Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Federal prosecutors notified Donald Trump's legal team that he is a target of their probe into his handling of classified documents after leaving office, people familiar with the investigation told The New York Times.

This has been the clearest signal so far from special counsel Jack Smith's team that Trump is likely to face charges in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, The Times reported.

"It should come as no surprise to anyone that Trump is a target of this investigation, based on public reporting about the evidence," former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor, told Salon. "He is at the center of what appears to be a willful retention of classified documents and obstruction of justice."

Trump's legal team received a "target letter" days before his lawyers James Trusty, John Rowley and Lindsey Halligan met with Smith, who is leading the probe, and others at the Justice Department, to ask prosecutors not to charge the former president.

"Typically, prosecutors will tell a defense attorney upon request whether the client is a target, usually so that the client can assess his potential criminal exposure to decide whether to testify or instead assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination," McQuade said.

The Department of Justice is getting ready to petition a grand jury in Washington, DC, to indict the former president on charges of breaching the Espionage Act and obstructing justice as early as Thursday, according to The Independent.Prosecutors are ready to ask grand jurors to approve an indictment against the former president for violating a portion of the US criminal code known as Section 793, which prohibits "gathering, transmitting or losing" any "information respecting the national defense," The Independent reported.Prosecutors plan to ask grand jurors to vote on the indictment on Thursday, but the vote may be delayed for up to a week to give investigators more time to gather additional evidence if required, according to the outlet.

"Legally, the Trump team will get organized for charges to be filed and politically the former president will have to decide on a strategy to publicly address possible charges," Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, told Salon.

Since last year, prosecutors have been examining potential mishandling of classified materials and obstruction of government efforts by Trump after more than 300 documents with classified markings were discovered at Mar-a-Lago.

Last year, FBI agents retrieved more than 100 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago despite Trump being issued a subpoena in May 2022 requesting the return of all documents in his possession and his legal team saying that a diligent search had not turned up any more.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Recent reports indicate that Smith is in the final stages of concluding the probe into Trump after obtaining testimony from various individuals with close ties to the ex-president.

Over 20 members of Trump's Secret Service security team have either testified or been summoned by the Washington grand jury in recent months, according to The Times.

A Florida grand jury has also been hearing testimony from a handful of witnesses since last month, which legal experts have suggested could mean that federal prosecutors have decided as an appropriate venue to file charges.

Former Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich, who testified before the Florida grand jury on Wednesday, criticized the Justice Department's probe as "bogus and deeply troubling," on Twitter.

It remains unclear how many more witnesses are scheduled to testify before the Miami grand jury.

"This is a stunning development in the political world of former presidents," Rottinghaus said. "We have not had an indictment against a former president let alone one running for president again."

Read more

about the Trump probe

Read more here:
"Stunning development": Experts say Trump target letter is surest ... - Salon

With help from Daniel Lippman

LIV AND PGAS BOMBSHELL: Saudi-financed LIV Golf announced this morning that it would merge with the PGA Tour and the tours European counterpart in a deal that reverberated across the golf world and official Washington alike after years of acrimony and days after one Washington PR firm registered as a foreign agent for its work for the Saudi upstart league.

As part of the deal, LIV, PGA and DP World Tour will combine to form a new for-profit entity that has yet to be named, into which Saudi Arabias sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund, will pour potentially billions of dollars, PIF Governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan, who will chair the combined entity, told CNBC. Contentious litigation between the golf bodies will come to an end as part of the deal as well.

As POLITICOs Kierra Frazier, Josh Sisco and Hailey Fuchs report, the deal is sure to spark fresh antitrust concerns at the Justice Department, while critics who accused Saudi Arabia of using LIV to rehab the kingdoms tarnished reputation on human rights (critics that until recently included the PGA Tour itself) directed some of that criticism back at the PGA Tour.

Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) called the merger a brazen, shameless cash grab and vowed to dive into every piece of Saudi Arabias deal with the PGA.

Even before the deal was announced, 9/11 Families United demanded that DOJ investigate what the group alleged were numerous disturbing violations of FARA following the retroactive registration last month of the consulting firm Gitcho Goodwin for months of PR work on LIVs behalf. Even as these two consultants have filed retroactively, the groups national Chair Terry Strada wrote in a letter obtained by POLITICO, it appears a number of U.S. consultants paid by the Saudi government have not.

Strada pointed to POLITICOs reporting on the contingent of firms including those with ties to the GOP political world that have supported LIVs launch and efforts to rebuff criticism. As PI wrote last week, several FARA experts predicted that Gitcho Goodwins FARA registration (which has since been terminated) was unlikely to be the last for those working for LIV.

