Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

David A. Graham: This is the cost of a failed impeachment

But already, the moment to act could be slipping away. After all, Congress certified Joe Biden as president-elect early this morning. Trump even issued a statementthrough aide Dan Scavino on Twitter, after the presidents own account was lockedpromising an orderly transition on January 20th. There are whispers of more resignations, but so far, few prominent officials have stepped down. (The most notable to do so are Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao; the first ladys chief of staff, Stephanie Grisham; and Mick Mulvaney, an envoy to Northern Ireland who formerly served as acting White House chief of staff.) Weve heard rumblings about the Twenty-Fifth Amendment before, and theyve never resulted in anything.

As I wrote earlier this week, even before violence erupted, the Senates failure to convict Trump and remove him from office after his impeachment last year paved the way for the president to try to overturn the 2020 election. If the nation moves on without punishing Trump, he will have two more weeks to act with impunity.

Nothing indicates that Trump is chastened by yesterdays experience. He published both a video and a tweet yesterday in which he called on the mob to go home peacefully, but he did not condemn its actions, and he repeated the incitements that drove it to riot in the first place. Even his fauxconcession statement falls well short. Its mention of a first term leaves space for him to continue to contest the race, and besides, were past the point of an orderly transition. A Trump-incited violent insurrection swept through the Capitol less than 24 hours ago!

Meanwhile, the least scrupulous Trump allies, like Representatives Matt Gaetz and Mo Brooks, are already trying to shift the blame for the riot, claiming that it was the work of left-wing provocateurs. This is preposterousas the journalist Molly Ball points out, Trump literally summoned these people to DC, spoke at their event, offered to walk them over to the Capitol and then praised them afterward.

Others, like Senator Ted Cruz, are trying to split the baby. The attack at the Capitol was a despicable act of terrorism and a shocking assault on our democratic system, he said in a statement. The Department of Justice should vigorously prosecute everyone who was involved in these brazen acts of violence. If Cruz were serious, he might be calling for prosecution of the president and also himselfafter all, as the mob approached the Capitol, Cruz was inside offering frivolous objections to the certification, after weeks of spreading the false rumors that incited the crowd. Cruz is, as usual, not serious.

Yoni Appelbaum: Impeach Trump again

Democratic leaders are already flinching, too. Theres a clear course of action for Congress, as Representative Ilhan Omar understands: impeachment. Instead, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee wrote a letter calling on Mike Pence to invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendmenttrying to get someone else to deal with the problem using an unproven and dubious solution. (This places House Democratic leaders to the right of anti-Trump conservative commentators at publications such as National Review and The Bulwark.) The House has adjourned until after the inauguration.

Original post:
Dont Let Them Pretend This Didnt Happen - The Atlantic

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln arrived at the East Portico of the Capitol to deliver his first Inaugural Address. The nation was collapsing, the Southern slave states seceding. Word of an assassination conspiracy forced Lincoln to travel to the event under military guard. The Capitol building itself, sheathed in scaffolding, provided an easy metaphor for an unfinished republic. The immense bronze sculpture known as the Statue of Freedom had not yet been placed on the dome. It was still being cast on the outskirts of Washington.

Lincoln posed a direct question to the riven union. Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, he said, with all its benefits, its memories and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? The South, in its drive to preserve chattel slavery, replied the following month, when Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter. Even as the Civil War death toll mounted, Lincoln ordered work to continue on the dome. If people see the Capitol going on, he said, it is a sign we intend the Union shall go on.

That was the first Republican President. The most recent one woke up last Wednesday in a rage, his powers receding, his psyche unravelling. Donald Trump had already lost the White House. Now, despite his best demagogic efforts in Georgia, he had failed to rescue the Senate for the Republican Party. Georgia would be represented by two Democrats: the Reverend Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, the first African-American and the first Jew, respectively, to be elected to the chamber by that states citizens.

At midday, Trump went to the Ellipse and spoke at a rally of maga supporters whom he had called on to help overturn the outcome of a free and fair election. From the podium, he said that the vote against him was a criminal enterprise. He told the crowd, If you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore. He raged on like a wounded beast for about an hour, thanking his supporters for their extraordinary love and urging them to march to the Capitol: Ill be there with you.

Trump, of course, would not be there with them. Cincinnatus went home and watched the ensuing riot on television. One vacant-eyed insurrectionist had on a hoodie with Camp Auschwitz written across the chest; another wore what the Times fashion critic described as a sphagnum-covered ghillie suit. Then came the results of Trumps vile incitement: the broken windows and the assault on a pitifully small police force; the brandishing of the Confederate flag; the smug seizure of the Speakers office. A rioter scrawled Murder the Media on a door.

