Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

The Biden administration will face a major challenge from a New York judges ruling that the government must provide immigration hearings for detainees within 10 days of their arrestwhich federal authorities fail to do in 80 percent of deportation cases nationally.

Judge Alison J. Nathans Nov. 30 order at U.S. District Court in Manhattan was the first to draw a constitutional line on the long waits detainees often undergo in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody before they get to see a judge. The case was sparked by delays that typically reached two to three months at New Yorks Varick Street immigration court in the summer and fall of 2018.

Nathans order applies to detainees the ICE New York Field Office arrests. But it creates pressure for ICE and the Executive Office for Immigration Review to apply this standard across the country if they wish to avoid further lawsuits charging them with routinely violating the due process rights of thousands of immigration detainees. Resisting the standard set in New York would also undercut President-elect Joe Bidens campaign commitment to a fair and humane immigration system.

The way that we see this is that this should be a wake-up call, said Mauricio Noroa, an attorney in the immigration clinic at Cardozo School of Law, which brought the case with the New York Civil Liberties Union, Bronx Defenders and Make the Road New York. They should obviously apply the logic elsewhere because its not just in New York that people have a constitutional right to due process. He added: We certainly hope and expect that the incoming Biden administration will take this as a cue and act affirmatively.

As for the Trump administration: its not commenting. An ICE spokeswoman said the agency is still reviewing the judges order. Spokespersons for EOIR and the U.S. attorneys office would not comment.

Also Read: How ICE Controls Journalists Access to the Immigration Courts

Before the lawsuit was filed on November 15, 2018, ICE detainees arrested in the New York area typically waited weeks and sometimes months in criminal jails under harsh conditions and with inadequate access to medical care, as Judge Nathan put it. She added that as civil detainees they are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.

The government argued that there were already adequate safeguards for people ICE arrests: ICE is required to make an individual bond determination for each person it takes into custody within 48 hours, and provide an expedited bond hearing before an immigration judge if the detainee asks for it.

These safeguards are, in fact, illusory, the judge found, noting that ICE routinely denies bond in every case.

The lead plaintiff, Uriel Vazquez Perez, a White Plains resident who had lived in the United States for 20 years after migrating from Mexico, described in court documents what it was like to be held without an immigration hearing in the Orange County Jail in Goshen after his arrest on October 30, 2018. While I was detained, I used to call the EOIR hotline every two to three days to find out if I had been assigned a court date, but it always said there was no record of my A number in the system and my case had not yet been registered, he said.

Meanwhile, without the income from his job as a landscaper, his wife fell behind on their rent payments; they feared they would lose their home. At the jail, We only got a little bit of food each day, and it was cold in the cell. There was no heat, only air conditioning, and we received only two blankets. Also, some of the guards mistreated people. They treated us as if we were worthless.

After the federal lawsuit was filed, he received an immigration hearing in court; the judge released him on bondas immigration judges did for 30 to 40 percent of the detainees whom ICE had refused to release, according to Nathans ruling.

Also Read: Disorder in the Immigration Courts

Documents the government filed in the lawsuit give a revealing look at the bureaucratic chaos in both ICE and EOIR that contributed to unconstitutionally long periods of incarceration. At ICE, the assistant field director of the New York office acknowledged that after an arrest, the process for issuing a Notice to Appear, the charging document for a deportation, became entangled in delays with the agencys lawyers at the Office of Principal Legal Advisor, which reviewed each filing. At EOIR, staffing shortages, clerical errors and a near doubling of new cases in two years meant that cases piled up before being filed, or simply slipped through the cracks.

Under the pressure of the lawsuit, ICE made monthly reports to the court on the waiting times from arrest to filing of a case. EOIR reported similarly on the period from filing to the initial master calendar immigration hearings for the Varick Street detainee docket. The government pledged to get all cases into a courtroom within 20 days no more than three days for ICE to file a Notice to Appear, and 17 more days for EOIR to schedule a hearing.

In the early months, the bureaucratic malfunction continued. EOIR brought in a new court administrator for the Varick Street court in May 2019, David Norkin (who became an immigration judge in January). That month, it took EOIR longer than 17 days to hold a first hearing for nearly half the cases, 45 out of 98.

