Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

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

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

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

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

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d) Exhibits.

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

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

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

LMPD Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly speaks out in exclusive interview

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

ABC NEWS/The Courier Journal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louisville Courier Journal

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

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

His criticisms of the mayor include that Fischer:

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

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

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

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

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

LMPD body camera footage shows chaos after Breonna Taylor shooting

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

Jeff Faughender, Louisville Courier Journal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Photo by Nic Antaya/Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

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

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

He met with New Orleans and Carolina on Monday.

Watson has a no-trade clause in his contract.

It is not clear what the Browns will offer.

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

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

Aaron Wilson (@AaronWilson_NFL) March 13, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

Charles Robinson (@CharlesRobinson) March 14, 2022

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

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

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

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

Jen Steer (@jensteer) March 14, 2022

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

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

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

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

Mary Kay Cabot (@MaryKayCabot) March 15, 2022

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

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

Chris Burke (@ChrisBurkeNFL) March 14, 2022

This is one of many topics to watch today.

Happy Tuesday Browns Fans!

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

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

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

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

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

LEAH MILLIS / REUTERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reading Time: 12 minutes

This story was originally published by ProPublica. Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit newsroom that focuses on government integrity and quality of life issues. Sign up for ournewsletterfor more stories straight to your inbox.

After the judge in her Wisconsin divorce case ruled that her ex-husband a man who had sought treatment for anger and alcohol issues would get legal custody of and equal time with their four children, Julie Valadez vowed to fight back.

But in every key ruling that followed, the Waukesha County Circuit Court judge overseeing her case, Michael J. Aprahamian, found Valadezs concerns about her ex-husband not credible and her actions unacceptable. Aprahamian took away her ability to co-parent her children. He held her in contempt four times. And after Aprahamian ordered her arrest, she braced herself for jail.

Valadez, whose accusations of domestic abuse had led to her husbands arrest, ran through a string of attorneys and represented herself at times. Eventually she found a Milwaukee civil rights attorney to represent her, along with a public defender, and enlisted the help of a Washington, D.C., legal service for domestic violence survivors.

And in recent weeks, with a pair of rare appeals court victories and Aprahamians decision to remove himself from the case, Valadez has found reason to hope that better days are ahead for her and her children.

Appellate reversals in these kinds of cases are unusual, in part because of the time and money it takes to pursue them. Valadezs case provides a window into the largely unexplored world of family court, the appeals process and the problems encountered by women who say theyve been victims of domestic abuse.

A common concern in these situations is that family courts will favor shared custody even if one parent says the other is abusive, sometimes misapplying the law and forcing long, expensive legal battles.ProPublica reported in September on another womans lengthy family court ordeal, which also took place in Wisconsins Waukesha County, but before a different judge. That story explored how Wisconsin courts, in working to give fathers equal parenting rights, often fail to deal with the complexities that arise in these cases and downplay womens concerns about their own safety and that of their children.

State systems, according to womens advocates, often put mothers who survived domestic violence at a disadvantage, liable to be seen as noncooperative when the court seeks some sort of compromise.

Valadez, believing that her case was being mishandled, went to great lengths to be heard while also fending off accusations that she was unruly or was somehow failing to do whats best for her children.

Then, late last year, Valadez won her state appeal challenging Aprahamians custody decision on the basis that Ricardo Valadez, her former husband, had not completed the legally required treatment for domestic abusers. In its rebuke, the state Court of Appeals in Waukesha County found Aprahamian had failed to explicitly apply the proper legal standard required in cases involving domestic abuse.

The court stated in its Dec. 29 opinion that the judge read words into the statute that are not there and ignored words that are there. It ordered Aprahamian to reconsider the Valadez decision.

In the wake of that ruling, a January court session drew several spectators from the community: mothers who wore #Julie4Change T-shirts, a reference to a website Julie Valadez set up to bring attention to her legal quest.

But from the bench, Aprahamian declined to immediately alter the custody arrangement. The two sides were ordered to appear in court again at a later date.

Why do we have to wait that long? Valadez whispered to her attorney.

Weeks later, in early February, Valadez won at the appellate level again, as the court found that the judge had erred when he held her in contempt for emailing him after he had told her not to, failing to sign a release of records and refusing to undergo a psychological exam.

The contempt charges were a reflection of the tense atmosphere inside the court and how Valadezs own actions have come under heavy scrutiny.

Ricardo Valadezs lawyer has said that Julie Valadez has made unsubstantiated claims against her ex-husband and undermined the relationship between father and children. Guardians ad litem appointed by the court to determine the best interests of the children also have generally favored her ex-husband and supported the idea that Julie Valadez is being unreasonable. The judge, meanwhile, described her as disruptive and unwilling to follow his instructions.

Aprahamian has since acquiesced to her request for a new judge and is now off the case. He said he could not discuss the case with ProPublica.Ricardo Valadez, through his attorney, also declined to comment.

The victories have given Julie Valadez a measure of satisfaction, but they have yet to produce the desired effect: Shes still separated by court order from her four children, ages 8 to 16. The next hearing is set for Thursday.

Its been torture, Valadez said of the legal battle thats been going on since 2018 and now includes more than 800 documents. I dont even know what will happen to our family; its truly horrifying.

Julie Valadez was a bride at 19 and a mother at 21. Her husband was 27 when they married. He studied to become a pastor and also sold life insurance.

