Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Date: 07/18/2024 12:11 PM

Toppan Merrill

Project: 24-19565-1 Form Type: 8-K

Client: 24-19565-1_CION Investment Corporation_8-K

File: tm2419565d1_8k.htm Type: 8-KPg: 1 of 3

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): July 18, 2024 (July 15, 2024)

CON Investment Corporation

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

Maryland

000-54755

45-3058280

(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

(Commission File Number)

(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

100 Park Avenue,

25th Floor

New York, New

York 10017

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(212)

418-4700

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Not applicable

(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

Title of each class

Trading symbol(s)

Name of each exchange on which registered

Common stock, par value $0.001 per share

CION

The New York Stock Exchange

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (240.12b-2 of this chapter).

Emerging growth company

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.

Date: 07/18/2024 12:11 PM

Toppan Merrill

Project: 24-19565-1 Form Type: 8-K

Client: 24-19565-1_CION Investment Corporation_8-K

File: tm2419565d1_8k.htm Type: 8-KPg: 2 of 3

Item 1.01. Entry Into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On July 15, 2024, 34th Street Funding, LLC ("34th Street"), a wholly-owned, special purpose financing subsidiary of CON Investment Corporation ("CION"), entered into a Fifth Amendment to Third Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (the "Fifth Amendment") with JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association ("JPM"), as lender and administrative agent, U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as collateral agent and collateral administrator, U.S. Bank National Association, as securities intermediary, and CION Investment Management, LLC, CION's investment adviser, as portfolio manager.

Advances to 34th Street remain unchanged of up to $675,000,000 but under the Fifth Amendment, the credit spread on the floating interest rate

payable by 34th Street on all such advances was reduced from the three-month Secured Overnight Financing Rate ("SOFR") plus a credit spread of 3.20% per year to SOFR plus a credit spread of 2.55% per year. Also under the Fifth Amendment, the reinvestment period was extended from July 15, 2024 to June 15, 2026 and the maturity date was extended from May 15, 2025 to June 15, 2027.

34th Street incurred certain customary costs and expenses in connection with the Fifth Amendment and will pay an annual administrative fee of 0.20% on JPM's total financing commitment. No other material terms of the JPM credit facility were revised in connection with the Fifth Amendment.

The foregoing description of the Fifth Amendment as set forth in this Item 1.01 is a summary only and is qualified in all respects by the provisions of such agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.1 and is incorporated by reference herein.

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

The information in Item 1.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K is incorporated by reference into this Item 2.03.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d) Exhibits.

10.1 Fifth Amendment to Third Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of July 15, 2024, by and among 34th Street Funding, LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, U.S. Bank National Association and

CION Investment Management, LLC.

104 Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded within the Inline XBRL document).

Date: 07/18/2024 12:11 PM

Toppan Merrill

Project: 24-19565-1 Form Type: 8-K

Client: 24-19565-1_CION Investment Corporation_8-K

File: tm2419565d1_8k.htm Type: 8-KPg: 3 of 3

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

CON Investment Corporation

Date: July 18, 2024

By: /s/ Michael A. Reisner

Co-

Chief Executive Officer

Date: 07/18/2024 12:11 PM

Toppan Merrill

Project: 24-19565-1 Form Type: 8-K

Client: 24-19565-1_CION Investment Corporation_8-K

File: tm2419565d1_ex10-1.htmType: EX-10.1Pg: 1 of 128

Exhibit 10.1

Execution Version

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED LOAN AGREEMENT

This Fifth Amendment to the Third Amended and Restated Loan Agreement (this "Amendment"), dated as of July 15, 2024, is entered into by and among 34TH STREET FUNDING, LLC (the "Company"), JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as lender (the "Lender") and administrative agent (the "Administrative Agent"), U.S. BANK TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as successor in interest to U.S. Bank National Association, as collateral agent (in such capacity, the "Collateral Agent") and collateral administrator (in such capacity, the "Collateral Administrator"); U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as securities intermediary (in such capacity, the "Securities Intermediary") and CON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, as portfolio manager (the "Portfolio Manager"). Reference is hereby made to the Third Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, dated as of February 26, 2021 (as amended by the First Amendment, dated as of March 28, 2022, as amended by the Second Amendment, dated as of May 15, 2023, as amended by the Third Amendment, dated as of May 14, 2024, and as amended by the Fourth Amendment, dated as of June 17, 2024, the "Loan Agreement"), among the Company, the Lender, the Administrative Agent, the Collateral Agent, the Securities Intermediary, the Portfolio Manager and the Collateral Administrator. Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings assigned thereto in the Loan Agreement.

WHEREAS, the parties hereto are parties to the Loan Agreement;

WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the terms of the Loan Agreement in accordance with Section 10.05 thereof as provided for herein;

and

ACCORDINGLY, the Loan Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

SECTION 1.AMENDMENTS TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT.