Whether thats true of the soon-to-be-combined golf entity remains to be seen, with so few details available about the structure of the new company. I would think that both the PGA and LIV would account for foreign influence-related considerations (including FARA) in the transaction and prospective structure since those have been so front-and-center during LIVs existence, said Matthew Sanderson, an attorney at Caplin & Drysdale who advises clients on the law.

Josh Rosenstein, an attorney with Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock who specializes in FARA, argued that the devil will be in the details here, pointing to the statutes exemptions for foreign or state owned or funded companies for certain work. PIF and other sovereign wealth funds like it have invested in plenty of major companies, whose representatives dont register under FARA. The merger does raise the real possibility that the new entity itself would be required to register under FARA, particularly if it remains funded or subsidized by the PIF, he said in an email.

But even though Gitcho Goodwins rationale for registering under FARA which in part cited court filings from LIVs litigation with the PGA Tour might appear to leave little wiggle room for the combined league, he added, theres still a path for the new companys advisers to avoid having to register.

Happy Tuesday and welcome to PI. Send K Street tips: [emailprotected]. And be sure to follow me on Twitter: @caitlinoprysko. CHAMBER ADDS FTC AIDE: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has hired a former aide to recently departed Republican FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson amid the business lobbys feud with the agency and its aggressive antitrust agenda under Chair Lina Khan. Nina Frant is joining the Chamber as vice president for consumer policy.

She most recently served as an attorney-adviser to Wilson, who quit the FTC in protest of Khans leadership earlier this year, and previously was a consumer protection counsel at Wells Fargo and an attorney in the Office of Supervision Policy at the CFPB (another Chamber sparring partner).

In a statement, Chamber antitrust executive Sean Heather said that Frant understands that policies can be both pro-consumer and pro-business, as markets ensure the interests of both are well-aligned. Her experience will be invaluable to our members as we seek to hold regulatory overreach in check.

As part of that effort, the Chamber has already sued the FTC for documents about its rulemaking process and has accused the agency of exceeding its authority. The organization last week applauded the news that Republicans on the House Oversight Committee had opened an investigation into Khans tenure as chair.

FIRST IN PI NARRATIVE BREAKS OUT HEALTH CARE PRACTICE: Public affairs firm Narrative Strategies has hired Rachel Gartner Clark as a managing director, where she will lead a new, formal health care practice for the firm. Gartner Clark was most recently a senior group director at Real Chemistry, and is a Weber Shandwick and Edelman alum.

Since our founding, Narrative has helped healthcare clients win some of the most challenging policy fights while building and enhancing their reputations, Narrative founding partner Ken Spain said in a statement, adding that the restructure would give us an even greater ability to deliver strategic guidance to a growing roster of industry clients.

The firm has also added Zazni Vlijter and Connor Brandi as strategic communications associates. Brandi was previously an associate at Hilltop Public Solutions, and Vlijter was previously an intern at the firm.

NOT GOING DOWN WITHOUT A FIGHT: Pharmaceutical giant Merck sued the federal government on Tuesday to block Medicare drug price negotiations, calling the program unconstitutional, POLITICOs Megan Wilson reports.

The complaint, filed against the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, argued that Medicares efforts to negotiate certain drug prices is political Kabuki theater that is tantamount to extortion. It further described the drug negotiation program, part of the Inflation Reduction Act, as a dystopian parody of negotiation that violates the companys First and Fifth Amendment rights.

Merck, in its complaint, said the negotiations and the stipulated minimum discounts drugmakers are forced to provide lest they incur a massive tax, run afoul of the Fifth Amendments takings clause, which requires the government provide just compensation for property taken for public use.

WILL THEY GO FOR A HAT TRICK?: The Securities and Exchange Commission sued Coinbase on Tuesday, a back-to-back punch by regulators trying to flex their power over the crypto industry The Wall Street Journals Dave Michaels and Vicky Ge Huang report, following the regulators lawsuit on Monday against Binance and its founder.

The SEC alleged that Coinbase, the largest crypto exchange in the U.S., violated rules that require it to register as an exchange and be overseen by the federal agency. The lawsuits are significant moves by the SEC and Chair Gary Gensler, who took office in 2021, to try to regulate the entire crypto industry.

The SECs strategy has centered on using its enforcement division to subdue crypto companies and show why its regulations apply to crypto activities, with increasing focus on the biggest players rather than just the companies and currencies at the margins.

The SECs lawsuit against Coinbase, filed in Manhattan federal court, bore some notable differences from its lawsuit the day before against Binance. The SEC didnt name Coinbase Chief Executive Brian Armstrong as a defendant or accuse the company of mishandling customer funds. Binance and its U.S. affiliate Binance.US said Monday they would defend themselves, and that all user assets were secure.