They had three more children over their 16-year union, and Julie spent her days taking care of the brood and doing volunteer work. Two of the children are autistic, and she primarily handled the doctors appointments and school schedule and arranged for help from behavioral therapists, life-skill helpers and outside specialists.

In court papers, she described enduring her husbands intimidating and violent outbursts, property damage, verbal insultsand alcohol abuse.In about 2014 she took refuge for a couple of days at a domestic violence shelter, her husband acknowledged on the witness stand. She then returned home.

The Valadez marriage hit a breaking point in December 2017 when, according to a criminal complaint, Ricardo Valadez came home drunk, yelled and cursed at his wife for being on her cellphone and smashed an iron to pieces. Officers with the City of Waukesha Police Department found him visibly intoxicated, handcuffed him and took him out of the house.

He was formally charged months later, in May 2018, with one count of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor classified as domestic abuse.It later was downgraded to a municipal ordinance violation after he started participating in counseling.

At one point, Ricardo Valadez described his therapy sessions in criminal court, saying: I cried, and I dealt with my alcohol issues. We dealt with my anger issues. We dealt with, obviously, my whole life changing, no longer in a marriage and seeing my children as much as I wanted to see my children.

He added, I continue to do counseling just because I want to improve myself as a person. I want to be a better dad, obviously providing for my children.

He pleaded no contest and paid a fine.

By then, Julie Valadez had filed for divorce and secured a restraining order against him, describing incidents of stalking, harassment and violence, according to court records. He always has threatened me if I was to ever leave him, she wrote in her request for the restraining order. He has said a number of times that he would kill me; and if I was ever with someone else, hed kill them.

At one point during the divorce, Valadez said, she abandoned her home and moved with her children to a protected address under Wisconsins Safe at Home program.

Wisconsins family law prizes cooperation between exes, but the law anticipates that interaction between parents in abusive relationships can present a dangerous, if not lethal, situation.

The law instructs court-appointed attorneys for children, called guardians ad litem, to investigate possible domestic abuse in families and then advise judges on their findings. A 2021 study by the University of Wisconsin, however, found that guardians ad litem typically dont have enough resources for evidence collection or expert help, and they lack training about domestic abuse.

Julie Valadez has argued in her case that the initial guardian ad litem did not investigate the abusive dynamics in her marriage; she alleged that a second such attorney, appointed later during the appeal, dragged her and her ex back into court over parenting issues after the custody decision, even though neither parent had filed a motion requesting circuit court intervention about the children.

As the case wore on, Julie Valadez exasperated the court officials, including the guardians ad litem and the judge. Aprahamian deemed some of her allegations about her ex-husband vindictive and picayune.

As a result of her complaints, police arrested her ex-husband twice for allegedly violating the restraining order once after he sent her reproachful electronic messages about money and once after he stepped inside the house when she wasnt there to bring a child to a school bus. Ricardo Valadez was not prosecuted for entering the home and was found not guilty of violating the restraining order for sending the messages.

Kurt M. Schuster, Ricardos attorney, accused Julie in court filings of creating an unsettling environment for her children. I dont think shes capable of putting her childrens best interest above her own, Schuster said in an interview.

To Julie Valadez, the notion that she has benefited in any way from the custody battle is laughable. For instance, she said, she took a huge financial hit when she left the large house that her husband was making payments on for an apartment she had to pay for.

It was a disaster for me, she said. I lost everything.

The Valadez divorce trial, in early 2020, lasted five days.

Julie Valadez testified in detail about her allegations of abusive behavior by her husband. She recalled one incident in which she said he was very drunk and being aggressive verbally and physically as they struggled over car keys and another in which she said he grabbed her arm to the point where it hurt and left red marks. She testified that he threatened her, saying she would regret leaving him and he would make me pay for this.

She described for the judge outbursts by her husband where, she said, he punched holes in the walls of their homes. He had punched them next to my head or he kicked a hole in the wall, she said in court.

While on the stand, Ricardo Valadez refused to answer certain pointed questions about his wifes allegations of domestic violence, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.The questions included: Isnt it true you have physically hurt Miss Valadez?

Aprahamian issued a 34-page decision in April 2020.

He agreed with recommendations by a court-appointed social worker and the first guardian ad litem that the couple exchange the children weekly. The handoffs were to be done at a police station.

Shared legal custody, however, was a different matter because of questions whether the former spouses could cooperate (although the social worker thought it unwise for either of them to act without the others input). Julie Valadez argued that a restraining order she obtained in 2018 against her husband made communicating with each other problematic and that she alone should have legal custody.

Aprahamian made note in his ruling of Ricardo Valadezs 2017 arrest. Referencing incidents that spurred the divorce filing, the judge wrote that there was a pattern of domestic abuse occurring coincident to the initiation of this case. But he said he would not take into consideration Julie Valadezs other accusations.

The Court does not find credible Ms. Valadezs other allegations of abuse and battery, including uncorroborated allegations of sexual abuse, physical abuse, stalking and property damage, Aprahamian concluded.

The judge acknowledged that Ricardo Valadez, whom he described as an alcoholic, had lied to the court about his sobriety. Still, he wrote, As a general matter, the Court found Ms. Valadez not credible.

She was evasive in answering questions and repeatedly asked to have simple, straightforward questions repeated prior to answer, Aprahamian ruled.

For example, asked by the thenguardian ad litem Katherine J. De Lorenzo if she believed she could cooperate with her ex-husband if awarded joint legal custody,Julie Valadez said at trial: I have been cooperative.

