Daily Archives: March 29, 2024

This 48-year-old dad retired early to move to Panama with his family: ‘This has been the greatest thing’ – Fortune

Posted: March 29, 2024 at 2:47 am

Before his daughter, Faith, was born in 2010, Jim White was mostly content with his job as an engineering manager at an IT firm in Ohio. He made decent money, owned a home and a rental property with his wife, Lisa, and even enjoyed the work he was doing.

But the week off of work he spent with his newborn daughter crystallized something for White that had been nagging at him for while: He realized as his brief paternity leave ended that he didnt want to miss the time with her that the standard American corporate job all too often encroaches on. The traditional 9-to-5 made him feel trapped, as if his life was just passing him by. He didnt want to spend his best days behind a desk.

It was also around this time he first discovered the FIREfinancial independence, retire earlycommunity online, which helped him realize that his dream of leaving the corporate world decades sooner than the norm wasnt so far-fetched. After extensive conversations with his wife about the possibility of a different kind of life, the Whites soon began saving 60% of their income and planning for an early departure from the workforce.

It took eight years, but White, then 43, was able to pull the plug on his corporate career at the end of 2018. The family sold most of their belongings, their home, and their car, and moved to Panama in 2019. They had fallen in love with the country after a previous vacation there, and spent their days hiking, exploring, and simply spending time together. White had never been happier.

It was beautiful. We were able to spend every day outside, we didnt have a car, it was all those little things, White, now 48, tells Fortune. I got to feel like that was home.

Living costs were lowerthough the family scaled up housing costs to live in a resort community on a golf course for $2,100 a monthand the quality of life was unparalleled, White says. He found a welcoming expat community, walked most places, and enjoyed the crazy cheap local produce. The Whites homeschooled Faith, and spent almost three years just enjoying the quality time together that had first inspired Whites FIRE journey.

Eventually, though, the Whites decided they wanted to be closer to family again, and moved back to Ohio in 2022, taking over an apartment lease for some expat friends they met in Panama. Soon restless again, the trio decided to embark on a nine-month RV trip around the country, with different legs taking them first to Texas, then the Southeast, and finally the West.

This is the second time weve gotten rid of everything, says White. Though not every day is a vacationthe family has come to realize they are not long-term RV people, given the space constraintshe has no regrets. This has been the greatest thing.

Whites life may sound idyllic, but, of course, very few people are able to retire early. Many members of the FIRE community are in high-paying fields like tech, medicine, finance, or lawsome of the wealthiest workers in the U.S. White had the added bonus of living in Ohio, which has a relatively low cost of living, and both he and his spouse were committed to living frugally.

White began his career working part-time at an IT firm in the 1990s for $25,000 per year. He stayed at that company his entire career, working his way up to engineering manager. The salary wasnt bad for the time, he says, especially considering he was still wrapping up college when he landed the job. It also helped him with a different financial undertaking: Paying off the $30,000 in credit card debt he had accrued in school. I regret the debt, he says. But at the same time, it was a lesson and I learned from it.

White also benefitted from some smart real estate plays. He bought an investment property in the early 2000s, which he rented rented out for a few years and then sold in 2018 (that said, White has also catalogued the downsides of owning rental propertiesits not all profit). They also sold their primary residence before their move to Panama.

Still, the family made plenty of sacrifices and relied on fairly standard strategies to accrue wealth (most of his investments, for example, are in low-cost index funds). He and his wife have always been frugal, he says. That helped when they had to shed most of their belongings during their first move to Panama.

Theres only so much you can cut back on. And you get to a point where youre as optimized as you can be, for the most part, he says. We spent our time putting 60% of our money away and waiting to reach our number. Its kind of frustrating, because you know your end goal but there isnt a feasible way to get there earlier. Its not an easy thing to do, but the end can be so rewarding.

White has tracked his FIRE journey on his blog, Route to Retire, since 2015. There, he displays his net worthcurrently over $1.6 millionbudget, and the ups and downs of early retiree life for all to see.

He has no plans to go back to the traditional corporate world. If he ever needs a jobmostly to have something to do, not just to earn moneyhe said he could go part-time at Costco or Walmartsomewhere fun.

In the meantime, he plans to keep trying different thingsthe best gift early retirement has given him.