In doing a mid-year review of the courts operation, Norkin found that the legal assistant in charge of scheduling immigration hearings had misunderstood the courts calendar and thought that the judges had been assigned more cases than they actually had, he wrote to the federal court.

Judge Nathan issued an interim order on September 30, 2019 that required the government to provide her with a prompt explanation for why any individual case took longer than three days for ICE to file or 17 days for EOIR to hold a first hearing.

After a sharp rise in wait times during the springtime Covid-19 peak, wait times dropped in recent months to within the 10 days that the judge ultimately ordered.

That certainly speaks well for the governments ability to get this done not just in New York but elsewhere in the U.S., Noroa said. Theres nothing that I think is special about New York that the government was able to get things done correctly, at least in the last few filings.

Also Read: A Family Trip Turned Into an Immigration Nightmare

Nonetheless, no more than 10 days in jail from arrest to first hearing is a standard the government is far from achieving in the system at large.

Documented analyzed EOIR data for cases filed in the 111 largest detainee courts from October 2019 through the end of October this year. Of the 51,300 cases in that group, ICE and EOIR took longer than 10 days to provide a scheduled first hearing in 80.1 percent of the cases. For a quarter of the detainees, it took longer than a month in jail to see a judge. If Judge Nathans earlier order to provide a first hearing within 20 days had been in effect nationally, the government would have violated it in 45 percent of the cases.

The hearing location at Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez, Mississippi, which is under the jurisdiction of the New York court but not covered by Judge Nathans order, exceeded the 10-day mark in 93 percent of the cases. The cases are heard by video at Varick Street Immigration Court in Lower Manhattan.) The Ulster Correctional Facility in Napanoch, N.Y., which contains a separate court but shares some administrative functions with the Varick Street court, missed the mark in 99 percent of its cases. The same goes for the court located in Fishkill, N.Y.; none of its cases was handled in 10 days or less.

Around the country, many of the busiest courts arent even close to moving cases within 10 days. For those handling more than 400 detainee cases in fiscal year 2020, which ended Sept. 30, it took ICE longer than a median of three days just to get the typical case filed in 22 hearing locations. These sites handled a combined 19,989 cases. The slowest: ICEs handling of a cases located at Jackson Parish Correctional Center in Jonesboro, Louisiana a median of 18 days to filing from either arrest or issuance of a Notice to Appear, using whichever time period was shorter.

Then there were eight courts in which it took EOIR longer than a median of 17 days to provide either a master calendar hearing or bond determination. The slowest: the court at La Palma Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona, where it took a median of 38 days from when it received the case.

And the order in New York is not to achieve a 10-day median, meaning the midpoint of all the cases; its 10 days from arrest to first hearing for all cases. These numbers show that EOIR and ICE have a long way to go to achieve what a federal court determined to be a marker for the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Samuel Cole, a Chicago immigration judge speaking in his role as director of communications for the National Association of Immigration Judges, said its important that cases be brought to court in a timely way. Delay is a real problem for due process, he said, adding, there are so many sources of delay.

In addition to delays in filing cases after an arrest is made, and then in scheduling hearings, there can be lengthy waits for paperwork to be moved for cases that are transferred from one court to another. Ive seen that take months, Cole said. There are so manymay opportunities for people to sit in custody for too long. Its especially a problem for detainees who dont have a lawyer, he said.

A lot of immigration courts across the country are woefully understaffed, Cole said. Theres been just a horrific mismanagement of the courts and the staffing of the courts for years.

Sui Chung, the chairperson of the American Immigration Lawyers Associations EOIR/ICE Liaison Committee, said she didnt know of any standard the two government agencies have set for moving cases toward a first hearing without delay. I think thats where we should be going, she said. Im really excited about the case in New York. She added: We should have a presumption of non-detention instead of detention.