Can you answer the question? the judge asked.

If I would be cooperative, is the question? Can you repeat your question? she replied.

De Lorenzo obliged but warned:Try and listen to my questions. Theyre pretty simply stated, Ms. Valadez.

Valadez said in an interview that in this and other similar instances she merely was trying to make sure she understood what she was being asked.

Aprahamian concluded that Ricardo Valadez likely would put his childrens interests above his own. He ruled that Ricardo should have sole legal custody, giving him control of decision-making on major issues in the childrens lives, though he was instructed not to change the kids school or doctors.

For Julie Valadez, the ruling was a harsh blow. She worried about how her ex would manage all the special services the children needed and about his drinking and anger issues.

It was just a dangerous situation, she said. To me it seems obvious.

She first undertook handling her own appeal in June 2020 but later had assistance from Washington, D.C., attorney Jay C. Johnson, acting as pro bono co-counsel with DV LEAP,a nonprofit that seeks to help victims pursue appeals in cases involving domestic violence.

Judges have wide discretion in custody cases and appeals are rare, said Elizabeth Vogel, DV LEAPs managing attorney. Many litigants in family court dont have a trial attorney, discover its hard to find an attorney to pursue an appeal and face short deadlines to file challenges.

DV LEAP saw merit in Julie Valadezs case because the judge had recognized a pattern of domestic abuse but had concluded wrongly that her husband still had satisfied conditions for custody despite not receiving adequate counseling.

Julies case is, sadly, such an excellent example of how judges take liberties in their reasoning to get around statutes that are meant to protect survivors, Vogel said.

The Court of Appeals agreed that Ricardo Valadez was not entitled to sole legal custody because he had not shown he had successfully completed state-mandated treatment for batterers from a certified program.

Also, though Aprahamian required absolute sobriety from Ricardo and ordered the exchange of children at the police department, the appellate court ruled he did not make the safety of Julie and her children a paramount concern in determining who the children would live with, as required by state law.

Reversing the judgment by Aprahamian, the appellate court sent the case back to family court for reconsideration.

After the favorable appellate court ruling,Johnson tweetedthat the decision sets strong precedent for domestic abuse victims who are seeking custody of their children.

During the year and a half that the case was on appeal, Vogel said in an interview, Aprahamian appeared to subject Julie Valadez to an extreme level of retaliation through his multiple rulings.

Thats not unheard of. Women across the country have told ProPublica that family courts have not only overlooked their allegations of domestic abuse but have acted to punish them by taking away much or all of their time with their children for making what the court considers to be false, or minor, allegations of abuse.

When these women openly complain, file motions or defy the court orders, judges can view them as mentally unfit or hold them in contempt.

In Valadezs case, tensions between her and the judge never seemed to abate, and along the way she lost the ability to regularly see her children.

Aprahamian appointed a new guardian ad litem, Molly Jasmer, in September 2020 to interact with the appellate court and represent the childrens best interests.

In April 2021, Jasmer filed a 38-page brief with the appellate court outlining why Aprahamians ruling was correct. The brief was also signed by Ricardo Valadezs attorney.

A month earlier, Aprahamian had taken away Julie Valadezs parenting time with her second oldest child, then 13, after she didnt make the boy available to meet with Jasmer. Because the judge had already ruled on custody a year earlier, Valadez questioned Jasmers involvement.

Jasmer declined to comment for this story.

Valadez contested the no-contact order not just in family court but in a suit she brought against Aprahamian and Jasmer in federal court in June 2021. That suit was dismissed.

From my standpoint, its not personal, Aprahamian said of the federal suit in a July hearing on the Valadez custody case. Its like The Godfather. This is just business.

Less than a month later, Aprahamian issued a bench warrant for Julie Valadezs arrest for failing to comply with his directive to sign over certain records and undergo a psychological exam requested by Jasmer.At the same hearing, he suspended her parenting time in effect, preventing her from seeing any of her children except under limited, supervised circumstances.

Her attorney at the time, Will Green, was taken aback. Holy cow, he said in court.

Am I saying she is going to cause harm to them intentionally? Thats not what Im saying, the judge explained. Im finding shes taken steps that are not in the best interests of the children and continues to do so.

The judge had expressed frustration, for example, with Valadez bringing her children along with her when she served Jasmer with the federal suit.

Psychological testing is widely used in custody cases when there is a concern about a parents fitness.

The use of such tests, however, can be unwise when theres a history of abuse, according to the Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Wisconsin Guardians Ad Litem. Abuse victims, it notes, may reasonably show symptoms associated with a large range of mental health difficulties, such as anxiety, paranoia, trouble sleeping, frequent worry or blaming others for their problems.

Ricardo Valadez was not asked to undergo such an exam.

I was found to be a fit parent, Julie Valadez said of the initial custody order. I was never found to be an unfit parent. They had provided no valid reason for me to have a psych eval.

Aside from some therapy sessions together, she said, she hasnt had any significant time with her one sonfor nearly a year and her other three children for several months.

Valadez avoided jail when theWaukesha County public defenders office got involved and persuaded the Court of Appeals in September 2021 to quash the bench warrant and stay the jail term during her appeal of the custody decision.

She received additional help when, last fall, William F. Sulton, a Milwaukee civil rights attorney, agreed to represent her.