I decided randomly to climb an active volcano in Panama. That was so out of my realm, but I got it done, he says. I used to think people who ran marathons was crazy, but theres such a sense of accomplishment, its wonderful. You have to try it. Youre not going to love everything, but its the only way to enjoy life and find what you do love.

Fortune is interviewing retirees about life after leaving the workforce. If youre interested in sharing your story, email senior writer Alicia Adamczyk atalicia.adamczyk@fortune.com.

Go here to see the original:

This 48-year-old dad retired early to move to Panama with his family: 'This has been the greatest thing' - Fortune

Posted in Financial Independence | Comments Off

More than just housewives: Ministry encourages women to embrace leadership, financial independence – Sinar Daily

Posted: at 2:47 am

SHAH ALAM Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Nancy Shukri encourages women to create their own opportunities, achieve financial independence, and take on leadership roles.

She said it was important to nurture a culture where women feel empowered to express themselves, undergo leadership training and acknowledge their remarkable abilities across all domains.

Citing the gender disparity in the job market, she said that men comprised 81 per cent compared to women which stood at 56.2 per cent.

She stressed that women were not seeking competition with men but strived to close the gender gap.

"I always emphasise this point (closing the gender gap) because women typically prioritise their families, often choosing not to work. There is a need for training to empower them.

How do we address this gap in terms of fostering leadership among women and within families and communities? My goal is to provide them with the necessary training and support to become confident leaders.

I encourage them to voice their opinions and take on leadership roles, she said.

Despite initial apprehension from the women, Nancy said she witnessed the women were willing to step up to speak even if they were nervous, which was commendable.

"I believe in acknowledging and applauding their courage when they overcome their fears to speak up.

This is an essential aspect of leadership that requires nurturing and encouragement." She said when met recently.

Nancy also highlighted the significant number of women in rural areas who considered it their duty to care for their families but only deemed themselves as mere housewives.

Disputing this notion, Nancy emphasised the vital role of housewives, noting that their responsibilities started from the moment they woke up until they slept, without compensation.

She pointed out that many were either underpaid or unpaid, despite the essential nature of their work.

She said her organisation's goal of empowering women to earn their livelihoods and stressed her longstanding commitment to this and this was one of the reasons why she had been fought for it ever since she was in a non-governmental organisation (NGO).

While volunteering for the NGO, she faced financial constraints and had to seek assistance from agencies to identify target groups.

When determining whom to train, the focus was on women and she readily offered the organisation's female members for such programmes.

She stressed by taking on leadership roles, women could inspire admiration within their families, motivating younger relatives to aspire to similar achievements in the future.

"I aim to instil a spirit of empowerment among women, urging them to embrace roles beyond just being women, including those of mothers and wives.

"Some men may belittle their wives due to their dependency and it is something we strive to change," she added.

Nancy urged husbands to show respect towards their wives and at the same time encouraged women to be financially independent, asserting that this independence commands respect from both spouses and sets an example for their children.

Additionally, Nancy highlighted the importance of addressing economic and security issues alongside leadership development programmes for women.

She said their efforts in organising economic initiatives, aimed to stress the significance of women's participation in the workforce, which doesn't necessarily entail leaving their homes.

Under the ministry, various programmes such as Wanita Bangkit, Two-Year Exit Program, Mama Care, and NGO initiatives like Skuad Waja are implemented to support women's development.

Supreme Court must rely on the First Amendment, not its own precedent, when deciding government censorship case – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 2:47 am

The justices of the Supreme Court never focused on the First Amendments words when hearing arguments in Murthy v. Missouri last week.

The case challenges the federal governments orchestration of social media censorship, so one might have expected the justices to pay some attention to the First Amendment itself. Instead, the court relied on its own weak doctrines that invited the censorship in the first place.

The First Amendment makes a crucial distinction between abridging and prohibiting. But theres a danger the court, in this case, will ignore this and instead reinforce its erroneous coercion standard. If thats what the court does, it will give the executive branch the green light to persist in the most far-reaching censorship in the nations history.

The coercion doctrine, established in Blum v. Yaretksy, suggests that when the government uses private entities to censor Americans, a complaining party must show that the government coercively converted the private censorship into government censorship. This doctrine has invited the government to think it may use social media platforms to suppress the public, as long as it isnt too obviously coercive against the platforms. Government coercion thus gets elevated as the archetypical measure of censorship (its not), and less than coercive privatized censorship gets legitimized (it shouldnt).