The insurrection lasted four hours. (As of Friday, there were five dead.) Once the Capitol was cleared, the solemn assurances that this is not who we are began. The attempt at self-soothing after such a traumatic event is understandable, but it is delusional. Was Charlottesville not who we are? Did more than seventy million people not vote for the Inciter-in-Chief? Surely, these events are part of who we are, part of the American picture. To ignore those parts, those features of our national landscape, is to fail to confront them.

Meanwhile, with less than two weeks left in Trumps Presidency, some of his most ardent supporters are undergoing a moral awakening. An instinct for self-preservation has taken hold. A few Cabinet members and White House officials have resigned. Former associates, once obsequious in their service to the President, have issued rueful denunciations. The editors of the Wall Street Journals editorial page determined that, while removal under the Twenty-fifth Amendment, as demanded by the Democratic congressional leadership, is unwise, the President should resign.

The millions of Americans who understood this Presidency from its first day as a national emergency, a threat to domestic and global security, can be excused for finding it curious that so many are now taking the exit ramp for the road to Damascus three years and fifty weeks later. How surprising can Trumps recent provocation be when for years he has served as an inspiration to bigots everywhere, to damaged souls plotting to mail pipe bombs to journalists and to kidnap the governor of Michigan?

This dawning of conscience is as bewitching as it is belated. The grandees of the G.O.P. always knew who Trump wasthey were among the earliest to confront his most salient qualities. During the 2016 campaign, Ted Cruz called Trump a pathological liar and a snivelling coward. Chris Christie described him as a carnival barker. Mitch McConnell remarked, with poetic understatement, that Trump doesnt know a lot about the issues. And Lindsey Graham warned, If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed. He added, And we will deserve it.

Trumps influences, conscious or not, include Father Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Newt Gingrich, the Tea Party, and more, but his reality-show wealth, his flair for social media, and an attunement to white identity politics made him a man for his time. And, when he won, nearly everyone in the Republican establishment capitulated and sought a place in the firmament of power: Cruz, Christie, McConnell, and Graham; Mike Pence, William Barr, Betsy DeVos, Elaine Chao, Rupert Murdoch, and so many others.

Part of the bargain was ideological: if Trump came through with tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations, and appointed conservative judges, then the humblings could be absorbed. Graham would overlook the way Trump attacked the war record of his close friend John McCain, as long as he got to play golf with the President and be seen as an insider. Cruz would ignore the way Trump had implied that his father was somehow involved in the assassination of J.F.K., as long as he could count on Trumps support in his next campaign. And Pence, who hungered for the Presidency, apparently figured that he could survive the daily humiliations as the Presidents courtier, assuming that his reward would be Trumps blessing and his base voters. But, as Trumps New York business partners knew, contracts with him are vapor; the price of the ticket is neverfixed.

Donald Trump still has millions of supporters, but he is likely a spent force as a politician. The three-minute-long speech he gave on Thursday night, calling for an orderly transfer of power, was as sincere as a hostages gunpoint confession. He may yet be impeached again, two feet from the exit door. He could return as a TV blowhard for hire, but in the future his most prominent place in public life may well be in a courtroom.

In a disgraceful time, Joe Biden has acted with grace. He has been clear about the magnitude of whats ahead. The work of the moment and the work of the next four years must be the restoration of democracy, of decency, honor, respect, the rule of law, he has said. But repairing the national fabric, as Lincoln put it, is only part of what awaits Biden. So many issuesthe climate catastrophe, the pandemic, the racial crisiswill not tolerate delay or merely symbolic change. The moment will not tolerate distractions. Donald Trump is just days from his eclipse. It cannot come soon enough.

Originally posted here:
The Inciter-in-Chief - The New Yorker

In a 34-page ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California blocked two key parts of President Donald Trumps Executive Order 13950 - Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping. The order, among other things, bars contractors from holding workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or race and sex scapegoating. This prohibition has caused many federal contractors and grantees to stop their diversity training programs.

The courts Dec. 22, 2020, ruling is the most recent development in the controversy surrounding the order, which has been marred by legal challenges nearly since its inception. A month after the Trump administration issued the order, the NAACP filed a federal class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the orders constitutionality. Just three days later, a group of nonprofit community organizations and consultants serving the LGBTQ+ community filed a similar federal complaint in the Northern District of California. It is the latter challenge that led to the nationwide injunction.

