Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

We've all read reports and seen news coverage of a witness declining to answer questions on the grounds that the responses may incriminate himhe "claims the Fifth." A witness in that situation is relying on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." If, by answering, the witness could provide evidence that might aid the government in prosecuting him, then he has the right to refuse.

(For another angle to this right, see Immunity From Prosecution. Also, see Can one person claim the Fifth Amendment on another's behalf?)

Witnesses can assert the privilege against self-incrimination in civil proceedings as well as criminal ones, despite the seemingly limiting language of the Fifth Amendment. They can assert it in state or federal court, in a wide variety of proceedings (including trials, depositions, administrative law proceedings, and investigatory proceedings like grand jury hearings). But interestingly, if the witness fears exposure to prosecution in a country other than the United States, the privilege does not apply. (U.S. v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666 (1998).)

Not every disclosure can be the subject of a Fifth Amendment assertiononly those that the witness "reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used." (Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 444-445 (1972).) The key word here is "reasonably." Responses to questions that would be of no use to prosecutors, or that couldn't contribute to a prosecution because of the passing of the statute of limitations, cannot take refuge within the Fifth. But if the prosecution can make use of the answer itself or any evidence it might lead to, the witness is entitled to claim the privilege against self-incrimination.

Often, witnesses are involved in two cases at the same time: one civil and one criminal. For example, a witness might be called to testify before a governmental body while a criminal case against her is in the investigative stages. The witness's lawyer will likely advise her to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Why is this a good idea?

First, because the potential consequences of a criminal proceeding (including jail or prison) are more dire than those of a civil case, a witness may be able to get a judge to "stay," or postpone, the civil matter until the criminal one is concluded. Even if there's no stay, a witness is usually better off asserting the privilege if truthful answers will tend to incriminate her with respect to the criminal case.

There's a real risk that innocent mistakes or omissions in a civil matter that's held before the completion of a criminal investigation will come back to haunt the defendant. It's even possible that a mistake in a civil proceeding will lead to a prosecution, not just for the underlying criminal act but also for being untruthful, in which case eventual charges might include obstruction of justice or even perjury.

A witness can waive (give up) the right to invoke the Fifth by later making statements about the topic in question. For example, if a witness invokes the Fifth but goes on to selectively answer questions about the same subject matter, a judge might decide that the later answers invalidate the initial waiver. But judges are hesitant to declare the privilege waived because of its importance. For instance, a brief and general statement about one's innocence, following invocation of the Fifth, probably won't constitute a waiver.

Importantly, even if a judge finds that a person waived the privilege, that waiver will extend only to the current proceeding. A witness who answers questions subsequent to invoking the Fifth, who is ordered by a judge to continue answering based on the waiver, can reassert the privilege in a later, different proceeding. For example, a defendant who waives the privilege while testifying in one case can assert it when called to testify in another.

Additionally, a witness can begin testifying but invoke the privilege when answers to later questions would be incriminating. If the prosecutor commences by asking benign questions that the witness answers ("What were you wearing that night?") but moves into questions that go to the heart of the matter ("How many times did you meet with the defendant?"), the witness may claim the privilege.

At first blush, it might seem that whenever answers to questions might incriminate oneself, it makes sense to decline to answer. Many times claiming the Fifth is the best course of action, but there may be instances when it will do more harm than good. For example:

Yet, a witness who could claim the Fifth but is tempted to answer should first discuss the issue thoroughly with an attorney. Suppose a witness in a civil case may be able to supply credible answers that could form the basis for a strong defense against a future criminal proceeding. A prosecutor confronting these convincing, under-oath answers might decide not to file charges. Of course, if the witness fibs, omits something, or gets confused on cross-examination, she may doom herself. That's why the guidance of a knowledgeable attorney is crucial.

The decision as to whether to invoke one's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a civil or criminal proceeding is very complicated, involving an assessment of both the facts and the relevant law in your jurisdiction. Only careful discussion and preparation with your lawyer will enable you to make a wise decision. Never head into a situation where testimony could end up hurting you without professional advice.

See original here:
Your Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ...

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. But the Supreme Court's interpretation of unreasonable has varied over time. Some searches require warrants, but others do not. In general, the Fourth Amendment protects a person and their property from searches by the government wherever there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. For instance, trash that is still inside a person's home is protected; trash sitting beside the street curb for pickup is not. In the age of the Internet, where so much personal information is shared over social media such as Facebook and Twitter, some people argue that privacy has become a myth. After the 9-11 attacks, Congress passed laws making it easier for the government to use such information when investigating terrorism.