Also Read: Immigrants Left Out of COVID-19 Emergency Rent Relief

Read the rest here:
Only 20% of ICE Detainees Get a Hearing Within 10 Days - Documented NY

Tom McClintock

Every American needs to seeAngela Marsdens tearful video as she pours out her frustrations as a small restaurant owner in Los Angeles. Forced to drastically curtail her business during Californias brutal shutdowns, she took out an $80,000 loan to meet all the expensive requirements to move her dining outside and salvage what was left of her lifes work. Instead, authorities arbitrarily changed the rules and shut her down again a death sentence for her 10-year-old restaurant. Yet the same authorities permitted a film production company to offer the very same outdoor dining across the very same parking lot the day she had to close her business.

Im losing everything, she said through her tears. Everything I own is being taken away from me.

InStaten Islandpolice hauled a restaurant owner away in handcuffs for desperately trying to re-open his establishment just across the tracks fromother restaurantswhere dining was allowed under precisely the same conditions.

When asked to explain these capricious standards, CaliforniaGov. Gavin Newsomsmarmed,Im deeply empathetic. That must be a load off their minds.

The Fifth Amendment in our Bill of Rights specifically protects Americans from being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Where are those rights today?

Congress is now discussing how to provide relief for the thousands of small business owners, their employees and the families that depend on them who have been crushed by these reckless edicts. As usual, politicians measure their empathy by how much theyre willing to spend of other peoples money. But the fine point of the matter is this: government cannot support the economy for any significant time because government does not finance the economy. The economy finances the government and when you shut down the economy, you shut down the revenues that go to government.

The only genuine relief from the COVID-19 lockdowns is to end the lockdowns. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

By now, it should be obvious that the lockdowns have failed to contain this virus. After nine months of this unprecedented experiment in social engineering, the virus continues to spread. Common sense should tell us that the more infectious a virus and the deeper it has already penetrated into a population, the less effective mass isolation will be.

The plight of Angela Marsden and countless victims of these policies tell us clearly what we are very effectively accomplishing: we are destroying our society. We have set in motion countless, avoidable deaths by suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, deferred health treatments and health screenings and poverty that will stalk us for many years to come. We have cost our youth a year of their educations. Nearly half of American retailers say they are now in imminent danger of permanently closing. Forbes magazine reports, The No. 1 worry on most small business owners minds now is the threat of more government mandated business closures.

Eleven millionAmericans who had jobs in February dont have them today.

Modern science and its many breakthroughs in immunology, epidemiology and virology has given us advanced treatments and vaccines unparalleled in human history. But science is grotesquely incompetent to reorder human societies or to change the laws of human nature. Nor does it give officials the omniscience to know what is best for every person in every circumstance. Nor does it give them the right to wantonly destroy peoples lives and livelihoods. After all, medicines most ancient command is First, do no harm.

We have arbitrarily and indiscriminately destroyed the lifes work and lifes dreams of millions of Americans like Angela Marsden. We have made the most sacred right of Americans to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness into a hollow and bitter mockery.

The American people dont need the governors empathy and they dont need politicians handouts. They need a government that protects their right to make a living and to lead their own lives according to their own best judgment. They need their Bill of Rights back. And above all, they need their freedom back.

Congressman McClintock represents Californias 4thCongressional District.

Related

Continued here:
Guest column: The only relief from lockdowns is to end them - Mountain Democrat

PORTLAND A judge has denied a request by a former suburban Portland doctor 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, The Oregonian/OregonLivereported.

Four women filed a lawsuit against West Linn Dr. David 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 in October for dishonorable and unprofessional conduct and gross or repeated negligence. He remains under criminal investigation by West Linn police.

Karen OKasey, Farleys lawyer, argued among other things 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.

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.

Read this article:
Judge: Suit filed by 29 women can proceed against former Portland doctor - The Columbian

When Carlos Flores filed suit against the Trump administration last summer, the Laredo-based attorney said he wanted to help his clients try to stave off border wall construction on their stretch of the Texas-Mexico border at least until the presidential election in hopes of seeing a new administration take over.

But with the election over and Trump set to give way to President-elect Joe Biden next month, Flores said the court battles over Trump's signature promise could stretch well past next month's inauguration.

"I could foresee that there are going to be some significant legal battles between now and at least Jan. 20 and possible further into 2021," he said. "It depends on how quickly and how decisively the Biden administration reacts to what's going on down here."

