Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

In 2020, I voted in my first Democratic primary. I am unaffiliated and received ballots for both major parties. The Democratic ballot had more choices and more at stake.

This year, I planned to vote in the Republican primary if only to stand against Tina Peters campaign to kill democracy.

If a group of Republicans who filed a lawsuit last week get their way, I wont have the chance.

The lawsuit would bar unaffiliated voters from participating in the Republican Party primary. It was filed after the Colorado GOP avoided a death spiral by voting against an opt-out proposal last September. During the same meeting a majority did authorize the state party to file a lawsuit, but it had not acted.

Tired of waiting on the party, several Republicans took matters into their own hands.

I have seen several social media posts from GOP insiders claiming that the lawsuit is just a kooky idea, silly, and that the plaintiffs are just a handful of fringy Republicans. They obviously understand that shutting out unaffiliated voters would be a leaden lifejacket drowning Republican candidates up and down the ballot this November.

They also overlook too many inconvenient facts.

The plaintiffs include a sitting state representative running for the U.S. Senate, a candidate for the 7th Congressional District, a two-time GOP nominee for Congress and multiple county party chairs. These are not random crazies who exited militia compounds just long enough to sign their names; they are elected standard-bearers for significant portions of the state.

Even more damning to the fringe argument are the attorneys involved. Randy Corporon is a leading voice on conservative radio in Colorado and, according the GOPs own website, currently an elected Republican National Committee member from the state. He led legal efforts against vaccine mandates and helped lead the opt-out charge last fall.

Corporon could be the prime attraction but for his co-counsel. John Eastman serves as lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The same Eastman who served as former President Donald Trumps primary legal counselor to challenge electors before the House of Representatives last January.

The same Eastman the leading GOP gubernatorial candidate hailed as fantastic for his stint as a professor at the University of Colorado.

Whatever else Eastman is, he is a central figure in current Republican Party politics. Some within the party may disagree with his legal opinions and political strategies, but it is disingenuous to assert that he is merely a fringe player.

Of course, whether Eastman will be able to see the lawsuit through is another story. As he prepared to file this lawsuit the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot filed its own pleading in California alleging that both Trump and Eastman engaged in multiple criminal activities.

READ:Colorado Sun opinion columnists.

I have read the 221-page filing. Eastmans deposition in particular is as damning as any I have seen outside a full confession. He asserted his Fifth Amendment rights 146 separate times including when asked about statements he made in the media, before tens of thousands of rally attendees and in Supreme Court pleadings.

Eastman even invoked the Fifth when Rep. Jamie Raskin asked if he agreed with Trumps statement that The mob takes the Fifth. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

Eastman has every right to refuse to testify against himself, but the questions asked in the deposition demonstrated just how deep the committees evidence against him runs deep enough to submerge the U.S. Capitol.

That in turn, along with other complaints, has also led to a grievance process in California that may well strip him of his license to practice law. That could keep him from completing the case in Colorado.

There is an easy step the Colorado GOP could take to distance itself from Eastman and his plaintiffs. The state party could intervene in this lawsuit and argue against them and with the Secretary of State. They could make the case that Proposition 108, which gave unaffiliated voters the right to vote in party primaries, is a proper exercise of the Tenth Amendment.

I am not going to hold out much hope for that outcome. Unfortunately, the rational actors who might embrace it are on the fringe of the current Colorado Republican Party.

Mario Nicolais is an attorney and columnist who writes on law enforcement, the legal system, health care and public policy. Follow him on Twitter:@MarioNicolaiEsq

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Suns opinion policy and submit columns, suggest writers or give feedback at opinion@coloradosun.com.

We believe vital information needs to be seen by the people impacted, whether its a public health crisis, investigative reporting or keeping lawmakers accountable. This reporting depends on support from readers like you.

Continue reading here:
Nicolais: Republicans suing to bar unaffiliated voters from Colorado's primaries aren't on the fringe of the party - The Colorado Sun

The day before the January 6 Capitol riot, Roger Stone told a crowd of then-President Donald Trump supporters he would stand with them "shoulder to shoulder," but abruptly packed his bags and fled during the next day's insurrection out of fear of prosecution, footage from a coming documentary shows.

The footage was recorded by a Danish documentary film crew for A Storm Foretold, which captures the activities of the longtime Republican political operative over a two-year period. The footage, extensively reviewed by The Washington Post, sheds new light on Stone's actions during the 2020 presidential election and its tumultuous aftermath.

