frederick Frazier (R-McKinney), all of whom voted in favor of impeachment released a statement on social media after the vote: It became clear to us that sufficient evidence indeed exists to vote to commend articles of impeachment to the Texas Senate for a full-trial.

An impeachment is similar to a criminal indictment. It must be followed by a trial in the Senate, Spiller said on the Floor, advising members that they were acting as a grand jury of sorts.

Johnson provided an overview of each article of impeaching, pointing out that many of the allegations constitute felonies punishable by years of imprisonment. For instance, more than one of the disregard of official duty charges could be chargeable as a third-degree felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison.

The last 72 hours has shown us why Ken Paxton is so desperate to keep his case in the court of public opinion, because he has no ability to win in a court of law, Johnson said.

Responding to questions from Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler), Murr agreed that witnesses were not placed under oath and were not cross-examined by members of the committee.

Rep. John Smithee (R-Amarillo) opposed the impeachment resolution on the grounds that he believes the process was flawed and the evidence is not enough, a theme throughout.

Im not here to defend Ken Paxton. Thats not my job, Ill leave that to someone else, Smithee said.

Smithee asserted the evidence presented to members was hearsay within hearsay within hearsay and would not be admissible in any court of law.

We do not need to be relaxing the fairness and due process concerns, Smithee said, discussing the precedent the House set with an indefensible process.

Smithee said the chamber was considering impeachment in the worst possible way.

What youre being asked to do is to impeach without evidence. It is all rumor, it is all innuendo, it is all speculation, Smithee said.

Rep. Terry Canales (D-Edinburg) later rebutted this argument by pointing to the grand jury analogy. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, he explained.

Hearsay is never excluded from an investigation, and thats what this is, Canales said

Canales, a defense attorney, said he has never had a client invited by prosecutors to speak to a grand jury. He contended Paxton is not entitled to speak to the investigative committee and Murrs layout should be compared to prosecutor presenting a case to the grand jury, which does not involve a rebuttal by the defense team.

Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington) pointed out that all of the investigators that testified before the committee were former Harris County employees and nearly all of them vote in Democratic primaries. Murr suggested he was uninterested in the political leanings of the investigators when considering the articles of impeachment.

This body gave more time to debating tampon tax relief than weve given to impeaching the chief law enforcement officer in our state, Tinderholt said.

Tinderholt said he was sorry Republicans in the House are being used to cram through an impeachment against a popular GOP official. He said it is imprudent at best and gross abuse of power at worst.

Rep. Brian Harrison (R-Waxahachie) spoke against impeachment, saying the allegations should be left to the courts and to the voters.

The only Democrat to come to Paxtons mild defense on the floor was Rep. Harold Dutton (D-Houston), who said he does not believe Paxtons due process rights have been respected.

I dont have enough evidence that (Paxton) did anything, Dutton said.

Dutton expressed concern that the chamber was asked to vote on the impeachment articles virtually in the dead of night.

Earlier in debate, Smithee made a similar point, saying Texans are focused on observing Memorial Day and not the Legislatures proceedings against Paxton.

Rep. Travis Clardy (R-Nacogdoches) said he is an absolute, staunch supporter of the Fifth Amendment and Seventh Amendment and would vote against impeachment because the record before them is predicated on hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay.

Before Saturdays vote, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz came to Paxton defense on social media, calling Paxtons impeachment a travesty.

Virtually all of the information in the articles was public BEFORE Election Day, and the voters chose to re-elect Ken Paxton by a large margin. In my view, the Texas Legislature should respect the choice of the Texas voters, Cruz said.

The senator said the swamp in Austin dislikes Paxton because he is a fierce conservative. Cruz contended the courts should settle Paxtons legal troubles.

Former President Donald Trump, who is running for the White House in 2024, called the impeachment proceeding election interference.

The RINO Speaker of the House of Texas, Dade Phelan, who is barely a Republican at all and failed the test on voter integrity, wants to impeach one of the most hard working and effective Attorney Generals in the United States, Ken Paxton, who just won re-election with a large number of American Patriots strongly voting for him, Trump wrote on his social media platform.

