Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

16 July 2021

Husch Blackwell LLP

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On January 6, 2021, webloggedabout two California farms' challenges toCalifornia's regulation requiring agricultural producers togrant unions access to their property to recruit workers. Theregulation required access for three hours a day one hourbefore work started, one hour at lunch and one hour after work for a maximum of 120 days per year. The Ninth Circuitheld that this regulation did not constitute a per se taking forpurposes of the Fifth Amendment because it did not require accesson a 24/7 basis.

In a 6-3 opinion on clear ideological lines, the Supreme Courtreversed. The majority opinion held that the Court hadrecognized two kinds of takings: physical occupation ofproperty, which is a per se taking, and regulatory takings, whenthe regulation goes "too far."

The majority held that the California regulation was a per setaking because it appropriated the growers' property for thebenefit of the unions. The courts have long held that one ofthe most fundamental elements of the right of property is the rightto exclude others, and the regulation deprives the owners of thatright for up to 360 hours a year. It effectively forces theowners to grant an easement to the unions.

The majority held that the temporary nature of the easement wasirrelevant. As a matter of common sense, it makes no sense toapply one set of rules to an easement available 365 days a year andanother to an easement 364 days a year. As a matter of law, anumber of prior Court cases had held that temporary invasions ofprivate property were nonetheless a taking. For example, a1946 case found that the government had taken plaintiff'sproperty by periodically flying aircraft over it less than 100 feetoff the ground.

The majority also held that it made no difference that theregulation did not provide a common law easement as defined byCalifornia law. While state law is generally the source ofproperty rights, it would be a wholesale elevation of form oversubstance to hold that the permanent, periodic access allowed bythe regulation was not a taking.

As we predicted in our January 6 blog post, the majority wentout of its way to emphasize that its holding would not impactordinary health and safety inspections. The majority heldthat there is a clear difference between a trespass and ataking. It also held that there were various common lawexceptions to the law of trespass, such a public official'sright to arrest or to engage in a reasonable search. Andthere is nothing wrong with conditioning a permit or license on thecondition that the recipient allow reasonable health and safetyinspections.

Justice Kavanaugh concurred. While the case did notinvolve labor unions, Justice Kavanaugh thought that theCourt's opinion in NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox stronglysupported the result. In Babcock & Wilcox, the Court heldthat Congress could authorize labor unions to enter on privateproperty to organize workers only when the unions had no otherreasonable means of communicating with the workers elsewhere.The day of the company town is over and there was no reason whyunion representatives could not contact workers at their place ofresidence.

The ruling does not mean that California cannot continue torequire producers to allow limited union access to theirpremises. It only means that California must amend itsstatutes to authorize just compensation to the owner. Theopinion does not address what compensation would be just or how itshould be calculated.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Employment and HR from United States

Potomac Law Group

With safety restrictions now being lifted as the COVID-19 vaccine becomes readily available and the percentage of the vaccinated US population is rising, the time has come for many employers to plan...

Go here to read the rest:
Update On Union Access To Property - Employment and HR - United States - Mondaq News Alerts

Under the First Amendment, you dont have to speak (to government officials or anyone else). The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead

A federalCOVID-19 vaccination strike force may soon be knocking on your door, especially if you live in a community with low vaccination rates. Will you let them in?

More to the point, are you required to open the door?

The Biden Administration has announced that it plans to send federal surge response teams on a targeted community door-to-door outreach to communities with low vaccination rates in order to promote the safety and accessibility of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Thats all fine and good as far as government propaganda goes, but nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims, especially not when armed, roving bands of militarized agents deployed by the Nanny State show up at your door with an agenda that is at odds with what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional right to be let alone.

Any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenrys privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution. These door-to-door visits by COVID-19 surge response teams certainly qualify as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

First, there is the visit itself.

While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans have a rightnotto answer questions or even speak with a government agent.

Courts have upheld these knock and talk visits as lawful, reasoning that even though the curtilage of the home is protected by the Fourth Amendment, there is an implied license to approach a residence, knock on the door/ring the bell, and seek to contact occupants. However, the encounter is wholly voluntary and a person is under no obligation to speak with a government agent in this situation.

Indeed, you dont even need to answer or open the door in response to knocking/ringing by a government agent, and if you do answer the knock, you can stop speaking at any time. You also have the right to demand that government agents leave the property once the purpose of the visit is established. Government officials would not be enforcing any law or warrant in this context, and so they dont have the authority of law to remain on the property after a homeowner or resident specifically revokes the implied license to come onto the property.

When the governments actions go beyond merely approaching the door and knocking, it risks violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant and probable cause of possible wrongdoing in order to search ones property. A government agent would violate the Fourth Amendment if he snooped around the premises, peering into window and going to other areas in search of residents.

It should be pointed out that some judges (including Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch) believe that placing No Trespassing signs or taking other steps to impede access to the door is sufficient to negate any implied permission for government agents or others to approach your home, but this view does not have general acceptance.

While in theory one can refuse to speak with police or other government officials during a knock and talk encounter, as the courts have asserted as a justification for dismissing complaints about this police investigative tactic, the reality is far different. Indeed, it is unreasonable to suggest that individuals caught unaware by these tactics will not feel pressured in the heat of the moment to comply with a request to speak with government agents who display official credentials and are often heavily armed, let alone allow them to search ones property. Even when such consent is denied, police have been known to simply handcuff the homeowner and conduct a search over his objections.

Second, there is the danger inherent in these knock-and-talk encounters.

Although courts have embraced the fiction that knock and talks are voluntary encounters that are no different from other door-to-door canvassing, these constitutionally dubious tactics are highly intimidating confrontations meant to pressure individuals into allowing police access to ones home, which then paves the way for a warrantless search of ones home and property.

The act of going to homes and taking steps to speak with occupants is akin to the knock and talk tactic used by police, which can be fraught with danger for homeowners and government agents alike. Indeed, knock-and-talk policing has become a thinly veiled, warrantless exercise by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into talking with heavily armed police who knock on their doors in the middle of the night.

Knock-and-shoot policing might be more accurate, however.

Knock and talks not only constitute severe violations of the privacy and security of homeowners, but the combination of aggression and surprise employed by police is also a recipe for a violent confrontation that rarely ends well for those on the receiving end of these tactics.