The Fifth Amendment protects the right to private property in two ways. First, it states that a person may not be deprived of property by the government without due process of law, or fair procedures. In addition, it sets limits on the traditional practice of eminent domain, such as when the government takes private property to build a public road. Under the Fifth Amendment, such takings must be for a public use and require just compensation at market value for the property seized. But in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court interpreted public use broadly to include a public purpose of economic development that might directly benefit private parties. In response, many state legislatures passed laws limiting the scope of eminent domain for public use.

Rights content written by Linda R. Monk, Constitutional scholar

See the original post here:
Privacy and Property Rights | Rights | Constitution USA | PBS

NEW LONDON - Testimony expected on Thursday from the former girlfriend of a Hartford man accused of killingthree members of a Griswold family was put on hold as an evidence suppression hearing for Sergio Correa is poised to enter a second week.

Attorney Chris Dube, appointed by the Public Defenders Office in New London Superior Court to assist the former girlfriend, Tanisha Vicento, was granted a week-long continuance by Judge Hunchu Kwak without objection from prosecutors or Correas defense team.

Vicento was scheduled to be the second witness called by Public Defenders Joe Lopez and Corrie-Ann Mainville after they elicited testimony from Correas step-sister and co-defendant on Wednesday. The suppression hearing began on Monday.

Mainville asked that she and Lopez be notified as soon as possible if Vicento was contemplating exercising her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before she takes the stand.

Vicento, who was a key state witness during Correas 2019 probable cause hearingis again to fill that role when her ex-boyfriends trial begins in November.

Vicento is expected to be questioned about a 2003 Mitsubishi Galant she co-owned with Correa when they lived at a Donald Street apartment in December 2017. That's the same month Kenneth, Janet and Matthew Lindquist were murdered in and outside their 70 Kenwood Drive home.

The defense is seeking to exclude the vehicle and its contents from being presented as trial evidence, citing a lack of probable cause and exigent circumstances before its seizure by state police detectives on Dec. 28, 2017.

Police said items from the vehicle were traced back to the Lindquists home and Correas stepsister told police she and her brother used the car to drive to and from the crime scene on Dec. 20, 2017.

Probation officials previously said Vicento voluntarily signed a release form allowing them to search the car, and police said she gave over the vehicle keys willingly shortly after. Lopez seems to be suggesting Vicento was intimidated into cooperating with law enforcement officials - a scenario prosecutors contest.

During the 2019 probable cause hearing, Vicento tearfully recounted Correa alluding that he and his sibling killed Janet and Kenneth Lindquist. She recalled Correa leaving their bed the night of the killings and being unable to reach him by phone.

Hours later, she said Correa was back with their car.

He showed me something in the truck, she said. Two long guns, which I told him to get rid of. He said he buried one and got rid of the other.

Correas sister, Ruth Correa, who is cooperating with the state in exchange for a 40-year sentence on three counts of felony murder, previously confessed to helping her brother murder Matthew Lindquist as part of a scheme to steal guns from Kenneth Lindquists gun safe.

Ruth Correa confessed her brother brutally bludgeoned Kenneth Lindquist with a bat and beat and strangled Janet Lindquist before the siblings set the home ablaze. The couples badly burned bodies were found in the fire rubble, both showing signs of head trauma.

Vicento said Sergio Correa warned her days after the murders to stay away from his sister because she was crazy, she testified.

He said he did the dad and she did the mom, Vicento said. I didnt understand until I watched the news about a big fire and people had died.

Vicento said the Mitsubishi Galant she shared with Sergio Correa had for weeks contained a small metal bat, machete and empty gas can. Ruth Correa previously testified Matthew Lindquist was struck with a machete before the siblings stabbed him multiple times and left his body in a wooded area near the Lindquist home. His body was not discovered for months.

Vicento, who sobbed frequently throughout her testimony, said she recalled seeing Ruth Correa wearing new pieces of jewelry after the murdersand noticed her friend had a purple laptop in her apartment. Ruth Correa testified the laptop was stolen from the Lindquist home, but on the stand denied stealing any jewelry.

Vicento told police during a May 11, 2018 interview that when she confronted Sergio Correa regarding his whereabouts on the night of the murders, he explained his sister snapped and things went bad, according to an arrest warrant.

During a subsequent interview days later, Vicento, who seemed to have a close relationship with Ruth Correa, told detectives she became fearful for her life and the lives of her children after the probation search.

She said Sergio Correa told her he and his sister killed two people and burned the house down, the warrant states.

Sergio Correa ischarged with murder with multiple victims, three counts of felony murder, home invasion, first-degree robbery, first-degree arson and second-degree arson.