Trump claimed that any issue would have been fully adjudicated by the voters of Texas and that Paxtons victory was conclusive.

Unlike in federal impeachments, Paxton will be removed from office pending his trial in the Texas Senate, where a two-thirds vote is required to convict him. State law gives Gov. Greg Abbott the authority to appoint Paxtons replacement.

The House impeached him on suspicion of corrupt dealings with Nate Paul, a real estate developer who donated $25,000 to Paxtons campaign in 2018. Paxton is accused of accepting bribes from Paul and using the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to harm the Roy F. & JoAnn Cole Mitte Foundation, which had sued several companies Paul controlled.

Paul also hired a woman with whom Paxton has acknowledged having an extramarital affair, an act the House says constituted bribery.

The articles of impeachment allege that Paxton abused his office by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate a baseless complaint and issue dozens of grand jury subpoenas. It also outlines an allegation that Paxton warped the legal opinion process to prevent foreclosure on a number of Pauls properties by saying that foreclosure hearings violated the states then-in-place 10-person limit on gatherings. Paxton allegedly ordered one of his employees to alter the opinion from finding that the proceedings didnt violate the gathering limit to opining that they did.

Lawmakers say Paxton violated Texas whistleblower laws by terminating employees who reported their suspicions to federal authorities in good faith.

Four of those employees, David Maxwell, Ryan Vassar, Mark Penley, and Blake Brickman, filed a lawsuit against Paxton that has been making its way through Texas courts for years. Paxton reached a $3.3 million settlement agreement with the former employees, an amount he asked the Texas Legislature to pay.

Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) said in February he did not believe the payout was a proper use of public funds and the appropriation was explicitly excluded from the state budget.

HR 2377 says Paxton abused the judicial process to thwart justice by acting to delay his trial on securities fraud charges that prosecutors filed against him in Collin County eight years ago. Paxton deprived the electorate of its opportunity to make an informed decision during the elections, they said.

The House also accused Paxton of lying to state officials about his personal finances and other matters.

While holding office as attorney general, Warren Kenneth Paxton used, misused, or failed to use his official powers in a manner calculated to subvert the lawful operation of the government of the State of Texas an obstruct the fair and impartial administration of justice, thereby bringing the Office of the Attorney General into scandal and disrepute to the prejudice of public confidence in the government of this State, as shown by the acts described in one or more articles, the resolution reads.

Paxton said Thursday the allegations are based on hearsay and gossip and dismissed the impeachment as an effort by liberal House members to overturn the results of a free and fair election.

Chief Litigant for the OAG, Chris Hilton, cited Texas Government Code Sec. 665.081 and contended Paxton cannot be impeached on charges of misconduct committed prior to the last election.

That section of code reads, (a) An officer in this state may not be removed from office for an act the officer may have committed before the officers election to office.

(b) The prohibition against the removal from office for an act the officer commits before the officers election is covered by: (1) Section 21.002, Local Government Code, for a mayor or alderman of a general law municipality; or (2) Chapter 87, Local Government Code, for a county or precinct officer.

It does not specify whether that means the officials most recent election to office or the initial election that placed him in the office in the first place.

In November 2022, Paxton was reelected with 53 percent of the vote compared to Democratic nominee Rochelle Garzas 44 percent.

In the Republican primary, Paxton advanced to a runoff with Land Commissioner George P. Bush after defeating Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX-01) and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman.

Paxton overwhelmingly defeated Bush with 68 percent of the vote.

Update:The Texan has acquired the list of how each member voted and this article now includes statements from several state officials.

A copy of the impeachment resolution can be found below.

Read this article:
Ken Paxton Impeached on 20 Charges Including Bribery ... - The Texan

CORRECTION: Francis Shen, then an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, conducted research on the age of federal judges. Incorrect information appeared in an earlier version of this story.

A growing dispute over efforts to force the retirement of a 95-year-old federal judge is giving the public a rare glimpse into how the judicial system grapples with issues of age on the bench.

Questions about age are looming large over Washington lately, with doubts about whether an octogenarian president is fit for reelection and if the nations oldest sitting senator should finish out her term.