As the court states in its order, the plaintiffs in the California suit provide advocacy and training to health care providers, local government agencies, local businesses, and their own employees about systemic bias, racism, anti-LGBT bias, white privilege, implicit bias, and intersectionality. They allege the order constitutes unlawful censorship under the First Amendment, because it requires them to either significantly curtail their diversity trainings or forfeit their federal funding. The plaintiffs also argue the order violates the Fifth Amendments due process clause. They claim the order is so vague, it fails to offer sufficient notice of the types of speech it prohibits. Judge Beth Labson Freeman found that the plaintiffs made a preliminary showing of unconstitutionality and granted the motion to stop the order.

The injunction prevents the enforcement of the orders Sections 4 and 5 pursuant to both the free speech clause of the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. No other sections were affected by the ruling.

Section 4 requires that all government contracts entered into on or after Nov. 21, 2020, include a clause affirming that the [t]he contractor shall not use any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating. The order cautions that a failure to comply with this provision could lead to contracts being canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and warns that any contractor violating its mandate may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts. Section 5 requires agency heads to review grant programs to determine which grants may be conditioned on the recipients certification that federal funds will not be used to promote concepts that the order characterizes as divisive.

The future of the order remains unclear. The courts preliminary injunction is temporary, not permanent. But its anticipated that President-elect Joe Bidens administration will repeal the order upon his taking office, preventing enforcement of the order before Sections 4 and 5 become effective. As noted in a prior eLABORate, however, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs takes the position that it may immediately investigate claims of sex and race stereotyping pursuant to its existing authority under Executive Order 11246.

See the original post here:
Federal Court Blocks Executive Order That Banned Certain Diversity Training Topics - Lexology

What we have seen on January 6, 2021 is the logical conclusion of the last four years of this man encouraging hatred and attacking our institutionsand the last two months of him feeding his followers with outrageous, unfounded lies in an attempt to overturn the results of a free and fair election.

Trump brought this crowd to Washington. Trump encouraged them to be wild. Trump ordered them to march on the Capitol. His encouragement of violence and anarchy cant be ignored.

Especially because he has another 14 days in office.

There are two methods of removing a president from power, one temporary, one permanent. Either will solve our present problem.

The permanent solutionand the preferable oneis impeachment. It is preferable because its unquestionably appropriate and opens the door to disqualifying Trump from running for president again. (Barring someone from future office requires a majority vote in the Senate, but that vote can only happen after the Senate has voted by a two-thirds majority to convict and remove the impeached president.)

Podcast January 08 2021

On today's Bulwark Podcast, Tim Miller joins Charlie Sykes to discuss insurrection week, a potential second impeachment,...

But impeachment has problems. First, you need a majority in the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove Trump. There would be no problem getting a majority vote in the House. And given the current state of affairs, its possible that even Trumps supporters in the Senate now realize that the president is too irrational, too out-of-control, and too dangerous to leave in office until January 20.

But even if impeachment were politically possible, there are logistical problems. First, Congress is in the middle of counting electoral votes. Congress isnt legally allowed to take up any other business until this task is completed. Moreover, neither the House nor the Senate is able to meet in the Capitol at the moment and though there are reports that they hope to meet again in the Capitol tonight, its not clear that the protests are over. And if anything would spark a new attack, it would be the start of formal impeachment proceedings. This isnt to say that Congress should yield to the mob. Its merely a recognition that pursuing impeachment immediately might be difficult.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment, however, requires no complicated or lengthy procedures. It allows the temporary removal of the president when the vice president and a majority of the cabinet determine that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

This is much simpler to accomplish, but more constitutionally fraught. This language obviously covers physical incapacitythe president cant discharge his duties while he is in a comabut it is broad enough to cover other incapacities as well. There is certainly a case to be madeespecially after Trumps bizarre speech supposedly de-escalating the situationthat the presidents fixed delusion regarding the election and his belief that he is the legitimate president-elect constitute a mental incapacity that renders him incapable of discharging the duties of his office.

For one obvious example, it has already rendered him incapable of properly protecting Washington D.C. and the Capitol building.

Under the Twenty-fifth Amendment, the president can contest his removal but Congress has up to 21 days to decide whether the presidents powers should be reinstated. We only need to get through the next 14 days. So a declaration by Pence and a majority of the cabinet would be enough to get us through the current crisis.

Under normal conditions, removing the president under the Twenty-fifth Amendment would be a grave step. But these are not normal conditions.

And while it is a grave step, its also a necessary one. Trump has demonstrated himself to be irrational, unfit, and dangerous to the republic. There is now no question that he is a political nihilist who does not care about the Republican party, the government he heads, or the nation he has sworn to protect.