The case is so unusual in that the judge tried to put her in jail, Sulton said. So I really believe she was at risk of losing her liberty.

Said Sulton: Unfortunately, the court system does not treat unrepresented people with the respect that they deserve. And so it is not uncommon to see judges and other lawyers singling out, with draconian measures, people who are unrepresented.

In reversing Aprahamian last month, the appeals court found that the type of contempt the judge used was punitive and not lawful except in one instance when the judge used it to preserve order in the court when he took issue with Julie interrupting him. It vacated the three other contempt rulings.

Getting those rulings took months of perseverance, as Valadez chased down transcripts, switched attorneys, filed court documents and appeals and studied the intricacies of Wisconsin law and court procedures. She believes her appeals exacerbated tensions inside Aprahamians courtroom.

They didnt want this, she said. Its a big deal to get reversed like they did.

At the crux of the appellate courts ruling in the custody case were the counseling sessions Ricardo Valadez attended as a result of his criminal case and Aprahamians decision to accept those as proof of rehabilitation even though they werent certified by the Wisconsin Batterers Treatment Providers Association.

Ricardo Valadezs lawyer said his client has received additional counseling. A few days after Christmas, he filed a new document with the court stating Valadez completed a 20-week domestic violence treatment program from a certified provider.

Aprahamians replacement will now have to rule on custody and other related issues. Sulton said in an interview that the latest treatment program completed by Valadez should be disregarded because it came too late and is inadequate because there is no proof it reduces violence.

Still to be determined is when Julie Valadez can be an active mother to her children again.

I just want to get my kids back, she said. Their Christmas gifts, she said, are still waiting for them, by the fireplace in her apartment.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Read the original here:
She said her husband was abusive. A judge took away her kids and ordered her arrest. - WisconsinWatch.org

Flint water crisis

The ongoing Flint water crisis has taken a toll on residents of this iconic Michigan city, who have been living with lead-tainted tap water.

Brian Kaufman and Ryan Garza, Detroit Free Press

FormerMichigan Gov. Rick Snyder has moved to quash his subpoena to testify at a civil lawsuit related to the Flint water crisis and says he will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if required to take the stand.

But there is a legal question over whether Snyder has already partially waived his Fifth Amendment rights by sitting for a deposition in the civil lawsuit back in 2020, before he was charged criminally.

U.S. District Judge Judith Levy is expected to hold a hearing March 15 on whether to quash the subpoena. The civil trial started in late February and could last four months.

Snyderfaces two criminal misdemeanor counts of willful neglect of duty. Both charges were brought in January 2021 by a one-person grand jury.

The former governor has also been subpoenaed to testify in a federal civil lawsuit in Ann Arbor in which the defendants are consultants who did work for the city of Flint related to the city's water supply. They are Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam (LAN) and its parent company, Leo A. Daly Co., and a second company, Veolia Water North America Operating Services.

Veolia has subpoenaed Snyder to testify and he also appears on LAN's witness list.

"Gov. Snyder will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to any question that related to his response to the Flint Water Crisis i.e., all questions that conceivably could be put to him," Snyder attorney Brian Lennon of Grand Rapids said in a late Friday court filing.

More: Consulting firms shift blame as Flint water crisis lawsuit trial begins in federal court

More: Former Gov. Rick Snyder faces 2 criminal charges in Flint water case

Lennon said the criminal charges against Snyder are "exceptionally broad" and "question all of his actions" related to the lead poisoning of Flint's water supply that began in 2014. In the civil case, "the parties have made clear that they intend to ask Gov. Snyder questions ... that go to the same issues underlying his criminal charges."

Lennon said the risk of Snyder being criminally charged "appeared to be low" when he sat for a two-day deposition in the civil case and never invoked his right against self-incrimination. Snyder has not waived that right with respect to the civil case, but the transcript of his deposition could be introduced as evidence, he said.

There is a legal question aboutwhether Snyder has waived his Fifth Amendment rights, at least with respect to questions he answered and topics he discussed during his deposition in the case.

"To be clear, Gov. Snyder maintains his innocence," Lennon said. "But as the Supreme Court has recognized, the Fifth Amendment privilege is available to the innocent."

On Monday, former Flint emergency managers Gerald Ambrose and Darnell Earley and former Flint public works employee Howard Croft also filed a joint motionto quash their subpoenas in the civil trial. All three gave depositions in the case in 2020, after criminal charges against them were dismissed in 2019 but before new charges were brought in 2021, under Attorney General Dana Nessel.

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com.Follow him on Twitter @paulegan4. Read more on Michigan politics and sign up for our elections newsletter.

Become asubscriber.

See the original post here:
Former Gov. Snyder doesn't want to testify in Flint trial, plans to plead the Fifth - Detroit Free Press

HOUSTON Rusty Hardin, the attorney for Deshaun Watson, said the Houston Texans quarterback will exercise his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when he gives his first deposition in civil litigation involving 22 lawsuits filed by women alleging inappropriate behavior during massage therapy sessions.

The district attorney is also presenting her case to the grand jury Friday. Hardins request to the plaintiffs attorney, Tony Buzbee, was denied, but Hardin said that he has advised Watson not to answer questions.

Hardin emphasized that taking the fifth is not an admission of guilt and that the three-time Pro Bowl passer will be happy to testify when he can.