The judicial branch is not without its own issues on the matter, as colleagues of Pauline Newman, a federal appeals court judge, attempt to push her out over concerns about her mental state.

Anonymous court employees have alleged that Newman is simply losing it mentally with some describing her as paranoid, according to court filings.

A formal investigation is being run by three of her fellow judges after Newman rebuffed pressure to retire earlier this year, with new efforts to reduce her role at the court and demands she submit to a cognitive test.

Based on its investigation to date, the Committee has determined that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that Judge Newman might suffer a disability that interferes with her ability to perform the responsibilities of her office, the judges wrote in an unsigned order earlier this month.

The fight has since only turned more bitter. Newman this month sued her colleagues to block the investigation, insisting she is still fit to serve and that their probe is unconstitutional.

At all relevant times, Judge Newman has been and is in sound physical and mental health, Newmans attorney wrote in the complaint. She has authored majority and dissenting opinions in the whole range of cases before her Court, has voted on petitions for rehearing en banc, and has joined in the en banc decisions of the Court.

Story continues

Newmans chambers and her attorney did not return requests for comment.

The investigation comes as questions about age are being raised in the two other branches of the federal government.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), 89, faces increased concerns over her health after a months-long absence from shingles complications.

The age of President Biden, the oldest president in U.S. history, has been the source of attack from rivals. Biden would be 86 at the end of a second term.

But unlike the two branches comprised of elected officials, federal judges tenures are not limited, with one key exception: impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate. The feat has only occurred eight times in U.S. history, according to the Federal Judicial Center.

Life tenure designed to provide independence allows federal judges to otherwise serve for as long as they so please.

In her lawsuit against the three-judge committee, Newman argued their investigation skirts those constitutional protections, also contesting their characterizations of her mental state and work output.

Defendants orders and threats constitute an attempt to remove Plaintiff from officeand already have unlawfully removed her from hearing caseswithout impeachment and in violation of the Constitution, Newmans attorney wrote in the complaint.

Its a stark contrast from how her colleagues have portrayed Newmans conduct. By March, half of her fellow active judges on the bench had expressed their concerns to Newman directly or tried to do so, court documents indicate.

Chief Judge Kimberly Moore then took things into her own hands, opening a formal investigation on March 24 under the federal judiciarys conduct and disability procedures. Before docketing the order, Moore showed a draft to Newman, who again refused to retire.

The probe remains ongoing, but the three-judge committee has already prevented Newman from taking on new cases at the court, even if she maintains her title and salary.

They have conducted more than 20 interviews with unnamed court employees, who described Newmans demeanor as paranoid, agitated and bizarre, the documents show. Among other things, the employees alleged Newman needs assistance with basic tasks, claims the court has bugged her phones, and repeatedly seems to have trouble retaining information in conversations.

Though it is difficult to say this, I believe Judge Newman is simply losing it mentally, one court employee said, according to the filings.

One of Newmans chamber employees purportedly invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during their interview. After another was granted the ability to relocate outside of Newmans chambers while continuing their job, Newman allegedly threatened to have him forcibly removed and arrested.

Appointed in 1984 by former President Reagan, Newman, who will turn 96 next month, became the first person to be appointed directly to the Federal Circuit.

She is the oldest active federal judge, but the judiciary overall has generally trended older. In 2020, the average age of federal judges was 69, older than any time in U.S. history, according to research conducted by Francis Shen, who at the time was an associate professor at University of Minnesota Law School.

As judges age, speculation runs rampant about when they might retire, and which president might replace them.

Those battles are even more intense at the Supreme Court, with periodic calls for a justice to retire at a politically opportune time. Just prior to announcing his presidential campaign, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) this week openly discussed the vacancies he could fill, if elected.

But for Newman, who sits on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which focuses on patent and other specialized disputes, the pressure to step aside has come from inside the court. Its a notable shift from Newmans long-respected reputation as the courts great dissenter.

Judge Newmans dissents have enriched the patent dialogue at the Federal Circuit, Daryl Lim, associate dean at Penn State Dickinson Law, wrote in a 2017 paper analyzing Newmans record.