The agency had been telegraphing todays move against Coinbase for months, and the exchange pushed back on Tuesday, accusing the SEC of taking an enforcement-only approach with the crypto industry in the absence of clear rules.

FLY-IN SZN: A slew of industry and advocacy groups are hitting the Hill this week for fly-ins, including the National Wood Pallets & Container Association, which is bringing executives to share its priorities for the farm bill like supply chain sustainability and workforce and trade constraints. The trade group is set to meet with more than two dozen offices with an emphasis on Agriculture Committee leaders and members in both chambers, including meetings with Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.).

The Natural Products Association is bringing natural product manufacturers, distributors and retailers to the Hill tomorrow to discuss FDA oversight and enforcement, the dietary supply chain and expanding HSA/FSA coverage for supplements. The group is set to meet with offices from the Senate Finance and HELP and House Ways and Means committees, and Sens. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.).

The National Grocers Association, meanwhile, is holding its second competition-focused fly-in today and tomorrow. Independent grocers and wholesalers will push lawmakers to strengthen the Robinson-Patman Act and support for SNAP in the farm bill and hold a grocery bagging competition with lawmakers.

Hospice and palliative care advocates are also in town with the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and the Hospice Action Network to educate members and staff on the value of hospice care, and advocate for payment increases and workforce shortages. Theyve got meetings scheduled with more than 100 offices.

Former HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan has been named CEO and president of the housing nonprofit Enterprise Community Partners.

Andrea McGee has joined the National Federation of Independent Business as a federal government relations manager after more than a decade working for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), most recently as administrative director.

Robert Falb is joining the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations as director of government affairs. He previously served as the director of U.S. regulatory affairs at the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine.

The Household & Commercial Products Association has promoted Mike Gruber from senior vice president to executive vice president of government relations and public policy, and Christopher Finarelli and Michelle Kopa from directors to senior director of state government relations and public policy for the west and east regions, respectively.

Chris Andresen has been named a partner at Dutko Government Relations. Hes been with the firm for 17 years, most recently as a senior vice president.

Amy Davis is Leidos new senior vice president and chief security officer. She was most recently deputy chief for the National Security Agencys office of security and counterintelligence.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Neil Thurgood has joined Anduril Industries as senior vice president and will lead the companys expansion in Huntsville, Ala. He was most recently the inaugural director of the Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technology Office.

Ted Love, the former CEO of Global Blood Therapeutics, was elected chair of the Biotechnology Innovation Organizations board of directors. Love, who will serve a two-year term, succeeds Nkarta CEO Paul Hastings.

Benjy Messner is now of counsel at Precision Strategies to help lead their data and analytics practice. He will also continue work with his own firm, New River Strategies.

Jason Botel is joining Age of Learning as vice president of national partnerships. He was most recently vice president of corporate development at Catapult Learning and is an Education Department alum.

None.

Association for Commuter Transportation PAC (ACT PAC) (PAC) Blue AZ PAC (Super PAC) Don Tommy Pham (PAC) Fight Like Hell PAC (Hybrid PAC) The Riverside PAC (Super PAC) Vannevar Labs, Inc. PAC (PAC) Voyager PAC (PAC)

Ballard Partners: Julian Rudolph Ballard Partners: Sr Technologies, Inc. Ballard Partners: Techlaunch Academy Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP: Sierra Space Cfm Strategic Communications (Conkling Fiskum & Mccormick): Seh America Empire Consulting Group: Fox Corporation Holland & Knight LLP: Quantum Industry Coalition Intealth: Intealth Mclarty Inbound LLC: An Acquisition, LLC Ogilvy Government Relations: Iapd - The Performance Plastics Association Subject Matter: Fox Corporation The Normandy Group, LLC: City Of Boerne, Texas The Raben Group: Reform Alliance Todd Strategy Group: Fox Corporation Tonio Burgos & Associates, Inc.: Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency And Financial Advisory Authority Venable LLP: Vertanical Gmbh Vitello Consulting: Stonington Global On Bhalf Of Pyle USa

None.

Original post:
LIV, PGA drop a bombshell on Washington - POLITICO

Washington, D.C. Today, U.S. Congressman Matt Gaetz (FL-01) introduced a resolution to hold Mark F. Pomerantz, a former Trump prosecutor, in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. The resolution directs the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives to summon him.

On February 7th, 2023, Pomerantz published a book about his experience joining the New York County District Attorneys Office in February 2021 to work on the investigation of President Donald Trump. On April 6th, 2023, Pomerantz was subpoenaed by the House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. After frivolous legal challenges to the subpoena, he appeared under oath for a congressional deposition on May 12th, 2023, after a federal judge told him no one is above the law. However, during his appearance, he failed to comply with the subpoena by incorrectly asserting his Fifth Amendment right when asked questions about information he referenced in his book.