Flores represents Zapata County and two South Texas landowners in a lawsuit challenging Trump's 2017 executive order mandating construction of a physical barrier on the border. It also challenges a series of environmental waivers issued in May aimed at fast-tracking almost 70 miles of barrier from Webb County to Zapata County.

The lawsuit alleges the administration violated the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, which provides for equal protection under the law. The executive order "creates a 2nd Class United States citizen at the southern border who can have their land seized wholesale based on racist and white nationalist motives," the lawsuit states.

During the campaign, Biden said his administration would not build another mile of barrier should he win, and his campaign website states that during his first 100 days in office, he will end the "so-called National Emergency" that Trump declared in order to divert Department of Defense money to help build the barrier.

Still, Flores worries that the border barrier may not be among Biden's immediate priorities, which could allow the Department of Homeland Security to continue moving forward until it gets new marching orders.

"The thing I am really concerned about is that as we head into the winter months, the pandemic is going to get worse," Flores said. "And on day one he's going to have an economic crisis."

Jessica Bolter, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, said last month that Biden could immediately end Trump's emergency declaration, but it's unclear how that would affect ongoing construction projects and the money already dedicated to them.

"Ending the transfer of future funds doesn't mean in itself that wall construction stops," she said.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration shows no signs of slowing progress on one of his most high-profile campaign promises. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection online tracker of border wall construction indicates a 69-mile stretch of new barrier is under construction in Webb County, and another 52-mile project is in the "pre-construction" phase.

The government hasn't built anything on the land that's part of Flores' lawsuit; court documents show that last month the federal government was granted more time to file documents seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, which would allow the project to proceed. Flores said hearings are possible as late as next month.

"It's all going to depend how aggressive the feds are in moving forward with the construction," he said. "I just don't know why they would spend all this money. I guess people feel like they're going to get fired by President Trump between now and Jan. 20, I don't know."

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans and engages with them about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

More:
Efforts to stop Trump's border wall construction could extend long past Inauguration Day - Salon

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to decide whether a California regulation allowing union organizers to access employers property is an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.

In the lower courts decision, Cedar Point Nursery v. Sheroma, a two-judge majority of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim by a group of employers that the regulation created uncompensated easements on their property. The California Agricultural Labor Relations Board regulation permits union organizers to use an employers property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year, if they notify the employer in advance. The court reasoned that the regulation limits organizers access to the property and that violating the right to exclude is not a permanent physical invasion required for a per se taking. The dissenting judge stated that allowing ongoing access to private property multiple times a day for 120 days per year is a physical occupation and that the right to exclude is one of the most fundamental property rights. He also noted that union organizers could meet with employees outside of the employers premises and communicate with them through other means.

Given the current business-friendly makeup of the Supreme Court, we would not be surprised if it were to rule that the California regulation is an unconstitutional taking. In any event, the Supreme Courts analysis about what constitutes a per se regulatory taking may answer more general questions, such as how much access to property constitutes a taking and how important is the right to exclude. This analysis likely will apply to laws and regulations beyond those governing union organizers use of employers property, such as laws barring property owners from evicting tenants.

The rest is here:
SCOTUS Will Rule on a New Takings Case - JD Supra

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

Eager to spark the socialist revolution, left-wing activistsseized Ramsett Park and the surrounding area and declared anindependent autonomous community dedicated to social and economicjustice. The activists threw up barricades and excluded both thepolice and the "bourgeoisie" owners of businessessurrounding the park. Fearing a primary challenge, Mayor Gundersonordered the police to withdraw from the area except forlife-or-death situations. As days turned into weeks, the areareverted to a Hobbesian state, with violence increasing and refugeaccumulating in the street. Mayor Gunderson belatedly ordered thearea cleared. When the business owners returned, they found theirbuildings vandalized and their property stolen or destroyed. Theylook to hold someone responsible. But the activists havedisappeared, and, in any event, hippies are notoriously judgmentproof. Can Mayor Gunderson and the City be held liable for notenforcing the law?