A few have succeeded in gaining traction with the Supreme Court, with her colleagues, and with academics, he continued. Others are pitched to a key for a future court and a true measure of their influence lies in the hands of history. All have become part of its institutional memory, and they provide an unvarnished roadmap of the issues where she saw room for course correction.

Newmans reluctance to give into mounting pressure about her abilities is nothing new. Newman had told Lim that she had faced sexism when nominated, now nearly 40 years ago.

When I was nominated to be a judge, a number of people spoke out, including some who I thought were my friends, saying that they didnt think that I could handle the job, Newman said at the time.

This story was updated at 8:53 a.m.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.

Read more:
Simply losing it: Bitter fight brews over federal judges forced retirement effort - Yahoo News

Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/435128100

(Click the link above to go to the Worth county Board of Supervisors meeting live).

The Worth County Board of Supervisors will meet on Monday beginning at 8:30am and you can view the meeting live on kiow.com.

The board will hear from County Engineer Richard Blumm who will discuss the current state of secondary roads in the county. the board will also hear from Arlen Throne, F.A.S.T. Speed Trial, who may request for Airport Roads Closure on Founders Day.

The board will also discuss drainage issues in the county and address drainage claims. the board will announce who is the winning bidder for the Drainage District 2 project.

The board will also address the Fifth Amendment to the Child Support Staffing Contract Between the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services, Child Support Services and the Floyd County who is the Host Political Subdivision.

The board will also consider Resolution 2023-19 which is a Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Amendment.

The board will continue its discussion on the current state of the Emergency Medical Services issue.

Originally posted here:
Worth County Board of Supervisors Meeting (LIVE) - KIOW.com

The Trump Organization, the company led by former President Trump and his family, finished last in an Axios Harris survey of brand reputations for the second year in a row. 

The annual poll compiles views of what respondents identify as the 100 most visible companies in the country. The company calculates its Reputational Quotient (RT) by measuring various characteristics — character, trajectory, trust, culture, ethics, citizenship, vision, growth and products and services. 

The Trump Organization scored a 52.9 out of 100, making it the only company to receive a “very poor” score, according to the rankings. FTX, Fox Corporation, Twitter and Facebook received the next lowest scores, rounding out the bottom five. 

The top-performing companies were Patagonia, Costco and John Deere. 

The Trump Organization, which has come under heavy legal scrutiny in the past couple years, scored last in each of the categories the poll measured. Among its rankings, the company performed best in vision, with a score of 58.6, and worst in trust, with a score of 50.1. 

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) is pursuing a civil case against the organization, alleging the former president and his children — Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump — systematically inflated the company’s assets to receive loans on favorable terms and then deflated them for tax purposes. 

Trump sat for a deposition in the case for almost seven hours last month. He pleaded his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition last year in the case. 

Allen Weisselberg, who served as the company’s chief financial officer, also pleaded guilty in August to charges of tax evasion following an investigation from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. He was sentenced to five months in prison but was released early last month for good behavior. 

The Trump Organization was subsequently found guilty in December of tax fraud, with much of prosecutors’ argument based on Weisselberg’s confession that he and other executives worked to conceal bonuses and perks from being considered taxable income for about a decade. 

The Axios poll was conducted from March 13-28 among 16,310 Americans.

See the original post:
Trump Organization finishes last in brand reputation survey for second straight year - The Hill

When the clerk at VJs Food Mart confronted Corey Stingley, the 16-year-old handed over his backpack. Inside were six hidden bottles of Smirnoff Ice, worth $12, and the clerk began pulling them out one by one.

Stingley watched, then pivoted and quickly moved toward the door, empty-handed. But there would be no escape for the unarmed teen in the light blue hoodie.

Three customers, together weighing 550 pounds, wrestled the 135-pound teen to the floor of the West Allis, Wisconsin, store. They pinned him in a seated position, his body compressed downward, according to a police account. One of the men put Stingley in a chokehold, witnesses would later tell investigators.

Get up, you punk! that man, a former Marine, reportedly told Stingley when an officer from the police department finally arrived. But the teen didnt move. He was foaming at the mouth, and his pants and shoes were soaked in urine.