If he is allowed to wield the power of the presidency for the next two weeks, there is no guarantee that he will not inflict even more damage on the country.

Even Vice President Pence and the members of Trumps cabinet must see that now.

Something must be done.

The rest is here:
The President Is a Danger to the Nation. Remove Him from Office. - The Bulwark

Pat Fallon was sworn in Sunday as a freshman member of Congress. On Wednesday, the Republican found himself ripping a tall wooden pole topped with a white hand sanitizer dispenser from the House floor and transforming the modern totem of pandemic precaution into a weapon. A frenzied mob of Donald Trump supporters had breached the Capitol and were approaching one of the most sacred spaces of American democracy. Fallon, who represents a northeast Texas district, estimated that some two hundred members of Congresswell more than were supposed to be gathered in close proximity at any one time under COVID restrictionswere on the House floor or nearby when the rioters tried to break in.

We hear the mob and we dont know if its 20 people or 250,000, Fallon recounted hours later. We just hear it at the center doors of the chamber where the president would walk in when you have a State of the Union. They were just being pounded on, pounded on.

Fallon is big and athletic. He played wide receiver for the Notre Dame Fighting Irish on their 1988 national championship team. In 2015, he completed the World Marathon Challengeseven marathons in seven days on seven continents. As many representatives were led in small groups to secure locations, he and three other Texas Republican freshmenTony Gonzales, who serves a district stretching from San Antonio to El Paso; Ronny Jackson, who represents a portion of the Panhandle; and former sheriff Troy Nehls, who hails from Fort Bend Countyagreed they would stay put on the floor to help the outmanned police. All had military backgrounds. Fallon had served in the Air Force. Gonzales is a Navy veteran, whom Trump endorsed in a closely fought GOP primary ultimately decided by fewer than fifty votes. Jackson is a retired rear admiral who was President Trumps personal physician. Nehls retired as a major in the Army reserve. They were joined by Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican in his fifth term. I just met him then, Fallon said. He said, Im going to be the last one to leave.

Amid thedin of the mounting siege, Fallon recalled what Notre Dame center Tim Grunhard would say to pump up his teammates before every home game: This is our house! And were going to protect it! Fallons adrenaline coursing, he screamed it.

The congressmen moved furniture to barricade the door. Fallon said Jackson just missed getting hit by a projectile that pierced the glass in the door as police cried out, Rounds fired! Shots fired! It was just surreal. We are going to get into a brawl on the House floor with a mob, Fallon said.

From left, representatives Troy Nehls, Tony Gonzales, Ronny Jackson, and Pat Fallon (in light blue) are joined by other freshman Republican members of the Texas delegation on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, on January 4, 2021.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP

Just hours before, Fallon had expected to be on the floor voting against certifying the electoral college votes for Biden, along with many Republicans in Congress who had signaled they would make a last-ditch effort to reverse the presidents November defeat. But they didnt have the votes. At his late-morning Save America rally held near the White House Wednesday morning, Trump lamented that Vice President Pence could not be counted on to save the day and incited what would become the siege and lockdown of the Capitol. Fallon, Nehls, Jackson, and Mullin, but not Gonzales, would be among the great majority of House Republicans who late Wednesday night and in the wee hours of Thursday morning, after the insurrection had been subdued, would vote to object to certifying either the Arizona or Pennsylvania Biden electors. They would vote the way the mob wanted, but, predictably, without success.

Austin Democrat Lloyd Doggett watched the afternoons mayhem outside the Capitol from his office on the third floor of the Rayburn House Office Building directly across the street, with the splendid view of a member entering his ninth term. It was just truly shocking, Doggett said late Wednesday afternoon, still under lockdown in his office. The nearest to Washington like this was when I was here for9/11, Doggett said. Its just such far-reaching damage to our country and to our position in the world.

After order was restored, Sylvia Garcia, a Democratic congresswoman from Houston who was among the managers of the House impeachment of Trump, which failed in the Senate, tweeted that Pence and the Cabinet ought to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment and immediately remove Trump from office and protect our country.

Returning to business, the Senate and House worked through the night to confirm Bidens victory,though most House Republicans139 in allvoted in favor of the challenges to either the Arizona or Pennsylvania electors, or both.

Fallon does not blame the president for the days indelibly terrible turn of events, instead pinning the breach on just a few, very few, bad apples. He believes the rioters should have trusted their elected representatives. Thats what were hired to do, Fallon said. This is a representative Republic. Were hired to fight for the people from our district.