For example, although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or threatened police, he was gunned down by police who knocked aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed Scott when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. The police were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night knock and talk in Scotts apartment complex.

Carl Dykes was shot in the face by a county deputy who pounded on Dykes door in the middle of the night without identifying himself. Because of reports that inmates had escaped from a local jail, Dykes brought a shotgun with him when he answered the door.

As these and other incidents make clear, while Americans have a constitutional right to question the legality of a police action or resist an unlawful police order, doing so can often get one arrested, shot or killed.

Third, there is the question of how the government plans to use the information it obtains during these knock-and-talk visits.

Because the stated purpose of the program is to promote vaccination, homeowners and others who reside at the residence will certainly be asked if they are vaccinated. Again, you have a right not to answer this or any other question. Indeed, an argument could be made that even asking this question is improper if the purpose of the program is merely to ensure that Americans have the information they need on how both safe and accessible the vaccine is.

Under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency should only collect and maintain information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency. In this situation, the government agent could accomplish the purpose of assuring persons have information about the vaccine simply by providing that information (either in writing or orally) and would not need to know the vaccination status of the residents. To the extent the agents do request, collect and store information about residents vaccination status, this could be a Privacy Act violation.

Of course, there is always the danger that this program could be used for other, more nefarious, purposes not related to vaccination encouragement. As with knock-and-talk policing, government agents might misuse their appearance of authority to gain entrance to a residence and obtain other information about it and those who live there. Once the door is opened by a resident, anything the agents can see from their vantage point can be reported to law enforcement authorities.

Moreover, while presumably the targeting will be of areas with demonstrated low vaccination rates, there is no guarantee that this program would not be used as cover for conducting surveillance on areas deemed to be high crime areas as a way of obtaining intelligence for law enforcement purposes.

Weve been down this road before, with the government sending its spies to gather intel on American citizens by questioning them directly, or by asking their neighbors to snitch on them.

Remember the egregiously invasive and intrusiveAmerican Community Survey?

Unlike the traditional census, which collects data every ten years, theAmerican Community Survey(ACS) is sent to about 3 million homes per year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, while the traditional census is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling, their ages and ethnicities, the ownership of the dwelling and telephone numbers, the ACS is much more intrusive, asking questions relating to respondents bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among other highly personal and private matters.

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance.

At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire. These concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among others. For instance, the ACS asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race and their physical, mental and emotional problems, etc. The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house, along with the fuel used to heat your home, the cost of electricity, what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments, property taxes and so on.

However, thats not all.

The survey also demands to know how many days you were sick last year, how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven, whether you have trouble getting up the stairs, and what time you leave for work every morning, along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends, relatives and employer. The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak and when they last worked at a job, among other things.

While some of the ACS questions may seem fairly routine, the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.

Finally, you have the right to say no.

Whether police are knocking on your door at 2 am or 2:30 pm, as long as youre being asked to talk to a police officer who is armed to the teeth and inclined to kill at the least provocation, you dont really have much room to resist, not if you value your life.

Mind you, these knock-and-talk searches are little more thanpolice fishing expeditions carried out without a warrant.

The goal is intimidation and coercion.

Unfortunately, with police departments increasingly shifting towards pre-crime policing and relying on dubiousthreat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged words, and suspicious activity reports aimed at snaringpotentialenemies of the state,were going to see more of these warrantless knock-and-talk police tacticsby which police attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement and prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Heres the bottom line.

These agents are coming to your home with one purpose in mind: to collect information on you.

Its a form of intimidation, of course. You shouldnt answer any questions youre uncomfortable answering about your vaccine history or anything else. The more information you give them, the more it can be used against you. Just ask them politely but firmly to leave.

In this case, as in so many interactions with government agents, the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and your cell phone recording the encounter) are your best protection.

Under the First Amendment, you dont have to speak (to government officials or anyone else). The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. And under the Fifth Amendment, you have a right to remain silent and not say anything which might be used against you.

You can also post a No Trespassing sign on your property to firmly announce that you are exercising your right to be left alone. If you see government officials wandering around your property and peering through windows, in my opinion, you have a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Government officials can ring the doorbell, but once you put them on notice that its time for them to leave, they cant stay on your property.

Its important to be as clear as possible and inform them that you will call the police if they dont leave. You may also wish to record your encounter with the government agent. If they still dont leave, immediately call the local police and report a trespasser on your property.

Remember, you have rights.

The government didnt want us to know aboutlet alone assertthose rights during this whole COVID-19 business.

After all, for years now, the powers-that-bethose politicians and bureaucrats who think like tyrants and act like petty dictators regardless of what party they belong tohave attempted to brainwash us into believing that we have no right to think for ourselves, make decisions about our health, protect our homes and families and businesses, act in our best interests, demand accountability and transparency from government, or generally operate as if we are in control of our own lives.

But we have every right, and you know why?

Because as the Declaration of Independence states, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rightsto life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happinessthat no government can take away from us.

Unfortunately, that hasnt stopped the government from constantly trying to usurp our freedoms at every turn. Indeed, the nature of government is such that it invariably oversteps its limits, abuses its authority, and flexes its totalitarian muscles.

Take this COVID-19 crisis, for example.

What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) has become yet another means by which world governments (including our own) can expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents.

The government has made no secret of its plans.

Just follow the money trail, and youll get a sense of whats in store: more militarized police, more SWAT team raids, more surveillance, more lockdowns, more strong-armed tactics aimed at suppressing dissent and forcing us to comply with the governments dictates.

Its chilling to think about, but its not surprising.

In many ways, this COVID-19 state of emergency has invested government officials (and those who view their lives as more valuable than ours) with a sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant,Big Brother Knows Bestapproach to top-down governing, and the fall-out can be seen far and wide.

Its an ugly, self-serving mindset that views the needs, lives and rights of we the people as insignificant when compared to those in power.

Thats how someone who should know better such as Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, can suggest that a free peopleborn in freedom, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and living in a country birthed out of a revolutionary struggle for individual libertyhave no rightsto economic freedom, to bodily integrity, or to refuse to comply with a government order with which they disagree.