Its a non-starter because neither I or any lawyer in the free world will allow their client to give testimony in a civil case while those same issues are being heard by a grand jury, Hardin said in a telephone interview with Pro Football Network. Tony Buzbee didnt want to delay. Its unfortunate. Deshaun will be glad to testify when I advise him to.

This is a civil matter. Thats where we believe it should be heard. If Tony Buzbee wants to waste his time asking questions, thats fine. Deshaun will not answer those questions. Deshaun will testify when the grand jury has completed its work.

Watson is facing 10 criminal complaints alleging sexual misconduct. He has not been charged with a crime. He denied wrongdoing in a statement when the first lawsuits were filed. Hardin said in a press conference previously that Watson had consensual sex with some of the plaintiffs.

Search warrants issued in the fall sought access to social media and cash pay accounts Watson allegedly used to pay for massages and listed a potential charge of indecent assault, which is a misdemeanor. The maximum punishment, if convicted, is up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $4,000.

During a recent special hearing requested by Hardin, Harris County District Court Judge Rabeea Collier denied a portion of the motion. Yet, she also stipulated that certain depositions in the 22 active civil lawsuits can be delayed until after April 1.

That date is when the NFL players Houston-based lawyer expressed confidence multiple times that there will be a ruling from law enforcement officials on whether Watson will be charged criminally for alleged sexual misconduct.

Collier did grant part of Hardins request. She also upheld his request to be present for all depositions involving his client. Hardin said that due to his court schedule, he isnt available for the next few weeks.

Collier said that she will uphold the previously agreed upon docket and emphasized that Watsons legal team has already taken 75 hours of depositions, with only six of the 22 civil litigants still to be deposed. She said that plaintiffs who have filed a criminal complaint against Watson and havent been deposed cant depose him until after April 1.

Im allowing you to take Mr. Watsons deposition on case-specific details for those who have not filed a criminal complaint, Collier said.

Only plaintiffs who have been deposed and havent filed criminal charges can begin taking Watsons deposition now. The court ruled that Watson will be questioned under oath within the next 10 days if Hardin is available to be there in person for nine of the 22 plaintiffs.

Denied in part, granted in part, denied as to those plaintiffs that have not filed a criminal complaint against your client, Collier said to Hardin in court. Its granted in part with the plaintiffs that have put a criminal complaint against your client and for the individuals that may fall in between that have not been deposed. That has been granted because those individuals may not ask questions of your client until those plaintiffs are deposed.

Hardin added he had no reason to believe that a ruling wont be determined on Watsons 10 active criminal complaints by April 1 and whether he would be charged or not charged. Eight of the 22 accusers have filed criminal complaints.

We know that the police have forwarded to the district attorneys office their findings and their conclusions, Hardin said.

I dont know whats going to happen on April 1, Collier said.

Hardin, asked by Judge Collier why he believes hell have clarity on criminal charges or no charges by April 1, said thats because the police have submitted their findings to the Harris County District Attorneys office. He added that he expects the investigation to be concluded in weeks, not months.

Hardin had filed a motion requesting that the NFL players deposition be pushed back to no earlier than April 1 because not all 22 complainants have been deposed, which was the original plan for the case.

The criminal investigation could be wrapped up by early April, so Watson could have the remainder of his depositions that month. Thats also prior to the 2022 NFL Draft when, depending on the resolution of his legal situation, Watson could be traded.

The motion emphasized that the criminal investigation of 10 criminal complaints, including eight plaintiffs, hasnt been completed, with no clarity about Watsons status as far as whether he will or wont be charged with a crime.

Law enforcement sources said that no DNA, audio, or video evidence has been found or submitted by police detectives investigating the allegations.

While the legal situation remains unresolved, Watson, who has requested a trade and has a no-trade clause in his $156 million contract, and the Texans are in a holding pattern.

The Texans have been seeking at least three first-round draft picks and a pair of second-round draft picks in exchange for Watson, who led the NFL in passing yards two seasons ago. Could that price drop potentially if his legal situation doesnt improve? Thats obvious.

He remained on the Texans roster last season and was paid his $10.54 million salary. Watson was not placed on the commissioners exempt list but played in no games.

Watson only practiced during a portion of training camp before he and Caserio reached an agreement that he would report to the Texans training facility for individual workouts with the strength and conditioning staff but not participate in practices and meetings.

At the 2022 NFL Scouting Combine, Texans coach Lovie Smith, 63, said he remains hopeful that closure will ultimately be realized for Watson and the AFC South franchise. When that might happen is totally unclear.

I have no idea, Smith said. And the good part about it is time kind of takes care of everything. I just know Deshaun is an excellent football player. Excellent football players need to be playing somewhere in the NFL. Hopefully, that will happen, and if its not with us, its somewhere else. And Im sure as I see in this situation, both of us eventually are going to benefit from the situation, and I just cant wait for that to speed up a little bit.

How important is that? Im agreeing with what you said. Yes, we would like a prompt resolution to it, but Im also a patient man, too, and time normally takes care of everything. We understand this is Year 2, and I know Deshaun wants to play, and it will come to a head. I have faith in that. We just have to give it a little time, and hopefully, everybody will be happy with it. Im sure that will be the case.

While the legal situation continues to unfold, the Texans and NFL teams interested in trading for Watson are monitoring the situation and awaiting clarity.

I would say that situation, weve talked about this with our group, were day to day in terms of handling that, Texans general manager Nick Caserio said during the Combine. Once the information becomes more relevant or prevalent, then well handle it accordingly. My philosophy from the beginning has always been to do the right thing by the Houston Texans organization, and were going to continue to do that here moving forward.