John Penney can be reached at jpenney@norwichbulletin.com or at(860) 857-6965

More:
A triple-murder suspects ex-girlfriend was supposed to testify today. Why didn't she? - Norwich Bulletin

The Supreme Court convenes today for the start of its October 2021 term, in person for the first time since March 2020, when the pandemic drove the justices to literally phone it in. This year, the court has some blockbuster cases, both on its docket and in the cert petition pipeline. Here are a few cases to put on your radar:

Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization

In 2019, the Supreme Court granted a property owner a victory in Knick v. Scott Township. In doing so, the court overruled a 1985 precedent called Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank, which held that property owners couldnt sue in federal court for a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The underlying issue in Knick was whether the owner of rural land in northern Pennsylvania could go to federal court when the town said she must allow strangers onto her property so they could search for putative colonial gravesites.

But the immediate issue at hand was when the court should correct its past mistakes. In Knick, the court reversed Williamson County, leading to a furious debate between the majority opinion and the dissenters over when the court should abandon stare decisis in order to overrule mistaken precedent. Why so furious? Because the court was anticipating the arrival of a giant elephant in the room. With more fanfare than any circus, that elephant has now arrived, and its name is Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization. Today, the Alabama Attorney General is demanding that the court overturn Roe v. Wade.

Glorified and vilified, Roe has been the touchstone for a half-centurys worth of debate over the meaning of constitutional jurisprudence and the impact of the courts decisions on societal norms and vice versa. The debate has been animated not only by the social revolution the case ushered but also by the uneasy admission by even the cases staunchest defenders that the constitutional rationale for former Justice Harry Blackmuns decision did not match its importance. But was it so weak that the doctrine of stare decisis should be abandoned in Dobbs? Or should the court find a new constitutional rationale for the case to preserve the sociological status quo? Expect rhetorical fireworks in the courtroom and around the nation on Dec. 1 when the court tees up the case for oral argument.

Austin v. Reagan National Advertising

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. After the Civil War, the First Amendment was applied to the states. In 1980, the Supreme Court found that laws affecting so-called commercial speech should be given more leeway. Thus, no law meant some laws are okay for commercial speech. However, in 2015, in a dispute over an Arizona towns ability to regulate signs for church services, the court held that signs commercial or otherwise could not be regulated based on their content.

In Austin v. Reagan National Advertising, the court will decide whether a regulation banning electronic signs, unless the sign is located next to the business it advertises, is a prohibited content-based sign code. In the Arizona case, Justice Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasWhy Latinos need Supreme Court reform ESPN removes Sage Steele from programming after controversial remarks Group asks California bar to investigate Trump adviser's role in Jan. 6 MORE agreed with the result but added in a concurrence that there is no philosophical or historical basis for asserting that commercial speech is of lower value than noncommercial speech. Austin gives the court an opportunity to reaffirm that any sign ordinance requiring an inquiry into the signs message is unconstitutional and that there is no basis for any First Amendment exception for commercial speech. As Pacific Legal Foundations friend of the court brief puts it, Although commercial speech has been treated differently and badly in some of this Courts rulings, modern First Amendment doctrine should place it on an equal footing with other protected speech.

American Hospital Association v. Becerra

Congress has a habit of passing vague laws, leaving it to federal agencies to fill in the blanks with rulemaking and statutory interpretations. In 1984, in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court became fed up with the habit of some federal courts to substitute their policy preferences for those of the agencies under the guise of statutory interpretation. There, the court adopted the Chevron doctrine and said that if the statute isnt clear, the courts should defer to an agencys interpretation. That may have cured the problem of runaway courts, but it led to another: runaway federal agencies. Over the ensuing years, an increasing number of scholars have concluded that Chevron was either wrong or badly flawed in its execution.

The nominal issue in American Hospital Association v Becerra is whether the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit properly applied Chevron when reviewing the regulation of Medicare reimbursement rates for certain outpatient drugs. But the more fundamental question raised in briefs such as Pacific Legal Foundations is whether it is time to abandon the Chevron doctrine altogether. The argument is set for Nov. 30 and will be watched closely by those contemplating the future of administrative law. Perhaps just as significantly, many will be watching the argument intently for signs on how receptive the court may be to overturning other precedents such as Roe v. Wade that will be on the docket the following day in Dobbs.

Also in play are a host of cases waiting in line for court review. Among these cert petitions are a challenge to Harvards admissions practices that discriminate against Asian American applicants and various challenges to state eviction moratoria, vaccine mandates and other COVID-19 orders. Likewise, with the courts growing willingness to accept property rights cases, Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys soon will ask the court to take up cases from North Carolina and California where property owners were either denied the basic right to use their land without compensation or were heavily fined for the innocent and harmless use of their land.