According to Dershowitz, who has become little more than a legal apologist for the power elite, You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business And if you refuse to be vaccinated,the state has the power to literally take you to a doctors office and plunge a needle into your arm.

Dershowitz is wrong: as I make clear in my bookBattlefield America: The War on the American People, while the courts may increasingly defer to the governments brand of Nanny State authoritarianism,we still have rights.

The government may try to abridge those rights, it may refuse to recognize them, it may even attempt to declare martial law and nullify them, but it cannot litigate, legislate or forcefully eradicate them out of existence.

Read more:
The Right To Be Let Alone: What To Do When COVID Strike Force Teams Come Knocking OpEd - Eurasia Review

Law enforcement confirmed that Paul Flores, 44, was set to correct his murder charges and include two allegations of rape of an unconscious woman. Los Angeles range.

Los Angeles Police Department Captain Jonathan Tippet confirms that San Luis Obispo County prosecutors are investigating two sexual assault cases in the San Pedro area where Flores lived between 2013 and 2017. did.

Prosecutors are seeking a motion on Wednesday to amend Floress original murder charges for rape or attempted rape in the 1996 Christine Smart case.

In April, Flores was arrested and charged with Smarts murder.He was the top suspect in the case for a long time after being the last person to see her alive after the party during their freshman years. California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo.

44-year-old Paul Flores was arrested in April for the murder of former classmate Christine Smart.

Investigators search Flores fathers home in February 2020 and March 2021

Smart was officially sentenced to death in 2002, but her body has not been found.

Prosecutors hope that the rape case will utilize the case law attached to a crime in another county to link Flores to some of his alleged rapes.

On Monday, the judge prepares for a 12-day preliminary hearing scheduled for July 20, revealing what he thinks smartly happened after the prosecution found evidence of Flores fathers property. Said that some motions will be reviewed this week.

Ruben Flores, 80, was charged with accessories after being accused of helping his son hide Smarts body.

Young Flores was accused of sexual assault in three separate cases, including a case in which his DNA matched a sample of a rape kit, years after the college student disappeared.

In the Redondo Beach case, police were called to the hospital in January 2007 after being tested for rape kits, believing that the woman had been assaulted.

Investigators have found biological evidence that Smarts body was buried at home but was recently relocated.

Ruben Flores pleaded not guilty to accessories after a murder that hid Smarts body

The woman told police that she had been drinking at a bar with a friend earlier that night, but then woke up naked in the mans bed without remembering what had happened.

The woman, who told police she might have taken the medicine, said she was still drunk and left the mans house.

The rape kit determined that she was having sex, but there were no clear signs of force or aggressive behavior.

Also, no trace of date rape drug was seen.

DNA samples collected as part of the test were entered into a police database and matched with Flores four years later.

Redondo Beach police have launched a rape investigation and interviewed Flores. Flores told them that there was no special memory for women.

He said he might have had sex with her because he had sex with so many girls, a police note related to the incident said.

The suspect was unable to identify Flores from the police line.

Smarts family subsequently filed a proceeding in the San Luis Obispo County High Court alleging that her body was buried in Rubens yard, but he moved it in the dark.

The judge will consider several motions this week prior to the 12-day preliminary hearing scheduled for July 20.

The prosecutor finally decided that Flores could not prove that he had raped the woman and did not prosecute him.

A DNA hit only proves that there was some sort of sexual contact, not what the nature of that contact was, said Christie Frey, Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles County. I am writing in.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Police Department suspected Flores had sexually assaulted two women between 2013 and 2017, and details of these assault charges are unknown, but a judge amended the San Luis Obispo County prosecutors office. It will be revealed if you allow it.

Apart from allegations of sexual assault, Flores has been convicted of at least five convictions for drunk driving in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

He also has the belief that he is drunk in public.

Flores was arrested in 1998 at Huntington Beach for assault with a deadly weapon other than a gun, but was not charged due to lack of evidence.

Flores previously exercised his fifth amendment right not to answer the question before the grand jury and in the testimony of the proceedings filed against him in connection with the investigation.

In one of his probation reports unintentionally published from a previous conviction, he was once described by the Deputy District Attorney as a continuous rape criminal based on claims from dozens of women. It was.

The report did not include details of these alleged assaults, or whether they were all reported and investigated by police.

When Flores was arrested for Smarts murder in April, San Luis Obispo District Attorney Dandau revealed for the first time that investigators believed he had killed a young woman during an attempted rape.

Dow said the prosecutor intended to use the history of Flores sexual attacks in the murder case.

He specifically mentioned two cases in Los Angeles.

Prosecutors may use alleged assaults to prove that Flores has a history of predatory behavior, but many of the details surrounding Smarts case have been rigorously scrutinized by authorities through investigations. It is protected.

Kristin Smarts accused killer Paul Flores charges amended to include two allegations of rapein LA Source link Kristin Smarts accused killer Paul Flores charges amended to include two allegations of rapein LA

Continue reading here:
Kristin Smart's accused killer Paul Flores' charges amended to include two allegations of rape in LA - Californianewstimes.com

Bill Cosby is a free man.

His longtime on-camera wife, Phylicia Rashad, tweeted that a miscarriage of justice [was] corrected. Her tweet followed a high court decision that overturned his sexual assault conviction in late June.

#MeToo founder Tarana Burke spoke directly to survivors soon afterward on Twitter and in a segment of Good Morning America on July 1, reiterating that their healing "isnt determined by a conviction or a prison sentence.

And, former televisionJudge Joe Brown said law separates us from animalsafter repeatedly mentioning that Cosbys due process rights were violated on a video segment with Marc Lamont Hill.Their heated discussion on the evening of July 1 was viewed over 600,000 times and collected 20,000 comments.

Their reactions joined the flurry of debates and outcries on social media, television, radio programs and within social circles.It'sthe latest twist in a yearslong saga that has laid bareemotional triggers and fault linesentangled with law, emotions and facts. Among the frictions: the benefits of power and platform to navigate a system that has historically impacted Black men disproportionately, and other judicial lapses that selectively help some and hurt others, including survivors of sexual assault. In essence, there is direct conflict between thetwomost dominant social movements of the past few years: MeToo and justice system reform.

In the eyes of the law, prosecutors were held accountable for the handling of Cosby's case,but in the eyes of onlookers, commenters and more hes still a sexual predator.