The Loan Agreement is hereby amended to delete the stricken text (indicated textually in the same manner as the following example: stricken text) and to add the bold and double-underlined text (indicated textually in the same manner as the following example: bold and double-underlinedtext) as set forth on the pages of the Loan Agreement attached as Exhibit Ahereto. Exhibit Ahereto constitutes a conformed copy of the Loan Agreement.

SECTION 2.MISCELLANEOUS.

(a)The parties hereto hereby agree that, except as specifically amended herein, the Loan Agreement is and shall continue to be in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects. Except as specifically provided herein, the execution, delivery and effectiveness of this Amendment shall not operate as a waiver of any right, power or remedy of any party hereto under the Loan Agreement, or constitute a waiver of any provision of any other agreement.

(b)THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

(c)This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts by facsimile or other written form of communication, each of which shall be deemed to be an original as against any party whose signature appears thereon, and all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument.

1

Date: 07/18/2024 12:11 PM

Toppan Merrill

Project: 24-19565-1 Form Type: 8-K

Client: 24-19565-1_CION Investment Corporation_8-K

File: tm2419565d1_ex10-1.htmType: EX-10.1Pg: 2 of 128

(d)This Amendment shall be effective as of the date of this Amendment first written above.

(e)The Collateral Agent, Collateral Administrator and Securities Intermediary assume no responsibility for the correctness of the recitals contained herein, and the Collateral Agent, Collateral Administrator and Securities Intermediary shall not be responsible or accountable in any way whatsoever for or with respect to the validity, execution or sufficiency of this Amendment and makes no representation with respect thereto. In entering into this Amendment, the Collateral Agent, Collateral Administrator and Securities Intermediary shall be entitled to the benefit of every provision of the Loan Agreement relating to the conduct or affecting the liability of or affording protection to the Collateral Agent, Collateral Administrator and Securities Intermediary, including their right to be compensated, reimbursed and indemnified, whether or not elsewhere herein so provided. The Administrative Agent, by its signature hereto, authorizes and directs the Collateral Agent, Collateral Administrator and Securities Intermediary to execute this Amendment.

(f)(i) Each of the Portfolio Manager and the Company hereby certifies (solely as to itself) that all of its representations and warranties set forth in Section 6.01 of the Agreement are true and correct (or with respect to such representations and warranties which by their terms contain materiality qualifiers, shall be true and correct in all material respects), in each case on and as of the date hereof, except to the extent that such representations and warranties specifically refer to an earlier date, in which case they were true and correct (or with respect to such representations and warranties which by their terms contain materiality qualifiers, shall be true and correct in all material respects) as of such earlier date and (ii) the Company hereby certifies that, as of the date hereof, no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, no Market Value Event has occurred and the Borrowing Base Test is satisfied.

SECTION 3.CONDITIONS TO EFFECTIVENESS.

Go here to read the rest:
CION Investment : 8K-Fifth Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank - Marketscreener.com

Shillong, July 25: Union Home Minister, Amit Shah on Thursday assured the ten autonomous councils (ACs) and territorial councils (TCs) from the Northeast to resolve all their issues and concerns on the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Bill, 2019 which proposes to amend the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

While speaking to reporters after meeting the Union Home Minister in New Delhi, TIPRA Motha chief, Pradyot Kishore Manikya Debbarma said that the Union Home Minister has assured them that they will be addressing all the issues which they have raised by August 25.

According to him, the Union Home Minister also told them that any agreement or accord which was signed when another government was in place will be honoured because it is not an agreement by the BJP or Congress since it is being done by the Government of India.

We are happy because of the positive attitude of the Union Home Minister, he said.

Debbarma however observed that the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Bill, 2019 may be different for the Autonomous Councils (ACs) or Territorial Councils (TCs) in Meghalaya, Assam, Mizoram or Tripura.

But all our problems will be individually heard by a committee and will be addressed so that there is a solution which is amicable. The most important thing is we do not want to have a confrontation. We want to give rights to our people and community. This is how we progress and we will welcome it in a positive manner, TIPRA Motha chief.

Meanwhile, KHADC CEM, Pyniaid Sing Syiem informed that the committee which will be formed by the ministry will be headed by Union Home Minister of State, Nityanand Rai. We are happy with the positive outcome of the meeting, Syiem said.

He also informed that the forum of the ten ACs and TCs of the NE will again meet in Shillong on August 10 to further deliberate on the various issues relating to the proposed amendment of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. The KHADC CEM also informed that the meeting with the Union Home Minister lasted for more than 30 minutes.

Here is the original post:
Amit Shah assures NE tribal council to resolve issues through 125th Constitution Amendment Bill - The Shillong Times

As former President Donald J. Trumps criminal trial winds down, a center-left group is trying to goad the Republican presidential candidate into testifying.