The Supreme Court always surprises, delights and disappoints. For more on what to expect, watch The Consequential Cases in the Supreme Courts 2021-2022 Term Including New Cases Added After the Courts Long Conference, where attorneys Noel Francisco, Tom Goldstein, William Jay and Anastasia Boden held their own court on the upcoming term.

James Burling is vice president of legal affairs at Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans individual liberty and constitutional rights.

Read the original here:
Soon to be blockbuster cases from the Supreme Court | TheHill - The Hill

The Supreme Court has final authority to make difficult judgment calls articulating the powers of government and the limits and constraints upon them. To merit the public trust, these judgments must not appear simply as assertions of individual value choices by the justices or willy-nilly discard long-established court precedents that profoundly affect peoples lives. Nor should they actively undermine the ability of governments to advance public purposes as established by a fair democratic process.

As the court begins a new term, regrettably, its recent history suggests that it lacks a majority of justices with sufficient concern about the basic continuity and integrity of the law or the ability of government to function.

The evidence has been growing quietly in recent years and then, last summer, quite loudly, when the court decided to twiddle its thumbs while Texas enacted an abortion law that practically bans nearly all procedures while evading timely judicial review.

This distressing turn of events has a special irony for me personally. In the 1980s, along with three of the current justices (John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas), I participated in the Reagan revolution in the law, which inspired and propelled the careers of three other current justices (Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett).

The Reagan revolution pitted itself against activist judges who were seen as following personal whims by altering the law and creating rights not found in the Constitution. Through interpretive tools like textualism and originalism, the Reagan lawyers sought to make the law more predictable and steady as articulated by John Roberts, the job of justices was to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.

That revolution, however, has morphed into what it was meant to curtail, as the expanding right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has relied on an array of innovative constitutional rights to undermine traditional governmental actions while discarding longstanding precedents with which they disagree.

In the highest-profile case of the courts new term, Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health, the conservative justices may be ready to repeal the constitutional right to abortion.

At the same time it seems ready to cast aside certain constitutional rights, the court today regularly gives sweeping new interpretations to other rights and invokes them to radically narrow certain government powers that were until quite recently uncontroversial, including, for example, powers related to public safety or our democratic process.

It may be ready to do just that in an upcoming firearms case in which a lower court upheld, in a manner largely consistent with other recent decisions, a New York State law that requires evidence of good cause for a person to obtain a license to carry a gun outside of the home. In the 2008 Heller case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not allow a person to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Another potential blockbuster case it is not yet officially on the docket would consider a reversal of the courts precedent approving affirmative consideration of race as a factor in college admissions.

My concerns about what the Supreme Court might do now are fed by its actions in the recent past. Last term was marked by a number of radical departures from precedent and existing law to elevate certain constitutional rights of individuals in a way that can stop government at all levels in its tracks.

Perhaps most unexpected and disturbing were decisions elevating rights of religious assembly over local public-safety rules related to Covid-19 that limited the ability to gather. Yet throughout our history, in matters of public health, the powers of local government have usually been at their apex. That did not matter here nor did the fact that Chief Justice Roberts was among the dissenters.

Another decision that received less attention but was still shocking involved the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which says private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. The decision struck down a California agriculture labor regulation that gave union organizers the right to come to specific areas of a growers property at limited times to speak with workers.

As Justice Stephen Breyers dissent made clear, rather than apply the courts longstanding regulatory takings test which balances several factors and would clearly have indicated that the law did not violate the Takings Clause the court simply applied a different test previously reserved for a very narrow set of obvious takings. In doing so it raised major new questions about the constitutionality of some government business regulation and oversight that require access to private property.

In June, the court also invalidated Philadelphias requirement that its foster-care services contractors be willing to certify same-sex couples as foster parents, on the ground that it violated the free exercise of religion rights of a contractor, Catholic Social Services. This result appears to violate a court precedent of over 30 years holding that religious believers, like everyone else, are bound by generally applicable neutral conduct requirements that are not aimed at any religious groups a sensible principle enunciated for the court by Justice Antonin Scalia in a 1990 case out of Oregon.

To invalidate Philadelphias requirement without striking down that precedent, Chief Justice Roberts engaged in what Justice Gorsuch (with two other conservative justices) called a statutory shell game. The court avoided the outrage that would have followed an outright precedent reversal but the effect is nearly the same: The idea that religious beliefs provide no exemption from neutral governmental policies appears all but dead.

The court also intervened for the second time to severely undermine the Voting Rights Act when it voted 6-3 to greatly narrow Section 2. That will make legal challenges to new electoral laws in some states far more difficult. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent, the majority opinion mostly inhabits a law-free zone, leaving the statutes language almost totally behind and simply creates a set of extra-textual exceptions and considerations to sap the acts strength.