Hed suffered a traumatic brain injury from a loss of oxygen and never regained consciousness. His parents took him off life support two weeks later. The medical examiner ruled Stingleys death a homicide following his restraint in a violent struggle with multiple individuals.

That was more than 10 years ago.

None of the men, all of whom were white, were criminally charged in the incident that killed Stingley, a Black youth. Police arrested Mario Laumann, the man seen holding Stingley in an apparent chokehold, shortly after the incident in December 2012. But the local district attorney declined to prosecute him or the other two men, arguing they were unaware of the harm they were causing.

When a second police review led to a reexamination of the case in 2017, another prosecutor sat on it for more than three years, until a judge demanded a decision. Again, there were no charges.

Prosecutors move on, but fathers dont. Refusing to accept that the case had been handled justly, Corey Stingleys dad, Craig, last year convinced a judge to assign a third district attorney to look at what had happened to his son.

That prosecutor, Ismael Ozanne of Dane County, was scheduled to report back to the court on Friday, but the hearing was postponed.

The case has parallels to a recent deadly subway incident in New York City. Both involve chokeholds administered by former Marines on Black males who had not initiated any violence. But unlike in Wisconsin, New York authorities acted within two weeks to file a second-degree manslaughter charge in the case.

While the New York subway incident grabbed national headlines, Corey Stingleys death which happened the same day as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut did not gain much notice outside of southeast Wisconsin.

Years later, Craig Stingley tapped an obscure statute dating back to Wisconsins frontier days to convince the system to take a fresh look at his sons death. The law states that if a district attorney refuses to issue a criminal complaint or is unavailable to do so, a private citizen can petition a judge to take up the matter. Today, its loosely referred to as a John Doe petition, though in this instance there was no doubt who restrained Stingleys son: Laumann, who has since died, along with two other store patrons named Jesse R. Cole and Robert W. Beringer.

No one is alleging that the men set out to kill Corey Stingley. His father is asking the prosecutor to consider a charge of reckless homicide or even a lesser offense for using extreme force to detain his son.

He wasnt trying to harm anyone. He was trying to leave that store, said Craig Stingley, who thought his son made a youthful mistake. I believe he was scared.

VJs Food Mart is a typical small convenience store, packed with chips, candy, soda, beer, cigarettes and liquor. On Sunday mornings it offers a special deal on hot ham and rolls, a local tradition for an after-church meal. To combat theft, the store is equipped with security cameras.

On Dec. 14, 2012, Thomas Ripley and Anthony Orcholski stopped by the store for beer and snacks. Only a few steps in, they saw that three men had someone firmly pinned on the ground.

Security video shows Ripley and Orcholski pausing next to the pile of people and watching intently. In statements to police they both said they saw Laumann lying on the ground with his arms around Stingleys neck in a chokehold. Beringer had grabbed Stingleys hair, they said; the third man, Cole, had his hands on Stingleys back.

Ripley told police the teen was not moving and appeared to be limp.

I dont think he could breathe, Ripley would later testify during a special review of the case to determine if there should be charges.

Orcholski told a detective that he was concerned about the teen on the ground and may even have instructed the men to let Stingley go.

A decade later, Orcholski is still bothered by what he saw. Im upset, he told ProPublica. Three men thought they were going to be heroes that day because a 16-year-old boy was shoplifting. There could have been numerous different ways to restrain him other than choking him to death.

He added, Its common sense: When you squeeze somebody that hard for that long, theyre not going to be alive after it.

The security video is grainy, and much of the confrontation took place out of view of the cameras.

Authorities had a third witness, though. Troubled by what hed seen, store customer Michael Farrell felt compelled to go to the West Allis police station that evening and give a statement.

I felt bad. Im a dad, he explained, court records show.

Farrell told police he could see through the stores glass door that a man with a crazed look on his face had someone in a chokehold, very near the entrance. The guy was squeezing the hell out of this kid and never let up, he said. Farrell picked Laumann out of a photo lineup. (Farrell and another witness, Ripley, couldnt be reached for comment for this story.)

Corey Stingley and his dad lived just a couple of blocks from the store, making them one of the few Black families in a predominantly white neighborhood and city on the border of Milwaukee. Comments from the three men who held Stingley down imply that they saw him as an outsider.