Cosby was convicted in 2018of drugging and molestingAndrea Constand.He was servingathree- to 10-year sentence at a state prison near Philadelphia buthad vowed to serve all 10 years rather than acknowledge any remorse over the 2004 encounter with the Temple University employee at his suburban estate.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturned his sexual assault conviction on June 30 because of a "procedural issue that is irrelevant to the facts of the crime,"Kevin Steele, the Montgomery County district attorney who convicted Cosby, said in a statement to USA TODAY.

Ayesha Bell Hardawaywould beremissto calltheCosbytrialviolation a technicality.

But itwasunique.

The rules of engagement for litigators are critical and are what we are taught to believe can significantly impact the outcome of a case, said the assistant professor of law and director of the Criminal Defense Clinic at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland. Hardaway is also co-director of the Social Justice Institute and director of the Social Justice Law Center.

Historic realities seep from thecase, Hardaway said.

In regard topeople ofcolor, specifically Black men, who havelongbeendisproportionallyimpactedby the judicial system,theserules of engagement aredesigned specifically to stack up against the possibility of them having a fair trial, she said.

But cases like Cosbys a powerful, wealthy Black man do not match the typical experience of Black people in the criminal justice system.Think Walter McMillian,Robert McClendon, Ricky Jackson, and Laurese Glover, who collectively served over 80 years behind barsfor crimes they did not commit. They were all exonerated years after the fact.

As for Cosby, the remedy in this case came from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,Hardaway said. It did not come at the trial-court level. It did not comeatthe first appellate court level.Unfortunately, the historical unfairness,injustice that's built into the legal system for Black and brown defendants didn't necessarily provide any relief.

The commonwealths highest court, examining the casede novo,found Cosby's trialunfair because prosecutors used damaging evidence that Cosby turned over in a civil case, even though former District Attorney Bruce Castor told him and the publicyears earlierthose charges were off the table.

It wasnt just a technicality but "gross prosecutorial abuse" that eventually set Cosby free, said Jody Armour, a University of Southern California professor who studies the intersection of law and race. That misconduct landed him in a cage for two years. Armour said its hard to say what is appropriate" as far as Cosby's punishment, but he believes two years imprisonment is about right.

The deal itselfan unwritten non-prosecution agreementis rareon a typical legal battlefield.Such agreementsaremore oftenallottedinhigh-profilecases,Hardaway explained, and Cosbys fit the billas the alleged victim, Constand, brought forward acivillawsuit.

Back in the courtroom, from the first jury to the second trial, a judge letina significant amount of evidence that could be deemed prejudicialtippingthe scales in favor of the prosecution.

In effect, the opinion concluded, Cosby was forced to give up his Fifth Amendment rightsprotecting self-incrimination.

What's notable here is that he had the resources and the ability to hire lawyers that were,I'm sure,working full time on his case,Hardaway said, notingthecelebrityfigureslegal teamwould havekept anexhaustiverecord throughoutyears of legal proceedings.

Fortheaverage defendant, perhaps unable to afford apersonallawyer,the story mayhave gone differently.

I want us to recognize that were talking about real pain and suffering, Armour said. Even two years is real punishment.

Armour added that two facts can be true at the same time: Cosby experienced prosecutorial abuse while also guilty of gross misconduct.

Others question the system as a whole, and as it applies to the rich and the poor.

April Reign is the creator of OscarsSoWhite and is vice president of content strategy for Overture Globals Ensemble. Her initial reaction to Cosby's release was that "the prosecution should have done a better job.

"If the system is broken for one person, itis broken for everyone," she said.

Rashad isn'talone in applauding the release of her old friend. A divide continues to deepenbetween supporters and non-supporters as evidenced by the continued back-and-forth between opposing sides.

Reign saidthere is a difficulty in "separating the art from the artists" in society. Mr. Huxtable from "The Cosby Show" is a character once beloved as "America's dad." He's not the man who was convicted and ultimately released.

There are way too many examples of Black men who should be exonerated, Reign said as she explained that she refers to the criminal justice system as the criminal "legal" system because Black and brown people do not get justice.

Cosby wasnt exonerated, but the stance that hisrelease is a way getting off or beating the system stems from a history of Black men getting less fair treatment in the courtroom.

I definitely understand why part of Black America celebrated his release because there is a long history of Black people and Black men in particular being railroaded by the criminal justice system, Sherri Williams said.

Williams is an assistant professor in race, media and communications at American University in Washington, D.C.

The sentiment that celebrations are in order, regardless of guilt, when a Black man gets the better end of the justice system is not a new phenomenon, but it comes at a cost.

Williamswas in college when Mike Tyson was convicted of raping Desiree Washington in 1992. Tyson was given a 10-year prison sentence with the last four years suspended. Not only was Tyson relentlessly supported throughout the process, she recalled, but victim blaming was tremendously present.

The message?

When or if you come forward, there will be no support for you but there will be support for your predator, Williams said.

That trend of support is sacrificing the protection of Black women and girls in order to uphold Black patriarchy.

Nearly five dozen women, with testimonies that span decades, have accused Cosby of sexual assault. He was one of the first individuals during the #MeToo movement to be convicted.

The prosecutions successful conviction of Cosby is something to be heartened by from the standpoint of holding people accused of sexual assault accountable, Armour, the University of California professor,said. With the final result of Cosbys case, though, victims of sexual violence feel disheartened about justice working in their favor.

Were dealing with social attitudes that jurors bring into the jury box, Armour said. On top of that, you give [accusers] the beyond a reasonable doubt standard and you have a mountain to climb.

Cosby's release was not only a shock to the movement, but it added more questions to thehandling of rape culture in general for all survivors.

One in four women hasexperienced rape or an attempted rape during their lifetimes, according to the #MeToo website.

Sonya Martinez-Ortiz, a therapist and executive director at the Rape Recovery Center in Salt Lake City, told USA TODAY that nearly 80% of survivors do not report.

Said Reign, the OscarsSoWhite creator: What incentive is there for people who are assaulted to come forward when these are the results?

Ricardo Kaulessar and Matthew Korfhage of the USA TODAY Network'sAtlantic Region How We Live team contributed to this story.