And in his first three days as a member of Congress, Fallon, who lives in the well-named boomtown of Prosper, straddling Denton and Collin counties, said his office was flooded with hundreds of calls, all with the same message. Literally every call we got was they wanted us to object, Fallon said. And thats what their new representative did.

Chip Roy, who just won a second term representing a Central Texas district, seemed to rebuke his Texas colleagues. He won a standing ovation from Democrats when he spoke on the floor Wednesday night to explain why he was voting against rejecting any of the duly chosen Biden electors.

Today, the peoples House was attacked, which is an attack on the Republic itself. There is no excuse for it. A woman died. And people need to go to jail, said Roy, a former chief of staff for Senator Ted Cruz, who led the failed effort to block approval of the Biden electors. And the president should never have spun up certain Americans to believe something that simply cannot be.

See more here:
These Texas Congressmen Fought off the Mob. Then They Voted With Trump. - Texas Monthly

A federal judge issued a nationwide injunction on Dec. 22 to block enforcement of an executive order that would have effectively prohibited workplace trainings on implicit bias by federal contractors, federal agencies and the military.

President Trump said in Executive Order 13950 that it was issued to combat so-called offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating. The EO cited alleged concerns of a pervasive and malign ideology rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country.

Specifically, the EO forbids promoting a list of divisive concepts in workplace diversity trainings conducted by the U.S. Uniformed Services, federal agencies and federal contractors.

In a court challenge, a coalition of nonprofits and consultants argued that the EO would frustrate their efforts to train employees about systemic bias, racism, anti-LGBTQ bias, white privilege, implicit bias and intersectionality.

The suit alleges that the EO would require the plaintiffs to either censor or cease the trainings that are fundamental to their mission of breaking down barriers that underserved communities face or risk losing federal funding in the form of contracts and grants. The suit also alleged that the EO is so vague that it fails to provide notice of what speech is actually subject to penalty.

In a 34-page order, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California issued aninjunction that blocks the key provisions targeted by the plaintiffs.

The EO consists of 10 sections. Section 4 would require that all government contracts include certain express provisions providing that during the performance of the contract, [t]he contractor shall not use any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating. A violation of Section 4 could result in the cancelation, termination, suspension, in whole or in part, of federal contracts.

Section 5 directed the heads of all federal agencies to review their respective grant programs and identify programs for which the agency may, as a condition of receiving such a grant, require the recipient to certify that it will not use federal funds to promote certain divisive concepts.

Initially, the plaintiffs asked for a nationwide injunction against the EO in its entirety, but they later narrowed their request to an injunction limited to Section 4 and Section 5.

Judge Freemans nationwide preliminary injunction prohibits the federal government from implementing or enforcing Sections 4 and 5 of the EO against any federal grant recipient or federal contractor. The court found that requiring federal grantees to certify that they will not use grant funds to promote concepts the Government considers divisive, even where the grant program is wholly unrelated to such concepts, violates the grantees free speech rights.

The judge also found that the EO was so vague that it was impossible for plaintiffs to determine what conduct is prohibited. She noted that the ambiguity regarding the conduct prohibited by Sections 4 and 5 was only exacerbated by the FAQsissued by the Department of Labors Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which failed to narrow prohibited action. Such ambiguity further violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Judge Freeman found.

The Department of Justice has yet to announce whether it will appeal the injunction, and a new administration will take office at noon on January 20, 2021. While the incoming administration is widely expected to rescind the EO, this ruling was highly anticipated and celebrated by diversity and inclusion professionals, social justice organizations and employers in many different industries. This is particularly noteworthy given the number of employers that have publicly committed to enhance their diversity and inclusion efforts in light of the racial unrest that has unfolded nationally throughout 2020.

It remains important for employers, particularly federal contractors and federal grant recipients, to stay informed of developments in this area as they augment and modify their diversity and inclusion efforts in 2021 and beyond. We will continue to monitor this case and provide any updates on any future developments regarding this Executive Order.

[View source.]