Finally, by a 6-3 vote, the court invalidated Californias requirement that charities in the state disclose certain information about the identity of their major donors. The court called it an unconstitutional burden of the First Amendment free association rights of those donors. But this sweeping invalidation, as Justice Sonia Sotomayors dissenting opinion makes clear, profoundly departed from many earlier cases that have required such First Amendment claimants to offer evidence that a disclosure would chill association or raise a risk of threats or intimidation. It is also a reversal from the courts nearly unanimous endorsement just a decade ago of the idea that disclosures of donor identity are critically important to the public interest in transparency.

In their general direction and thrust, these cases from the last term do not differ materially from the approaches that the courts most conservative justices have been pursuing for years. What is new is the courts frequency and brashness in achieving these radical outcomes and its willingness to do so too often without an honest explanation and acknowledgment of what is actually going on.

Perhaps the six-member conservative majority with Chief Justice Robertss sometimes moderating influence now apparently curtailed has come to this point out of loyalty to a proposition articulated by Ronald Reagan himself: Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.

But they would do well to remember why the Reagan revolution in the law came about in the first place. It was motivated by resistance to judicial meddling, primarily by the Warren court of the 1950s and 60s, and it rested on the idea that judges are stewards of an existing body of law and not innovators charged with radically remaking it.

Failing to remember that will squander the public trust that is so essential to the courts historically unquestioned authority to say what the law is. Already this year, Americans approval of the court has plummeted.

It will also strengthen the calls for structural changes. Some proposals to overhaul the Supreme Court like the institution of term limits and a modest expansion of the bench would arguably be salutary.

But that is a debate best pursued on its own merits and not because an out-of-control court has lost touch with its mission and must be stopped from casting aside long-established precedents and radically altering our system of government in accord with policy preferences of individual justices.

Donald Ayer, a former U.S. attorney and principal deputy solicitor general in the Reagan administration and deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration, is an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law.

Read the rest here:
Opinion | The Supreme Court Has Gone Off the Rails - The New York Times

The Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2021 has come into force from 15th August, 2021, a recent notification of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment provides. The 105th Amendment Act which received the assent of the President last month restores the power of the State Governments and Union Territories to identify and specify Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBCs).

Background of 105th Amendment Act

The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) was established under the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1992. The 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018 while giving constitutional status to NCBC also empowered the President to notify the list of SEBCs for any state or union territory for all purposes. Prior to 102nd Amendment Act, the prevalent practice was that States and Union would specify their own lists respectively called state list and union list.

In the months after the 102nd Amendment Act, 2018 came into force, the Maharashtra legislature passed a law recognising Marathas as a Socially and Educationally Backward Class and provided them the benefit of reservation. Subsequently, in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs Union of India (Maratha Quota Case), the power of the Maharashtra legislature to pass a law recognising the Marathas as SEBC came to be challenged. The Supreme Court of India was hearing an appeal against the impugned judgement of Bombay High Court which upheld the validity of the Act. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by 3:2 majority, held that States lacked the power to identify and specify SEBCs after the 102nd Constitution Amendment Act. The majority judgment held that after the introduction of Articles 338B and 342A to the Constitution "the final say in regard to inclusion or exclusion (or modification of lists) of SEBCs is firstly with the President, and thereafter, in case of modification or exclusion from the lists initially published, with the Parliament".

105th Constitution Amendment Act

The 105th Constitution Amendment Act overrides the interpretation given by the Supreme Court of India in Maratha Quota Case by clarifying that the State Government and the Union Territories are empowered to prepare and maintain their own State List/ Union territory list of SEBCs. Further, it clarifies that the President may notify the list of SEBCs only for the purposes of the Central Government.

Specifically, the 105th Constitution Amendment Act amends Article 342A to state that the power of the President to specify the socially and educationally backward classes in the Central List for the purposes of the Central Government. It also adds clause (3) to Article 342A, which clarifies that states and union territories will have the power to identify and specify SEBCs for their own purposes and that such list may differ from the Central list.

Read/ Download the Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth) Amendment Act, 2021 here.

Excerpt from:
Constitution (105th Amendment) Act Deemed To Be In Force From 15th August, 2021; Power To Identify SEBCs... - Live Law - Indian Legal News

A Los Angeles judge has suspended Britney Spears' father Jamie Spears from the conservatorship that's controlled the singer's life, career and finances for 13 years. The decision is a major victory for the pop star, who has pushed to remove her father from the court-appointed arrangement.