Jasmine Vaughn-Hall is a culture reporter for the USA TODAY Network's Atlantic Region How We Live team. Contact her at jvaughnhal@ydr.com or (717) 495-1789. Follow her on Facebook (@JasmineVaughnHall),Twitter (@jvaughn411), and Instagram (@jasminevaughnhall).

See the original post:
Cosby case rips open wounds that just won't heal. Here's why. - York Daily Record

READERS: You may recall how last year my wife, Becky, suggested we expand Independence Day celebrations by designating July as Freedom Month.

Taking inspiration from her idea, I sat down again to write three Freedom Month columns. Todays makes liberal exaggerations of some recent conversations.

NB

Chaplain, I want to report a theft! a reader wrote.

No, he didnt exactly say that, but his email definitely sought to account for the freedoms he considered missing.

I wasnt sure how a chaplain could help him recover his losses, and I considered reciting the commonly recorded message, If you want to report an emergency, please hang up and dial 911.

Nevertheless, I promised Id do my best at search and recovery or SAR as we called it during my Air Force career.

I began the recovery investigation by asking two key, journalistic questions: WHO and WHAT.

First, WHO has taken away your freedom? Most everyone to whom I pose this question answers the same. He was no exception.

The government.

I should have known, I said. Those pencil whippers are always stealing something or tapping my phone calls or squelching the UFO reports.

I posed my second question. WHAT freedom did they steal?

Theyre trying to take my guns, he said.

Im not a gun owner myself, so I knew I had no business suggesting common-sense regulation, like registration, waiting periods and background check for private sales as well as gun-show sales.

Instead of making that argument, I fired a follow-up question point blank: BUT, has the government actually taken your personal firearm?

His silence asserted his Fifth Amendment right over his Second Amendment rights. Its likely that his guns were never confiscated, unless he was writing from prison where they put the bad guys who misuse guns.

In another case, a neighbor voiced a similar complaint about freedom losses, I repeated my question WHAT exactly have you lost?

Ive been denied my right to breathe, she answered, overstating the mask mandate.

Yeah, I get it. I hate surgical masks too. They were such a pesky detail, pre-COVID, when my chaplain duties sent me to visit double-lung transplants or premature babies in our ICU.

My guess is that its not the mask that bothers her. Its the other M-word: mandate.

Yes, we temporarily lost some freedom. But the last time I checked, the U.S. wasnt alone in suspending that freedom. The entire world lives under masking restrictions while the U.S. remains the least restrictive.

So, I keep pressing folks WHAT have you personally lost? Name it.

Chaplain, you of all people should know, said one pastor. We lost our freedom of worship.

Again, temporary is the operative word. Even so, many churches responded with innovative answers.

During the worst of the lockdown, I maintained that freedom of worship wasnt threatened as long as restrictions were applied equally among churches, institutions, and businesses. In other words, if the Rotary Club wasnt meeting in person, then it was fair to restrict meetings, religious assemblies.

Gratefully, vaccinations are steering our lives back to normal. We have returned to church and will resume our July Fourth fireworks intended to celebrate our freedoms.

Fortunately, American freedoms are resilient little boogers. To paraphrase a military reply, All freedoms present and accounted for, sir.

I call this return to normal, Vaccinated, Liberated and Vindicated.

Even Dr. Fauci concurs. He has publicly proclaimed that fully vaccinated people are free to do whatever they like on July Fourth.

But seriously, Dr Fauci. Really? I now have the freedom to do anything?

If thats true, maybe I should ask Nicolas Cage if hell help me reprise his role in the 2004 Walt Disney Pictures film, National Treasure. Lets steal the Declaration of Independence.

These days, I know a few folks who need to read it.

Read more:
Norris Burkes: The case of the stolen freedoms - Charleston Post Courier

Bill Cosbys sexual assault conviction was thrown out Wednesday by Pennsylvanias highest court in a ruling that swiftly freed the actor from prison more than three years after he was found guilty of drugging and molesting Temple University employee Andrea Constand at his suburban Philadelphia mansion.

Cosby, 83, was the first celebrity tried and convicted in the #MeToo era, and his conviction was seen as a turning point in the movement to hold powerful men accountable for sexual misconduct.

Heres a look at the case against Cosby and the courts decision:

The split court found that Cosby was unfairly prosecuted because the previous district attorney had promised the comedian once known as Americas Dad that he wouldnt be charged over Constands accusations. Cosby was charged by another prosecutor who claimed he wasnt bound by that agreement.

The court said thats not the case. The justices found that Cosby relied on that promise when he agreed to testify without invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a lawsuit brought against him by Constand.

The court concluded that prosecutor who later brought the charges was obligated to stick to the nonprosecution agreement, so the conviction cannot stand. The justices wrote that denying the defendant the benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was foregone for more than a decade.

The promise not to prosecute Cosby was made in 2005 by Bruce Castor, who was then the top prosecutor for Montgomery County. Castor was also on the legal team that defended former President Donald Trump during his historic second impeachment trial over the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

During a court hearing weeks after Cosbys 2015 arrest, Castor testified that he promised Cosby he wouldnt be prosecuted in the hopes that it would persuade the actor to testify in a civil case brought by Constand and allow her to win damages. Castor acknowledged the only place the matter was put in writing was in the 2005 press release announcing his decision not to prosecute, but said his decision was meant to shield Cosby from prosecution for all time.

His successor noted, during the appeal arguments, that Castor went on to say in the press release that he could revisit the decision in the future.

Castor had said that Constands case would be difficult to prove in court because she waited a year to come forward and stayed in contact with Cosby.

Bill Cosby, center, and spokesperson Andrew Wyatt, right, approach members of the media gathered outside the home of the entertainer in Elkins Park, Pa., Wednesday, June 30,2021. Pennsylvania's highest court has overturned comedian Cosby's sex assault conviction. The court said Wednesday, that they found an agreement with a previous prosecutor prevented him from being charged in the case. The 83-year-old Cosby had served more than two years at the state prison near Philadelphia and was released. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)AP

The first jurors who heard the case may have agreed with him, as they could not reach a verdict in 2017. But a second jury empaneled after the #MeToo movement exploded found him guilty at his 2018 retrial. Constand settled her civil case against Cosby for more than $3 million.