Nonetheless, the court seemed to take the Blum framework for granted. The justices spent much time asking when the government could persuade newspapers to drop their news stories, even though this case had nothing to do with that. The government never asked the suppressed scientists and doctors whether they would be willing to forbear from publishing. Instead, the government used the social media platforms to shut down the speech of the individuals, who were never consulted. Still, most of the justices seemed to assume, in line with Blum, that as long as the government didnt coerce the platforms, no censorship occurred.

The First Amendment, however, rejects the coercion test. It bars the government from abridging, or reducing, the freedom of speech. That standard stands in sharp contrast to the amendments bar against prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The amendment thus clearly rejects a coercing or prohibiting measure of government censorship in favor of a more sensitive inquiry as to whether the government abridged that is, diminished the freedom of speech.

This point about abridging was part of the plaintiffs argument. The brief of Missouri, Louisiana, and the individual plaintiffs urged the court to revisit Blum and other such cases, on the ground that their artificially narrow conception of state action . weakens the freedom of speech. In contrast, the First Amendment capaciously protects the freedom of speech from any abridging (i.e., diminishing) of that freedom.

This, the Constitutions measure of freedom of speech, clearly bars the government from working with social media to set parameters on public debate. Yet under the Blum coercion standard, thats exactly what the government has been doing orchestrating social media to bar evidence and opinion that dissents from the official narrative and questions official policy.

Even cursory attention to the First Amendment would have offered a profound corrective to this coercion doctrine the doctrine that invites the censorship. The justices, however, appeared to leave the First Amendment aside.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

This failure even to quote the First Amendment is especially troublesome because of the judicial barriers that tend to leave the public without an effective remedy for censorship. The courts qualified immunity doctrine leaves people with little chance of getting damages for past censorship, and its standards for obtaining an injunction leave them with difficulty securing a remedy against future censorship, as the government can simply declare that theres little reason to think the censorship against the plaintiffs will recur.

So, the government can censor one American after another, seriatim, without consequence.

Philip Hamburger teaches at Columbia Law School and is CEO of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represents four individual plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri. He is the author of Courting Censorship.

More:
Supreme Court must rely on the First Amendment, not its own precedent, when deciding government censorship case - Washington Examiner

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION?: Man removed from Cape council meeting files lawsuit – FOX 4 News Fort Myers WFTX

Posted: at 2:47 am

CAPE CORAL, Fla. A man removed from a Cape Coral City Council meeting has filed a lawsuit against the City of Cape Coral and its city council members.

Last October, the Cape Coral Police Department removed Scott Kempe from a Committee of the Whole meeting following a heated argument over the new design of Jaycee Park.

Kempe refused to sit down during the discussion of the design - and kept his back to the council.

After being asked by Cape Coral Mayor John Gunter to turn around, the mayor asked police to take him out of the room.

RELATED: CAPE CORAL | Man removed from public meeting during heated debate over new Jaycee Park design

Five months later, Kempe is now the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the city.

You can read a portion of the documents below:

Scott Kempe vs. City of Cape Coral

RELATED: CAPE CORAL | Man escorted out of city workshop defends his actions

The lawsuit going on to say that though Lee County prosecutors properly dismissed Kempe's arrest, the council continued to assert that they could ban him from attending future council meetings and amended council rules to ban others from meetings in future meeting - a violation of the First Amendment, Kempe's team argues.

As part of our previous reporting, the city provided a statement to FOX 4 as a spokesperson said it was within their legal right to remove Scott Kempe from the workshop.

Below is the full statement:

Therefore, an individuals refusal to comply with the City Council Rules will give rise to that person being escorted from the City Council Meeting Chambers by the Cape Coral Police Department.

Kempe has filed preliminary injunction to stop the City of Cape Coral and Cape Coral City Council from continuing to enforce rules banning members of the public from future open meetings based upon past conduct.

He is also seeking the following:

a. Compensatory damages; b. Appropriate injunctive relief c. Declaratory judgment d. Invalidation of official acts taken in violation of Florida law e. Interest f. Nominal damages g. Attorney fees h. Costs and expenses; and i. All other relief this Court deems proper.