Take the stand, Donald, or admit youre a coward, blares a new ad from the group, Third Way, which highlights Mr. Trumps past comment that if youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

The five-figure digital ad buy is running in all the places Trump will be, said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way. He said the spot would run in New York, especially around Trump Tower and the courthouse, Mar-a-Lago, and in Dallas near the National Rifle Association meeting where Mr. Trump is expected to speak on Saturday.

He has talked tough for years about how only guilty people and mobsters take the Fifth, Mr. Bennett said. Now it appears hes going to do that himself, and we wanted to remind him of that and see if we could taunt him into testifying, frankly, because it might not go well for him if he did that.

Mr. Trumps lawyers told the judge Thursday that he had yet to decide whether he would testify. Mr. Trump has invoked the Fifth Amendment before.

Mr. Trump is charged in this trial with falsifying 34 business records related to the reimbursement of a hush-money payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels. He has denied the charges.

The ad buy was first reported by Politico.

See original here:
New Ad Taunts Trump: 'Take the Stand, Donald, or Admit You're a Coward' - The New York Times

The legal battle between VANDA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the United States government provides guidance onthe minimum requirements that the government must meet to protect trade secrets provided during the regulatory approval process for pharmaceuticals. The case, which involves alleged unlawful disclosure of trade secrets by government officials to generic drug competitors, presents several issues of first impression.

VANDA did not assert a trade secret misappropriation claim, but rather asserted a Fifth Amendment takings claim. (VANDAs breach of implied-in-fact contract claim was dismissed). At the core of the case are two of Vandas brand-name drugs, Fanapt and Hetlioz. VANDA claimed that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials improperly shared the companys trade secret and confidential manufacturing information with generic competitors by disclosure through the review process for generic drug manufacturers proposed competing products. VANDA alleges that the disclosure not only breached the FDAs duty of confidentiality with VANDA, but also resulted in considerable economic harm to the company and violated the statute preventing the unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets by federal government officials who obtain that information in the course of their official duties. 18 USC 1905.

On January 18, 2024, the court denied the governments motion to dismiss regarding the Fifth Amendment takings claim. The court stated that the FDAs review and approval of NDAs falls squarely within the scope of the federal agencys statutorily authorized duties. Furthermore, unlawful acts are not per se unauthorized for purposes of engaging in a Fifth Amendment takings analysis, and can still be imputed to the government. In other words, even if the government employees acts eventually were found to be unlawful, the actions could still constitute unauthorized taking by the agency. The court declined to determine if this was a per se or regulatory taking at this stage.

The Court also left open the question of whether VANDA even had any trade secret or proprietary rights in the disclosed information. As the legal proceedings unfold, VANDAs confrontation with the U.S. government will impact how trade secrets are handled within the pharmaceutical industrys regulatory framework, and what remedies are available to future plaintiffs.

See the original post:
VANDA Pharmaceuticals States a Fifth Amendment Claim against the Government for Taking a Trade Secret - Trade Secrets Trends

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

Excerpt from:
Judge will not allow Michigan school shooter to testify in mother's trial if he invokes the Fifth Amendment - AppleValleyNewsNow.com

by Dennis Crouch

Shamoon v. Resideo Technologies, Inc., No. 2021-1813 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2023) (opinion by Judge Newman; joined by Judges Reyna, and Cunningham) (non-precedential)

Charles Shamoon is the inventor and owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,064,935. The patentrelates to a remote access system that allows users to monitor and control environmental devices like alarm and HVAC systems in their home using a base control unit and a remote unit. Resideo challenged the patent in a pair of IPR petitions, and the PTAB eventually found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of two/three prior art references.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed and rejected Shamoons three challenges.

The claims require a microcontroller, and Shamoon argued that the term should be construed as requiring a particular type of microcontroller that included certain memory elements. That narrowed definition might have helped Shamoon avoid the prior art. But, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTABs broad claim construction of microcontroller finding that it was broadly used both in the claims and the specification.

Some of the claims required a confirmation message be sent once an instruction had been executed, and Shamoon argued that the prior art failed to teach a confirmation message related to an environmental device command. On appeal though, the court found that it was proper to combine the teaching of a confirmation message from a reference not related to environmental devices. Because Oinonen and Whitley disclose the environmental devices and commands, it does not avail Mr. Shamoon to complain that Menard does not. Slip Opinion. Shamoons argument here

Finally, Shamoon argued that applying AIA proceedings to his pre-AIA patent wasimpermissible taking by the United States without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court quickly rejected this argument based upon its prior precedent in Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.).

Link:
Shamoon v. Resideo: Obviousness affirmed - Patently-O

A family whose ranch would be impacted by a bridge proposed over the Little Missouri River near Medora is suing Billings County, opening a new chapter in the yearslong battle in the western North Dakota Badlands.