Castors successor, District Attorney Kevin Steele, charged Cosby in 2015 after a federal judge, acting on a request from The Associated Press, unsealed documents from her 2005 lawsuit against Cosby, revealing his damaging testimony about sexual encounters with Constand and others. Castor has said Cosby wouldve had to have been nuts to say those things if there was any chance he couldve been prosecuted.

Extremely rare.

Wesley Oliver, a Pennsylvania law professor who has followed Cosbys case closely over the years, said he has never heard of a high court in Pennsylvania or anywhere else grappling with a prosecutors informal promise not to prosecute.

It breaks new ground entirely, said Oliver, who teaches at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. It sets precedent not just for Pennsylvania but probably other states.

He said the ruling should drive home to prosecutors the risks of suggesting at news conferences, in press releases or verbally in private that they will not prosecute.

They should at least add three words at this time, he said. If you add that qualifier, which wasnt done in Cosbys case, you should be good to go, Oliver said.

Its highly unlikely. The decision on Wednesday bars Cosby from being tried again over Constands complaint, finding it to be the only remedy that comports with societys reasonable expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice system.

And the accusations raised by dozens of other women, including the five who testified at his 2018 trial, often go back decades and are most likely too remote to prosecute.

Cosby turns 84 next month. However, his lawyer said he remains in good health, except for vision problems that render him legally blind.

The trial judge deemed him a sexually violent predator who could still pose a danger to women given his wealth, power and fame, and ordered that he be on a lifetime sex offender registry and check in monthly with authorities. However, the decision negates that finding.

More here:
Why was Bill Cosby released from prison after being found guilty of drugging and molesting woman? - MassLive.com

The Pennsylvania Supreme Courts decision reversing Bill Cosbys conviction reminds us that even those who commit despicable crimes are protected by the Constitution. The Pennsylvania courts ruling is disturbing in allowing Cosby to go free notwithstanding his sexual assault convictions, but it is correct in applying a crucial constitutional right: the privilege against self-incrimination found in the 5th Amendment.

In 2018, Cosby was sentenced to three to 10 years in a state prison for drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand at his home in 2004. This is one of a number of instances in which Cosby was accused of drugging and raping women over many years. The evidence against Cosby included statements that he had made in depositions in civil cases against him.

The constitutional problem is that Cosby gave those depositions based on an assurance, in 2005, from then-Dist. Atty. Bruce Castor that he would not be criminally prosecuted for sexual assault.

When a deposition is taken in a civil case, the right against self-incrimination allows a witness to refuse to answer any questions that might lead to criminal liability. But if there is no possibility of a criminal prosecution, then an individual cannot invoke the 5th Amendment and must answer questions.

For example, the 5th Amendment privilege does not apply if a witness is granted immunity from prosecution. In that kind of situation, the statements cannot lead to criminal liability, so there is no right to refuse to answer questions.

The crucial question in the Cosby case is whether he had been promised that he would not be prosecuted before answering questions at the civil depositions. There need not be a formal immunity agreement or a promise in writing. If a prosecutor causes a person to reasonably believe that there is no chance of a criminal prosecution, any statements that are subsequently obtained must be excluded from being used as evidence.

This is essential to protecting the fundamental right of not having to incriminate oneself. It would also be unfair to use statements gained in reliance on a promise not to prosecute.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the evidence was clear that Dist. Atty. Castor assured Cosby that he would not be criminally prosecuted. As the court noted, that is why Cosby did not invoke his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when his depositions were taken. The court explained: Cosby did not invoke the Fifth Amendment before he incriminated himself because he was operating under the reasonable belief that D.A. Castors decision not to prosecute him meant that the potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exist[ed].

In coming to this conclusion, the court relied on a basic and well-established principle of law. As the justices stated: [W]hen a prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, the principle of fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system demands that the promise be enforced.

Not a word in the courts decision exonerates Cosby of his crimes. The court did not question his guilt in any way. But the Constitution must be followed even when it means that guilty people go free.

It is easy in hindsight to question Castors decision in 2005 not to prosecute Cosby because of what he considered evidentiary difficulties in obtaining a conviction. Of course, had Castor not made that decision, Cosby would not have had to answer questions at his deposition, and perhaps without that testimony he would not have been convicted in his 2018 trial.

Perhaps, because of the #MeToo movement and the revelations of sexual assaults by prominent figures, especially in the entertainment industry, a prosecutor would come to a very different assessment today. But the unique facts of the Cosby case do not in any way reduce the ability of police and prosecutors to seek justice and accountability when famous people are accused of rape.

In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had to determine only whether a promise had been made to Cosby that he would not be criminally prosecuted a promise upon which he relied. Once the court found that there had been such a promise, it had no choice but to enforce the Constitution and overturn the conviction.

There is a cost to having a Constitution that protects the guilty as well as the innocent. But it is the only way that all of our rights can be secured from abuses by the government.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and a contributing writer to Opinion. He is the author of a forthcoming book, Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights.

See more here:
Pennsylvania court was right to overturn Cosbys conviction - Los Angeles Times

Love Philly? Sign up for the free Billy Penn newsletter to get everything you need to know about Philadelphia, every day.

The primary reason Bill Cosby, a man convicted of sexual assault, is sitting at home right now instead of serving a 3 to 10 year sentence is because of a deal offered by a man who called himself the sovereign of Montgomery County.

Thats former Montco District Attorney Bruce Castor, and the Cosby release marks the second time his work has helped a high-profile American escape jail time in the past year.

The first was former President Donald Trump, whom Castor defended during the second impeachment trial.

Castor, a 59-year-old Abington native who got his law degree from Washington and Lee University, has also served on the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners and was solicitor general under former Pa. Attorney General Kathleen Kane. When Kane was convicted of her own perjury charges, Castor worked as acting attorney general for two weeks.

Over the course of a few decades, he has repeatedly accused opponents of corruption, while making a name for himself defending famous people against questionable charges like sexual misconduct or inciting an insurrection.

Here are some notable moments from Castors career.

When Castor ran for Pennsylvania Attorney General in the 2004 Republican primary, the race quickly got ugly.