Ripley told police that Beringer, 54, held Stingley by the hair and shook the teens head a couple of times. You dont do that, he said Beringer scolded Stingley. Were all friends and neighbors around here.

With Stingley subdued, the store clerk held a phone to Beringers head so he could talk to a police dispatcher. We have the perp, three of us have the perp on the ground holding him for you, Beringer said, according to a transcript of the 911 call.

Police estimated that the men held Stingley down for six to 10 minutes. When Stingley stopped struggling, Cole later told police, I thought he was faking it.

He added: I didnt know if he was just, you know, playing limp to try and get real strong and pull a quick one, you know.

When an officer arrived, she handcuffed Stingley with Beringers assistance but then realized that he wasnt breathing and called for help.

Beringer walked outside the market, according to Farrell, only to be confronted by another bystander who said, You guys killed that kid.

We didnt kill anyone, Beringer responded.

At nearby Froedtert Hospital, doctors concluded Stingleys airway had been blocked while he was restrained.

He had petechial hemorrhages tiny red dots that appear as the result of broken blood vessels to his eyes, cheeks and mouth. A deputy medical examiner attributed this pattern to pressure applied to the neck. There also was a bruise at the front of Stingleys neck, she testified.

She noted that his asphyxia also could be linked to compression of the chest.

Doctors put Stingley in a medically induced coma, attached him to a ventilator and inserted a feeding tube. As the situation became increasingly hopeless, his family spent Christmas at his bedside. Four days later, his parents made the agonizing decision to take him off life support.

In the New York subway case earlier this month, it took less than two weeks for the Manhattan district attorney to charge Daniel Penny, a former Marine, with second-degree manslaughter for the choking death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man who had yelled at other subway passengers. A prosecutor emphasized that Penny continued to choke Neely even after he stopped moving.

Pennys lawyers have defended his actions by saying he was protecting himself and other passengers. Laumann, in contrast, never claimed Corey Stingley was a danger. But he did dispute that he put his arm around the teens throat.

Interviewed by police that night, Laumann, then 56, recalled just leaning on him.

Pressed by a detective, Laumann appeared less confident, saying, A headlock is when you got your arms locked, right? And I didnt have him locked. He added: I had my arm around like this, yeah, but I didnt have him in a headlock. Unless maybe I did, maybe I I dont, no, I, I dont remember that, no.

His account conflicted with that of witnesses. And Laumanns older sibling Michael, also a former Marine, isnt so sure, either. Chokeholds are a part of basic combat skills, he said, used to restrain a person and take them down.

Thats the first thing they teach you, not only in boot camp but also in subsequent infantry training. It becomes an automatic restraint, to save your own life, Michael said. Im not saying that Mario did that. Because I dont know the situation. But all Im saying is that when youre in the Marine Corps youre taught how to save your own life. And to save the lives of your brotherhood. Sometimes it becomes, say, an automatic response.

Michael Laumann said he and Mario who died last year at age 65 seldom talked, and when they did, the store incident never came up.

Mario Laumann, who worked in construction after leaving the Marines, lived about two miles from the store. His family had been dealing with a variety of crises. His wife was battling cancer. She had been arrested four years earlier for driving under influence of prescription medications. She died in 2013.

And, by the time of the encounter with Stingley, Laumanns youngest son, Nickolas, was serving time in prison for sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl, intimidation of a victim and theft.

Writing online while in prison, Nickolas said his father would scream at me for drug use and whoop my ass. The police report about Stingleys death notes that Laumann had been arrested twice for battery, but charges in both cases had been dismissed.

Mario did have a temper, another brother, Mennas Laumann, said recently.

The three men who held Stingley down didnt know each other. Beringer, who lived next door to the food mart, told police he only recognized Laumann as a neighborhood guy.

Like Laumann, Beringer had had previous encounters with police. In 1996, Beringer pulled a gun on a Pakistani-born man and told him he hated fucking Iranians, according to a police sergeants sworn criminal complaint. Beringer pleaded guilty to misdemeanor gun charges and was jailed briefly then put on probation. A judge ordered him to complete a course in violence counseling or anger management and continue with mental health treatment, court records show.