Read the original:
FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION?: Man removed from Cape council meeting files lawsuit - FOX 4 News Fort Myers WFTX

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Trump’s team cites First Amendment in contesting charges in Georgia election interference case – The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Posted: at 2:47 am

Prosecutor Donald Wakeford countered that Trump's statements are not protected by the First Amendment because they were integral to criminal activity.

It's not just that they were false. It's not that the defendant has been hauled into a courtroom because the prosecution doesn't like what he said, Wakeford said, adding that Trump is free to express his opinion and make legitimate protests. What he is not allowed to do is to employ his speech and his expression and his statements as part of a criminal conspiracy to violate Georgia's RICO statute, to impersonate public officers, to file false documents, to make false statements to the government.

Wakeford pointed out that similar arguments were raised and rejected in the federal election interference case against Trump brought by Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in a December ruling that "it is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime."

Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements ... but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process, Chutkan wrote.

Willis used Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, an expansive anti-racketeering statute, to charge Trump and 18 others with allegedly participating in a wide-ranging conspiracy to overturn the state's 2020 election results.

Most of the charges against Shafer, a former state Republican Party chairman, have to do with his involvement in the casting of Electoral College votes for Trump by a group of Georgia Republicans even though the state's election had been certified in favor of Democrat Joe Biden. The charges against Shafer include impersonating a public officer, forgery, false statements and writings, and attempting to file false documents.

His lawyer, Craig Gillen, argued that the activity Shafer engaged in was lawful at the time and that Schafer was acting in accordance with requirements of the Electoral Count Act. Because a legal challenge to the presidential election results was pending on Dec. 14, 2020, when it came time for electors to meet to cast Georgia's electoral votes, Gillen said it was up to Congress to determine whether a Democratic or Republican slate of electors should be counted for the state. He said that means Shafer and the other Republicans who met to cast electoral votes were acting properly.

Gillen said the accusation that Shafer and others were impersonating a public officer, namely a presidential elector, does not hold water because electors are not considered public officers. Prosecutor Will Wooten argued that a presidential elector is clearly an office created by law and that Shafer and others were charged because they falsely presented themselves as the state's official presidential electors.

Gillen also asked that three phrases be struck from the indictment: duly elected and qualified presidential electors, false Electoral College votes and lawful electoral votes. He said those phrases are used to assert that the Democratic slate of electors was valid and the Republican slate was not. He said those are prejudicial legal conclusions about issues that should be decided by the judge or by the jury at trial.

Wooten opposed the move, saying every allegation in an indictment is a legal conclusion.

Trump and the others were indicted last year, accused of participating in a scheme to try to illegally overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, which the Republican incumbent narrowly lost to Biden.

All the defendants were charged with violating the anti-racketeering law, along with other alleged crimes. Four people charged in the case have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump and the others have pleaded not guilty. No trial date has been set. Willis has asked that the trial begin in August.

The allegations that Willis engaged in an improper relationship were explored over several days in an evidentiary hearing last month that delved into intimate details of Willis' and Wade's personal lives. The judge rejected defense efforts to remove Willis and her office as long as Wade stepped aside. But McAfee did give the defendants permission to seek a review of his decision from the state Court of Appeals.

Also this month, the judge dismissed six of the 41 counts in the indictment, including three against Trump, finding that prosecutors failed to provide enough detail about the alleged crimes.

Credit: AP

More:
Trump's team cites First Amendment in contesting charges in Georgia election interference case - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Trump attorney says Georgia election case hinges on First Amendment Deseret News – Deseret News

Posted: at 2:47 am

The lead attorney for former President Donald Trump sought to dismiss the Georgia election interference case Thursday on the grounds that it violates Trumps First Amendment rights.

I dont think theres any question that statements, comment, speech, expressive conduct that deals with campaigning or elections has always been found to be at the zenith of protected speech, Trumps head attorney, Steve Sadow, said in the Fulton County courtroom on Thursday, per ABC News.

The only reason it becomes unprotected in the States opinion is because they call it false, he added.

Fulton County Prosecutor Donald Wakeford argued that Trumps comments related to the charges should not be protected under the First Amendment, saying that the former presidents comments were aligned with criminal activity

Hes never been prosecuted for lying, Wakeford said, according to CNN. Hes been prosecuted for lying to the government.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee heard both arguments in the case initially brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Trump and 18 co-defendants have been charged related to their alleged attempts in Georgia to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Four of them have pleaded guilty.