Pro Football Network previously reported that the Washington Commanders and Carolina Panthers remain interested in trading for Watson.

Philadelphia Eagles general manager Howie Roseman previously conducted significant due diligence on Watson before last season, even sending an investigator to Houston to look into the legal situation and contacting Hardin, per sources.

However, Watson has never been inclined to waive his no-trade clause for the Eagles. Moreover, Philadelphia has publicly committed to Jalen Hurts as their quarterback.

As much as the Texans want to trade Watson, they realize that the criminal justice system and civil litigation move slowly. And perhaps the list of teams will grow exponentially if his legal problems are resolved favorably.

Continue reading here:
Deshaun Watson to take fifth amendment Friday in lawsuit deposition; grand jury presentation same day - Pro Football Network

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) A former Tennessee Republican lawmaker pleaded guilty Tuesday to a federal wire fraud charge over allegations she helped carry out a political consulting kickback scheme with a disgraced former state House speaker and his one-time chief of staff, even concocting a phony identity for the company's leader.

Ex-Rep. Robin Smith entered her plea in Nashville federal court under an agreement with prosecutors. The charging document says the Hixson lawmaker, former House Speaker Glen Casada and his then-chief of staff, Cade Cothren, used a political consulting firm to illegally funnel money to themselves through both campaign and taxpayer-funded work, while concealing their involvement in it.

Casada and Cothren are described but not named in the document, which was unsealed Monday and quickly spurred Smith's resignation as a lawmaker. So far, prosecutors have not announced any charges against the other two in the case that centers on claims about a company, Phoenix Solutions, and a fake persona, Matthew Phoenix, used even on an IRS form.

Smith said in a written statement that she intends to cooperate with the authorities.

Once the Department of Justice informed me of the nature of my activities, I took full responsibility for my actions, culminating in my guilty plea, said Smith, who did not respond to reporters' questions while leaving court Tuesday. "There are no excuses. I intend to cooperate fully as a witness with the federal government and do whatever I can to assist the government in this regard.

It remains unclear what agreement Smith and prosecutors might have reached on a recommended sentence. U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson said during the hearing that the maximum sentence for her crime was 20 years in prison. But he also noted that Smith's plea deal includes stipulations about cooperation, without saying what those entail. Her sentencing was set for October.

Prosecutors said in charging documents that Smith devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and deprive the citizens of the Middle District of Tennessee and the government of Tennessee of their right to the honest services of a public official."

Casada resigned from the top leadership post in 2019 after revelations he exchanged sexually explicit text messages about women with Cothren years ago. In January 2021, FBI agents searched the homes and offices of several state lawmakers and staffers, including Casada, Smith and Cothren. At the time, federal investigators declined to give a reason for the searches.

The charge against Smith appears to shed some light on the raid. The documents state Cothren launched a political consulting firm called Phoenix Solutions, LLC that was designed to offer mail and consulting services to lawmakers in 2019 with Smith's and Casada's knowledge and support." All three claimed the firm was run by Matthew Phoenix when in fact it was Cothren using a made-up alias, the documents allege.

Authorities say Phoenix Solutions was initially set up to provide mail and consulting political services for lawmakers facing primary election opponents. It performed those services and later sent taxpayer-funded mailings to constituents, from which Phoenix Solutions, a separate company owned by Smith, and another company owned by Casada received almost $52,000 combined in 2020, the documents state.

Smith, Cothren and Casada hid Cothrens involvement in Phoenix Solutions, and hid that Cothren kicked back portions of the profits to Casada and Smith, because they feared the House speaker's office would not approve the company's use and individual lawmakers would not use the firm, either, if that information got out, prosecutors claim.

In 2020, Cothren's then-girlfriend and Cothren exchanged emails as Candice and Matthew to make it appear as though Phoenix Solutions employees needed to secure an outstanding payment that the state hadn't paid, authorities said. That exchange was forwarded to Smith. The girlfriend was not identified.

According to prosecutors, Smith told multiple Republican lawmakers in 2020 that Matthew Phoenix and his associate, Candice, got tired of living in the Washington, D.C. area and decided to move back home to New Mexico, where Phoenix started Phoenix Solutions.

At one point, the documents allege Smith emailed Cothren saying that he may have to assume the role of Matthew again. He replied saying, Matthew, reporting for duty!" and included a GIF of "a salute from Harrison Fords character Han Solo in the movie Star Wars, officials said.

Officials also say Smith provided false information on Matthew Phoenix to current House Speaker Cameron Sexton and other legislative staffers when pushing for payments to Phoenix.

When Smith forwarded those messages to Cothren, she wrote Shhhhhhhhhh, according to court records.

Smith, 58, was elected to the House of Representatives in 2018. She'd previously served as chair of the Tennessee Republican Party and a policy advisor to Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Green.

Casada in November announced he wouldnt run for reelection this year, and would instead run for Williamson County clerk.

Cothren, meanwhile, has informed state campaign finance regulators that he is invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and won't abide by a subpoena in an investigation surrounding a political action committee.

Continued here:
Ex-Tennessee rep pleads guilty to fraud in consulting scheme - Northern Virginia Daily

Regardless of your stance on abortion, Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Youre probably wondering how on earth one can even separate Roe v. Wade from abortion. Isnt this the pivotal case of Roe appealing in opposition to Texas law that gives women the right to choose an abortion? Well, it was, but it isnt now.