Judge Brenda Perry agreed with a petition from Britney's lawyer, Mathew Rosengart, and appointed John Zabel, a certified public accountant, to serve as a temporary manager of her finances. Penny denied a request from Jamie's attorney to investigate Zabel, saying the temporary appointment only requires a background check.

The judge said her father's suspension was in Britney's best interest and said the ruling was unable to be appealed. A hearing focused on whether to terminate the conservatorship altogether is scheduled for November 12.

"This suspension is directly what Britney wanted, she does not want Jamie in her life," Rosengart said in court Wednesday.

Jamie's attorney issued a statement on his behalf Thursday. "Mr. Spears loves his daughter Britney unconditionally. For thirteen years, he has tried to do what is in her best interests, whether as a conservator or her father," the statement said. "For Mr. Spears, this also meant biting his tongue and not responding to all the false, speculative, and unsubstantiated attacks on him by certain members of the public, media, or more recently, Britney's own attorney."

"These facts make the outcome of yesterday's hearing all the more disappointing, and frankly, a loss for Britney. Respectfully, the court was wrong to suspend Mr. Spears, put a stranger in his place to manage Britney's estate, and extend the very conservatorship that Britney begged the court to terminate earlier this summer."

Meanwhile, Rosengart said he plans to depose Jamie for alleged financial mismanagement during his time as a conservator.

"I'm very proud of Britney," Rosengart said outside of the courthouse on Wednesday. "We've served extensive discovery on Jamie Spears, interrogatories, document requests and I do intend to take his deposition as well, during which, unless he pleads the fifth amendment, he will have to answer for his misconduct."

Outside of the courthouse, the pop star's supporters cheered as the news was announced Wednesday. Her fans waved posters with her photos and the phrase "Free Britney" while singing her most popular songs.

Britney's fianc,Sam Asghari, celebrated the decision on Wednesday. "Free Britney!" he wrote on Instagram. "Congratulations!!!!"

A New York Times and FX documentary was at the center of Wednesday's hearing. In the film, a former employee of the security firm Black Box alleged that Jamie "ran an intense surveillance apparatus" that secretly captured audio recordings from his daughter's bedroom, including interactions with her boyfriend and children. Jamie's legal team has denied the allegation.

Earlier this month, Jamie vowed to eventually step down and filed a petition to end the arrangement altogether, saying "all he wants is what is best for his daughter." His legal team maintains Jamie has always had Britney's interests at heart and that her estate went from being in debt to having a valuation of more than $60 million.

In June, Britney made her first public comments in court, testifying that the conservatorship was abusive and gave her father unprecedented control over her life, body, and mental health.

"This conservatorship is doing me way more harm than good," Britney said in an emotional statement. "I've lied and told the whole world I'm OK and I'm happy it's a lie. I thought just maybe if I said that enough, maybe I might become happy because I've been in denial. I've been in shock. I am traumatized."

For Breaking News & Analysis Download the Free CBS News app

Read more here:
Britney Spears' father Jamie Spears suspended from conservatorship - CBS News

The ad hoc committee charged with dealing with the bill amending section 25 of the constitution has now completed its task. It is therefore necessary to consider the implications of having a constitution that includes expropriation without compensation, state custodianship of land and protecting land for future generations, and that abandons to parliament the power to determine when expropriation without compensation will apply.

To understand that there are implications it is necessary to take a step back to understand why constitutions were introduced in the first place. Every individual has unalienable rights, including the rights to life, liberty and property. Over the centuries, the common law developed to protect these. But then a lawmaking institution, parliament, evolved and the question emerged: what are the limits to parliaments lawmaking powers?

The British opted for the notion that parliament was sovereign in its lawmaking function. That is, it could make or unmake any law. That prompted critic and historian Sir Leslie Stephen to ask his famous but obvious constitutional question: if parliament passes a law to murder blue-eyed babies, is that a valid law? If parliament is sovereign the answer must be yes.

This is, of course, unacceptable, but what is the solution? Stephen and his famous cousin, AV Dicey of constitutional law fame, were confident that the integrity of lawmakers meant they would never make bad laws, and if they did these would either not be obeyed or a revolt would take place. But this is surely not an acceptable solution to the problem of a sovereign lawmaking institution.

The American answer to Stephens question was no, parliament is not sovereign. The US adopted a constitutional framework whereby the authority of Congress (its parliament), was limited. It could not pass laws infringing on unalienable rights. They made it clear parliament is not a sovereign lawmaking body.

Originally the US constitution did not contain a specific bill of rights since it was thought to be unnecessary. The view was that the constitution itself imposed adequate structural limitations. Including a bill of rights would at best be unnecessary and at worst imply that only a limited number of rights existed, whereas their true number was indeterminate.