"I really want to get out of here," Stone is recorded telling an aide as he watched news coverage of the January 6 insurrection from his Washington, D.C., hotel, according to footage reviewed by the Post.

Stone, a longtime advisor to Trump, quickly packed his suitcase as the riot unfolded and left the city. He said he was afraid of being prosecuted by the incoming attorney general, Merrick Garland.

"I'm not sure what they thought they were going to achieve," Stone is said in the footage as he packed his bag. "I think it's really bad for the movement."

Following the insurrection, federal prosecutors have brought charges against multiple people in the ransacking of the Capitol. The House Select Committee investigating the incident has recently signaled it has evidence that Trump and his allies illegally conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

In December, Stone said he pleaded the Fifth Amendment when questioned by the congressional panel.

"I did invoke my Fifth Amendment rights to every question, not because I have done anything wrong but because I am fully aware of the House Democrats' long history of fabricating perjury charges on the basis of comments that are innocuous, immaterial or irrelevant," he told reporters after being questioned.

Stone has denied having anything to do with the insurrection. Last year, he denied involvement with the January 6 riot during an appearance on Newsmax. He recently again denied any role in a statement to the Post.

"Any claim, assertion or implication that I knew about, was involved in or condoned the illegal acts at the Capitol on January 6 is categorically false and there is no witness or document that proves otherwise," Stone said, accusing the newspaper of using guilt by association, insinuations and half-truths.

However, Stone helped organize the protest that attracted thousands of Trump supporters to Washington, D.C., on January 6, according to the Post. Additionally, video shows a member of the far-right Oath Keepers, later charged in the attack on the Capitol, was in Stone's room at the Willard Hotel before the insurrection. Stone also said he "feared that top organizers were trying to exclude him from the rally," reported the Post.

A federal judge last month wrote in an order in a lawsuit filed by Capitol Police and Democrats against Trump over January 6 that Stone's link to far-right groups may be "an important one."

The documentary also captures the fallout after Trump didn't offer pardons requested by Stone.

"See you in prison," Stone wrote that evening in a message to a Trump associate, according to the Post.

Newsweek has reached out to Stone for comment.

See the rest here:
Roger Stone Recorded Fleeing DC Jan. 6: 'I Really Want to Get Out of Here' - Newsweek

Movie titles arent always supposed to be taken literally, but when the moniker of a particular film also happens to serve as the basis for the entire plot, then maybe an ironclad degree of accuracy would have been expected.

Two-time Academy Award nominee Bruce Beresfords crime thriller Double Jeopardy was never intended to be a hard-hitting drama designed to appeal to critics, which is just as well when it wound up with an unremarkable Rotten Tomatoes score of just 27%, but the box office hit was lambasted for failing to understand its own terminology.

Putting the oversights to one side for a moment, Double Jeopardy has found itself in the midst of an unexpected Netflix renaissance per FlixPatrol, having soared onto the platforms most-watched list by securing Top 10 placings in eight countries this weekend.

Ashley Judds Libby Parsons finds herself imprisoned for the murder of her husband, but after being released on parole, she sets out to unravel the mystery that tore her life apart when she discovers her spouse faked his own death and made her out to be the culprit.

To do this, she operates under the assumption that she can exact revenge by killing him without consequences on the basis of the titular Fifth Amendment clause. Of course, you cant legally go ahead and murder someone with impunity just because you were wrongfully convicted of a crime, which is a pretty glaring flaw in the narrative masterplan.

Not that it really matters, when Double Jeopardy doesnt pretend to be anything other than a glossy Hollywood genre film that relies on a top-notch cast giving solid performances to paper over the cracks in the storytelling. Audiences didnt mind, either, with the movie going on to earn $177 million from theaters on a $70 million budget, even if the legal eagles were left a little dismayed by the premise.

'+// ''+// '

The rest is here:
A Crime Thriller That Misinterpreted Its Own Title Slams the Gavel on Netflix - We Got This Covered

A juror in Ghislaine Maxwells criminal trial who apparently did not disclose childhood sexual abuse during jury selection may receive immunity to testify before the judge deciding whether the verdict will stand.

Prosecutors said in a submission to US district judge Alison J Nathan on Wednesday that they were in the process of seeking approvals to offer immunity to the man to compel his testimony at a hearing next Tuesday. They said the immunity offer was considered after the jurors lawyer told the judge that his client planned to invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the hearing.