In fact, Roe is not the case that currently governs abortion legislation; its Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Which is a case that not only challenged and upheld the decision of Roe but shook the already unstable reasoning behind the decision.

But, thats a conversation for another time. Instead, lets look at Roe v. Wade and how it began the stream of flawed judicial thinking on abortion law.

The decisions made in Roe v. Wade

The Court declared that the Constitution provides a fundamental right to privacy via the Fourteenth Amendment that encompasses the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

And their second decision was that this right is not absolute. The right must somehow balance the interests of the government to protect both the mothers life and the unborn childs life and the mothers right to privacy.

The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the Due Process Clause that is targeted does not name an explicit right to privacy. However, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the interpretation of a right to privacy since 1891.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Fourteenth Amendment

The interpretation of the word liberty, in particular, has eluded to this recognized right of privacy.

While this ruling in favor of abortion falling under a right of privacy is compelling, the reasoning of the court is contradictory at best. Most of the constitutional amendments very clearly protect different aspects of privacy. The difference, though, is that these rights are explicitly protected and not vaguely lumped into an amendment they dont belong in.

Additionally, there is federal legislation to protect medical and health privacy, such as HIPAA and FTC laws. Medical information and decisions cannot be disclosed or enforced unless the interests of the state are for public health and safety.

For instance, various vaccinations are required to attend public schools, and seatbelt laws are in place to protect the public from accidents. Yet, the law explicitly defines these boundaries or the boundaries are very easily inferred.

Abortion was never explicitly protected, nor easily inferred from the language of the amendments used to justify it. Additionally, many states found abortion to conflict with their interest of public safety due to the emotional and physical harm to mothers and the ending of a life.

True and due privacy is protected in the United States under the constitutional amendments, but abortion is nowhere to be found.

For example, the First protects the privacy of your beliefs from the state. The Third and the Fourth protects the privacy of your home and your personal life from the state. The Fourteenth and Fifth state that none of your rights can be violated unless you are found guilty of a crime through due process.

The court then agreed, also, that this right to abortion was not absolute and that states do have some power to regulate abortion. However, the ability of regulation given to the states was very minimal, and even undermined by the vague exception of a maternal health risk.

The deception of exceptions

Justice Blackmun, one of the Justices deliberating Roe, drawing on his own research and speculating rather than any medical evidence being presented in the courtroom, determined whose interests were to be protected for each trimester of pregnancy.

In the first trimester, he determined that the mothers interests of privacy were more important than the states interest in protecting prenatal or maternal life.

In the second trimester, he determined that the state may exercise some liberty with concern to the mothers life as he believed the risks of abortion began to outweigh the risks of pregnancy.

In the third trimester, the state was finally permitted, in Blackmuns reasoning, to regulate or even ban abortion with the interest of the unborn life in mind. Although, only if there were exceptions allowed for when the mothers health was threatened.

There are many issues with these unstable deliberations. The first is the lack of medical evidence presented in the hearing to suggest where the point in which abortion is safer than pregnancy, or vice versa, really is. Secondly, as mentioned in the previous section, the vague health exceptions permitted by the Justice.

While these exceptions seem noble and reasonable at first glance, Blackmun failed to define them in a way that actually grants due powers to the states or properly acts to protect the mother and child. Blackmun acknowledged possible physical and mental health concerns and any adverse effects associated with raising children that may influence these two.

This then begs the question of where the line is drawn.

If the states can regulate or ban abortion in the third trimester but anyone can plead to their doctor for a note saying that raising a child will cause them stress and mental or physical harm, can the states actually regulate abortion in the third trimester?

And if abortion becomes more dangerous in the third trimester than pregnancy, using Blackmuns logic, how extreme do these health concerns need to be in comparison?

This leaves Roe incredibly indefinite and continuously up for interpretation. There are undoubtedly more questions created than those answered.

Even more so, Blackmuns logic has laid the groundwork for other measures of when abortion should and should not be allowed to occur. The most prolific example of this is that of fetal viability.

Fetal viability is the ability of the baby to survive outside of the womb. The issue with such a definition is that the ability of a baby to survive outside of the womb is constantly changing because of advances in technology.

Premature infants are able to survive in the hospital today as early as 23-24 weeks gestation. This is only just over half the time of a full-term pregnancy of 40 weeks gestation.

Who is to say that medicine wont advance even further to care for even earlier infants?

One could argue that fetal viability is then when a baby would be able to survive without the help of a hospital. However, this logic is also flawed as this cannot be determined with certainty in even later pregnancies.

A premature birth is defined as birth prior to 37 weeks gestation, and premature babies are significantly more at risk for needing medical intervention for issues such as feeding and breathing due to underdeveloped organ systems.

Therefore, prematurity is only one month early and leaves an infant at a much higher risk for medical intervention. Blackmuns trimester logic does not even go this far, but fetal viability could take it to such an extent.

Again, where can the line be drawn then, and by what standard?

Context is key

While I do not know whether to entirely disagree with the Courts interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendments intention of protecting privacy, I cannot with full confidence agree. Even if I do like the idea of it.

However, I certainly do not believe for one second that abortion was meant to be encompassed in that right. A quick look at historical context is sufficient in proving this point.