Members of the family that owns the Short Ranch filed the lawsuitagainst Billings County and its commissioners in federal court.The lawsuit alleges a breach of contract and an improper deployment of what it said is an inevitable use of eminent domain in the countys actions pertaining to the project. Eminent domain is the taking of private land for public use with just compensation.

The Billings County Commission is composed of Lester Iverson, Steven Klym and Dean Rodne. The three commissioners did not immediately respond to the Tribunes requests for comment Aug. 3. County States Attorney Patrick Weir declined comment.

The proposed bridge that would run through the Short ranch has been in the works since 2006, according to attorneys for the family.

The county has said the bridge would provide reliability for emergency services, commerce, recreation and public travel.Public safety officials have supported the proposal in the past. Current Billings County Sheriff Dean Wykoffhas saidhe supports a bridge but opposes the use of eminent domain to build it.

The Short family believes the bridge would primarily benefit oil companies, according to their legal documents. They argue that the needs listed by the county can be fulfilled elsewhere.

If the county needs a bridge for public use, it needs to be built on public land and there is an incredible abundance of suitable public land for a bridge in Billings County, plaintiff David Short told the Tribune.

Current bridges over the Little Missouriare at Medora on Interstate 94 and south of Watford City on U.S. Highway 85. There are 18 unimproved private fords and one unimproved public ford that are used by some vehicles to cross the river, according to an environmental impact statement done in accordance with the National Environmental Protection Actas a requirement for building on anything under federal jurisdiction.

After the completion of the EIS in 2018 the Short family publicly opposed the project. They filed a lawsuit against the Federal Highway Administration, the agency that conducted the study, and also sued the County Commission when it intervened in the FHWA suit and voted to condemn parts of the Short ranch in 2020.

Plans for the bridge were seeminglyendedin 2021 whenthe commissionvoted 2-1 to scrap the project and not use eminent domain to secure the land. The Shorts dropped their case after they reached an agreement with the county that it would not pursue eminent domain or any legal action to take the Shorts' land, according to legal filings.

Plaintiff Sandy Short arguesthat most Billings County residents are opposed to the use of eminent domain.

Our family has cared for and protected this land for over a century, even while Congressman Don Short represented the State of North Dakota in Washington D.C., she told the Tribune. Taking it away from us now by the abusive power of eminent domain is wrong, it's un-American.

The deciding vote was flipped after then-County Commissioner MikeKasian lost his seat on the board to Klym in 2022.

Billings County opened up easement agreements again earlier this year, formally extending them on June 23 and offering $20,000 per acre for easements on the 30-acre ranch along with other temporary easements for construction. The countys previous offer had been $2,500 per acre with other construction-related easements.

Lawyers for the Short family argue this move is a breach of the agreement the family signed with the county in which the family would drop its previous lawsuits in exchange for the county stopping the pursuit of easements or eminent domain on the Shorts' land.

Derrick Braaten, one of the attorneys who filed the case, argued that this would mean agreements that the county signs with third parties would be subject to the whims of an election.

The Shorts' attorneys also argue that the use of eminent domain byBillings County is inevitable given the actions of the commissioners and the position of the family. They said this would be an improper use of the procedure, violating the Shorts' Fifth Amendment rights as well as North Dakota law.The Fifth Amendment states that private property can't be taken for public use without just compensation.

The lawyers question the extent to which the bridge serves public use and argue that due process has not been followed -- requirements for eminent domain.

There are exceptions to eminent domain, said Tim Purdon, who filed the suit with Braaten. The government doesnt always win in eminent domain cases.

See the original post:
Billings County sued over eminent domain as bridge dispute rekindles - Bismarck Tribune

On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued what most would consider an unremarkable decision, Tyler v. Hennepin County, ___ U.S.____, 143 S.Ct. 1369 (2023), which concluded that the Minnesota tax sale law resulted in an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The taking occurred as a result of the state tax sale law which allowed the county (the Minnesota taxing authority) to retain the owners equity in the real property beyond the amount to satisfy the outstanding taxes. By reason of the Tyler decision, Minnesota will be required to rewrite its tax sale law to permit owners to recover equity in real estate beyond the amount to pay the taxes.