Thejuror, who is named Scotty David, was on 24 February ordered to appear in court for questioning about his answers on a screening questionnaire for then-prospective jurors.

Davids completed questionnaire, which was made public last week, shows that he marked the no box in response to the question that asked: Have you or a friend ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?

The fact that David apparently marked no has spurred extensive controversy as he has claimed in post-trial interviews that he was victimized in his youth.

The British former socialite Maxwell was convicted on 29 December on sex trafficking and other related charges for facilitating financier Jeffrey Epsteins sexual abuse of minor girls, some just 14 years old.

Epstein, a convicted sex offender whose associates once included rich and powerful figures such as Prince Andrew, was apprehended in July 2019 for sex trafficking of minor teens. Epstein killed himself about one month later while jailed in Manhattan awaiting trial.

The controversy surrounding David took off after Maxwells trial.

David claimed in media interviews that he endured sexual abuse in childhood. David said that he told other jurors about this abuse enabling them to understand facts from a victims perspective. When those reports emerged, prosecutors asked Nathan to conduct an inquiry into his comments. Maxwells legal team made that request shortly thereafter.

Nathan agreed to do so, writing in her recent decision: Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses during jury selection.

She said: Juror 50s post-trial statements are clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, non-speculative impropriety namely, a false statement during jury selection has occurred.

In a letter to Nathan filed on Wednesday morning, Davids lawyer, Todd Spodek, said: I write to inform the court that Juror 50 will invoke his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the hearing.

Later on Wednesday, Maxwells attorney Bobbi Sternheim wrote to the judge, saying Spodek should explain why his client wants to assert the fifth amendment and prosecutors should tell why they are willing to provide immunity to the juror. She noted that the juror had said publicly that he answered all questions honestly.

Prosecutors responded shortly thereafter, saying in a letter that they would try to compel Davids testimony.

The government writes to notify the court that it is in the process of seeking internal approval to seek an order compelling Juror 50s testimony at the hearing, they said. The government will, subject to internal approval, submit a proposed order to the court in advance of the hearing.

Defense lawyers asked the judge to toss out the verdict based on the jurors revelations and order a new trial. They said if she did not do so, she should question other jurors as well, especially after a second juror reportedly revealed post-trial a history of sex abuse. And they asked to explore Davids online and email communications.

But Nathan said last week she would limit the inquiry to her posing questions to David about his answers to the two questions she deemed relevant.The rest of the requests, she said, were vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing expedition.

Link:
Ghislaine Maxwell trial juror may receive immunity to testify - The Guardian

The Tech Executive-1 in John Durhams indictment of a Democratic cybersecurity lawyer testified in a lawsuit that he had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when asked to testify by the special counsel.

Rodney Joffe, former senior vice president at Neustar, coordinated in 2016 with Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who was indicted last year for allegedly concealing his clients, including Hillary Clinton's campaign and Joffe, from the FBI in September 2016 when he pushed debunked claims of a secret back channel between the Trump Organization and Russia's Alfa Bank.

Alfa Bank filed a John Doe lawsuit and deposed Joffe in February. A common refrain from Joffe was: As a result of the ongoing investigation of the Office of the Special Counsel, on the advice of my counsel, Im going to decline to answer the question on the basis of my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

They did serve me with a grand jury subpoena, and I did invoke my Fifth Amendment rights, Joffe said, saying that the subpoena was for testimony and documents and that the subpoenas came after a request for an interview.

Joffe said Sussmann became an attorney for Neustar around 2010, and it continued until September when the indictment occurred. He pleaded the Fifth on whether Sussmann ever represented him personally. Joffe said he retired in mid-September.

Sussmann pleaded not guilty, with Durham revealing last month he has evidence Joffe exploited DNS internet traffic at Trump Tower, Donald Trumps Central Park West apartment building, and the Executive Office of the President.

CLINTON CONDEMNS 'CONSPIRACY THEORIES' RELATED TO DURHAM INVESTIGATION

Durham said in October that Joffe exploited his own companys access to the sensitive internet data of a high-ranking executive branch office of the U.S. government, both before and after the Presidential election." Joffe pleaded the Fifth when asked to identify the executive office. Joffes attorney said "that should not be interpreted as an admission that the ... allegations, which are just allegations in the indictment, are accurate.