While that hypothetical may have appeared bizarre and improbablelast year, astrikinglysimilar situationoccurred in Seattle in June, asactivists seized control of a sixteen-block area that came to beknown as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest ("CHOP")Zone. Seattle did not order the police to clear the area for threeweeks, during which there was extensive violence and propertydamage. At the end of June, local businesses and property owners inthe CHOP area sued Seattle to recover for the damages they sufferedand the temporary loss of their businesses and land.

Last month, a federal judge in Washingtonheldthat the lawsuit could proceed and that the propertyowners had pled enough facts to show potential violations of theFourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause (which prohibits thegovernment from depriving individuals of "property without dueprocess of law") and Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause(which states that "private property [may not] be taken forpublic use without just compensation"). This post will examinehow those claims would fare in Texas.

Successfully suing a city in Texas for violating the Due ProcessClause would be difficult. In 1989, the Supreme Courtheldthat the Clause generally does not require thegovernment to "protect the life, liberty, and propertyinterests of its citizens from invasion by private actors. In otherwords, the Clause's "purpose was to protect people fromthe State, not to ensure that the State protected them from eachother."

However, one exception to that general rule is the so-called"state-created danger" doctrine, under which thegovernment can be held liable for violating the Due Process Clauseif it created or increased the danger to the injured individual.The Supreme Court hasneverrecognizedthis doctrine. The Fifth Circuit hasnoteither and, in fact, has created such a stringent testthat it has never found a set of facts that could satisfy it. Underthattest, the plaintiff must show:

Even assuming that the Fifth Circuit would recognize thestate-created danger doctrine, the business owners in ourhypothetical probably could not satisfy it. First, the City did nottake an affirmative step to create the danger or make the businessowners more vulnerable to it. It was an omission, rather than anact of commission. And, if the government had no hand in bringingabout the peril but "simply stood by and did nothing whensuspicious circumstances dictated a more active role, it cannot beheld liable." Second, it is doubtful that the business ownersare "known victims" under the Fifth Circuit's test.That court hasheldthat the state-created danger doctrine does notextend to any foreseeable victim, because "increasing the riskof harm to unidentified and unidentifiable members of the public...is not sufficiently willful and targetedtoward specific harm to remove the case into the domain ofconstitutional law."

In contrasts, the Ninth Circuit hasrecognizedthe state-created danger doctrine, and thecourt in the Seattle "CHOP" case held that the Plaintiffshad pled enough facts to satisfy it. It concluded thatSeattle's alleged "actionsencouraging CHOPparticipants to wall of the area and agreeing to a 'noresponse' zone within and near CHOP'sbordersforeseeably placed Plaintiffs in a worse positionthan they would have been in absent any City interventionwhatsoever."

The distinction between commissions and omissions isalsocriticalto the business owners' likelihood ofprevailing under the Takings Clause. When the government takesprivate property, it must pay "just compensation," thatis, the property's fair market value. The Supreme Courthasheldstatedthat a temporary takings claim can be maintained when thegovernment's action occurring outside the property gives riseto "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment anduse of the land." And, once the government has worked a takingof the property, "no subsequent action by the government canrelieve it of the duty to provide compensation for the periodduring which the taking is effective."

That being said, the Takings Clause requires compensation onlyif the property is taken by the government, not a third party. Forexample, the government is not liable under the Takings Clause if athief steals a car, even if the government could have done a betterjob of deterring the theft by erecting more street lights orincreasing the amount of police patrols.

But providing authority or assistance to that third partychanges the result. State governments have granted the power ofeminent domain on private companies, such as railroads andtelecommunication providers. Local governments have also seizedproperty themselves andtransferreditto private companies to promote "economic development."Whether the latter transfers are for "a public use"isdebatable(anddoubtful). But they are unquestionably takings for which thegovernment is required to provide "justcompensation."

The hypothetical above and the Seattle "CHOP" casefall between the government seizing property itself andtransferring it to a third party and the government merely failingto prevent theft of and trespass on private property. In thehypothetical, a claim under the Takings Clause would likely notsucceed because the City provided no assistance to theactivists.