Castor failed to secure an endorsement from the GOPs southeastern chapter a major loss since thats the region he lives in. He went on the attack, accusing opponent Tom Corbett of backroom deals with committeeman Bob Asher, who was convicted of perjury, racketeering, conspiracy and bribery charges in the 80s.

In return, Corbett questioned why Castor received more than $600k in contributions from retired businessman and President Reagan cabinet member Drew Lewis, suggesting there might be some kind of quid pro quo.

Turns out just three years before accepting the campaign cash, Castor did not seek jail time in a DUI charge against Lewis even though Lewis blood alcohol content was three times the legal limit.

Ultimately, Castors strategy was not successful, and he lost to Corbett.

In 2005, as Montgomery County DA, Castor struck a deal with Cosby that he said was in the name of justice.

Castor basically handed the comedian a get out of jail free card. Saying there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence to prosecute Cosby, Castor promised his lawyer Walter M. Phillips Jr. that he would not press criminal charges.

Castor called himself the sovereign of Montgomery County saying his decision to grant effective immunity would last for all time.

The former DA has since claimed that he did that to motivate Cosby not to plead the Fifth Amendment in the ongoing civil deposition process. That way, Castor said, it was more likely Cosby would tell the truth in civil court, thereby giving accuser Andrea Constand a better chance of prevailing.

My choices were to leave the case open and hope it got better or definitively close the case and allow the civil court to provide redress to Ms. Constand, Castor testified in Cosbys trial. I did not think there was any possibility this case would ever get better.

Constand sued Castor for defamation and he sued her back, accusing her of trying to ruin his political career.

Memphis Grizzlies guard Marko Jaric was accused of sexual assault by a Philadelphia woman in 2009, over an something that happened the team was in town to play the 76ers.

Whod the ball player hire to defend him? You guessed it.

Jaric retained Castor as counsel, and the Philadelphia District Attorneys Office eventually ultimately decided not to file charges.

Persons in Markos position are often the target of malicious statements and it is not unusual for the police to be asked to investigate, Castor said at the time. However, these allegations were proved to be completely false, and while Marko is extremely unsettled by these accusations, he is happy that the law enforcement authorities have cleared him of any criminal conduct and the issue can now be put to rest.

Castor won a seat on the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners in 2007. Even though Castor was in the political majority, there was plenty of drama among the boards members.

His colleagues, James Matthews and Joseph Hoeffel, formed an alliance against Castor repeatedly shutting him out of county deals. The newly elected Castor responded by calling the two of them corrupt, and suggesting they were mismanaging county finances and hiring unqualified people.

Matthews was later charged with perjury, but Hoeffel was never charged with any criminal wrongdoing.

Former Pa. Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who was convicted of perjury for leaking grand jury information and then lying about it, arranged a meeting with Castor in March 2016.

He suspected she would ask him to defend her in her perjury case but she didnt. Instead, Kane hand-picked Castor for a new position she was calling solicitor general. Since she was facing charges, her law license was temporarily suspended, and she wanted Castor to come on board and make legal decisions for the state in her absence.

When Kane was convicted, Castor became acting attorney general.

Castor was apparently thrilled to finally get the job he didnt win 12 years earlier: I like effectively being the attorney general without having to worry about the politics end of it. Ive pretty much trained my whole life to do a job like this.

He held the position for two weeks before being replaced by Allegheny County judge Bruce Beemer.

With about a week until his second impeachment trial began, former President Trump selected Castor and defense attorney David Schoen as his legal team.

That didnt leave Castor much time to prepare and it showed.

The former Pennsylvania official spoke first, and delivered what the New York Times called a rambling, almost somnambulant defense for almost an hour. (Somnambulant means resembling or like a sleepwalker. Burn.) Sources close to Trump said the president was furious with Castors performance, and others were quick to criticize him.

There is no argument, said attorney Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trumps defense team during the first impeachment trial, said on the conservative cable news network Newsmax. I have no idea what hes doing. I have no idea why hes saying what hes saying.

I thought I knew where it was going, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters that day, and I really didnt know where it was going.

An impeachment brief written by Trumps defense team, including Castor, defended the former president, but threw the participants in the January 6 insurrection under the bus saying they brought unprecedented havoc, mayhem and death to the Capitol.

But then Castor ended up defending some of the same insurrectionists.

Kristina Malimon, 28, and her mother Yevgeniya, 54, were arrested outside the Capitol building on Jan. 6 and charged with unlawful entry of public property. Last year, Malimon organized a boat parade in Oregon to support the former president which ended up sinking another boat in its path.

Last month, they picked Castor to represent them.

Go here to see the original:
Bruce Castor, before and after Cosby: Trump, insurrection, and Katheleen Kane - On top of Philly news - Billy Penn

Bill Cosby was unexpectedly freed from prison on June 30. Ghislaine Maxwell is hoping to use the same strategy in her case, her lawyer said. Gilbert Carrasquillo/Getty Images; Sylvain Gaboury/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images

Bill Cosby was freed from prison on June 30 due to a technicality known as a non-prosecution agreement.

A lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell says she should benefit from the same quirk.

Legal experts tell Insider it's unlikely the Epstein agreement would protect Maxwell in New York, where she's charged.

Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.

When the comedian Bill Cosby was unexpectedly freed from prison Wednesday after a state Supreme Court ruling, the news gave a much-needed boost to another high-profile criminal defendant.

A lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime associate of the deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein, argued in a New York Daily News op-ed that she should be free from prosecution due to the same procedural issue that overturned Cosby's sexual assault conviction.

Both Cosby and Epstein benefited from an unusual deal known as a non-prosecution agreement - essentially, prosecutors vowed not to press criminal charges in exchange for other forms of cooperation. The Pennsyvlania Supreme Court overturned Cosby's conviction because he was criminally charged after he agreed to testify in a civil case, waiving his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

In 2007, Epstein had struck a deal with federal prosecutors in Florida to plead guilty to state charges of soliciting prostitution. Maxwell's lawyer, David Oscar Markus, argued in the op-ed that his client, who now faces federal sex trafficking charges, is covered by the broad non-prosecution agreement that protected Epstein.

"When Epstein agreed to plead guilty and go to state prison, the United States agreed not to prosecute him or his alleged co-conspirators," Markus wrote. "This is in black and white: 'The United States ... will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.'"