While Tyler would at first blush seem to have a localized effect, the ripples are already being felt in New Jersey, which utilizes a similar tax sale system as the one used in Minnesota. The ripple was first evidenced in an unpublished Appellate Division decision, PC7 REOv. Johnson, No. A-1274-21, issued on June 9, 2023. In Johnson, the court considered whether there existed a basis to overturn a trial court decision in which the trial court refused to vacate a final judgment in tax foreclosure pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:50-1. The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court that the owner had failed to establish a basis to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 4:50-1(a) for mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. The Appellate Division noted, however, that the trial court had failed to consider the owners argument for vacation of the judgment pursuant to Rule 4:50-1(f) for any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment or order. The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had decided Tyler days after the trial court ruled in Johnson. In light of Tyler, the Appellate Division concluded that the owners argument that the judgment should be vacated pursuantto Rule 4:50-1(f) must be reassessed to consider whether the tax sale certificate holder, PC7, stands to gain an unconscionable windfall by obtaining equity in the property beyond that necessary to redeem the certificate.Id. *5. After detailing the expansive equitable purpose of Rule 4:50-1(f), to avoid a grave injustice, (Id. citing US Bank Natl Assn v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 484 (2012)), the court concluded:

Read more here:
'Tyler' and a Call for Reform of the New Jersey Tax Foreclosure ... - Law.com

Two amusing phrases from yesterdays news provide a wonderful opportunity to talk about how Trump will continue to manipulate his prosecution.

First, Peter Navarro continues to seek ways to stall his long-delayed trial on contempt charges, which is scheduled to start next month. In advance of his trial, Judge Amit Mehta has granted him an evidentiary hearing so Navarro can attempt to prove that the former President told him to invoke both testimonial immunity and executive privilege, as Trump did with Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino (which is almost certainly a big part of why they werent charged with contempt).

When granting Navarro the hearing, though, Mehta noted that Navarro has thus far not presented any evidence that Trump told him not to testify, and hell need to find formal evidence.

[T]he court does not at this time prejudge what type or manner of instruction from President Trump might suffice to constitute a formal assertion of privilege or immunity. See United States v. Navarro, No. 22-cr-200 (APM), 2023 WL 371968, at *23 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2023). The court previously left that question unanswered because Defendant had not come forward with any evidence of a presidential invocation. Id.; Jan. Hrg Tr. at 12. Defendants burden will include showing that the claimed instruction to invoke was a formal one.

Now, Navarro is attempting to delay both hearings because LizHarrington, Trumps spox, is due to give birth.

The first two filings in this dispute (Navarro, DOJ) included redacted bits and exhibits explaining how Trumps spokesperson could prove that Trump invoked testimonial immunity and executive privilege, though DOJ did make clear that they believe Harringtons testimony is inadmissible. Navarros response provides more detail: He wants Harrington to describe how he wrote a press statement she could release claiming Trump had invoked executive privilege (but not testimonial immunity).

Along the way, he reveals that Harrington testified to the grand jury and DOJ believes his proffer of her testimony materially conflicts with what DOJ locked her into saying.

Its clear from the Governments Opposition that it would prefer that Ms. Harrington not testify at the evidentiary hearing.1 Although it claims that her testimony is generally speaking not in dispute, it challenges its relevance of the calls she had with Dr. Navarro and the email she received from him on February 9, 2022, the day the J6 Committee served its subpoena. Opp. n.1. Standing alone, Ms. Harringtons testimony does not prove that former President Trump instructed Dr. Navarro to assert executive privilege in response to the Committees subpoena. But the testimony is corroborative of other evidence including Dr. Navarros anticipated testimony that he was following President Trumps instructions when he notified the Committee that it should negotiate the privilege issue with its holder.2

Ms. Harrington will explain that after being served with the subpoena, Dr. Navarro called her and then followed up by sending the media statement he planned to publicly issue that day. The statement explained that President Trump had asserted executive privilege and noted that the J6 Committee should negotiate any waiver of the privilege with his attorneys and him. Ms. Harrington conveyed the statement to two of President Trumps administrative assistants and, later that day, Dr. Navarro publicly released the statement. See Defense Exhibit 7

1 In its zeal to prosecute Dr. Navarro and keep Ms. Harrington from testifying, the Government has implicitly threatened her with perjury if she intends to testify inconsistent with her grand jury testimony and that she must first waive her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself. Opp. at 3. This assertion is at odds with long-standing precedent that: Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Governments right to ask questions lying is not one of them, United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 178 (1977), and so, [e]ven constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment privileges do not exonerate affirmative false statements. United States v. North, 708 F. Supp. 380, 383 (D.D.C. 1988) (citing Wong, 431 U.S. at 178). Regardless of whether Ms. Harrington could assert the Fifth Amendment to avoid what the government submits would be perjured testimony, the reality is that Mr. Harringtons anticipated testimony is wholly consistent with her grand jury testimony the government just failed to ask probative follow up questions of her at the time.

Then, Navarros lawyers the lawyer he shares with Kash Patel and Walt Nauta, Stan Woodward, the lawyer he shares with Carlos De Oliveira, John Irving, and the lawyer he used to share with Trump himself, John Rowley attempt to disclaim simply using Harringtons pregnancy as an excuse for delay.