Beringer, who no longer lives in West Allis, declined to talk to ProPublica. He came to the door of his apartment building and when asked to discuss Stingleys death said, No, no, see you later, and closed the door.

The third man to wrestle Stingley to the ground, Cole, was a 25-year-old electrician who lived about a mile from the store. Hed gone there to get cigarettes. The prior year he had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, for carrying a Glock handgun in the center console of his car and a magazine with 11 hollow-point bullets in the glove box. Cole didnt respond to ProPublicas attempts for comment.

In the immediate aftermath of the incident, all three men cooperated with police.

Cole said that as he and the others tried to halt Stingleys attempt to flee, the teen took a swing at him and landed a punch. He ended up with a black eye.

Asked by police why he restrained the teen, Laumann replied: Because hes a thief.

Several days after the struggle, West Allis police arrested Laumann and processed him for second-degree reckless injury. It was up to Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm to decide whether to prosecute him and the other men.

Chisholm eventually arranged for a judicial proceeding where sworn testimony could be heard. There, the three men invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in declining to answer questions. The original witnesses recounted seeing Stingley grabbed around the throat.

Though Farrell said he couldnt recall telling police that Laumann was squeezing the hell out of Stingley, he didnt back away from his original description of a chokehold.

Months went by with no word on charges. But Craig Stingley, a facilities engineer, couldnt just sit and wait. He rallied support from politicians in the community and tried to keep the pressure on Chisholm.

Stingley brought state Sen. Lena Taylor to meetings with the prosecutor to discuss the case. They came away discouraged. Taylor got the impression that the case was challenging for prosecutors on many levels. The video was not sharp, for one thing. Taylor also believed that race relations in Milwaukee County fed Chisholms concern that a jury might not convict anyone in the case.

At one meeting, Taylor said, she questioned what would have happened if the people involved had been of different races. They wouldnt let a group of Black guys do that to a young white guy, without any consequences, she said.

More than a year after the incident, in January 2014, Chisholm announced he would not bring charges, on the grounds that the men did not intend to injure or kill Stingley and didnt realize there was a risk to his life or health. It is clear that the purpose of restraining Corey Stingley was to hold him for police, Chisholm wrote in a five-page summary of his investigation.

None of the actors were trained in the proper application of restraint, he added

Coreys mother, Alicia Stingley, was stunned. Its just mind-boggling to me, just the decision that was made that it was more so because he didnt think he could win a case or didnt think what they did was on purpose, she said. There were no repercussions for a grown man taking a young childs life by choking him.

For Craig Stingley, its inconceivable the men did not know his son was in distress during the prolonged time they held him down. Applied properly, a chokehold can render an aggressor unconscious in as little as eight to thirteen seconds, according to a 2015 Marine Corps instructor guide.

Chisholm is still the district attorney. Through an assistant, he declined comment, citing the new review. Among the questions sent by ProPublica to Chisholm was whether he investigated Laumanns training in restraints as a Marine.

Chisholms decision sparked media coverage and community protests. To Craig Stingley, Corey was more than a symbol, he was a cherished son.

He was my buddy, Stingley said, describing how he and Corey would watch sports together. A skilled athlete, Corey Stingley was a running back on his high school football team and a member of the diving team. He took advanced placement classes in school and made the National Honor Society at school, his father said. He also worked part-time at an Arbys.

His social media accounts include references to girls and partying. It also catalogs his love of Batman, the Green Bay Packers and Christmas and shows him gently mocking his friends and family.

My dad just got texting and hes experimenting with winky faces, he wrote in 2012, ending with #ohlord.

Craig Stingley and his ex-wife filed a wrongful death suit in 2015 against the three men and the convenience store, which led to a settlement. Records show that Laumanns homeowners insurance paid $300,000, as did Coles. (Beringer didnt have homeowners insurance.) There was no admission of wrongdoing by the defendants. In court filings the three men said their actions were legal and justified, citing self-defense and their need to respond to an emergency.

A good portion of the proceeds from the suit went to pay for hospital and funeral costs and lawyer fees, Stingley said.