Joffe said he had never heard of the Alfa Bank allegations prior to the summer of 2016.

When asked if it was possible to cause pings from a DNS perspective to make it look like a communication, he said, I have no idea. He denied manipulating the DNS data in the Alfa Bank allegations or creating false pings.

Durhams indictment of Sussmann alleged Joffe tasked researchers with mining internet data to establish a narrative tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. Durham said Joffe indicated he was doing this to please Clinton campaign VIPs."

Joffe said he was not paid by Clinton's campaign. He declined to say whether Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias or Fusion GPS were present when he discussed the Alfa Bank allegations with Sussmann in July 2016 and said he had never heard of Fusion before 2016.

Durham said that, shortly after Clintons loss, Joffe wrote in an email: "I was tentatively offered the top [cybersecurity] job by the Democrats when it looked like they'd win. I definitely would not take the job under Trump."

Joffe testified, Ive never been interested in politics. Ive never been involved in politics. ... I havent donated to any parties or given any kind of benefit to any parties, but I certainly over the last few years have had an interest in the politics of the country I live in. Joffe pleaded the Fifth on his thoughts about Trump.

He appears to have referred to himself as Max in a 2018 article pushing the Alfa Bank claims. Max described himself as a John McCain Republican. Joffe declined to say whether that was him.

Joffe claimed he did not anticipate holding any job in the Clinton administration and was not offered the top cybersecurity job if Democrats won. Joffe said he had no possible interest in joining Clinton's administration.

He denied knowing British ex-spy Christopher Steele and said he "had no firsthand knowledge" when asked if he knew Sussmann met with Steele about Alfa Bank claims.

Joffe also declined to answer which businesses he owns, and whether he knew the identity of a person dubbed "Originator-1," who Durham says collaborated with Joffe on the Alfa Bank claims. It is April Lorenzen of Zetalytics.

Joffe said Neustar has provided DNS data outside the company in the past, including "a set of DNS data that has no terms and conditions around it, and that data is provided to a number of parties including security researchers. He declined to say whether he believed DNS data is nonconfidential.

Joffe also said, I take the Fifth, when asked if he knows Daniel Jones, lead author of the Senate Intelligence Committees report on the CIAs interrogation program who founded the Democracy Integrity Project in January 2017. Tax records show he funded Steele, Fusion, and others.

Court records show Jones was asked by the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2017 to look into Alfa Bank allegations, and his 2018 report concluded that "there was a special relationship between the Trump Organization server and servers associated with Alfa Bank.

Cybersecurity expert Robert Graham wrote that "the allegation that this proves a secret connect between Alfa Bank and a Trump server is clearly false.

Joffe said Kirk McConnell is the only person with the Senate committee he could recall.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The special counsel has said Sussmann claimed to another agency, believed to be the CIA, in February 2017 that data he had access to demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House. Durham found "no support for these allegations." Joffe declined to answer whether Neustar provided the Russian phone data to university researchers.

Joffe testified he had gone through chemotherapy and used the drug Prednisone, claiming: I still have, you know, some effect with memory so, you know, my memory during the period when I was ill, which was from 2012 through 2017.

Original post:
'Tech Exec-1' says he pleaded the Fifth to John Durham's grand jury - Washington Examiner

Cade Cothren, speaking on phone, attends a meeting with lawmakers and fellow staffers on the balcony ouside the House chamber on April 29, 2019. (Erik Schelzig, Tenenssee Journal)

Cade Cothren, the onetime chief of staff to former House Speaker Glen Casada, intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination at a Registry of Election Finance hearing on Wednesday, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reports.

Cade Cothren objects to and will not respond to your subpoena, his attorney, Cynthia A. Sherwood, wrote to the Registry last month. This objection is based on the grounds that these subpoenas were made in bad faith and are an abuse of process.

Furthermore, she added, Mr. Cothren invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

The probe involves the role of the Faith Family Freedom Fund in attacking then-Rep. Rick Tillis of Lewisburg during his Republican primary in 2020. The PACs treasurer testified to the Registry by telephone in January that she had registered the group on behalf of Cothren, whom she had been dating at the time. Friedopfer said she had been young and dumb and didnt know she would be liable for the PACs activities. Cothren advised her not to respond to a Registry audit of the PAC, she said.

The Registry responded by issuing subpoenas of Cothren, Casada, and the winning candidate in the 2020 race, Rep. Todd Warner (R-Chapel Hill).