On the other hand, the court in the Seattle "CHOP"case held that the Taking Claim was viable because the propertyowners had pled facts indicating that Seattle's"endorsement of, and the provision of material support to CHOPset in a motion a series of acts by certain CHOP participants, whothe City knew or reasonably should have known would deprivePlaintiffs of their protected property interest."Specifically, the Plaintiffs pointed out that Seattle had provided"medical equipment, washing/sanitation facilities, portabletoilets, nighttime lighting, and other material support." AndSeattle's mayor tweeted her support for the activists andinfamously predicted a "summer of love" in the area. Based on those facts, thecourt held that the City might be liable under the Takings Clause.While the Plaintiffs have not won the merits, the case is one towatch.

The situation in Seattle is undoubtedly an extreme situation,but it is an important reminder that the usual recourse for thegovernment's failure to enforce its laws is political, ratherthan legal. The Seattle "CHOP" case could begroundbreaking if the Plaintiffs ultimately prevail. Regardless ofits outcome, property owners should not rely solely on thegovernment to protect their property but rather make sure that theyare adequately insured against property damage and theft.

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: Government, Public Sector from United States

Stinson

The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) governs claims under FAR-based Government contracts. More than forty years after its enactment in 1978, we are apparently still not all in agreement as...

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

FinCEN advised financial institutions on recent updates to the Financial Action Task Force ("FATF") list of jurisdictions with strategic AML and Combating the Financing of Terrorism ("AML/CFT") deficiencies.

Envoy Global, Inc.

The Federal District Court in the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, Illinois vacated the Public Charge Rule effective November 2, 2020

See the original post:
Dereliction Of Duty: Can Local Governments Be Liable For Not Protecting Property From Protestors? - Government, Public Sector - United States - Mondaq...

On September 22, a group of nine students at the University of Miami received a mysterious email from an administrator. Dr. Ryan Holmes is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting to discuss [the] incident that happened on September 4, 2020, at the Whitten University Center, read the email, obtained by Teen Vogue. There was a Zoom meeting link, but no further explanation. The incident the email referred to, which all nine email recipients had attended, was a die-in to protest conditions for cafeteria workers on campus. In the Zoom meeting, the students say, Holmes gave a long speech about how they should have properly registered their protest. When they asked repeatedly how they had been identified, they report that the dean didnt have as much to say.

Everyone was kind of wondering how we were identified as being at the protest, Mars Fernandez, a graduate student at the University of Miami, tells Teen Vogue. At one point someone just outright asked, Was it some sort of supersecret surveillance technology? The dean just kind of laughed, and then said something about how its no different than if the school were to use facial recognition software to find a students laptop that goes missing from the library.

In late October, another group of University of Miami students got in trouble for removing banners from campus that had been placed by the universitys College Republicans club. University of Miami president Julio Frank emailed the student body with a message, obtained by Teen Vogue, that a pro-Trump banner approved to be displayed on campus had been vandalized and that those found responsible will be held accountable. Soon after, several students who removed the Trump signs say they were called in by the police. Although they did not ask how they were identified as the individuals behind the action, the students who spoke with Teen Vogue say many suspect facial recognition technology was involved.

One student who removed a Trump sign tells Teen Vogue they did so to ensure marginalized students felt safe on campus. To me, that sign was a disgusting display of a hateful belief system that has somehow become socially acceptable with the rise of Trump, says the student, who prefers to remain anonymous. I was contacted by the police a couple days after. The student says they felt as if the police were trying to intimidate them and the matter was being treated as a criminal investigation. Since they used the word criminal, a lawyer informed me that it was within my fifth amendment rights to not show up and testify against myself," the student explains. "The lawyer reached out and told the police she was representing me, and I havent heard from them since. Teen Vogue has reached out to the University of Miami Police Department multiple times for comment.

Stay up-to-date with the Teen Vogue politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take!

In a statement emailed to Teen Vogue, the University of Miami denies any use of facial recognition technology on campus. The University does not employ facial recognition technology in its security measures, the statement reads. The University was criticized, wrongly, for allegedly using facial recognition technology to identify students who attended a September protest.