"Through his lack of testimony, Mark Pomerantz has undoubtedly undermined the legitimacy of this witch hunt indictment against President Donald Trump. Mr. Pomerantz pled the Fifth to nearly every question about his time in the Manhattan DAs office, despite writing a tell-all book about his time there.

I believe Mr. Pomerantz engaged in misconduct in his targeting of President Trump, and his refusal to answer simple questions should not go unpunished. He should be held in contempt of Congress and be compelled to answer the questions regarding the weaponization of the Manhattan DAs office. If he fails to comply with the congressional subpoena, then the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives must summon him by force, Congressman Gaetz said.

Full text of Congressman Gaetzsresolution can be foundHERE. Additionally, exclusive coverage of the resolution by Fox News can be found HERE.

###

Forupdates, subscribe to Congressman Gaetzs newsletterhere.

Read more:
Congressman Matt Gaetz Introduces Resolution to Hold Former ... - Congressman Matt Gaetz

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set newsroom policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or onbangordailynews.com.

Nick Murray is the director of policy at Maine Policy Institute, a free-market think tank headquartered in Portland.

Imagine being a retiree who has owned your home for many years. You primarily live off Social Security but do odd jobs on occasion to keep up with the bills.

The COVID-19 pandemic hits. Fearing the virus, given your own vulnerability, you stop taking on those odd jobs and opt to stay indoors. Now youre relying entirely on Social Security.

As the pandemic rages on and the government responds by spending trillions of dollars, contributing to inflation, you find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Grocery, heatand utility billsall rose. Your budget is stretched thinner than ever before.

Now you dont have enough money to pay your property tax bill on time. The late fees pile up. Eventually, the town seizes your property and sells it. It keeps all the proceeds despite the comparatively small debt you owed.

You cant even take the equity you built in your old home over the years to resettle elsewhere the town kept it. You have literally nothing left.

Sadly, laws in 13 states, including Maine, allow this situation to play out. Its called home equity theft, and its time to put an end to it.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimouslythat municipalities cannot keep surplus home equity after seizing and selling a delinquent taxpayers property to settle the debt.

The case concerned 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler of Minnesota who failed to keep up with her property taxes, owing nearly $3,000 in taxes and more than $12,000 in late fees to Hennepin County. The county seized her property and sold it for $40,000. But county officials didnt return the $25,000 she had built in equity they kept it.

Ultimately, the court sided with Tyler and ruled that local governments cannot take more than what is required to pay off the debt, as such a seizure conflicts with the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. This clause prohibits the government from taking property from individuals without just compensation.

This happens in Maine, too. According to the Pacific Legal Foundation, between 2014 and 2021, 43 Maine homes were subject to home equity theft. On average, the owners of those homes lost $167,000, or 88 percent, of the equity they had built. Those individuals lost a total of $4 million combined in equity. Sixty-five percent of those seizures were for tax debts less than the cost of a 10-year-old Ford F-150 pickup truck.

Its hard to understand the rationale for why such a law would exist in the first place. If a state can strip someones property rights because of a tax debt, and allow a local government to seize that property for its own uses, the Fifth Amendment is meaningless.

Of course, you should pay your taxes on time, but it has never made much sense why a local government can seize and sell a property for its full value when only a fraction of that price was owed in debt. It has been and will always be theft.

Fortunately, there is a vehicle in the Maine Legislature that would improve the status quo. LD 101, sponsored by Rep. Chad Perkins, RDover-Foxcroft, would only allow a town to keep surplus equity in this situation if a homeowner fails to claim it within 90 days.

While this provides an avenue for homeowners to reclaim the equity they lost, even better would be to require towns to return the surplus equity in full to the former homeowner. There is no good reason for local governments to keep these funds after the debt has been paid. The decision in the Tyler case shows that the Supreme Court shares this view.

Unfortunately, the Legislatures Tax Committee voted to table the billon May 30, making its passage unlikely by the end of the current special session.

Why should Mainers have to wait for this unjust law to be fixed? The high court was clear that laws like Maines which allow for home equity theft cannot stand, and lawmakers must act accordingly. If not, as reported by the Bangor Daily News, states could face damages in the millions in future lawsuits.

Its time for the state and local governments to cut the cord and stop violating Mainers private property rights.

See the original post:
It's time to end home equity theft in Maine - Bangor Daily News

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

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

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

The six Clark factors are as follows:

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

(2) the source of funds for the entity;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6] Bonin at 9.

[7] Bonin at 7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On these bases, the circuit court reversed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following members voted against impeachment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paxton overwhelmingly defeated Bush with 68 percent of the vote.

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

A copy of the impeachment resolution can be found below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Story continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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