Read more:
Cothren to take the Fifth in Registry probe TNJ - TN Journal

CASE PREVIEW ByHoward M. Wasserman on Mar 1, 2022 at 10:24 am

Egbert v. Boule is a lawsuit seeking damages for alleged constitutional violations by a Border Patrol agent. (DCStockPhotography via Shutterstock)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider the continued vitality and expansion of lawsuits for damages against federal officers under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. Egbert v. Boule considers whether to extend the Bivens cause of action to First Amendment retaliation claims and Fourth Amendment claims arising from immigration enforcement near the U.S.-Canada border.

Robert Boule is a U.S. citizen who owns and runs the Smugglers Inn, a bed-and-breakfast abutting the Canadian border in Blaine, Washington. The town is a reputed locus of cross-border criminal activity, and the Smugglers Inn purportedly attracts drug traffickers and people seeking to illegally cross the border.

Blaine, Washington (Arkyan via Wikipedia)

In 2014, Erik Egbert, a Customs and Border Patrol agent, approached Boule in town and asked about guests at his inn. Boule told Egbert of a guest who had flown from Turkey to New York the previous day and was flying to Washington and driving to the inn. Later that day, Egbert followed the vehicle transporting the guest onto the inns driveway and tried to speak with him. Boule sought to intervene and asked Egbert to leave his property. Egbert twice shoved Boule out of his way, pushing him to the ground. After confirming that the guest was lawfully in the country, Egbert and two other agents (who had been called to the scene when Boule confronted Egbert) left. Boule complained to Egberts superiors, after which Egbert allegedly contacted the Internal Revenue Service and state agencies, resulting in a tax audit and investigations of Boules activities.

Boule filed a Bivens lawsuit in federal district court, alleging that Egbert retaliated against him for complaining about Egberts behavior in violation of the First Amendment and used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Egbert. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review.

Subsequent to the events giving rise to this case, Boule pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting violations of Canadian immigration law over human smuggling and was sentenced to time served.

The judicially created Bivens cause of action functions as the counterpart to 42 U.S.C. 1983, allowing suits for damages against federal officers for past constitutional violations. The Supreme Court has allowed three Bivens claims to proceed a Fourth Amendment claim against law enforcement, a Fifth Amendment due-process employment-discrimination claim, and an Eighth Amendment claim involving medical care in prison. But the court has described Bivens actions as disfavored judicial activity, rejecting recent claims in Ziglar v. Abbasi against high-level executive officials enacting post-9/11 national-security policy and in Hernandez v. Mesa against a Border Patrol agent over a cross-border shooting of a Mexican national.

Recent cases establish a two-step inquiry. First, the court asks whether the case involves an extension of Bivens into a new context that is different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court, even if that extension is modest. If the case extends Bivens into a new context, the court considers special factors that counsel hesitation about granting the extension. Central to this analysis is the presumption that Congress, not the courts, should decide whether a cause of action should be available against federal officers or on a set of facts.

Egbert begins by urging the court to categorically reject future extensions of Bivens. While the court has not closed the door to extensions, he argues that judicially created causes of action are relics of a discredited view of federal courts authority, reflected in the Supreme Courts refusal to recognize a new Bivens claim in 10 cases over 40 years. Egbert argues that courts should hesitate before granting a Bivens extension because every extension threatens the separation of powers by usurping congressional power to create private causes of action, to evaluate the far-reaching policy involved in allowing people to sue for money damages, and to make policy judgments about how best to hold federal officers accountable for constitutional misconduct. He argues that extending Bivens in this or any new context breathe[s] new life into doctrines this Court has extinguished.

If Bivens extensions remain permissible, Egbert argues that both claims in this case entail extensions into new contexts, and special factors counsel hesitation, compelling the court to reject both.

As for the First Amendment retaliation claim, the context is new because the court has never recognized a First Amendment Bivens claim, particularly not in the context of retaliation by Border Patrol agents along an international border. A host of special factors counsel hesitation. Egbert argues that retaliation claims (in which lawful action becomes unlawful if done for the wrong reason) are nebulous and amorphous, producing difficult and complex litigation. Claims against Border Patrol agents working near the border raise national-security and immigration-enforcement concerns, different from claims against other federal agents. And a plaintiff in Boules position has alternative remedies, including claims under the Privacy Act, proceedings through the IRS and federal tax code, state tort law, and federal administrative investigations. These remedies reflect congressional consideration of the best way to deter constitutional violations by federal officers, and none involves a claim for damages based on retaliation for speech.