Its not just that they were false. Its not that the defendant has been hauled into a courtroom because the prosecution doesnt like what he said, Wakeford said, per The Associated Press. What he is not allowed to do is to employ his speech and his expression and his statements as part of a criminal conspiracy to violate Georgias RICO statute, to impersonate public officers, to file false documents, to make false statements to the government.

The prosecution pointed out that U.S. District Court judge Tanya Chutkan, in Washington, D.C., had previously dismissed the claim that the First Amendment protects Trump from criminal prosecution for his attempts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election in a separate indictment.

McAfee did not make a ruling in court on Thursday and has yet to set a trial date. The Georgia election interference case is one of four criminal indictments that Trump is facing as he campaigns against President Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential election.

Visit link:
Trump attorney says Georgia election case hinges on First Amendment Deseret News - Deseret News

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Trump legal news brief: Prosecutors tell Judge McAfee that First Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump’s ‘criminal intentions’ – Yahoo! Voices

Posted: at 2:47 am

Prosecutors who have charged former President Donald Trump with election interference and racketeering relating to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia tell Judge Scott McAfee that the First Amendment does not protect him from prosecution in the case. Trumps lawyers tell the judge that contesting election results is protected by the Constitution, but Fulton County prosecutor Donald Wakeford counters that each of the 10 felony counts Trump faces was employed as part of criminal activity with criminal intentions. Here are the latest legal developments involving the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024.

Trumps lawyers, prosecutors spar over First Amendment protections

Key players: Judge Scott McAfee, Fulton County prosecutor Donald Wakeford, Trump lawyer Steve Sadow, former Georgia Republican Party chairman David Shafer, Shafers lawyer Craig Gillen,pro-Trump lawyersKenneth Chesebroand Sidney Powell, Judge Tanya Chutkan

McAfee heard arguments Thursday on whether the charges in Georgia against Trump should be dropped because they violate his First Amendment rights, ABC News reported.

Trump is charged with conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden in Georgia, a contest that he continues to claim was rigged despite a lack of evidence to support that assertion.

What do we have here? Sadow added. We have election speech, which is 'protected' from government restriction."

Wakeford countered: Its not that the defendant has been hauled into a courtroom because the prosecution doesnt like what he said. He is free to make statements and to file lawsuits and to make other legitimate protests. What he is not allowed to do is employ his speech and his expression, and his statements as part of a criminal conspiracy to violate Georgias RICO statute.

McAfee did not issue a ruling on the question, but has previously denied similar motions to dismiss from Chesebro and Powell, both of whom have since pleaded guilty in the case.

In the federal election interference case, Chutkan has already ruled that the First Amendment doesnt protect Trump from being prosecuted for seeking to overturn the 2020 contest.

Gillen argued that the charges against Shafer should be dropped because he was simply attempting to comply with the advice of legal counsel when he posed as an official state elector to challenge Bidens victory.

Gillen also sought to have the term fake elector stricken from the indictment against his client.

Why it matters: McAfee didnt offer many indications Thursday on how he might rule on the motions to dismiss the charges against Trump and Shafer. Given his prior rulings and Chutkans most legal experts see them as a long shot.

First Amendment protects Trump from Fani Williss election interference charges, attorney argues – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 2:47 am

A judge held a hearing Thursday to examine former President Donald Trumps argument that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Williss case against him in Georgia should be dismissed because Trumps actions cited in her indictment were protected by the First Amendment.

Judge Scott McAfee heard arguments from both Trumps attorney and prosecutors about the matter, but the judge gave no indication as to where he stood on it or when he would issue a decision.

Trumps attorney Steve Sadow urged McAfee to consider that Williss indictment, in which she alleged Trump violated Georgias racketeering law by illegally conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, was ripe for a First Amendment challenge.

McAfee had already denied similar motions brought by co-defendants Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, determining that dismissing the indictment on First Amendment grounds at this stage was premature.

On Thursday, Sadow argued that Williss indictment was built entirely on actions shielded by protections for freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution.

McAfee said, however, that some crimes can be achieved solely through speech, though, [such as] terroristic threats, solicitation.

Why is that not whats happening here as alleged? McAfee asked.

I dont think theres any question that statements, comments, speech, expressive conduct that deals with campaigning or elections has always been found to be at the zenith of protected speech, Sadow replied.