The Government alleges without any basis that Dr. Navarros request for continuance of the hearing is strategic and done for improper reasons. Opp. at 1-2. Leaving aside the personal attack on defense counsel, there is no plausible strategic reason for the request and the Government provides none Ms. Harringtons pregnancy is not effected by the timing of the filing of Dr. Navarros motion. No prejudice to the Government would result from a short continuance and it would be fundamentally unfair to Dr. Navarro to deny calling Ms. Harrington as a witness on his behalf. [my emphasis]

But along the way, because they used effected instead of affected, they literally deny that the act of filing Navarros motion did not cause Harringtons pregnancy.

Im sure it didnt.

But it also appears to be the case that DOJ locked Harrington who may be the only one in Trumps camp that Navarro spoke to during the period when he was subpoenaed into testimony about the substance of their communication. And now Navarro is trying to admit his own hearsay to prove that Trump, absent any written filing, told Navarro to invoke both testimonial immunity (of which theres no known evidence) and to raise executive privilege in the same informal way he did with Steve Bannon, which did not work for Bannon at trial but which is the substance of his appeal.

Mehta has called a pre-hearing hearing late this afternoon to sort all this out.

That phrase Ms. Harringtons pregnancy is not effected by the timing of the filing of Dr. Navarros motion would have been my favorite Trump-related phrase yesterday, if not for the description of Boris Epshteyn in this story of how he allegedly molested two women after getting drunk and belligerent at a bar in Scottsdale in 2021.

We have a high tolerance of people like being weird, but that went above and beyond, she said, adding that the man grabbed the women about 10 times. I was like, stop touching my sister. Stop touching me. Stop touching my friends.

Police asked the older sister to describe Epshteyn.

Fat, ugly, like drooping face. White Ralph Lauren Polo, she said. Like fatter Tony Soprano.

An officer asked: Would you be willing to press charges?

She responded: Yes. (Expletive) that guy.

The NYT including Maggie Haberman had reported directly from the arrest report in a beat sweetener burying this and even more damning criminal exposure earlier this year, but had left out the fat part.

Im using the phrase Like fatter Tony Soprano as my excuse to pick up an observation that William Ockham made yesterday about DOJs proposed schedule for a Trump trial on the January 6 charges.

Furthermore, the defendant and his counsel have long been aware of details of the Governments investigation leading to his indictment, having had first contact with Government counsel in June 2022. Indeed, at his initial appearance, the defendant was accompanied by an attorney familiar with certain relevant pre-indictment information. In sum, the defendant has a greater and more detailed understanding of the evidence supporting the charges against him at the outset of this criminal case than most defendants, and is ably advised by multiple attorneys, including some who have represented him in this matter for the last year.

In addition to noting that Trumps attorneys have been aware of the course of this investigation because of repeated contacts with prosecutors going back to June 2022 including Executive Privilege challenges to the testimony of Marc Short, Greg Jacob, Pat Cipollone, Pat Philbin, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, Robert OBrien, Ken Cuccinelli, and Mike Pence it also noted that an attorney familiar with certain relevant pre-indictment information accompanied him to his arraignment.

I agree with Ockhams supposition that thats a reference to Boris like fatter Tony Soprano Epshteyn. Boris attended the arraignment as he has some or all of Trumps but was not an attorney of record.

Back in April, before Rudy or Mike Roman or Bernie Kerik did so, Boris spent two days in interviews with Jack Smith and his prosecutors in what the press got told was a proffer.

The interview was largely focused on the efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn Trumps 2020 election loss. The second day of questioning was planned in advance, the sources said.

Epshteyn did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

Prosecutors questions focused around Epshteyns interactions with former Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Kenneth Chesebro and John Eastman, in addition to Trump himself, according to sources.

If the allusion in the proposed schedule is a reference to Epshteyns interviews, it confirms my general suspicion that Smith is using proffers as a way to get key subjects of the investigation on the record, rather than necessarily flipping them. It suggests that Smith is willing to show a few of the cards he has at least on the prosecution focused largely on facts that were already public last year in order to lock key subjects in on their testimony, just as DOJ would have been doing with Liz Harringtons grand jury appearance.

But because Todd Blanche is an attorney of record for both Trump and Boris, this proffer would have been an especially obvious way for Trump to obtain information about the prosecution against him. In both the January 6 case and the stolen documents one, Boris is playing both a suspected co-conspirator and advisor on how to blow up the prosecution for political gain.

And that is why, I suspect, DOJ is being so particular about whether volunteer attorneys might include co-conspirators who also happen to be lawyers.

Without a clearly defined relationship of employment or privilege, this language is boundless. For example, several co-conspirators are identified as attorneys, whom the defense might interpret as other attorneys assisting counsel of record. The Court should not accept the edit.

The method to both of these defense ploys is the same. It rests on an inter-locking and wildly conflicted set of attorney relationships to create in first instance an omert leading many key witnesses to give partial testimony which, as both cases, plus Navarros, move toward trial, will evolve into an effort to rework existing sworn testimony to create some flimsy story for Trump or Navarro to use to attempt to stay out of prison. This is what DOJ has spent much of the last 14 months preparing for: Trumps attempt to move the goalposts once he discovered how much of the truth prosecutors had uncovered.