Fourth Amendment claims are available, as Bivens itself involved a Fourth Amendment violation for unlawful search and excessive force. But Egbert argues that the context of this case involves a new class of defendants (Border Patrol agents), a new location (an area along the border), and a new enforcement scheme (the application of immigration laws to foreign nationals). Similar special factors counsel hesitation, particularly the national-security concerns arising from claims challenging enforcement of immigration laws. And Congress provided for alternative remedies, including a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (which Boule began but did not pursue) and complaints to the Department of Homeland Security triggering employment sanctions for the misconduct.

The United States appears as amicus and has been given argument time. Unlike Egbert, the government does not argue that courts cannot extend Bivens. But it insists that extensions are unwarranted in this case.

Like Egbert, the government emphasizes that the Court has never recognized a First Amendment Bivens claim and that this Fourth Amendment claim is meaningfully different in several respects from the claim recognized in Bivens. Egbert is a Border Patrol agent and was investigating a foreign national who might have been involved in cross-border smuggling or immigration violations. It occurred steps away from an international border in an area known for illegal smuggling of persons, drugs, and money. The government insists these facts implicate an element of national security absent in Bivens.

The government identifies a similar list of special factors counseling hesitation and compelling the court to leave to Congress the choice to create a cause of action. It highlights past failure to extend Bivens to First Amendment claims, then emphasizes the special concerns for extending to retaliation claims against law enforcement. And it identifies a series of available alternative remedies for Egberts alleged misconduct: complaints through the IRS for false reporting of tax issues, a claim under the Privacy Act for disclosure of private information, state tort claims, administrative claims through the Customs and Border Patrol, and departmental disciplinary proceedings.

Boule filed his brief under seal with the courts permission, leaving a redacted brief publicly available.

Boule emphasizes that Bivens is not dead or long-buried, extinguished, or demolished, contrary to Egberts arguments. Egberts cert petition asked the court to reconsider Bivens, but the court declined to review that issue. And Boule argues that Abbasi did not reject Bivens as a relic or retreat from all applications of Bivens. Rather, Abbasi left room for cases that are the same or trivially different from the courts prior cases.

Boule argues that is this case. The Fourth Amendment claim involves an unlawful search and seizure by a federal officer on private property, materially indistinguishable from Bivens. And this lawsuit challenges conduct by a ground-level official on U.S. soil against a U.S. citizen at his dwelling. Boule argues that this case does not involve national-security policy or the actions of an officer stationed on the border trying to prevent unlawful entry into the United States. Boule also argues that he has no alternative remedies, as the Federal Tort Claims Act does not replace Bivens and administrative procedures do not provide substantive remedies.

Without holding so, Boule argues, several cases have assumed that First Amendment claims, including First Amendment retaliation claims, are cognizable under Bivens. And the court has established that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating against persons for speaking out about government misconduct. As with the Fourth Amendment claim, this claim does not implicate separation of powers; it involves ground-level, non-policymaking conduct by an individual officer. Moreover, Egberts alleged retaliation has no nexus to the conduct of agents at the border. Rather, Boules claim involves conduct away from the border, following completion of the initial encounter, when Egbert contacted numerous agencies to investigate Boule. Boule argues that this is not the typical complicated retaliation claim in which a search, arrest, or prosecution may have been retaliatory or may have been independently justified, requiring a court to parse the officers state of mind and the line between lawful and unlawful conduct. Instead, his is a straightforward retaliation claim, in which the causal connection between Egberts animus and Boules injury is obvious and not bound in complex inquiries into causation or probable cause.