Before Roe, not a single law, case or other authority had suggested the possibility that abortion would fall under Fourteenth Amendment rights. More significantly, in 1868 when the amendment was ratified, 30 out of the 37 states at the time had criminal laws prohibiting abortion.

Additionally, the Ohio legislature passed a criminal law prohibiting abortion at any point after conception only four months after the amendment was ratified. This very clearly suggests that no writer nor supporter of the amendment intended for abortion to be adopted under it.

Many would argue that being forced to have a child when they dont want one would infringe on the Due Process Clauses promise of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to them. This is a valid and compelling defense.

However, recall that the state has interests to protect the public life that compete with the interests of many individuals. Take the vaccination example again. There are many who oppose vaccinations as a whole, but the state deprives them of that liberty because of the apparent public health concern.

In the case of abortion, the state has interests to protect both the mental and physical health of the mother, and the health and life of the unborn child. The Journal of Medical Ethics found that regret and mental distress are much less likely to occur with choosing motherhood than with choosing abortion.

The amendments main purpose, privacy interpretation aside, was to work to correct the injustice of slavery in America. It was one of three post Civil War amendments, and it reversed the Dred v. Scott decision that very wrongly and unconstitutionally declared that African Americans were not U.S. citizens.

The sole purpose of this Due Process clause was to grant African Americans the fair and equal trials that they had been deprived of. The word liberty does refer to the bodily freedom of a citizen, but bodily freedom has never hinted to allowing abortion. This is evident as this bodily freedom may very well be taken away with due process of law.

Life is freedom from capital punishment unless it is taken by due process of law. Liberty is freedom from incarceration unless it is taken by due process of law. Property is freedom from fines or seizure of property unless it is taken by due process of law.

To add insult to injury, no one claims that the Fifth Amendment grants a right to abortion despite the Fourteenth Amendment directly imitating its Due Process Clause. Its an embarrassing contradiction.

The only difference between the two clauses that warranted an additional amendment is who the amendment restricted. The Fifth Amendment included the same Due Process Clause but only leashed the federal government.

The Fourteenth Amendment required that the states also adopt this clause in order to protect African Americans from racist legislation in the wake of the Civil War.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law The Fifth Amendment.

Closing thoughts

I would be lying to you if I didnt say that I opposed abortion. My faith in God and the Lord Jesus Christ prohibits room for the intentional ending of what I firmly believe to be a precious human life.

However, I also believe that, from a purely legal standpoint, Roe v. Wade should have never made it to the Supreme Court for deliberation.

The Fourteenth Amendment, when taken into context and compared with its earlier counterpart, cannot be misconstrued as to allow a right to privacy and then abortion under that privacy. Additionally, the context in which the amendment was written does not logically allow for such a conclusion.

Even if this was not so, and a conclusion of a right to abortion could be drawn, Roe did an exceptionally poor job at laying the framework for its execution. No clear lines can be drawn to determine maternal danger and when it is acceptable for states to intervene.

Even more so, this is such a complex issue that should not have been evaluated by people who were not elected but appointed. As I have argued in this article, I do not find this to be a right allowed in the Constitution.

This is even supported by the way that many treat the case. Rather than being treated as a Supreme Court case, it is treated as legislation, as if this is something that the majority of the people believe in. The truth is, the arguments continue to be nearly 50-50.

This division and the historical condemnation of abortion in past laws of the country further prove that abortion would have never made it into the Consitution as a right.

From this deeper analysis of Roe v. Wade, I have come to these conclusions, and I hope that those on either side can recognize the lack of clarity and sense in the decision.

In order for the Federal Government to limit state action in abortion laws, a new amendment, explicity determining this right would have to be drawn up and ratified by the majority of the states. Given the nearly 50-50 division constantly encompassing the country, I see that as a highly unlikely accomplishment.

Therefore, many in support of abortion are scrambling to defend a right that is vaguely and wrongly awarded to them, and they may not even know it. Those who are aware likely know that, without the poor decisions of Roe, they would not be able to justly and rightly achieve this right.

Many fear the overturning of Roe because many states, especially conservative-dominated states, have trigger laws in place that would criminalize abortion. However, there are also many liberal states that will continue to allow abortion if Roe were to vanish.

The states that would allow abortion to continue until their definition of viability include, but are not limited to, the District of Columbia, New York, Washington and New Jersey.

Again, from a personal standpoint, I dont believe that people have the right to decide who lives or dies at any stage in development. However, from a legal standpoint, this is an issue that should be deliberated on by the people and their elected officials.

The Constitution does not grant a right to abortion, at least in the capacity that Roe v. Wade chose to defend it.

There is also too much emphasis on supporting organizations that give abortions purely for the reason of them providing abortions rather than offering to support women through motherhood.

Motherhood may not seem like an option to some because of their economic, mental or physical health status. However, as a society and community, we have a great influence over that.

Many people consider donating to Planned Parenthood so that they can fight to keep their abortion services, but how many of us stop considering donating to women and children in need just as much?

While I am a Christian who believes in having children within a marriage, I think we all need to be more understanding of women who get pregnant from a variety of circumstances. Looking down on these women does not help them or their babies in any way. It does not make them any less worthy of support.

Additionally, there are Christians and practices of other religions who are out there who are against the use of birth control but fail to recognize that its widespread use and encouragement is the lesser evil. Access to and use of other methods would be much more preferable than the use of abortion as a means of birth control.

Read more from the original source:
Overturn Roe - the Spectrum - NDSU The Spectrum