However, the resume of David Rivero, the chief of police with the University of Miami Police Department, touts the universitys usage of a camera system that employs facial recognition. One of the largest security project[s] added during Chief Riveros tenure was the creation of the new university-wide camera system, reads Riveros resume, obtained by Teen Vogue. The system now includes 1,338 cameras, recording 24 hours a day, and featuring video analytics, which is the use of sophisticated algorithms applied to a video stream to detect predefined situations and parameters such as motion detection, facial recognition, object detection, and much more. In an October 4 interview with Distraction, a student magazine at the university, Rivero admitted to using facial recognition to catch a few bad guys on campus. According to the universitys statement, though, Rivero denies the use of facial recognition technology during the September protests on campus.Teen Vogue has reached out for clarity surrounding the matter, but has not received a response.

See more here:
Facial Recognition Technology Is Being Used on More Campuses During COVID-19 - Teen Vogue

PRPhotos.com

Harvey Weinstein is asking a federal judge in New York to halt the proceedings in a civil suit brought by Alexandra Canosa, a former Weinstein Company employee. Canosa sued him, the Weinstein Company and several of its directors and executives, claiming he raped and assaulted her repeatedly, while threating to retaliate against her at work.

Weinsteins attorney Imran Ansari told the court that he would not be able to sit for a deposition due to his ill health, and that the matter should be put on hold pending outcome of the assault and rape charges hes facing in L.A. Under the current timeline, Weinstein would have to complete the deposition by January 19th.

Ansari writes in the motion: Mr. Weinsteins health has had a dramatic decline this week, as heavily reported in the media. These health concerns make it practically impossible to conduct his deposition and impedes his fundamental right to participate in his defense.

The health concerns reportedly include diabetes mellitus, extensive coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, chronic leg pain, arthritis, anemia, spinal stenosis and several others, which Ansari argues put him at heightened risk for contracting COVID-19.

Notwithstanding Mr. Weinsteins vehement denials of these salacious accusations, and evidence to support that any sexual relationship was completely consensual, these allegations closely resemble the charges of sexual misconduct in the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office, writes Ansari. In the absence of a stay, Mr. Weinsteins constitutional rights to defend himself against the criminal allegations are unreasonably and unfairly burdened. Mr. Weinstein would be forced to make 'the difficult choice between being prejudiced in the civil litigation,' if he asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege, 'or from being prejudiced in the criminal litigation if he waives that privilege in the civil litigation.'

He is facing 11 felony charges in L.A., including rape and sexual battery. Extradition to California has been put on hold amid the pandemic, but his attorney says its imminent.

Read more from the original source:
Harvey Weinstein Tries To Pause Suit Over Ill Health - 106.3 The Groove

Published: 10/23/2020 10:10:19 PM

Modified: 10/23/2020 10:10:09 PM

She lost me at sexual preference. I refer to Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, whose qualifications fall far short of supreme.

During her hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee she may as well have invoked the Fifth Amendment, given the number of reasonable questions she dodged.

As to sexual preference, she used that phrase as naturally as a Proud Boy might drop the n word. Among the factors I find disqualifying, this semantic slip is glaringly revealing. Sexual preference is laden with homophobic bigotry and legal peril. It not merely implies that gay and lesbian citizens choose their sexuality, but it denies the biological realities of sexual and gender identity.

Particularly at the time Barrett was coming of age, choosing to be gay would be a mighty masochistic choice unless one enjoyed humiliation from peers, scorn from family members, secrecy, risk of physical harm and, too often, terrible loneliness. Now, despite magnificent legal progress and a more accepting society, gay students and teachers are denied enrollment and employment at schools Barretts religion supports. Gays and lesbians are beaten by marauding gangs of thugs in areas of major cities and benighted rural towns.

Society and the law more easily shortchange gay and lesbian citizens when they claim (inaccurately) the infallibility of scripture and the notion that homosexuality is a choice too often accompanied by haughty language about conversion or psychiatric intervention.