Here is the original post:
Border agents, the First Amendment, and the continued vitality of Bivens - SCOTUSblog

Myles Cosgrove also won't testify in Hankison trial citing 5th Amendment rights

Updated: 3:20 PM EST Feb 28, 2022

It looks like neither ex-LMPD officer who fired shots along with Brett Hankison the night Breonna Taylor died will testify at his trial.The trial for Hankison, who was indicted on wanton endangerment charges, began last week.The night Taylor was killed by gunfire in March 2020, three officers pulled their triggers -- Hankison, John Mattingly and Myles Cosgrove.Both were set to take the stand, but Mattingly invoked his Fifth Amendment right before the trial began, and now, Cosgrove is doing the same.In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy and protects against self-incrimination.On Monday, both attorneys agreed and a judge ruled that he "does have a legitimate Fifth Amendment privilege that then makes him an unavailable witness for the purposes of our trial."The trial resumes on Tuesday.Trial coverage:Day 1 - Breonna Taylor's neighbor recounts bullets whizzing through his apartmentDay 2 -Jurors hear his interview from days after Breonna Taylor raidDay 3 - Jurors taken to Breonna Taylor's apartment

It looks like neither ex-LMPD officer who fired shots along with Brett Hankison the night Breonna Taylor died will testify at his trial.

The trial for Hankison, who was indicted on wanton endangerment charges, began last week.

The night Taylor was killed by gunfire in March 2020, three officers pulled their triggers -- Hankison, John Mattingly and Myles Cosgrove.

Both were set to take the stand, but Mattingly invoked his Fifth Amendment right before the trial began, and now, Cosgrove is doing the same.

In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy and protects against self-incrimination.

On Monday, both attorneys agreed and a judge ruled that he "does have a legitimate Fifth Amendment privilege that then makes him an unavailable witness for the purposes of our trial."

The trial resumes on Tuesday.

Trial coverage:

Go here to read the rest:
Myles Cosgrove also won't testify in Hankison trial citing 5th Amendment rights - WLKY Louisville

A lawyer working on behalf of the Trump family has told a right-wing news outlet that she may yet advise her clients to plead the fifth amendment as a long-running investigation into their finances closes in on them.

Speaking on Newsmax, Alina Habba remarked that the Trumps had been put between a rock and a hard place.

I havent made a determination on what I think is best, she said when asked by the host if her clients would be invoking their protection against self-incrimination.

The investigation in question is a probe into the Trump real estate empires business practices, specifically allegations that properties were deliberately and dramatically over- and undervalued to minimise tax burdens and obtain more favourable loan conditions.

It is being led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who last week succeeded in her effort to obtain testimony from Donald Trump and his children Ivanka and Donald Jr. A judge ruled that the three can be questioned under oath, thwarting an effort by the family to block her from questioning them on the basis that she is politically biased.

In the Newsmax interview, Ms Habba laid into Ms James along the same lines, appearing to confirm that the Trumps are intent on obstructing her. We are going on all avenues against Letitia James, she said, not just with the courts, and it has to be stopped.

"And people in this state should really be frightened if youre a real estate tycoon, and you have valuations of property and you happen to be on the other side of politics with Letitia James.

She and the host then joked about the allegations, which they mused are not so unlike the supposedly routine overvaluing of residential property on the everyday American residential real estate market. (Mr Trump is accused of overvaluing some of his properties by a factor of 10.)

Mr Trumps hopes of avoiding scrutiny were recently dealt a severe blow when his longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, abruptly broke off its relationship with him and the Trump Organization and declared that the last decades worth of his financial statements should no longer be regarded as reliable.

Link:
Trump lawyer says whole family may plead the fifth amendment in probe into their finances - The Independent

Letter writers| Fort Myers News-Press

Florida House Bill 1557 titled Parental Rights In Education sounds benign doesn't it? However, part of the intent of the bill is to shut down discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity in classrooms. Why are we being asked to treat these subjects as shameful or offensive? Why are we asked to single out a group of people who can't and shouldn't have to change who they are? An open discussion of differences done in a supportive atmosphere free from judgment will foster empathy, tolerance and compassion, not derision.

Donald Howard, Naples

The Parental Rights in Educationbill is what a writer is referring to in his emotional appeal to have it defeated.

Having taught high school he is very erudite. However, I suspect that he has been co-opted and mentored by the LGBT+ lobby.

This legislation is in no way forcing a bias in our school system nor would it ban the word gay,It simply would protect children from teachers and other school officials who seek to indoctrinate them with gender ideology and pushing discussions on sexual orientation. It would also require schools to be transparent and get permission from any health services their child receives.

The writer's appeal to reject the bill because its passage would permit bullying or diminisha respectful classroom environment is indeed a straw man argument. These are disciplinary problems.

This bill is not two steps backward but a great leap forward in re-engaging parents in the education of their children.