Read the rest here:
Court Enjoins Trump Executive Order On Divisive Concepts In Workplace Trainings - JD Supra

Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors;Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.(e) On November 2, 2020, the Board of Directors (the "Board") of CommunityHealthcare Trust Incorporated (the "Company"), at the recommendation of thecompensation committee of the Board (the "Committee"), authorized and approvedthe Fifth Amendment (the "Wallace Fifth Amendment") to the Employment Agreementby and between the Company and Timothy G. Wallace (the "Wallace EmploymentAgreement"), the Second Amendment (the "Dupuy Second Amendment") to theEmployment Agreement by and between the Company and David H. Dupuy (the "DupuyEmployment Agreement"), and the Second Amendment (the "Stach Second Amendment")to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement by and between the Company andLeigh Ann Stach (the "Stach Employment Agreement"). These amendments to eachrespective employment agreements were executed on January 4, 2021 and wereeffective as of January 1, 2021.Wallace Employment AgreementThe principal change in the Wallace Employment Agreement resulting from theWallace Fifth Amendment is to increase the base salary paid by the Company toTimothy G. Wallace for his employment as President and Chief Executive Officer("Wallace Base Salary"). In 2020, the Wallace Base Salary was $645,000.00. TheWallace Fifth Amendment increases the Wallace Base Salary to $750,000.00 for2021, which is an $105,000.00 increase from 2020.The foregoing descriptions of the Wallace Fifth Amendment to the WallaceEmployment Agreement are qualified in their entirety by reference to theoriginal Wallace Employment Agreement, which is included as Exhibit 10.6 to theRegistration Statement on Form S-11 of the Company filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the "SEC") on April 2, 2015, the first amendment to theWallace Employment Agreement, which is included as Exhibit 10.1 to the CurrentReport on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 18, 2017, the second amendmentto the Wallace Employment Agreement, which is included as Exhibit 10.1 to theCurrent Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 2, 2018, the thirdamendment to the Wallace Employment Agreement, which is included as Exhibit 10.1to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 3, 2019, thefourth amendment to the Wallace Employment Agreement, which is included asExhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 3,2020, and the Wallace Fifth Amendment, which is included as Exhibit 10.1 to thisCurrent Report on Form 8-K, and are incorporated by reference into this Item.The foregoing description of the Wallace Fifth Amendment does not purport to becomplete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such exhibits.Dupuy Employment AgreementThe principal change in the Dupuy Employment Agreement resulting from the DupuySecond Amendment is to increase the base salary paid by the Company to David H.Dupuy for his employment as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer("Dupuy Base Salary"). In 2020, the Dupuy Base Salary was $392,000.00. The DupuySecond Amendment increases the Dupuy Base Salary to $460,000.00 for 2021, whichis a $68,000.00 increase from 2020.The foregoing descriptions of the Dupuy Second Amendment to the Dupuy EmploymentAgreement are qualified in their entirety by reference to the Dupuy EmploymentAgreement, which is included as Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-Kfiled with the SEC on March 11, 2019, the first amendment to the DupuyEmployment Agreement, which is included as Exhibit 10.2 to the Current Report onForm 8-K filed with the SEC on January 3, 2020, and the Dupuy Second Amendment,which is included as Exhibit 10.2 to this Current Report on Form 8-K, and areincorporated by reference into this Item. The foregoing description of the DupuySecond Amendment does not purport to be complete and is qualified in itsentirety by reference to such exhibits.Stach Employment AgreementThe principal change in the Stach Employment Agreement resulting from the StachSecond Amendment is to increase the base salary paid by the Company to Leigh AnnStach for her employment as Executive Vice President and Chief AccountingOfficer ("Stach Base Salary"). In 2020, the Stach Base Salary was $326,800.00.The Stach Second Amendment increases the Stach Base Salary to $387,600.00 for2021, which is a $60,800.00 increase from 2020.The foregoing descriptions of the Stach Second Amendment to the Stach EmploymentAgreement are qualified in their entirety by reference to the amended andrestated Stach Employment Agreement, which is included as Exhibit 10.1 to theCurrent Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 2, 2019, the firstamendment to the Stach Employment Agreement, which is included as Exhibit 10.4to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 3, 2020, and theStach Second Amendment, which is included as Exhibit 10.3 to this Current Reporton Form 8-K, and are incorporated by reference 2--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

into this Item. The foregoing description of the Stach Second Amendment does notpurport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to suchexhibits.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits

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

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read more here:
COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE TRUST INC : Change in Directors or Principal Officers, Financial Statements and Exhibits (form 8-K) - marketscreener.com

Our nation is not doing well at limiting infections and deaths from COVID-19. Perhaps we can say, Well, we did better than Belgium, Italy or Spain. However, we not only are doing badly compared with other high-income nations, weve also fallen behind some countries with much lower incomes that took more coherent measures early on.

We are also failing in how we are sharing the economic costs of the pandemic across our society. Some groups are paying a high price in terms of unemployment, lost incomes, medical bills for treatment, evictions and small-business bankruptcies. At the same time, others, especially those with white-collar jobs who can work remotely, see little economic harm. And a small minority have seen sharp increases in their income or wealth.