Its not, just, that DOJ has to try the former President in at least two venues, an already unprecedented task. Its that the entire criminal gang is gambling that if they just get beyond the election, any and all lies can be excused in a wave of pardons like Trump used to escape his Russian exposure.

Update: CNNs Katelyn Polantz suggested that the reference to lawyer accompanying Trump may be Evan Corcoran. Corcoran was a part of all the sealed proceedings going back 9 months.

Read the original post:
"Like fatter Tony Soprano Attending the Arraignment and "Effect[ing ... - Emptywheel

Since the horrific mass shootings in the neighborhood off of Edgewood Road and the recent homicide in Bywater Mutual Homes community last week, I have received numerous telephone calls as to what will I do to bring the community together to stop the violence.

These senseless killings have touched all of us in different ways. It has caused our families distress, tears, mental health issues and of all things, the loss of life.

As a minister, Im reminded of the scripture from 1 Peter 2:1 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, Gods special possession

Some of you might disagree with me as a United Methodist Minister, but the word Im focusing on is God, as we are all Gods children but with rules, principalities and government, we have some different God. We find ourselves in a world trying to analyze who God is. The purpose of this article is for the listening ears of all clergy, it does not matter your denomination, your belief or unbelief.

I believe there is much unrest within the bounds of clergy, your theology, your understanding of God and your protective territory in which you serve. Im asking you to surrender to the will of God, which is love, the love of self and your neighbor.

I cannot do this thing of ministry alone; Im soliciting your support in a meeting to talk about what we can do as a unified body to reconstruct the brokenness in our communities. Our children should feel safe playing on the playgrounds within their community and what can we offer to the parents of these children. Please, let us stop our different of theology and accept the olive branch, we can accomplish more as a body than a few persons.

Many of you question my relationship with the Annapolis Police Department and yes, I am a chaplain and work closely with Chief Edward Jackson, in whom I am inspired by with his leadership. He has issued a short-term initiative that commenced on July 14 and will continue for eight weeks ending on Sept. 7.

The plan consists of three Initiatives that require overtime expenditures for plan initiation. Included with this plan is a list of the departments long-term goal initiatives and a summary of our overall efforts to combat crime. The mayor and city council have given their approval of this plan and have given Jackson their support.

Yes, I will continue my ministry in and outside the walls of the sanctuary in which I serve. Im soliciting your support in the gathering of a meeting of discussion to improve the lives of the people in whom we serve.

Minister Walter Smith has been my support anchor and is a blessing. We have talked about where is the faith community leaders and dialogue on how we can rebuild the breach which is in need of repair.

I look forward to hearing from you to schedule a meeting to get your input. This communication is for all faith-based leaders and is not determined by denominations. My email address is jwesley2114@yahoo.com and cell phone is 443.822.5537; Minister Smith can be reached at waltsmith561@gmail.com and 443.881.6079.

Rev. S. Jerry Colbert, Annapolis

UM Minister & APD Chaplain

The Anne Arundel County Board of Education had a hearing on June 26 and heard comments from the community about the display of flags in classrooms.

Fox 45 had a news crew on site for that BOE hearing. Its evening show reported on the controversy and after the show sent out a poll to viewers. It showed 92% of those polled agreed that only the American state and county flags should be displayed in public school classrooms.

So, the vast majority of the public wants only U.S., state and county flags displayed, but this school board, with the backing of the activist teachers union, voted down the policy proposal and will continue to fly the pride flags in county classrooms.

At the May BOE hearing, an Anne Arundel County elementary school teacher testified that she felt compelled to discuss gender issues with the young students in her classroom.

At the June Pride March in New York City, the marchers chanted Were here, were queer, were coming for your children.

While he was organizing a Drag Queen Story Hour for children as young as 3 years old, Drag Queen Dylan Pontiff stated, We are trying to groom the next generation.

Characters such as the Genderbread Person and the Gender Unicorn are being presented in schools across the country and in childrens books in public libraries.

This leads to confusion in the childrens minds, distracts them from learning the core subjects to allow them to thrive in the world and global economy.

The 2022 U.S. News and World Report ranking of high schools shows that Anne Arundel Countys school rankings have dropped markedly since the last ranking in 2020.

So, what is the end game? Connect the dots. Children are presented with discussions on gender year after year under the pride flag. They become confused and distracted leading to psychological gender dysphoria. Tragically, many of the children eventually consider hormones or surgical procedures.

A Swedish 30-year longitudinal study has found that after 10 years of gender transition, the suicide rate of transgender re-assignment is 19 times the norm.

The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act requires that schools allow parents to inspect and review their childs education records as long as the child is under 18.

Rather than dismissing this position as extremism, it is a practical statement of the common-sense facts in front of all to see.