Rev.Michael P. Orsi, Naples

Swearing in under oath in a courtroom or before Congress seems to be the kryptonite of the Trump cultists. Donald Trump stated that only guilty individuals take the Fifth Amendment. His son Eric took the Fifth Amendment more than500 times under oath when testifying about Trumps business practices. Based on a recent court ruling, Mr. Trump and his other two children may themselves soon get the chance to validate Trumps belief that only guilty parties take the Fifth. I hope good citizens takenotice, but rest assured, should Mr. Trump and his offspring invoke the Fifth Amendment or give self-incriminating testimony, you will not hear of it on the Fox network. During Hillary Clintons more than11 hours of under oath televised testimony before the Republican-led Benghazi witch hunt,she never took the Fifth Amendment once. Hmmm. Now those Republicans known to be involved in planning to overturn the 2020 presidential election are running for the hills rather than face having to defend their actions leading up to and on the day that will truly live in infamy in this countrys history. They could of course take the Tucker Carlson approach as his lawyer stipulated in court that no one can literally believe the facts that Carlson tells them.Problem is, it does not appear other Trump cultists were listening.

Thomas Minor, Colonel, USMC (retired), Bonita Springs

A gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin along with others in a number of states are trying to decertify the electoral votes awarded to President Biden in an attempt to reinstall Donald Trump as president. There is no pathway in the law or Constitution for this to occur and yet they persist. Question: Why are these persons not being charged with sedition and/or insurrection? They are actively trying to overthrow the current government of the United States, which is a crime. Charge them. Prosecute them. Enough of this nonsense. More than60 lawsuits and not one person has offered ANY legally sufficient proof of fraud affecting the outcome of the last presidential election. Time to move on. Put a stop to the nonsense now!

Bruce Goldstein,Ave Maria

The Florida House budget proposal punishes 12 counties to the tune of $200 million for requiring face masks last year -- a district-wide policy that defied Gov.DeSantis' executive order banning such mandates. Be reminded that the federal agency Centers for Disease Control (CDC), President Biden's administration and the mainstream medical community all strongly endorsed the wearing of face masks in 2021.

The affected 12 districts followed science. These 12 superintendents demonstrated leadership, courage and rational thinking -- attributes that education seeks to instill in its students.The 12 counties placed greater importance upon safeguarding the welfare of their children, staff and larger community rather than succumbing to political whim that endangered the public good. If the House budget retains this egregiously punitivescheme, those county schoolchildrenwill bear the brunt of House members' spiteful retribution.

James L. DeBoy, Fort Myers

In arecent letter, the writer states that he, and millions of like-minded people, are speaking up for babies whose mothers are seeking an abortion. I would strongly suggest that he imagine what the future holds for unwanted children.

I worked in British prisons for 20 years and met countless inmates who blamed their miserable childhoods for leading them into drugs and/or crime.

Being an unwanted child in any circumstances causes immeasurable heartache. It leads to feelings of loneliness, sorrow and a sense of not being worthy. Unwanted children are often victims of abuse and neglect, leading to further emotional damage.

No matter what the law says, women will continue to find ways to end unwanted pregnancies. It's a devastating decision to have to make, but it's usually the best decision for both mother and child. The very least we can do is ensure these women get the support and health care they need.

What those of us who support a womans right to choose wantis for every child to be a wanted child.

Nina Mold, Naples

Sometimes you read news that really irritates you but you let it go.Well this morning I just couldn't just let it go, News-Press Feb. 19 article on Florida budget -- naming a new bill,quoting, "And since Republicans control the House, it is formally named the Budgeting for Inflation that Drives Elevated Needs, or BIDEN Fund."

Grow up, Republicans, and acquire some class!

Arlene S. McCarthy, North FortMyers

The TSA has seen a large rise in guns found in carry-on luggage and is seeking ways to prevent this. Enforcement of the penalty for doing so is all over the place. People who carry guns have a huge responsibility and if they lack the ability to keep track of their guns, there should be huge penalties.

I propose a new federal law: no pleading ignorance, no copping to a lesser charge or hand slapping. First offense: gun is surrendered and destroyed. A $10,000 fine. If fine is not paid in 30 days, offender is placed on a no fly list. Second offense, $15,000 fine, gun surrendered and destroyed and offender is placed on an automatic no fly list for six months even after the fine is paid.

Once the word gets out about this new law and a few idiots get busted, the incidents at the airports will plummet.

Denni Brown, Bonita Springs

More:
Letters to the editor for Wednesday, February 23, 2022 - News-Press