Williss indictment was sweeping and included 161 actions that she alleged amounted to a racketeering violation by Trump and 18 co-defendants. She alleged that Trump, in particular, falsely declared he won the 2020 election, helped arrange for an alternate set of electors in Georgia, and helped create and deliver a fraudulent certificate of votes to state officials.

One must determine immediately whether that constitutes core political speech, and I suggest that it does, Sadow said in reference to Trumps speech and actions cited in the indictment.

Neither Trump nor Willis were present at the hearing.

Donald Wakeford, a prosecutor appearing on behalf of Willis, noted how Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., had already ruled against the same First Amendment argument in Trumps federal election interference case. Chutkan declined to dismiss that case on First Amendment grounds after Trump argued his actions in the indictment there reflected genuine concerns about the election that he had a right to vocalize. Chutkan said the argument was better suited for a jury to consider at trial.

Wakeford said he was hardly going to improve upon the findings of the federal judge.

But he noted that the First Amendment argument should go beyond determining whether Trump was well-intentioned or whether he knowingly made false claims and committed fraudulent actions.

Its not just that he lied over and over and over again, Wakeford said. Its that each of those was employed as part of criminal activity with criminal intentions for which the First Amendment did not provide cover.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Trump is facing 10 charges in the case related to the 2020 election. McAfee has not scheduled a trial yet, and one may not take place for several months. The pretrial process was derailed by roughly two months beginning in January, when Trump and others called for McAfee to disqualify Willis from the case over an undisclosed relationship she had with one of the prosecutors working on it.

McAfee determined that Willis displayed a tremendous lapse in judgment but said she could continue overseeing the case so long as she terminated the prosecutor. Trump and other co-defendants have appealed his decision, and the Georgia Court of Appeals is now weighing whether to take up the argument.

Read this article:
First Amendment protects Trump from Fani Williss election interference charges, attorney argues - Washington Examiner

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Donald Trump Georgia court motions hearing today live stream – 11Alive.com WXIA

Posted: at 2:47 am

Lawyers for Donald Trump filed a brief in December arguing that the Georgia case "seeks to criminalize content-based, core political speech and expressive conduct."

ATLANTA Lawyers for former President Donald Trump were in court in Atlanta on Thursday morning, arguing his charges in the Georgia 2020 election RICO case should be dismissed on First Amendment grounds.

A motions hearing saw Steve Sadow, Trump's attorney, spar with prosecutors over a constitutional question: how far does the First Amendment's protection of speech go?

"Political speech is the most protected; it's usually referred to as the core of the First Amendment," said Emory University Law professor John Acevedo.

But the legal expert noted that protection is not limitless. The core issue of Thursday's hearing was wherethose limits should be drawn.

Sadow claimed that all of the former president's alleged criminal acts were actually political speech about the 2020 election that is protected by the First Amendment.

"All of the allegations involved expressive conduct or speech," Sadow said.

The defense attorney argued that protection should compel Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to dismiss the charges against Mr. Trump.

"It's unconstitutional to force an accused, be it the president of the United States, former president, or anyone else, to stand trial on protected speech," Sadow said.

Prosecutors countered that the First Amendment's protections are not limitless.

"Speech integral to criminal conduct is not protected," said Donald Wakeford, a chief senior district attorney in the Fulton County D.A.'s Office.

The prosecutor argued that Trump's speech falls into that unprotected category.

"(It's) not just that he lied over and over and over again... it's that each of those was employed as part of criminal activity with criminal intentions," Wakeford said.

John Floyd, a special prosecutor and noted RICO expert, also added a rebuttal for the state to Sadow's arguments that speech is criminalized within the indictment's listed "overt acts."

"The purpose of an overt act is to show the conspiracy is in operation. It is not a separate crime, it doesn't have to satisfy the elements, doesn't have to be pled with that level of detail... and so to say we can't mention this particular act or this particular conduct because it's not a crime or it's protected by the First Amendment, the answer to that is actually so what?" Floyd said. "It could be legal conduct, it could be First Amendment protected conduct that also shows there's a conspiracy in operation, and that's -- as long as it serves that purpose, it's fine."

The court also heard arguments from Craig Gillen, an attorney representing Trump co-defendant David Shafer (the former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party), on two motions seeking to dismiss the charges against him and remove language related to "false" electors from the indictment.