The US Bill of Rights was introduced at a later stage to indicate the limited circumstances where unalienable rights could be infringed. Thus, the fifth amendment reads: No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.So private property can be taken for one and only one reason: public use, and then only upon the payment of just compensation and via the due process of law.

It should be clear that not every legal text that is labelled a constitution is in fact a constitution. A text that fails to protect, say, blue-eyed babies from murder, cannot qualify as a constitution. And so the constitutional route provides an answer to Stephens problem of parliamentary sovereignty. But now a new problem appears: what would happen if the constitution were amended to permit parliament to pass a law to murder blue-eyed babies or, even worse, compelling the murder of blue-eyed babies?

Clearly, the constitution that existed before the adoption of the amendment would cease to be a constitution. The amendment would be so offensive to the very notion that it would taint the entire text. Increasingly around the world, the realisation is growing that some so-called constitutions may themselves be unconstitutional, and legal doctrines are evolving allowing courts to declare constitution-breaking constitutional amendments unconstitutional.

One such example is the Basic Structure Doctrine. Take, for example, where a political party patently rigs an election and the matter is taken to court, which nullifies the election. The political party then uses its majority to amend the constitution, declaring that the courts have no authority to adjudicate on the validity of elections. In this case the courts would have to declare the amendment to be of no force or effect by the application of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

The amendment would not qualify as an amendment at all, according to this doctrine, but rather an attempt to replace the constitution with something that is not a constitution, which should be outside the power of parliament. It can thus be said that constitutions need to meet the requirements of constitutionalism.

To understand the problem with SA's constitution if the now-approved amendment to section 25 is adopted, take the following Zimbabwe-style example: a division of soldiers arrives and tells property owners and occupiers to immediately leave their farms as it is taking possession.

First, let us apply the fifth amendment of the US constitution as quoted above. The soldiers would have no right to take over the farms. The constitution would stand between them and the farmers. That is its function. Rex van Schalkwyk, chairman of the Free Market Foundations rule of law board of advisers, has provided a very good definition of the rule of law - the barrier that the law sets against tyranny.

Now let us apply the proposed amended section 25 version of the SA constitution to the situation. The new section means the soldiers cannot be turned away because you cannot find a due process of law requirement. You cannot say show me the court order. You could ask them why they are taking the farms and they could provide a host of reasons, including public purpose, public interest, safeguarding for future generations, land reform, reforms to bring about equitable access to natural resources, state custodianship, redress for the past racial discrimination, and so on.

When you aggregate all the reasons, it is so broad that it is in fact arbitrary. You may ask for compensation, but in terms of the new section 25(3A) national legislation may spell out the circumstances for when nil compensation may be paid. The circumstances are not in the constitution; there is thus nothing in the constitution to protect you.

Read the original post:
The constitution after the section 25 proposed amendment - Business Day

He went to practice with the rest of us, said Mericle, who told jurors that he and Johnny Wilson joined the water polo team as redshirt freshmen in 2014. They didnt play in games but practiced in the pool six days a week, trained with the full squad, and traveled at their own expense to attend games.

Mericle said the coach, Jovan Vavic, who led the team to six consecutive national championships leading up to 2014, was like the Bill Belichick of water polo and insisted that all his recruits show up every day. You were expected to be full water polo all the time, he said.

His testimony bolstered the defenses claim that Johnny Wilson, who played water polo in high school, was a legitimate player and contradicted the previous testimony of Casey Moon, an assistant water polo coach at USC, that he never saw him after the teams first practice.

The elder Wilson, 62, of Lynnfield, founder of Hyannis Port Capital, a real estate investment firm, is accused of paying $220,000 to have his son admitted to USC as a fake recruit. Prosecutors have presented evidence that the money was paid to William Rick Singer, a college consultant who orchestrated the bribery scheme and used a charitable foundation he created to funnel $100,000 of Wilsons money to the colleges mens water polo team.

The defense has argued that Wilson was duped by Singer and believed he made a legitimate contribution to the college, which sent him a thank you note for his donation.

Vavic, who was among 57 people charged since the scandal came to light in 2019, is accused of accepting more than $200,000 in bribes, including $100,000 that went to the team and nearly $120,000 for his sons private school tuition payments, in exchange for flagging multiple applicants as water polo recruits.

He has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial. Prosecutors say he presented a fake athletic profile for Johnny Wilson, fabricating his swimming times and athletic achievements, so a USC subcommittee would approve his admission as a walk-on.

Wilson is also accused of wiring $1 million to Singer in 2018, and agreeing to pay as much as $500,000 more, to help his twin daughters be admitted to Harvard and Stanford universities as fake sailing recruits.