Parents, please pay very close attention to what is being presented to your children.

Michael Vernon, Crownsville

The just-announced legal settlement with the family of Henrietta Lacks by Thermo Fisher Scientific for the companys commercialization of her cervical tissue is not only a step toward racial justice, but it may also help secure reproductive rights.

Although the settlement is out-of-court, the outcome of the case confirms existing court rulings that hold our bodily tissues and organs to be our property under American law.

It follows from this that government seizure, control and use of our organs for public purposes is regulated by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It prohibits the seizure of property without compensation.

Restrictions on abortions imposed by states after the courts reversal of Roe v Wade, therefore, violate the Fifth Amendment. Abortion bans effectively seize control of womens wombs for the duration of pregnancy without compensation to achieve the public purpose of bringing a fetus to full term.

Any woman incurring costs and suffering injury because of these restrictions has grounds to sue for state compensation for the taking of property. They could be joined in legal action by health insurers that bear some of these costs or sued by survivors of any woman who died as a result.

Suits based on this reasoning are likely to succeed. Conservative justices reject the privacy-right basis of Roe because it is implied and not part of the Constitutions text. They cannot ignore the explicit plain-text meaning of the Fifth Amendment. This is especially true given that these same justices have urged the court to embrace a more expansive interpretation of the Takings Clause.

If pro-choice organizations pursue this legal route, they might not be able to guarantee reproductive freedom, but they can make states that restrict this freedom pay dearly for seizing control of womens organs.

Thomas Woodward, Arnold

Congratulations and thanks to Anne Arundel County, the VA Maryland Health Care System and the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs that organized and hosted the PACT Act Veterans Claims Clinic & VA Health Care Enrollment Fair at Anne Arundel Community College on July 26.

This was a first for Anne Arundel County. Many thanks to the county executive for his support and to Department of Aging and Disabilities staff who participated. Thanks to the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs, the County Veterans Affairs Commission, and the many other organizations that participated that day. The venue was the Anne Arundel Community College (Student Union). An estimated 120 veterans registered to attend, though more arrived who had not registered (and were helped).

Initial reactions from both sides of the table recognize the event was well-organized and well-run, and a repeat in the future is recommended. This was not only a great opportunity for veterans to file claims, but also a great opportunity for county organizations to learn how they interact with one another. Attendance exceeded expectations!

John Church, Davidsonville

Colonel, USAF Ret

The news is full of stories of wildfires followed by the typical alarmist pronouncements about climate change. But during the last two decades satellites have recorded fires across the planet and data from NASA shows the area burned each year has been decreasing since 2002. In that year it was over 3%, but it hit a new record low of 2.2% in 2022.

The Hoover Institution at Stanford University reports that last year the acreage burned by fires in the U.S. was just one-fifth that which burned annually in the 1930s.

Fortunately, most people are now becoming aware that the climate problem has been over-hyped. While global warming is a real challenge, most are not willing to support the incredibly expensive policies proposed by green politicians.

The Armageddon claims are intended to scare us into accepting these expensive policies that will have only a negligible, if any, real impact upon the world.

Worse still, anyone who claims otherwise is labeled a flat-earther or otherwise ridiculed and subject to cancelation. Even Nobel Prize winning physicist Dr. John Clauser was censored for daring to say, In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. He added that the problem of providing energy to the worlds growing population is a crisis that is unnecessarily exacerbated by incorrect climate science.

Sensible discussion and debate are needed. With the media exulting the alarmists and ignoring anyone who contradicts them, I am not hopeful that we will get it.

Charles Muskin, Arnold

Deale Beach residents, be aware of your Property Tax Bill. You will see that you have been charged $471.17 dollars by your Home Owners Association. The $75 you were paying has now SUBSTANTIALLY increased.

You can contact your HOA through email at dealebeach@gmail.com to receive an excuse of why we are being more or less bribed into paying the amount. Because if you dont pay your Property Tax Bill, the county can step in and issue a fine, or threaten to sell your property to pay the tax you owe.

A review of the Budget Request Form of Expenditures showed no mention or warning of this large amount of fees to be charged to our Property Tax Bill.

The HOA says the money is to repair our very small bulkhead, and a few ramp repairs.

If they accrue $471.17 from 181 residents that amount would be $85,280. And the HOA has $11,500 in reserve funds. No one debates not keeping our small community in a proper condition, but to increase HOA fees by quadruple is someones extremely in poor judgment.

Also, when a member of the committee issues derogatory statements to another member, who dissented from the vote to increase the fees, it makes us wonder about the professionalism of the officers.

And one last comment: The HOA might continue to charge this amount or increase it in the future.

I would welcome anyone who could help with having these fees reduced significantly.

Vicki Marsh, Deale

Read more here:
Call to faith-based leaders to help end violence; Parents need to pay ... - Capital Gazette