Judge Scott McAfee has not yet ruled on any of the motions discussed in court Thursday.

You can re-watch 11Alive's stream of the proceedings below, as well as the specific portion regarding the First Amendment argument in the video player above this story. 11Alive's updates from during the proceedings are also below.

11:38 a.m. | Court is adjourned. Judge McAfee did not indicate when he might have an order on anything that was before the court today.

11:20 a.m. |Attorneys for the State, addressing the Shafer arguments, asserting that Georgia law does explicitly establish an "office of presidential elector."

11:03 a.m. |And to go back to the First Amendment arguments -- again, no decision likely right here today from Judge McAfee. Unclear when he might issue a written order (though it's possible he'll address a timeline at the end of proceedings).

11:01 a.m. |Craig Gillen is arguing for Shafer, who was charged as impersonating an officer for his role in the submission of the "alternate" slate of electors for Trump to the Electoral College. Gillen's argument is basically that the elector role is really not that of a public officer.

10:59 a.m. | Worth going back to Sadow for a second, who concluded his argument by again referring to the indictment and asserting that it does not charge Trump on any act other than acts of speech: "What I'm suggesting is if all of the overt acts are nothing more than core political speech or expressive conduct and nothing else is alleged which is not protected by the First Amendment, then you have an insufficient basis for which he has been indicted."

10:55 a.m. |Attorney Craig Gillen is arguing for Shafer's motions.

10:51 a.m. |Appears the First Amendment matter has been argued through and they're moving on to David Shafer's motions.

10:49 a.m. |Sadow now rebutting what Floyd said.

10:48 a.m. | John Floyd, a noted RICO expert, adds for the state an argument that Sadow's arguments that speech is criminalized within the indictment as referenced in overt acts is not true.

"The purpose of an overt act is to show the conspiracy is in operation. It is not a separate crime, it doesn't have to satisfy the elements, doesn't have to be pled with that level of detail... and so to say we can't mention this particular act or this particular conduct because it's not a crime or it's protected by the First Amendment, the answer to that is actually so what?" Floyd said. "It could be legal conduct, it could be First Amendment protected conduct that also shows there's a conspiracy in operation and that's -- as long as it serves that purpose, it's fine."

10:43 a.m. | More Wakeford: It's "not just that he lied over and over and over again... it's that each of those was employed as part of criminal activity with criminal intentions."

Says Sadow wants to frame the indictment as "it's all speech... he (Trump) was just a guy asking questions... and not part of an overarching criminal conspiracy trying to overturn election results for an election he did not win -- by violating the RICO statute, by making false statements to the government, by filing false documents, by impersonating officers and doing a whole host of other activities harmful, in addition to the falsity of the statements employed to make them happen."

10:40 a.m. |Wakeford further argues the filing false documents charge is "not just hat you've made a false statement," but that you've sworn to false statements to a court "which does harm to the judicial system."

"As each and every charge in the indictment demonstrates, these statements are part of criminal conduct that is larger than just the false statement on its own."

10:38 a.m. |Wakeford argues Trump is "not being prosecuted for lying, he's being prosecuted for lying to the government -- an act which is illegal because it does harm to the government."

10:36 a.m. |Wakeford for the State now speaking again, refers to the federal election subversion case being overseen by Judge Tanya Chutkan.

"Let me address first the elephant in this courtroom, Judge Chutkan in D.C. has evaluated all these arguments under Supreme Court precedent already, I'd refer you to that court's analysis, I'm hardly going to improve upon the findings of a federal judge."

10:34 a.m. |Another tidy Sadow summary: "Take out the political speech, no criminal charges. Political speech disagreed with, basis for all charges. I think that is the best way for me to sum up where our position is."

10:33 a.m. |More Sadow: "When you're dealing with that speech, that political speech, you're best to deal with it pushing forth a counterview of truth -- not prosecuting the speechmaker or the person that is articulating his political views. Here we've done just the opposite, we've decided t hat because those views are unpopular, and in State's opinion false, we must prosecute them to stop them from happening again, which is the essence why it's unconstitutional as applied because that's not what the law says."

10:30 a.m. |A little tidier summary from Sadow: "All of the allegations involve expressive conduct or speech."

10:28 a.m. | Sadow goes into the core of his argument, which is that the charges against Trump in the RICO indictment solely target the content of his political speech during the time after the 2020 election.