Abdelaziz, 64, of Las Vegas, a former Wynn Resorts executive, is accused of paying Singer $300,000 to have his daughter admitted to USC as a fake basketball recruit, even though she failed to make her high schools varsity team.

On Friday, Assistant US Attorney Stephen Frank grilled Mericle about Johnny Wilsons athletic ability, noting that the athletic profile presented to USC claimed he could swim a 100 yard freestyle in less than 44 seconds.

Thats darn fast, Mericle said, adding that he didnt know Johnny Wilsons official time. The prosecutor cited a document indicating that Wilson finished the 100-yard freestyle in about 53 seconds during a high school meet.

Prosecutors allege that Johnny Wilson quit the water polo team at the end of the season because Singer had advised his father he could move on after one semester. But in a January 2015 email to Vavic, Johnny Wilson said he was quitting the team because he had suffered several concussions playing water polo and was worried about his health.

On Friday, the defense presented a document showing that Johnny Wilson suffered a concussion in 2014 after being elbowed in the temple during practice. Mericle confirmed that his roommate was unable to attend school or practice for a couple of weeks because of the concussion. He later returned to the team on injured status before he resumed practice.

During cross-examination, Mericle acknowledged that he was a close friend of Johnny Wilsons and in college joined him on family vacations in Amsterdam and Chamonix, a French ski resort in the Alps, paid for by the Wilsons. He said he also attended Johnny Wilsons 21st birthday celebration in Las Vegas, a lavish event Wilsons father paid for.

Is it fair to say the defendant, Mr. Wilson, has been extremely generous to you over the years? Frank asked.

Yes, said Mericle, who described the Wilsons as very kind people.

Mericles testimony came on the 12th day of the trial, which is expected to go to the jury next week.

The case has put a spotlight on college admissions practices and the preference given to the children of wealthy donors. Prosecutors allege that USC is a victim of the bribery scheme, while the defense has attempted to cast the school as a willing participant.

Defense lawyers were frustrated Friday when they attempted to call two former USC officials to the stand. Steve Lopes, former CFO and COO of USCs athletics department, and Ron Orr, a senior associate athletic director who led the Trojan Athletic Fund, refused to answer questions, citing their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Neither man has been charged in the scheme, but after questioning them privately, US District Judge Nathaniel Gorton said there is at least a reasonable probability they would face some authentic danger of incrimination were they to testify.

Shelley Murphy can be reached at shelley.murphy@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @shelleymurph.

View original post here:
At Varsity Blues trial, USC water polo teammate says new recruit 'went to practice with the rest of us' - The Boston Globe

MEMPHIS, Tenn. Tennessee state senator Katrina Robinson took the stand Tuesday afternoon. She testified before the jury that has been hearing her case for the last two weeks.

On Monday, a federal judge acquitted Robinson of 15 of the 20 counts she was facing as prosecutors allege she stole thousands of grant dollars that was supposed to go to The Healthcare Institute, her certified nursing school.

She sat and listened to the case against her, but late Tuesday afternoon, it was her turn to talk. When asked if she understood the Fifth amendment, she said, I think Ive used that long enough. Friends, family and fellow lawmakers were in the room for her testimony.

When asked point blank by her attorney if shes been wrongly accused of stealing grant funds, she said, I have been wrongly accused. I have been dragged through the mud by the federal government. When the federal government knew good and well that I did not do that.

She walked the jury through how and why she wanted to start her school. She stated that her father passing away made her want to go to nursing school, then working in the hospital she saw a need for more people to be helped and for certified nursing assistants.

Robinson said THI is designed to help the underserved and students who might not go the traditional college route. When she initially applied for her federal grant in 2015, she didnt expect to get it. However, when she was awarded the grant, she immediately got help, an attorney and an accountant.

THI was praised by those working with the grant for their work. The grant was even extended for one year. Over the years, her classes grew exponentially, which forced THI to expand the size of the school. They made money through tuition and started expanding more nursing programs, which had a higher tuition. In 2018, they were pushing nearly a million dollars in revenue.

Throughout this case the government has alleged Robinson used grant funds for her wedding. When her attorney asked if she did, she said Absolutely not. My father would turn over in his grave if he knew I married someone who couldnt pay for a wedding.

She said they were in the process of moving and her husband at the time made deposits into their business accounts to pay for the wedding. She also said each expense was classified under THI funds.

She also said she would never charge personal expenses to the grant, thats not allowable.

She also said when it came to all data entry in relation to submitting student information for grant funds, it was very important to her that it was done right and never told anyone to falsify information.

The rest is here:
I have been wrongly accused: Sen. Katrina Robinson takes the stand in fraud trial - WREG NewsChannel 3