Legal experts told Insider Markus' argument won't hold up in court. Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement was forged by federal prosecutors in Florida, but Maxwell is charged in an entirely different jurisdiction, the Southern District of New York.

Story continues

"The success of these arguments depend on what the deal says," said Paul Cassell, a former federal judge and current law professor at the University of Utah. "It's a standard feature of American criminal justice - prosecutors can extend immunity only within the territory they have jurisdiction over."

Markus argued in the op-ed that the jurisdictional issues make "no sense," since all federal prosecutors represent the same entity.

"We have one federal government, and the agreement says clearly that the United States would not prosecute Maxwell," he wrote.

Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor, said that type of logic was likely too big of a stretch for an appeals court to accept.

She said non-prosecution agreements are so rare - typically used only in corporate crime cases - that judges will be unlikely to look favorably on them in violent or sex crimes cases going forward.

"I don't think courts are going to be likely to do these expansively," Levinson said. "Given the pushback on these agreements in the first place, I think they'll be narrowly construed."

Read the original article on Insider

Read the rest here:
A lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell says she should be set free like Bill Cosby was, but legal experts say that's highly unlikely - Yahoo News

Lucy's mother has just weeks to reunite with her missing daughter. Despite criminal charges, the court can't force Lucy's father to reveal where she's being hidden.

ST. CHARLES COUNTY, Mo. Its safe to say that when Frontenac native Lucy Peterson got married, it wasnt the wedding her mother Kathy dreamed of for her daughter.

Teena Kilo, Lucys great aunt, remembers her reaction when she found out. Married? What are you talking about, married? She's 17. How, how is this possible? Who can allow this? she said.

It was the latest twist in a bitter multiyear custody battle between Lucys parents, Kathy Kilo Peterson and Steven Peterson.

Kathy had sole legal custody of Lucy in August 2020 when Steven took Lucy to Wyoming. There, Lucy married a 30-year-old man as a minor. Now, Steven has been arrested and Lucy is considered missing. Its been a dramatic year for members of Lucys family, who are asking for the publics help in finding her.

Somebody has to do something here, Kathy told the I-Team.

A fraudulent marriage

The man Lucy married in Wyoming is the son of one of Stevens friends, a musician from Tennessee who Lucy admitted to the court she barely knows.

In January 2021, the judge in the Petersons family court case wrote, In her deposition, Lucy was unable to recall when she first met [her husband] or how many times throughout the years she actually saw him in person Lucy was unable to provide her husbands cellphone number, email address, mailing address, or the name of the band he plays indid not have any future plans with [him], does not live with him (or have any plans to live with him), and does not plan to have a family with him.

The judge added, [Steven] has shown he is willing to move his daughter out of state, pawn her off to marry a man she barely knows, and withdraw her from school, all in an effort to self-medicate his old wounds from his divorce to [Kathy].

I was shocked, but somehow not surprised that he would pull something like this, said Teena Kilo. To emancipate her from the Missouri court. I mean, this is so awful. How can you get any worse than that?

I don't know how to even express what that was like, said Kathy. Lucy married a 30-year-old man in Wyoming. And that she's now magically an adult. So mom has no parental rights.

That was the case until the court in Wyoming annulled the marriage, in February 2021.

The limits of family court's reach

Despite having sole legal custody and being awarded sole physical custody in January, Kathy hasnt seen her daughter for almost a year.

Kathy said this all began with a violent incident in 2005 that ended the Petersons marriage.

Steve tried to kill me and held us hostage in our home in Winghaven, she said. Lucy was just 2 years old.

Steven was convicted and sentenced to probation in 2008. The case was eventually expunged.

The custody agreement they entered when they divorced fell apart in 2017. Court records show Steven Peterson has been judged in contempt of court orders at least twice. They also show that Steven Peterson had booked 42 trips for Lucy in a two-year span without informing the court, eventually taking her out of school at Mary Institute and Saint Louis Country Day School and refusing to return Lucy to Kathys custody when the court required it.

There were no consequences. Threat of jail time, threat of this, threat of that, but not even a slap on the wrist. She's completely isolated. She missed her entire junior year here, said Kathy.

In January, a court-appointed therapist testified Lucy was the victim of psychological abuse by her father. The judge ordered Steven to get counseling and stay away from Lucy for at least 90 days. The family court couldnt do anything to enforce their own rulings or bring Lucy back to court.

I have a worthless piece of paper that says Kathy has sole legal and physical custody of my daughter, who's missing, Kathy said.

Eventually, it became a matter for criminal courts to enforce.

The family court is uniquely situated, that they can order some of these things. But in terms of actually enforcing that, their hands are somewhat tied, said St. Charles County prosecutor Tim Lohmar.

"The worst of the worst"

In April, a felony warrant was issued for Steven Petersons arrest.

In a case like this that gets filed, it's the worst of the worst in terms of parental alienation or in some cases brainwashing, manipulation, said Lohmar.

Steven Peterson is charged with interfering with custody. Lucys whereabouts are still unknown. Lohmar said the investigators havent been able to locate her yet.

We asked the court to impose a condition on his bond, that he produce the whereabouts of the victim, the child in this case. The court denied that, said Lohmar. Forcing him to do something like this would be a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.

Essentially, the court said that if Steven Peterson identified Lucys location, that would be proof that he committed the crime hes charged with. For now, hes out on bond with a GPS monitor.

The I-Team repeatedly attempted to contact Steven Peterson, his family members, his legal representatives, the man who married Lucy, that mans relatives and even Lucy herself by phone, in person and by email. They have not responded to 5 On Your Sides request for interview or comment.

Lucys 18th birthday is just weeks away. At that point, the court can no longer tell her what to do. Kathy and her family hope they can find Lucy before shes legally lost to them forever. Kathy has been literally counting the days.

[In] three and a half years, out of 1,322 days, I've seen her 28 times, said Kathy. I'll never give up. I'll never give up.

Maybe one day, Lucy will just walk back in and say, Here I am. Will you take me back? Teena Kilo said. Of course we will.

Anyone who has information about Lucy's whereabouts is encouraged to contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-843-5678 or Frontenac Police Department at 314-737-4600

Continue reading here:
Where's Lucy? Sham teen marriage and felony charges featured in case of missing St. Charles County girl - KSDK.com