Given the degree to which long-established infection-limitation measures have become politicized, it is not clear that there will be marked improvements on the public health side until the benefits of widespread vaccination become established. Given the disproportionate mortality levels among older people, particularly those in nursing homes, a well-administered program of vaccinating the most vulnerable may reduce deaths well before community spread in the overall population is ended. Hope for the best.

What we can do, however, is drastically reduce the economic unfairness stemming from the pandemic and the needed responses to limit it.

Understand that for some, the question of whether people in financial need deserve help or not has become a fetish. Our collective values are such that we think it fine for some people to routinely get Medicare or Social Security benefits worth 10 or 50 times the actuarial value of what they paid in to these systems. Yet when people get unemployment compensation or SNAP benefits for extended periods, many condemn them as lazy bums.

However, the pandemic against which we struggle is an act of God, or nature, of a magnitude we have not faced for a century. No unemployed cook, Uber driver, bartender, cosmetologist or travel agent did anything wrong to put them on the street. Nor did the owners of cafes, bars, fitness centers or personal care salons who face bankruptcy of businesses into which they have poured wealth, years of labor, hopes and dreams. These people are not miscreants in any way.

All the while, engineers, programmer analysts, accountants and therapists can work remotely. They see no reduction of income or wealth. Ditto for column writers, contract editors, attorneys and the like. They have no particular moral superiority to those seeing their unemployment compensation run out while getting eviction warnings.

And considering the now-ailing service economy makes up the majority of U.S. workers, a permanent game-changing adjustment in the way people work and play, via the internet and fostered by the pandemic, also carriers with it the dangers of enlarging a permanent underclass at least until the service industry adjusts.

Meanwhile, there is a small cadre of very wealthy people, including those who have started up internet-age businesses over the last 20 years, who have seen the value of their stock soar in recent months. This is not due to any special effort or brilliance on their part, but because the Federal Reserve is flooding the economy with additional cash. Some of that inevitably boosts share prices in key subsets of corporations. Add to that the increased demand, and dependence, of the not-doing-so-badly professional class, distant-learning students and the like, on many of these companies digital products and services, and you further understand Wall Streets thinking.

But we can do more as a society to share the financial burden fairly. This can include federal and state governments picking up the tab for pandemic-related outlays and extension of unemployment benefits to 39 or 52 weeks as we regularly have done in the past.

Most importantly, we need to add a program of substantial payments to the restaurants, bars, health centers, salons and other small businesses being crushed by necessary public health measures, including complete closings.

Public health officials are correct that if these establishments operate, rates of transmission of COVID-19 increase. People get sick and die. Closing them produces a public benefit. But the public as a whole is not compensating the owners and employees of such businesses for their financial losses necessitated for the public good..

Government taking property or arbitrarily making citizens provide services in kind has been a concern from the beginning of the republic. For example, the constitution bans the forced quartering of soldiers in private homes as was done by the British while we were colonies. More importantly, the Fifth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, bans the taking of private property for public use without fair compensation.

The government can exercise eminent domain and take ones land to widen a street. Better streets and roads may benefit the public. But the public collectively must pay for the property taken.

In contrast, if government forces a steakhouse or tavern to close weeks on end for the public benefit of limiting the spread of disease, few elected officials see a need to compensate for a financially crushing limit on the use of property. This is wrong in terms of simple fairness even if no court rules that forced closings constitute a Fifth Amendment taking.

More importantly, from a practical political point of view, making a subset of small-business owners bear a huge cost for the benefit of the rest of us engenders vocal resistance to needed measures. I dislike the recent coordinated mass defiance of the law by such businesses. But we should be treating them better.

Yes, in Minnesota, Gov. Tim Walz and the Legislature have passed measures to funnel some compensation to such companies. But more is needed. Congress should include this in the assistance package being hammered out right now.

Who should pay for it? We have a strong bipartisan aversion to making anyone pay taxes. Yet we are in an unprecedented emergency. At times in the past, we have had temporary tax increases to raise revenues to face specific challenges. The last was in 1968 when the Johnson administration asked for and got a two-year surtax added to personal income taxes. European countries have had temporary taxes on high net worth during wartime. The United Kingdoms current Conservative Party government headed buy Boris Johnson is considering one right now.

Initiating a new tax on net worth of this type is complicated. But a two-year 5 percentage point surtax on personal income from all sources above some threshold like $500,000 would raise a lot of money that could very justly be given to small-business owners forced to close to limit COVID spread.

St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at stpaul@edlotterman.com.

Visit link:
Real World Economics: Businesses closing for good? Lets recognize that - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

A judge has denied a request by former West Linn Dr. David Farley to put a two-year hold on a civil case filed against him by 29 patients who allege he sexually abused them.

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Melvin Oden-Orr noted in his ruling Monday that for some plaintiffs, 17 years have already passed. This consideration weighs heavily against granting the stay.

Four women initially filed a lawsuit against Farley and then another 25 women joined it last week. Together, the 29 women seek a total of $290 million in damages, alleging Farley performed unnecessary pelvic exams and engaged in sexual battery while they were in his care.

The Oregon Medical Board stripped Farley of his state medical license on Oct. 2 for dishonorable and unprofessional conduct and gross or repeated negligence. He remains under criminal investigation by West Linn police. A majority of the plaintiffs have made statements to police, according to their lawyers.

Karen OKasey, Farleys lawyer, argued that postponing the civil suit would protect Farleys Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the police investigation.

My client is facing a criminal investigation based on the same conduct, if not more, alleged by these same defendants, she told the court.

OKasey also argued that a delay wouldnt prejudice the women suing, noting the alleged conduct occurred five to 17 years ago.

But the judge found the arguments werent sufficient to grant a hold on the civil suit.

Citing case law, Oden-Orr wrote, Defendant has no absolute right not to be forced to choose between testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege.

Further, Oden-Orr said Farleys request isnt to simply delay a civil trail but also to delay gathering evidence in the case.

Farley can still protect himself by asserting his Fifth Amendment right when necessary, the judge wrote.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs told the court that theyve heard from dozens of other women who have come forward since the initial lawsuit was filed.

Allowing a stay in a civil matter whenever there is a pending criminal proceeding would render these civil cause of actions worthless and would deny victims of sexual assault the right to seek and obtain compensation for their pain and suffering, the plaintiffs lawyers wrote to the court.

The judge said he agreed, allowing the civil case to proceed.

Tom DAmore and John Manly, lawyers for the plaintiffs, said they have been contacted by more than 70 women who have reported alleged abuse by Farley.

Obtaining documents and testimony from Dr. Farley and those who worked with him at West Linn Medical Center, Legacy Meridian Park Hospital and Providence Health Services is crucial to hold those responsible for the pain and suffering of the young women we represent, DAmore and Manly said in a statement.

No criminal charges have been filed against Farley.

Farley moved to Idaho after leaving the West Linn Family Health Center and sending a retirement letter to his patients Aug. 12. He failed to mention he was under board investigation at the time.

As the civil case proceeds, Farley also is fighting to keep confidential the investigative records from the Oregon State Medical Board.

The plaintiffs lawyers had petitioned the Oregon attorney general to order the medical board to release its investigative records involving Farley. The attorney general ordered some released but not all. Farleys lawyers have argued in court papers that the records should remain confidential and are exempt under state law from public disclosure. Theyre seeking a temporary restraining order that would block the records release.

-- Maxine Bernstein

Email at mbernstein@oregonian.com; 503-221-8212

Follow on Twitter @maxoregonian

Subscribe to Facebook page

Read more:
Lawsuit filed by 29 women can proceed against former West Linn doctor while criminal investigation continues, - OregonLive

CHICAGO (WBBM NEWSRADIO) -- McHenry County prosecutors are having a tough time getting an internal state report on the handling of a child abuse case that eventually ended in the death of a Crystal Lake boy.

Five-year old AJ Freund was found dead last year - the result of abuse by his mother and father who are now in prison. But, two former employees of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Service are being tried by McHenry County prosecutors for their roles in investigating a large bruise on the boy a few months before he died.

The McHenry County States Attorneys office is seeking the report, generated as part of an investigation by the departments Office of Inspector General, which looked into Freunds former DCFS caseworker Carlos Acosta, 54, and his supervisor Andrew Polovin, 48.

But, according to the Northwest Herald, an attorney for DCFS office of Inspector General is trying to keep the report under wraps and away from prosecutors.

Attorney Michelle Camp told McHenry County Judge Robert Wilbrandt her office would be filing a motion based on the Garrity Law in response to the states subpoena filed in November.

The Garrity Law protects public employees from being compelled to incriminate themselves during investigatory interviews conducted by their employers.This is a protection which stems from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution that declares the government cannot compel a person to be a witness against him or herself, according togarrityrights.org.

At the conclusion of the Inspector Generals investigation both Acosta and Polovin were fired from their jobs, and each has been subsequently charged criminally in Freunds death. Both have pleaded not guilty.

Follow this link:
Prosecutors have hard time obtaining report in Freund case - RADIO.COM