In the civil suit, an expert forensic pathologist hired by the Stingley familys lawyer concluded the teen died because his chest was compressed and he was strangled.

Once his airway became completely obstructed, Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen of the University of Michigan wrote, Corey would have experienced severe air hunger, conscious fear, suffering and panic with an impending sense of his own death for a period of 30 seconds to approximately one minute until he was rendered into a fully unconscious state.

Craig Stingley still obsessed about what had happened and how to revive a criminal case. He relived his sons death over and over, watching the surveillance video of his last moments frame by frame, looking for something new.

Using a movie maker app on his computer, he slowed the video down and grabbed individual frames. He concluded that Cole initially had his son in a headlock, but that Laumann too had an arm around his neck before bringing him to the ground. That conflicted with Laumanns statement to police.

Stingley took his findings to the West Allis police, where a detective agreed theyd missed this detail. The department wrote a supplemental report for Chisholm, who asked a judge to appoint a special prosecutor for another look.

Racine District Attorney Patricia Hanson got the case in October 2017. But what followed was more waiting.

Stingley said he called Hansons office routinely in the years that followed, but she never met with him. Reached via email recently, Hanson declined to comment.

The case has not even been assigned a referral or case number after three years in that office, state Rep. Evan Goyke complained in a December 2020 letter to Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Mary Triggiano. This is unacceptable, he wrote.

In later correspondence, Triggiano noted Hanson had refused to say when her decision would be forthcoming because in the midst of the pandemic, she had a lot of cases needing attention.

In March 2021, Hanson told the court in a one-page memo that she had reviewed Chisholms file and agreed with his earlier decision: I do not find that criminal charges are appropriate at this time.

John Doe proceedings allowing citizens to directly ask a court to consider criminal charges date back to 1839, when Wisconsin was still a territory, according to an account in state supreme court records. The law is used infrequently, legal experts said, and rarely successfully.

Petitions have been filed by prisoners, by activists alleging animal cruelty in research experiments and by citizens claiming police misconduct. The efforts typically fail, ProPublica found in reviewing court dockets, news accounts and appellate rulings. In Milwaukee County, Wisconsins most populous, there were only 19 such cases in 2020, dockets show, including Stingleys. None succeeded.

Other states have similar methods of giving citizens a voice, but none are exactly like Wisconsins. According to the National Crime Victim Law Institute, six states Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota and Oklahoma allow private citizens to gather signatures to petition a judge to convene a grand jury to investigate an alleged crime. In Pennsylvania, individuals can file a criminal complaint with the district attorney; if rejected, they can appeal to the court to ask it to order the district attorney to prosecute.

Milwaukee attorney Scott W. Hansen, who has served as special prosecutor in a John Doe case, is critical of the Wisconsin process. He said it allows citizens to present a one-sided, skewed version of facts to a judge, without benefit of cross-examination or adverse witnesses.

The law, however, does state that the citizens petition must present facts that raise a reasonable belief a crime was committed.

Former state Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske described the John Doe petition as a check and balance on prosecutors by citizens. If people believe a crime has been committed, and youve got prosecutors not living up to their responsibilities, and you think somebody ought to be held accountable, its a way to have some judicial review, she said.

Stingley has known all along that the odds were against him, so turning to a longshot petition didnt daunt him. Writing to Chief Judge Triggiano in late 2020, he alleged dereliction and breach of legal duty by the Milwaukee and Racine county district attorneys to conduct thorough criminal investigations into his sons death.

Triggiano assigned the case to Judge Milton Childs. He formally appointed Ozanne, the first Black district attorney in Wisconsin, as special prosecutor last July. Ozannes inquiry has included reviews of court transcripts and interviews with West Allis police and others.

Craig Stingley was pleased that Ozanne and his staff met with him for several hours to listen to his concerns and to hear about his son.

When I left that meeting, Stingley said, my son got his humanity back.

This story was updated Friday, 5/26/2023, 11 a.m., to report that a scheduled hearing was postponed.

Read the rest here:
They held down a Black teen who tried to shoplift. He died from ... - Wisconsin Examiner