Too many people are intimidated by religion and fail to speak up. The National Association of Independent Schools has a diversity standard requiring no discrimination on the basis of sexual identity yet accredits religious schools that exclude gay students and teachers. Hypocritical much? I confronted the association, but the board and president wiggled uncomfortably and sided with explicit bigotry, inaccurately citing the so-called ministerial exception accompanied by some convoluted babbling about a big tent. I dont want homophobes in my tent even especially in splendid ecclesiastic garb.

More as to Barrett: She was unwilling to affirm that climate change is at least partially due to human behavior. She couldnt go out on a limb and say tobacco causes cancer. She merely acknowledged that cigarette packages have warning labels. She wouldnt deny the president the power to unilaterally delay an election. She couldnt state whether voter intimidation was illegal. Fortunately no one asked her about up or down, black or white.

Although it may have been strategically wise, it was absurd that no Democrat examined her religious views. The idea that there can be no religious test for public office is a joke. As an enthusiastic atheist, Ive long recognized that I am unelectable. We will have a gay or Muslim president long before we inaugurate a non-believer, and I wouldnt bet the ranch on gay or Muslim.

Even among those claiming a more popular religious affiliation, oughtnt there be some inquiry about how far a candidates or nominees beliefs stray from the rational and empirical bases of our laws and secular social contract? Barretts written record, life choices, and confirmation hearing stonewalling suggest a woman who will be unable to divorce her lifelong indoctrination from her judicial contemplation.

This is not meant as an insult. Many things about her and her life are admirable, but she is ill-suited to sit on the nations highest secular court.

Finally, a word or two about Barretts (and others) originalism or textualism.

Originalism is the judicial approach that limits constitutional consideration to the text of the Constitution as written by the founders and by interpreting what they meant in the 18th century. It is cited as a judicial philosophy. It is not. It is a political philosophy masquerading as a judicial philosophy. It is no coincidence that the conservative justices march in lockstep. They are conservative. By limiting the scope of argument to the bare text, they may reject arguments of petitioners and respondents because the original text makes no mention of the redress they seek. Any legal scholar will tell you that this is done selectively, nearly always in support of a conservative political position. Pure originalism would have precluded nearly every social advance in American history womens rights, reproductive rights, voting rights, civil rights, gay rights, union rights, to name a few.

Barrett will almost certainly be confirmed and, in many ways, our rights and social contract will be rolled back to an era when Barrett and her conservative colleagues will be more comfortable, exclusive religious beliefs included.

Steve Nelson lives in Boulder, Colo., and Sharon. He can be reached at stevehutnelson@gmail.com.

Original post:
Column: Barrett confirmation will roll back social progress - Valley News

Are you getting tired of all the political TV ads? There is one reason these ads are on TV, the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. This decision has created a legal form of bribery and corruption. Citizens United gave corporations and political action committees the right to give millions to political candidates.

The U.S. Constitution gives the right to vote to citizens; corporations and PACs cannot vote. The Supreme Court has in the past denied corporations and PACs rights reserved for citizens. People are taxed and regulated differently than corporations. People enjoy the right in the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination in criminal investigations, while corporations do not.

Personally I do not like the idea of an out-of-state corporation or PAC trying to influence the votes of Iowans. I do not like the idea these organizations giving large amounts of cash to candidates who are supposed to represent Iowans and thereby trying to corrupt or bribe an Iowa candidate. Even citizens should not be able to donate to a candidate they cannot actually vote for or against, and the amount of a donation should be limited. Just because a person has millions, it does not make their vote worth more than any other persons vote.

I would love to see a political campaign based on a candidates record, what they plan to do or their goals for the people they represent. Here is a unique idea: How about a campaign based on honesty and the truth, rather than lies and deception?

If candidates were required to give their opponents the same amount they spend on a negative ad so the opponents can respond, there would be far fewer negative ads.

During this election cycle, Republicans are using Citizens United money to prevent people voting by challenging absentee voting, eliminating polling locations and making people travel extended distances and stand in line during a pandemic to cast their vote. Following the election, Republicans undoubtedly will spend millions of Citizens United dollars to challenge the results of the election. This is just another method of taking your vote away.

Read more:
Searl Letter to the Editor 10/23/20 | Opinion | carrollspaper.com - Carroll Daily Times Herald