He argues the State is interpreting the crime as "we have a goal -- steal the election in an unlawful fashion."

"I say change that for a second to 'legitimate concern about the validity of the election.' If that was the way you focused on it, would what President Trump said on those counts be protected speech? And the answer is it has to be."

He adds in his argument that "the only reason it becomes unprotected" is the State says it's false, which he argues is disallowed under precedent.

"It cannot be content based, it has to be contextual, and this is a core political value being addressed -- elections and campaigning."

10:17 a.m. |Sadow is making an argument about the standards for how a First Amendment challenge may be brought.

10:11 a.m. |Wakeford argues even if it is the time to address the First Amendment now, the challenge would need to be dismissed because the indictment criminalizes not Trump's speech or expression as expressed but asserts his speech and expression were conducted in furtherance of crimes.

10:08 a.m. |Wakeford is arguing its premature to address the First Amendment challenge at this point.

10:07 a.m. |Donald Wakeford, arguing the First Amendment issue for the State, is now speaking with Judge McAfee, still on the matter of whether this is the right time to address the First Amendment challenge.

10:05 a.m. | Judge McAfee and Sadow are beginning by addressing the standards and precedents for whether the First Amendment challenge is appropriate at this point in the legal proceedings.

10:04 a.m. |Attorney Steve Sadow is beginning arguments on behalf of President Trump.

Trump's lawyers filed a brief in December arguing that the Georgia case "seeks to criminalize content-based, core political speech and expressive conduct." You can see that brief below:

The document, a post-hearing briefing, supports arguments made at an original hearing on Dec. 1 at which Trump's attorneys argued to have the case dismissed. You can re-watch that hearing in full here.

The filing lays out five central elements of the case and argues Trump's conduct with regard to each of them is protected political speech.

Those elements include the "alternate" electors scheme, Trump's calls for a special session of the Georgia General Assembly, a verification Trump made as part of a lawsuit challenging the election, the Jan. 2, 2021 call to Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger and a Sept. 17, 2021 letter to Raffensperger.

"Every single alleged overt act listed and count charged against President Trump seeks to criminalize content-based, core political speech and expressive conduct," Trump attorney Steve Sadow wrote in the brief.

Sadow argued the court should dismiss the indictment before the trial begins.

"The speech Fulton County prosecutors seek to criminalize is precisely the kind of core political speech the Founders envisioned when carefully crafting those freedoms to ensure that, for the rest of time, U.S. citizens would not fall prey to mass repression and the manipulation or suppression of information as a means of control," Sadow wrote.

It's not clear if Judge Scott McAfee will issue any sort of ruling on the matter on Thursday. So far in the case he has typically taken further time to weigh arguments before issuing written orders, rather than making determinations from the bench.

News happens fast. Stream it faster with our re-designed 11Alive+ app.

Watch newscasts, breaking news streams and get the latest sports, weather and VERIFY content -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Available onRoku, Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV.Text "plus" to 404-885-7600 to download 11Alive+ and stream now.

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Trump’s team cites First Amendment in contesting charges in Georgia election interference case – Bowling Green Daily News

Posted: at 2:47 am

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Originally posted here:
Trump's team cites First Amendment in contesting charges in Georgia election interference case - Bowling Green Daily News

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Daily Archives: March 29, 2024

This 48-year-old dad retired early to move to Panama with his family: ‘This has been the greatest thing’ – Fortune

More than just housewives: Ministry encourages women to embrace leadership, financial independence – Sinar Daily

Supreme Court must rely on the First Amendment, not its own precedent, when deciding government censorship case – Washington Examiner

FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION?: Man removed from Cape council meeting files lawsuit – FOX 4 News Fort Myers WFTX

Trump’s team cites First Amendment in contesting charges in Georgia election interference case – The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Trump attorney says Georgia election case hinges on First Amendment Deseret News – Deseret News

Trump legal news brief: Prosecutors tell Judge McAfee that First Amendment doesn’t apply to Trump’s ‘criminal intentions’ – Yahoo! Voices

First Amendment protects Trump from Fani Williss election interference charges, attorney argues – Washington Examiner

Donald Trump Georgia court motions hearing today live stream – 11Alive.com WXIA

Trump’s team cites First Amendment in contesting charges in Georgia election interference case – Bowling Green Daily News

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution