The lawsuit from James Safechuck and Wade Robson against Michael Jackson&#8217;s estate may be resurrected due to a new law in California that allows sex abuse victims to sue past any alleged statute of limitations.
&#8220;A California appeals court appeared strongly inclined Monday to give new life to lawsuits filed by two men who accuse Michael Jackson of repeatedly molesting them when they were boys,&#8221; reported <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/appeals-court-asks-reconsideration-michael-jackson-accusers-lawsuits-1255914">The Hollywood Reporter</a>. &#8220;Three judges from the 2nd District Court of Appeal said in a tentative ruling that lawsuits from James Safechuck and Wade Robson against two corporate entities that Jackson owned should be reconsidered by the trial court that dismissed them in 2017.&#8221;
Last month, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into state law an extension of the statute of limitations — sexual abuse victims in the Golden State can now file suits up until the age of 40.
Wade Robson and James Safechuck became household names following the release of the explosive documentary &#8220;Leaving Neverland,&#8221; which accused Michael Jackson of sexually abusing young boys, often in his own home. The documentary sent a shockwave across social media, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44191/fallout-over-michael-jackson-documentary-music-paul-bois">dividing people into two camps</a>: Fierce defenders of Jackson and ex-fans too sickened by the allegations to hear him sing again. Despite their detailed accounts of how the abuse unfolded and corroboration from family members, Robson and Safechuck have faced some scrutiny since the documentary’s release over a discrepancy in their account. As Jeffery Cawood has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/45819/report-leaving-neverland-discrepancy-found-key-jeffrey-cawood">reported</a> for The Daily Wire:
<blockquote>A British journalist said he found a significant discrepancy in HBO’s “Leaving Neverland” documentary, raising questions about the film’s credibility and its graphic molestation allegations against the late international entertainment icon, Michael Jackson.
Since its release a month ago, several tabloids in the United Kingdom have published a series of critiques based on the research of reporter Mike Smallcombe, who also authored a biography on the King of Pop. He says his most damning <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/james-safechucks-michael-jackson-abuse-14207115">discovery</a> focuses on a claim made by James Safechuck, who has repeatedly <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/273431049/Safechuck-Civil-Complaint">said</a> that he was sexually abused by Jackson from 1988 to 1992, ending when he was 14 years old.
However, Smallcombe obtained building permits last week that he says discredit Safechuck’s story.
“Construction on Neverland’s train station didn’t start until the latter part of 1993, and it didn’t open until the first part of 1994, when Safechuck was 16,” Smallcombe <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/james-safechucks-michael-jackson-abuse-14207115">told</a> The Mirror Online.</blockquote>
Speaking outside the Los Angeles courtroom following Monday&#8217;s hearing, Robson and Safechuck&#8217;s attorney Vince Finaldi said the court made the right decision by allowing the lawsuit to move forward.
“All they’ve ever wanted is their day in court,” Finaldi said.
Attorneys for Jackson&#8217;s estate, however, emphasized that the ruling in no way guarantees that Robson and Safechuck&#8217;s lawsuit will ultimately proceed to trial.
“This new law extends the time for genuine victims of abuse to file legal claims,” Jackson estate attorney Howard L. Weitzman said in a statement. “The appellate court’s tentative ruling is not on the merits of Robson and Safechuck’s allegations and the court in no way said that these cases will go to trial. Neither does it reverse the 2015 rulings dismissing Robson and Safechuck’s claims against the estate, which are final and no longer subject to any appeals. We are confident that the claims against Michael Jackson’s corporate entities will, once again, be dismissed as has happened before.”

Michael Jackson Not Guilty

Lawsuit From Michael Jackson’s Accusers Will Likely Be Restored

California

Lawsuit

Michael Jackson

Sexual Abuse

Sexual Harassment

A newly released <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/4096.pdf">affidavit</a> provides significant new details about an unsolved 2011 murder connected to Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. And it offers incriminating new information about Tsarnaev’s friend, a man killed after attacking an FBI agent during a 2013 interrogation, whose case has been championed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
CAIR continues to represent the estate of Ibragim Todashev, claiming law enforcement conspired to violate his civil rights and that his shooting death was unlawful. A federal judge in Florida tossed the case out last year, but an appeal is pending.
Before he was killed by an FBI agent’s bullet in 2013, and affidavit asserts that <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/4096.pdf#page=15">Todashev admitted</a> he and Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev were responsible for the grisly 2011 murder of three men in Waltham, Massachusetts.
Tsarnaev died in a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/us/autopsy-says-boston-bombing-suspect-died-of-gunshot-wounds-and-blunt-trauma.html">shootout with police</a> early on April 19, 2013, four days after two pressure cooker bombs blew up near the Boston Marathon’s finish line, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/us/boston-marathon-terror-attack-fast-facts/index.html">killing</a> three people and injuring 264. His brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, also was wounded, but was arrested days later. He was <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-trial/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-sentencing-boston-victims-address-bomber-directly-n380906">sentenced to death</a> in 2015 after being <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jury-weighs-verdict-for-second-day-in-boston-marathon-bombing-trial/2015/04/08/11755a56-ddf0-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html">convicted</a> on 30 counts, including use of a weapon of mass destruction related to the bombings.
Investigators quickly were drawn to Orlando after the bombings, where Todashev was living. Federal agents wanted to know about his friendship with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, while local police wanted to talk to him about an unsolved murder.
After several earlier contacts, they spent four hours interviewing Todashev inside his apartment the night of May 22, 2013. According to an affidavit unsealed last week, <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/4096.pdf#page=15">Todashev said</a> he and Tsarnaev originally planned to rob the three men, whom they believed had money because they sold pot. But Tsarnaev, who was armed with a gun, changed plans, saying “they should eliminate any witnesses to the crime,” the affidavit said. The two tied up Raphael Teken, 37, Erik Weissman, 31, and Brendan Mess, 25, before slashing their throats.
“In addition, the victims were covered with marijuana,” the affidavit said. Tsarnaev and Todashev split “several thousand dollars” they took from inside. Todashev said that he and Tsarnaev then <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/4096.pdf#page=16">spent about an hour</a> trying “to clean the crime scene in order to remove traces of their fingerprints and other identifying details,” the affidavit said.
The disclosure was one of few passages not redacted in a 27-page search warrant affidavit from 2013 used to search a Honda CR-V the two rode in that night. It was unsealed in connection with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s <a href="https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/11/15/affidavit-pins-grisly-2011-triple-murder-on-tamerlan-tsarnaev/">appeal</a> of his death sentence.
Todashev’s confession was known before, but the unsealed affidavit adds significant details about what he admitted.
The new information also sheds light on the FBI shooting that killed Todashev. Investigators say, and <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/4328/cair-criticizes-independent-investigation-it">two investigations confirmed</a>, that an FBI agent fired only after Todashev threw a coffee table at him, cutting the agent’s head, and then continued to attack.
“Todashev acknowledged his involvement in the Waltham murders and agreed to write a statement,” U.S. District Court Judge Carlos Mendoza <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/1079.pdf#page=16">wrote</a> in an August 2018 order, dismissing a lawsuit by Todashev’s estate against the government.
The law enforcement agents present thought his behavior was becoming increasingly erratic. One sent a text to his colleagues, <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/1079.pdf#page=17">warning</a>, “Be on guard. He is in [a] vulnerable position to do something bad. Be on guard now. I see him looking around at times.”
Moments later, Todashev attacked. The FBI agent later needed nine staples in his head to close the wound from the coffee table. He said Todashev ignored repeated warnings to back off and show his hands. The investigators’ fear for their safety was reasonable, Mendoza <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/1079.pdf#page=25">ruled</a>, and the FBI agent “was not required to wait and see what Todashev might do next.”
CAIR-Florida Executive Director Hassan Shibly, who filed the civil suit as “as the personal representative for the Estate of Ibragim Todashev and Todashev’s survivors,” has made no public comment about the new disclosure about Todashev. In 2014, after separate state and federal investigations also cleared the FBI agent, Shibly <a href="https://twitter.com/HassanShibly/status/447052578397126656">wrote</a> that the FBI’s credibility was being damaged.
An appeal on Mendoza’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
But if the original lawsuit record is any indication, the appeal won’t go far.
The federal district court repeatedly found that CAIR attorneys <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/1079.pdf#page=8">failed to state a claim</a> to support the various counts in the civil suit. Other claims were called “threadbare” and “<a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/1079.pdf#page=13">woefully deficient</a>.&#8221;
At one point, CAIR attorneys even moved to disqualify Mendoza, claiming he could not be partial because he worked on a terrorism task force as a prosecutor before being appointed to the bench. In fact, it was the magistrate judge who acknowledged that work. In a separate motion to disqualify U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick, CAIR attorney Tark Aouadi wrote that Irick’s experience “is disturbing to the [p]laintiff as it appears to evidences [sic] bias and partiality which leads the [p]laintiff to seek disqualification.”
Irick <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/1078.pdf#page=4">called</a> the “generalized argument” “so entirely without merit that it defies logic. Indeed, the bald assertion that the undersigned’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because this case involves allegations of ‘terrorism’ and the undersigned, as an [a]ssistant United States [a]ttorney, worked with a joint terrorism task force is meritless. The fact that the undersigned worked with a joint terrorism task force is not evidence of bias against any person, and no reasonable person would question the impartiality of the undersigned, or anyone else, on that basis.”
Irick did recuse himself “in an abundance of caution,” however, <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/1078.pdf#page=5">noting</a> that he had worked with one of the defendants during his days as a prosecutor. He did this even though “this was not a basis for recusal argued in [p]laintiff’s motion.”
A lawyer for the Todashev estate also claimed the law enforcement officials “were being deceitful,” prosecutors <a href="https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/1083.pdf#page=16">wrote</a>, “though he offered no evidence to support this claim.”
Steven Emerson is Executive Director of The investigative Project on Terrorism (<a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/">www.investigativeproject.org</a>) and the author of six books on national security and Islamic terrorism. On Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveEmersonIPT">@SteveEmersonIPT</a>.

Boston Marathon 2014

Boston Marathon Bomber’s Friend Confessed To 2011 Triple Murder Before Being Killed, Affidavit States

Boston

Boston Bomber

CAIR

Crime

Murder

Radical Islam

Radical Islamic Terror

It should come as no surprise to find religion mixed with sports in America. From Tim Tebow’s eye black to teams huddled in prayer at the 50-yard line after games, American athletes routinely exercise their religion — before, during, and after games. With these public displays comes needless, often intimidating complaints that are probably better ignored.
The latest complaint came just this week. A group known for making noisy, public complaints about religion in public life groused to the Cameron R-1 School District in Cameron, Missouri. In a letter bearing the rough semblance of a legal demand letter, the group makes several unsubstantiated claims upon the school’s superintendent. Ultimately, they demand an investigation and that he “take immediate action” to end any religious activity supposedly occurring in violation of the Constitution.
Surprisingly, when school districts receive letters like these, they too often take them seriously. Perhaps you would too if you didn’t know any better. After all, legal cases are cited, a lawyer signs it, and one assumes that a lawsuit could follow if what they say is actually true. But something always seems to be missing. An important something: A litigant.
Fundamentally, unless a lawyer, law firm, or legal organization identifies a plaintiff — a parent and/or student actually aggrieved by any of the alleged conduct attributable to the school district — the letter is meritless. It amounts to little more than a public gripe. In the age of web crawlers and Google Alerts, even the claim that a local resident may have complained about the situation should be suspect.
There are important reasons to ignore anonymous complaints. Federal courts were not established to serve roving bands of censors and scolds. Only those with legitimate, legal standing are permitted to challenge complained-of behavior. Phantom complaints should be ignored lest school officials be goaded into unlawful behavior that suppresses activity otherwise protected by the Constitution.
Earlier this year, in the context of monuments, memorials, and other public displays invoking religion, Justice Samuel Alito explained in The American Legion v. AHA that, “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.”
History is replete with regimes that aggressively destroy public religious symbols and monuments. Modern governments, to this day, continue to assert control over the public expression of religion by their citizens. As President Trump recently observed in front of the United Nations, religious persecution is more the rule worldwide than America’s exception in protecting our core, national value of religious liberty.
This truth led Justice Alito to conclude in The American Legion: “Militantly secular regimes have carried out such projects in the past, and for those with a knowledge of history, the image of monuments being taken down will be evocative, disturbing, and divisive.”
Similarly divisive, and equally evocative of repressive regimes throughout history, and to this day, would be a school district catering to the interests of an organization that “roams the land” seeking to coerce school officials into taking unnecessary action that could very well lurch into the realm of hostility toward religion.
Courts require justiciable issues in order to access justice. Justiciable issues are presented by human beings actually aggrieved — what lawyers call having proper “standing.” Disembodied complainants rarely meet the rigid demands of civil procedure.
Government officials that receive such letters should wait until a plaintiff is identified. Assuming any and all religious expression is unconstitutional and taking action to put a stop to it — based on little more than an anonymous complaint — may actually increase liability.
Religious liberty is a hallmark of our nation’s brand of freedom. The free exercise of religion, protected by the First Amendment, guarantees the rights of all citizens to exercise their faith. That freedom should not be casually limited by mere complaints from unidentified sources voiced by those who fund national television advertisements that mock religion.
If folks at the nation’s athletic events are offended by the presence of religion, they would do well to follow the advice of Judge James Clinkscales Hill, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Chandler v. Siegelman, that they are “free not to listen, and to express their disagreement by not participating in any way.”
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

U.S. Supreme Court building

DYS: Roaming Complainers Should Be Ignored

Constitution

First Amendment

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

Religion

Vanilla. To some it is the most basic flavor available, in need of spicing up with the help of chocolate, strawberry, or caramel. To others, it is perfect on its own.
To Long Island attorney Spencer Sheehan, “vanilla” means dollar signs. The attorney, from Great Neck, New York, told local outlet <a href="https://www.newsday.com/business/vanilla-lawsuit-sue-lawyer-1.37603576">Newsday</a> that he had filed 27 lawsuits just this year on behalf of consumers who have been mislead about vanilla flavoring. Sheehan has fired the lawsuits, according to Newsday, against companies that produce “yogurt, cookies, oatmeal, almond milk, soy milk, cream soda and ice cream labeled as ‘vanilla.’&#8221;
Sheehan is seeking $5 million in damages in each of the lawsuits he has filed. The lawsuits have been filed against numerous companies, including Turkey Hill LP, Danone North America LLC, and Voortman Cookies Limited.
Sheehan’s issue with the companies is how they label their vanilla-flavored products, since most don’t use actual vanilla beans.
&#8220;A lot of these companies are aware that I&#8217;m correct,&#8221; Sheehan told Newsday in late October. &#8220;If we&#8217;re saying vanilla ice cream, we&#8217;re saying the flavor comes from vanilla, which is an integral part of the ice cream. The only flavoring in the product should be vanilla from vanilla beans.&#8221;
Perhaps Sheehan will next take the companies to task for using the words “ice cream” when the product is actually a “frozen dairy dessert.” Distinctions like this come from the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates how companies can describe their products. (In some cases, the regulations aren’t clear enough, as can be plainly seen on “gluten-free” products that can send people with real gluten allergies to the hospital.)
Many “vanilla” flavored products aren’t made exclusively with vanilla beans, Newsday reported, but with a combination of vanilla extract and synthetically produced vanillin, which is much cheaper.
In his lawsuit against Turkey Hill, Sheehan alleges the company misrepresents in its labeling “the percentage of vanilla compared to the overall flavor component.&#8221; In his lawsuit against Danone North America, Sheehan claims the company uses the label, “vanilla with other natural flavors” as a way around government regulations. A spokesman for Danone told Newsday that the company is “confident that our vanilla flavor labeling is fully compliant and is in no way deceptive to consumers.&#8221;
Sheehan’s lawsuit against Voortman brought up the disconnect between the company’s packaging, which states its vanilla wafers are made with “real vanilla,” and the fact that neither vanilla nor vanillin are listed on the ingredients.
Sheehan told Newsday that no judge has ruled on the class-actions status of any of his lawsuits, adding that many cases like these don’t get that far and are settled out of court.
Some of Sheehan’s previous legal cases involved animal welfare. Sheehan, described by Newsday as “a vegetarian involved with animal rescue groups,” previously helped the “subway vigilante” keep squirrels in his apartment. Bernhard Goetz has been arrested for injuring four African-American teenagers with a pistol in 1984. He claimed they were about to mug him. Goetz was able to keep his squirrels.
In another of Sheehan’s cases, he helped a Florida woman keep her pet alligator, Rambo.

Turkey Hill

This Lawyer Has Filed 27 Lawsuits Against Food Companies Over &#8216;Vanilla&#8217; Flavoring

food

On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump signaled a deal with congressional Democrats if the U.S. Supreme Court were to rule in his favor concerning the controversial Obama-era DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) immigration program.
&#8220;If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!” the president said via Twitter regarding DACA.
The Supreme Court will consider the Trump administration&#8217;s decision to end the DACA program, which has been argued to have been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-rules-trump-must-reinstate-daca-ben-shapiro">unconstitutionally</a> enacted by the Obama administration via executive action.
The program defers deportations of immigrants brought over by their parents at a young age.
In the same tweet where Trump signaled a forthcoming deal, he ripped DACA. &#8220;Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from &#8216;angels,'&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;Some are very tough, hardened criminals.&#8221;
According to <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/news/new-data-shows-criminal-arrest-histories-daca-requestors">U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services</a>, about 8% of DACA recipients have criminal records:
<blockquote>8-percent of total DACA requestors (59,786 individuals) had arrest records as of the date the systems were queried, which included offenses such as assault and battery, rape, murder, and drunk driving, among others. &#8220;Requestors&#8221; includes individuals approved and denied DACA.</blockquote>
Trump added in the tweet: &#8220;President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but would anyway.&#8221;
This is also basically true. As noted by <a href="https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/daca-unconstitutional-obama-admitted">Heritage</a>, Obama repeatedly acknowledged that he could not take such action alone, but did so anyway:
<blockquote>Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, &#8220;I am not king. I can&#8217;t do these things just by myself.&#8221; In March 2011, he said that with &#8220;respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that&#8217;s just not the case.&#8221; In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn&#8217;t &#8220;just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. &#8230; That&#8217;s not how a democracy works.&#8221;</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from “angels.” Some are very tough, hardened criminals. President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but would anyway. If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1194219655717642240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The Trump administration announced its plan to phase out the program in 2017, only for the federal courts to rule that it could not apply retroactively and that DACA should be restarted in full,&#8221; <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-daca-supreme-court">Fox News</a> reported.
In April 2018, U.S. District Judge John Bates <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/2018/04/24/cfb41578-4816-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.a5adf4fd5206">ruled</a> that Trump could not legally end DACA, calling the decision to end the program &#8220;arbitrary and capricious because the [Trump administration] failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.&#8221;
&#8220;So, in other words, if a president takes an executive action, then the subsequent president cannot undo that executive action — even if that original executive action has been declared unconstitutional, at least in part,&#8221; Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-rules-trump-must-reinstate-daca-ben-shapiro">Ben Shapiro</a> explained at the time.
&#8220;This is insanity,&#8221; Shapiro continued, adding, &#8220;Here’s how leftist courts have now ruled: an action that is obviously unconstitutional is no longer unconstitutional when performed by President Obama; undoing that unconstitutional action is unconstitutional if performed by President Trump.&#8221;
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice said of the decision at the time: &#8220;Today’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts: DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend benefits to this same group of illegal aliens.&#8221;

Michelle Obama, Melania Trump, Donald Trump, Barack Obama

Trump Signals DACA &#8216;Deal&#8217; With Democrats

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Illegal Immigration

Immigration

Obama Administration

Supreme Court

Trump Administration

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) issued a formal apology to former Brooklyn Democratic State Assemblyman Dov Hikind on Monday as part of a settlement over a lawsuit regarding her decision to block him on Twitter.
&#8220;I have reconsidered my decision to block Dov Hikind from my Twitter account,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement obtained by <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/04/aoc-says-shes-sorry-for-trying-to-block-dov-hikind-on-twitter/?utm_source=NYPTwitter&amp;utm_medium=SocialFlow&amp;utm_campaign=SocialFlow">The New York Post</a>. &#8220;Mr. Hikind has a First Amendment right to express his views and should not be blocked for them.&#8221;
&#8220;In retrospect, it was wrong and improper and does not reflect the values I cherish. I sincerely apologize for blocking Mr. Hikind,&#8221; the statement continued. &#8220;Now and in the future, however, I reserve the right to block users who engage in actual harassment or exploit my personal/campaign account, @AOC, for commercial or other improper purposes.&#8221;
The apology comes only a day before the self-proclaimed &#8220;radical&#8221; congresswoman was set to testify in federal court. Hikind filed a lawsuit against Ocasio-Cortez for blocking him over the summer after a federal appeals court ruled that President Donald Trump had violated the First Amendment by blocking people on Twitter. The three-judge panel determined that the president&#8217;s action was in violation of the Constitution because he used his account to conduct official government business.
The lawsuit put forth that Ocasio-Cortez blocked Hikind after he criticized the freshman lawmaker for repeatedly comparing Nazi concentration camps to illegal immigrant detention facilities. The former Brooklyn assemblyman, who founded a nonprofit organization seeking to combat anti-Semitism, referred to her analogy as an &#8220;incredibly egregious, insensitive, uneducated, disrespectful comment.&#8221;
While Ocasio-Cortez has claimed in the past to have Sephardic Jewish ancestry, she has also made eyebrow-raising statements about the Jewish people — leading repeated allegations of anti-Semitism to swirl around the congresswoman. In addition to comparing detainment facilities to concentration camps, she has compared a migrant caravan trying to enter the United States illegally to Jews fleeing the Holocaust.
She has also vehemently defended her fellow Democratic colleagues, Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), amid widespread backlash for promoting age-old anti-Semitic canards.
In addition, she has also come out in support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to punish the Jewish state of Israel by politically and economically depriving the country for its alleged mistreatment of Palestinian-Arabs. The movement initially metastasized on American college campuses and is described by the Anti-Defamation League as &#8220;the most prominent effort to undermine Israel&#8217;s existence.&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez co-sponsored Omar&#8217;s bill defending BDS and was only one of 17 members of Congress to vote against a resolution condemning BDS.
While Hikind expressed disappointment that he would not be able face Ocasio-Cortez in court, he extended an invitation to the New York lawmaker to meet Holocaust survivors in his community and learn what a concentration camp means to them.
&#8220;I also want to address to Ocasio-Cortez, to ask her, we have had an outbreak of anti-Semitism in New York that we have never had before — the numbers are unprecedented,&#8221; Hikind said during a press conference on Monday &#8220;[A]ttacks upon Jews, Jewish blood in the streets, Swastikas being painted on synagogues, hate speech all over the place in New York.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://t.co/979FD31ruV">https://t.co/979FD31ruV</a>
&mdash; Dov Hikind (@HikindDov) <a href="https://twitter.com/HikindDov/status/1191395529676050434?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I want to challenge Ocasio-Cortez, who speaks out on everything that&#8217;s important for America, has not spoken out about anti-Semitism,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;I challenge Ocasio-Cortez to speak up, to stand up, with me, with others, and speak out against the anti-Semitism that has invaded the streets of our city and our community.&#8221;

House Financial Services Committee Hearing On Administration&#8217;s Plans To Change Housing Finance

Ocasio-Cortez Issues Last-Minute Formal Apology For Blocking Twitter User

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Anti-Semitism

Israel

Twitter

Actress Lori Loughlin and her husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, are not giving up the fight to beat the rap in the college admissions scandal and have now pleaded not guilty to the newest charges brought against them, reports <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/lori-loughlin-to-plead-not-guilty-new-college-admissions-scandal-charges">Fox News</a>.
&#8220;Fox News obtained court documents filed by the couple Friday stating that they plan to plead not guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit federal program bribery,&#8221; the outlet reported. &#8220;The couple also waived their right to appear at a Nov. 20 arraignment.&#8221;
Last week, the U.S. Justice Department indicted the actress and her husband on an additional charge of bribing officials at an organization that receives at least $10,000 in federal funding to get their children admitted to the University of Southern California. Should the couple be convicted of the bribery charges, they could face up to five years in prison along with a $250,000 fine. This past April, the couple pleaded not guilty against charges of mail fraud and money laundering conspiracy — a combination of charges which carries a maximum sentence of 40 years.
Sources close to the family <a href="https://people.com/tv/lori-loughlin-terrified-about-new-charges-stress/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told People</a> in the wake of the new charges that Loughlin is now increasingly terrified that she will face jail time, fearing that prosecutors are seeking to make an example out of her.
&#8220;They feel like this is David versus Goliath,&#8221; the source reportedly said. &#8220;How do you go up against the federal government, when the government has decided to make an example out of you? How can you possibly move forward from this?&#8221;
&#8220;This stress is about to break them,&#8221; the source continued. &#8220;She is angry, she is sad, but most of all, she is terrified. It just gets worse and worse for her. And you have to remember: Nothing new has happened. They could have charged her with all of this last spring. But they waited. She feels like she is a scapegoat.&#8221;
Even if Lori Loughlin were to avoid long-term jail time by receiving a light sentence on par with actress Felicity Huffman&#8217;s 14 days, her career as a television star has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/aunt-becky-booted-fuller-house-college-bribery-paul-bois">virtually destroyed</a>, having been jettisoned from her role as Aunt Becky on Netflix&#8217;s &#8220;Fuller House&#8221; and her position as a featured talent on the Hallmark Channel.
&#8220;We are saddened by the recent news surrounding the college admissions allegations,&#8221; Hallmark Channel’s parent-company Crown Media said in a statement when the admissions scandal first broke. &#8220;We are no longer working with Lori Loughlin and have stopped development of all productions that air on the Crown Media Family Network channels involving Lori Loughlin, including &#8216;Garage Sale Mysteries,&#8217; an independent third-party production. We are evaluating all creative options related to &#8216;When Calls the Heart&#8217; series.&#8221;
A source close to the family <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-lori-loughlin-regrets-not-taking-plea-deal-paul-bois">recently told People</a> that even though Loughlin now regrets not taking an initial plea deal, she still believes that she did nothing illegal in the first place.
&#8220;If she’s found guilty, she will go to jail; that is clear. And if another deal is offered to her, which I don’t think it will be, she will go to jail,&#8221; the source said. &#8220;Her only chance of avoiding jail is to beat these charges. Lori is a smart woman; she understands that. She’s scared and upset, but she’s resolved to be strong and to fight this. She will do what she has to do to protect herself and her family.&#8221;

Lori Loughlin, Mossimo Giannulli Appear In Boston Courthouse

Lori Loughlin Pleads Not Guilty To New Charges In College Admissions Scandal

Department of Justice

Lori Loughlin

University of Southern California

As Nicholas Sandmann&#8217;s lawsuit against The Washington Post was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-judge-reverses-course-on-covington-catholic-student-nick-sandmanns-lawsuit-against-the-washington-post">given anew</a> a green light to proceed, President Trump championed the cause on Twitter Wednesday morning.
“A Federal Judge is allowing the Nick Sandman [sic] libel suit to move forward against the thoroughly disgusting Washington Post (which is no longer available at the White House!),” Trump wrote on Twitter. “He could now have a good chance of winning. Go Nick!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
A Federal Judge is allowing the Nick Sandman libel suit to move forward against the thoroughly disgusting Washington Post (which is no longer available at the White House!). He could now have a good chance of winning. Go Nick!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1189518901991923712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ryan Saavedra <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-judge-reverses-course-on-covington-catholic-student-nick-sandmanns-lawsuit-against-the-washington-post">reported</a> on Tuesday, Federal Judge William Bertelsman reversed his previous decision and allowed Sandmann&#8217;s libel lawsuit to proceed against the Washington Post, barring a few caveats:
<blockquote>A federal judge in Kentucky reopened Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann’s $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post on Monday after having previously dismissed it over the summer.
“After reviewing an amended complaint, Judge William Bertelsman ordered Monday that the case could enter the discovery phase and hence a portion of the lawsuit against the newspaper could continue,” the Cincinnati Enquirer <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/">reported</a>.
The lawsuit is allowed to proceed but has been limited in scope after the judge said that 30 out of the 33 statements that Sandmann’s lawyers argued were libelous were not actually libelous.</blockquote>
Sandmann was thrust into the national spotlight earlier this year, when mainstream news outlets like the Post and CNN reported that he and several of his fellow students harassed a Native American man named Nathan Phillips while attending the March for Life in Washington, D.C. Phillips testified that “Make America Great Again” hat-wearing boys blocked his path and taunted him with racial slurs, which appeared somewhat credible at first when viral video revealed the boys standing around Phillips, cheering as he banged a drum in front of Sandmann’s face. However, the narrative took a dramatic turn when other videos showed that Phillips approached the boys, who were at the time being taunted with racial slurs by a fringe group known as the Black Hebrew Israelites.
Without fully investigating the matter, news outlets largely ran with Phillips’ account of what happened, smearing the boys as racists. Sandmann arguably bore the brunt of the smears due to his face being featured so prominently in the video. In fact, media figures, such as CNN contributor Reza Aslan, <a href="https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2019/01/20/reza-aslan-who-cried-at-the-gillette-commercial-thinks-covington-catholic-hs-student-has-a-punchable-face/">suggested</a> he’d like to punch the 16-year-old in the face. “Honest question. Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?” Aslan tweeted at the time.
In response, Sandmann’s family sued several news outlets for defamation, targeting the Post first for $250 million and accusing the outlet of “using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles … to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the president.” Originally, Judge Bertelsman (who was initially nominated to the bench by former President Jimmy Carter) dismissed the lawsuit, arguing that the Post did not commit defamation because it never mentioned Sandmann by name.
“The words used contain no reflection upon any particular individual,” the judge said in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-dismisses-nick-sandmanns-lawsuit-against-paul-bois">July ruling</a>, adding that the newspaper used “loose, figurative,” and “rhetorical hyperbole” — all of which are protected by the First Amendment.

President Trump Speaks At International Association Of Police Chiefs Annual Conference And Exposition

Trump Champions Nick Sandmann’s Lawsuit Against The Washington Post

Donald Trump

Nick Sandmann

Washington Post

A federal judge in Kentucky reopened Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann&#8217;s $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post on Monday after having previously dismissed it over the summer.
&#8220;After reviewing an amended complaint, Judge William Bertelsman ordered Monday that the case could enter the discovery phase and hence a portion of the lawsuit against the newspaper could continue,&#8221; the Cincinnati Enquirer <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/28/cov-cath-judge-rules-lawsuit-against-washington-post-can-continue/2489395001/">reported</a>.
The lawsuit is allowed to proceed but has been limited in scope after the judge said that 30 out of the 33 statements that Sandmann&#8217;s lawyers argued were libelous were not actually libelous.
The Enquirer added: &#8220;The judge&#8217;s order that discovery can continue means Sandmann&#8217;s legal team can make requests for internal Washington Post documents concerning the events like emails and communications between editors and reporters.&#8221;
&#8220;The Court will adhere to its previous rulings as they pertain to these statements except Statements 10, 11, and 33, to the extent that these three statements state that plaintiff &#8216;blocked&#8217; Nathan Phillips and &#8216;would not allow him to retreat,'&#8221; Judge Bertelsman said on Monday, according to <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/28/nick-sandmann-covington-catholic-student-washingto/">The Washington Times</a>.
&#8220;Suffice to say that the Court has given this matter careful review and concludes that ‘justice requires’ that discovery be had regarding these statements and their context,&#8221; Bertelsman added. &#8220;The Court will then consider them anew on summary judgment.&#8221;
Sandmann attorneys Todd V. McMurtry and L. Lin Wood celebrated the judge&#8217;s decision, calling it a &#8220;huge win.&#8221;
&#8220;The Sandmann family and our legal team are grateful that Judge Bertelsman has allowed the case to proceed,&#8221; McMurtry said in an email, according to the Times. &#8220;The Court’s ruling preserves the heart of the Nicholas Sandmann’s claims. We can consider this a huge victory and look forward to initiating discovery against The Washington Post.&#8221;
McMurtry added on Twitter: &#8220;NEWSFLASH: Federal Judge William O. Bertelsman partially reversed his ruling to dismiss #nicksandmann&#8217;s claims against the @washingtonpost. Nick&#8217;s case may now proceed into discovery. The ruling bodes [well] for the NBC and CNN cases, as well.&#8221;
&#8220;This is a huge win,&#8221; McMurtry concluded. &#8220;Now #NickSandmann will be able to start discovery and find out exactly what the reporters were thinking when they attacked Nicholas and the #CovingtonCatholic kids.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This is a huge win. Now <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NickSandmann?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NickSandmann</a> will be able to start discovery and find out exactly what the reporters were thinking when they attacked Nicholas and the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CovingtonCatholic?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CovingtonCatholic</a> kids.
— Todd V. McMurtry (@ToddMcMurtry) <a href="https://twitter.com/ToddMcMurtry/status/1188878949268512773?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
Wood wrote on Twitter: &#8220;As a prepare for summary judgment hearing today in LA in Vernon Unsworth v. Elon Musk, the news of our team’s huge win in Covington, KY reaffirms my career-long belief that our system of justice works. Nicholas Sandmann deserves his day in court against WaPo. Now he will get it.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
As a prepare for summary judgment hearing today in LA in Vernon Unsworth v. Elon Musk, the news of our team’s huge win in Covington, KY reaffirms my career-long belief that our system of justice works. Nicholas Sandmann deserves his day in court against WaPo. Now he will get it.
— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) <a href="https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1188882340585459712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
Sandmann&#8217;s legal team also filed massive lawsuits against CNN and NBCUniversal for their smears against the teenagers.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/sandmann-family-sue-cnn-for-275m-in-covington-catholic-controversy">reported</a> on March 12 that &#8220;the lawsuit, filed just after 3 P.M. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, claims that CNN &#8216;elevated false, heinous accusations of racist conduct&#8217; against Sandmann and failed to adhere to &#8216;well-established journalistic standards and ethics.'&#8221;
The Washington Times <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/1/nick-sandmann-covington-catholic-teen-sues-nbc-275/">reported</a> on May 1 that Sandmann&#8217;s attorneys filed a &#8220;$275 million lawsuit Wednesday against NBCUniversal over its coverage of the Kentucky teen, accusing the network of creating a &#8216;false narrative&#8217; driven by its &#8216;anti-Trump agenda.'&#8221;

Judge Reverses Course On Covington Catholic Student Nick Sandmann’s Lawsuit Against The Washington Post

Covington Catholic High School

A new bipartisan piece of legislation, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4189/text?r=4&amp;s=1">Homeland and Cyber Threat Act</a>, seeks to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to allow U.S. citizens to sue foreign governments for injuries sustained from foreign government-sponsored cyberattacks. As explained yesterday in an op-ed in <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/467226-americans-deserve-protection-from-foreign-sponsored-hacking">The Hill</a> from the bill&#8217;s sponsors, Reps. Jack Bergman (R-MI) and Andy Kim (D-NJ), the bill &#8220;carves out a cyberattack exception to the blanket immunity of foreign governments — including foreign officials, employees, or agents — provided by FSIA with regard to money damages sought by a national of the United States for personal injury, harm to reputation, or damage to or loss of property resulting from cyberattacks.&#8221;
The congressmen point out how, under extant law and federal courts&#8217; interpretation of that law, foreign governments are generally immune from U.S. plaintiffs&#8217; legal actions. Accordingly, the Homeland and Cyber Threat Act would close this legal safe harbor and endeavor to hold hostile foreign governments accountable for their destructive actions against American citizens. The congressmen <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/467226-americans-deserve-protection-from-foreign-sponsored-hacking">argue</a> that times have sufficiently changed since the passage of the FSIA so as to make necessary such a legislative tweak:
<blockquote>
This legislation would go a long way towards providing much-needed legal protection to victims of foreign-sponsored cyberattacks. Foreign governments have been hacking into private data systems to influence politics and policy in the United States for a long time; it is time for Congress to enact a cyberattack exception to FSIA that protects the privacy and property of Americans. The bill would give victims of foreign-sponsored cyberattacks effective recourse to the courts for the first time, and it will hold foreign governments and their agents responsible for these harmful activities.
</blockquote>
As of now, the bill has <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4189/cosponsors?r=4&amp;s=1">10 cosponsors</a>: Five Democrats and five Republicans apiece. The cosponsors include some notable far-left progressives, such as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and some notable hard-right conservatives, such as Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL).
The FSIA was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act">passed in 1976</a>, which was well before the commercial and popular rise of the Internet.
The new bill <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4189/text?r=4&amp;s=1">lists each of the following</a> as foreign government-sponsored activities that could potentially justify a lawsuit, assuming also that a U.S. citizen has sustained &#8220;personal injury, harm to reputation, or damage to or loss of property&#8221;:
<blockquote>
(1) Unauthorized access to or access exceeding authorization to a computer located in the United States.
(2) Unauthorized access to confidential, electronic stored information located in the United States.
(3) The transmission of a program, information, code, or command to a computer located in the United States, which, as a result of such conduct, causes damage without authorization.
(4) The use, dissemination, or disclosure, without consent, of any information obtained by means of any activity described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3).
(5) The provision of material support or resources for any activity described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), including by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state.
</blockquote>
Truly bipartisan pieces of legislation are undoubtedly rare, in today&#8217;s Congress. But much like the issue of holding Big Tech accountable, it seems that the issue of holding hostile foreign governments accountable for cyberattacks could be another issue that gains bipartisan acclaim.

Network security system

Bipartisan Bill Seeks To Hold Foreign Governments Accountable For Hacking Americans

Cyberattack

Foreign Policy

National Security

Violent crime in America, despite experiencing an overall <a href="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls">dramatic decline</a> since the 1990s, has started to <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/25-years-crime-wave-back-republicans-refuse-talk/">surge back</a> over the past few years. Amidst this distressing social trend, alas, America&#8217;s <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/rnc-blasts-kamala-harris-not-pro-criminal-enough/">erstwhile</a> &#8220;law-and-order&#8221;/tough-on-crime political party has been ideologically and financially captured by pro-criminal libertarians who ally with the Left to spout hackneyed, outmoded orthodoxies like the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-dont-let-kim-kardashian-fool-you-america-josh-hammer">alleged (non-)issue</a> of &#8220;mass incarceration.&#8221; The most tangible result of this unholy alliance was the bipartisan 2018 passage of the harrowing First Step Act jailbreak law — a law enactment which President Donald Trump, viewing the <a href="https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20191004/he-was-released-early-from-prison-in-february-now-hes-wanted-for-murder-on-federal-hill">murderous early results</a>, apparently already <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/trump-reportedly-regrets-passage-jailbreak-first-step-act-gullible-conservatives-supported/">regrets</a>.
Alas, the leftist/libertarian alliance on &#8220;criminal justice&#8221; issues, just highlighted during last night&#8217;s Democratic Party presidential primary debate when Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) touted her work with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on the crime-abetting issue of &#8220;<a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/jailbreak-epidemic-gang-member-released-6k-bail-now-accused-raping-12-year-old-girl/">bail reform</a>,&#8221;continues unabated. Which brings us to prominent libertarian lawyer/legal commentator <a href="https://www.cato.org/people/clark-neily">Clark Neily</a>, who has been on a roll, of late. Neily, who spent years with the rabidly <a href="https://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement/">pro-judicial power</a> libertarian legal group <a href="https://ij.org">Institute for Justice,</a> now works for the equally <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/proper-judging-means-principled-engagement-not-judicial-deference">pro-judicial power</a> libertarian Cato Institute. Neily&#8217;s title at Cato is &#8220;Vice President for Criminal Justice&#8221; and, based on his recent musings, he appears to embody the zealous leftist/libertarian jailbreak alliance.
The precise target of Neily&#8217;s recent ire is the prosecutor. More specifically, Neily is convinced that far too many prosecutors become federal judges — and that not nearly enough criminal defense attorneys become federal judges. In a highly revealing but nonetheless sober-minded recognition of his core readership for such anti-prosecutorial musings, Neily has published on the subject at both <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/studies/are-disproportionate-number-federal-judges-former-government-advocates">Cato</a> and, just this week, at left-wing <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/too-many-prosecutors-federal-judiciary.html">Slate</a>. The latter piece goes so far as to call for an outright &#8220;moratorium&#8221; on the nomination of former prosecutors to the federal bench.
I am not a former prosecutor. But I do have the benefit of education at a top law school and the experience of serving as a law clerk for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. And I believe Neily is severely misguided in his anti-prosecutor crusade.
Crucially, Neily&#8217;s Cato <a href="https://www.cato.org/publications/studies/are-disproportionate-number-federal-judges-former-government-advocates#summary-previous-studies">study</a> makes no attempt whatsoever to control for education, intellect, or legal credentials. To many lay observers, this may seem anodyne — after all, can&#8217;t former prosecutors and defense attorneys/public defenders, as classes of attorneys, be presumed to have roughly equivalent legal acumens and credentials? Well, no. For generations, gifted law students of all political stripes have seen the prosecutorial career path — be it via the Department of Justice (DOJ), local U.S. attorney&#8217;s offices, state attorneys general offices, or even local district attorneys — as a prominent avenue for vocational success. The DOJ <a href="https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/entry-level-attorneys">Honors Program</a> has long been viewed as one of the most prestigious entry-level attorney tracks in the nation, and scores of lawyers hoping to one day be considered for a federal judgeship have routinely sought U.S. attorney&#8217;s office experience as a means of padding their resumes and evincing a demonstrable commitment to public service. Again, this holds true for lawyers and judges of all political persuasions and partisan affiliations: As but two prominent examples for those on the Left, 2016 failed Barack Obama U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland is a former federal prosecutor and current presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is a former California attorney general.
This is simply not nearly as broadly true for those who pursue careers in the criminal defense bar — be they in private practice or working as public defenders. Leftists and libertarians can gnash their teeth and wail all they&#8217;d like, but the reality, as I <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1176324820771819520">tweeted</a> last month, is that in no sane world is the median defense lawyer of the same acumen and credentials as the median prosecutor. Representing drug traffickers, gangbangers, and felons in possession of firearms is not a dream job. Again, my claim is that this holds true for prosecutors and the defense bar, viewed as a class — obviously, there will be innumerable individual dispensations to such a broad rule, when comparing class sizes of this magnitude. But anecdotally, based on (1) my own personal experience knowing many individuals who have become prosecutors and defense lawyers, (2) my own law clerk experience and thinking back to a comparison of the median prosecutor&#8217;s brief and oral argument versus the median defense attorney&#8217;s brief and oral argument, and (3) discussing the issue with other former federal appellate law clerk friends, I feel eminently comfortable making such a claim. We should feel comfortable establishing a rebuttable presumption that prosecutors, considered as a class, have superior legal credentials to defense attorneys. Based purely on my own experience, I cannot even begin to count the volume of public defender&#8217;s office legal briefs I read that were of an immensely shoddy quality.
At a bare minimum, libertarians and leftists who would seek to place a moratorium on nominating prosecutors to federal judgeships ought to be asked how they can be so sure that they are not sacrificing legal acumen or credentials. I understand that such logic is arguably circular — anti-prosecutor libertarians and leftists could respond that such a moratorium may prophylactically disincentivize smart law school graduates who may aspire for judgeships from pursuing prosecutorial careers. But the salient point is that the general prestige of many prosecutorial career paths is so deeply ingrained in our legal culture. That is not something that can be easily reversed, and I highly suspect the criminal defense bar and its apologists have no particularly compelling argument to offer for how they might be able to do so.
Prosecutors do not write our nation&#8217;s criminal statutes — they merely enforce them. To the extent leftists and libertarians — hooked as they are on the anachronistic talking points of &#8220;mass incarceration&#8221; and &#8220;low-level non-violent offenders&#8221; — have substantive issues with our criminal statutes, they ought to lobby policymakers. By all accounts, considering both <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/needs-leftists-gop-texas-gov-greg-abbott-endorses-radical-ban-box-pro-criminal-mandate-employers/">state-level initiatives</a> and the aforementioned First Step Act, the pro-jailbreak cabal is quite successful in its lobbying efforts. Pro-jailbreak forces are wrong, on the policy merits, but that is an issue that can be debated in the political space. But it would be dangerous for justice and the rule of law, absent pro-jailbreak forces&#8217; ability to overcome the rebuttable presumption about the credentials of disparate vocational classes, for such forces to also take out their frustrations as part of the judicial nominations process.

Judge gavel with Justice lawyers, Businesswoman in suit or lawyer, Advice and Legal services Concept.

HAMMER: In Defense Of Prosecutors

Drugs

Federal Government

Guns

Homicide

Kamala Harris

While the justices heard arguments in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/argument-analysis-justices-divided-on-federal-protections-for-lgbt-employees/">three cases</a> inside the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, Americans waited anxiously outside to learn the fate of the republic.
Exaggeration? Perhaps. But if so, it is only because it has become so routine to expect the high court to “decide” consequential issues for us. But that is not actually the justices’ job. Theirs is to say what the law is — “emphatically,” says Marbury v. Madison — and not to make it themselves.
In the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court’s job is to “call balls and strikes” like a baseball umpire — and not to be “pitcher or catcher.”
But advocates for three individuals terminated from their jobs think otherwise. In their mind, federal employment law governing non-discrimination in employment — specifically, Title VII — needs to be updated. But the plaintiffs think the courts, and not the legislatures, should do the updating.
Interestingly, their argument suggests that nothing actually needs to be updated. When, in 1964, Title VII was enacted, they argue that the word “sex” would linguistically evolve to encompass its myriad meanings today. That is, they argue, “sex” clearly includes both gender identity and sexual orientation. All that is necessary, they say, is for the high court to recognize that “sex” and the accompanying concept of “sex stereotypes” includes all the many iterations of gender identity and sexual orientation.
That is strange because, since at least 1974, there have been repeated — and failed — efforts to add gender identity or sexual orientation protections in federal non-discrimination law, including Title VII. In fact, someone has introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in Congress every year since 1994. And every year it has failed. Every single year.
States, for their part, have a more mixed record. Some have expanded the definition of “sex” in their state employment code provisions. Some have not. In some cases, municipalities within a state conflict with one another. Some cities, trying to be more “progressive,” have adopted expanded non-discrimination ordinances — sometimes even in opposition with state law.
Even earlier this year, the so-called <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-house-democrats-equality-act-both-josh-hammer">Equality Act</a> — an aggressive non-discrimination proposal — passed the House of Representatives but has thus far not been acted upon in the U.S. Senate.
Perhaps to some, the word “sex” in Title VII means something more than it meant in 1964. But if, after 45 years since the first legislative effort in 1974, no Congress has agreed, why should the nine lawyers on the high Court do what Congress has not done itself?
So it is no surprise that Justice Samuel Alito said to advocates before the Court, “Congress has been asked repeatedly in the years since 1964 to address this question.” And, if Congress has so declined to address the question — or simply failed to act upon it — why should the Court? After all, he says, “[If] the Court takes this up and interprets this 1964 statute to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, we will be acting exactly like a legislature.”
Courts should not act like legislatures. Theirs is a different article in the Constitution altogether. Justice Neil Gorsuch seems to agree, noting that the role of expanding the law is the domain of the legislature. Thus, he said on Tuesday that this is “a question of judicial modesty.”
Beyond judicial modesty, if litigation since Obergefell v. Hodges has taught us anything, it is that short-circuiting the democratic process, as Justice Clarence Thomas warned us in his Obergefell dissent, has “potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty” (among other deleterious effects).
Justice Alito agreed, explaining at the time that Obergefell would “be used to vilify” those who disagree and that Obergefell may even be “exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”
Even since Obergefell wound its way to the Court, Jack Phillips, Aaron and Melissa Klein, Baronelle Stutzman, and others have emerged from the “recesses of their homes” — where Justice Alito said they might “whisper their thoughts” — and assumed the risk of acting upon their faith in public. Sadly, they were “labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
Now, like Jack Phillips, they face years of litigation simply to clear their name. No American should face that fate. Respecting the democratic process that allows for give and take — for concession and compromise — gains for us an overall better result for freedom. Allowing Americans to use the First Amendment to question the speech of others in order to sharpen our societal understanding of freedom is a blessing rarely afforded to human history.
Judges should say what the law is. If the law is inadequate, they should not fill in the blanks left by Congress. To do so would give, as U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said at oral argument on Tuesday, “a complete victory to one side of the fight and nothing to the other side.”
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

police officer outside SCOTUS

DYS: The Role Of The Judiciary Is To Say What The Law Is, Not What It Should Be

On Friday, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a <a href="https://firstliberty.org/team/josh-hammer/">constitutional attorney</a> by training, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F7eZpkqdBE">joined</a> &#8220;Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler&#8221; on One America News Network to discuss the news that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take an important abortion case out of Louisiana: <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/june-medical-services-llc-v-gee-3/">June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee</a>. Last February, Hammer <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-john-roberts-latest-cowardice-reveals-pro-josh-hammer">castigated Chief Justice Roberts</a> for joining the Court&#8217;s liberal bloc to temporarily enjoin enforcement of the underlying Louisiana pro-life statute, which requires abortionists to maintain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic. Hammer has also previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/legal-argument-louisiana-could-have-huge-josh-hammer">reported on</a> the potentially huge ramifications of a &#8220;third-party standing&#8221; legal challenge that Louisiana has made about abortion litigation more broadly. In Gee, the Court will hear arguments on both the merits of the underlying law and Louisiana&#8217;s &#8220;third-party standing&#8221; challenge.
Wheeler began by noting that, while she was happy to see the Supreme Court take the case, she was skeptical that pro-lifers could expect any kind of doctrinally or constitutionally meaningful outcome. She specifically expressed skepticism about both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — each of whom Hammer has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-kavanaugh-and-gorsuch-have-issues-john-josh-hammer">also been skeptical</a> of in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-draw-right-lessons-kavanaughs-bad-start-no-josh-hammer">Daily Wire op-eds</a>.
Hammer responded by agreeing with Wheeler&#8217;s concerns and ultimately predicting that the likeliest outcome in Gee is a narrow ruling that affirms the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit&#8217;s ruling to uphold Louisiana&#8217;s pro-life statute but perhaps only narrowly pares back the &#8220;undue burden&#8221; constitutional law standard for abortion regulation that was adopted by the Court in the infamous 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey:
<blockquote>You&#8217;re right to point out how Roberts seemed to flip from [his dissenting vote in the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_new_e18f.pdf">Whole Women&#8217;s Health v. Hellerstedt</a>] to his siding with the liberals to grant the stay [in Gee] back in February. &#8230; I wrote a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-john-roberts-latest-cowardice-reveals-pro-josh-hammer">column</a> for The Daily Wire just ripping John Roberts for this &#8230; [and] to be honest with you, &#8230; he frankly deserved it.
Kavanaugh, now, he wrote separately. When you just dissent from this sort of decree, you don&#8217;t have to write anything, you can just dissent. Kavanaugh wrote separately [at the time] — he wrote like a three-and-a-half to four page dissent. It was very weird — you&#8217;re right to flag it, it was kind of wishy-washy. A lot of conservatives were like, what&#8217;s going on here — he seems to be trying to find a cute way out. So that was a red flag in and of itself.
My best guess here is that they probably will find a way to uphold the Fifth Circuit ruling &#8230; but they&#8217;re going to [do so] on very, very narrow ground. I wouldn&#8217;t expect this to be like a landmark decision or anything like that. Roberts and Kavanaugh will find a way to preserve what they view as the &#8220;institutional integrity&#8221; of the Court, but they&#8217;ll uphold the Fifth Circuit.</blockquote>
Hammer reiterated that prediction — while additionally predicting that Louisiana&#8217;s challenge to &#8220;third-party standing&#8221; for abortionists would unfortunately fail — in his Monday Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-the-supreme-court-term-begins-today-here-is-what-conservatives-should-look-for">column</a> previewing the 2019-2010 Supreme Court term: &#8220;Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts write a plurality opinion that upholds Louisiana’s law while very narrowly paring back Casey‘s &#8216;undue burden&#8217; standard. But the chief justice joins liberals to secure continued <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-pence-promises-challenge-nationwide-josh-hammer">liberal standing</a> requirements for abortionists.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Challenge To Louisiana Abortion Law" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2F7eZpkqdBE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Josh Hammer OANN screen grab 10.04.19

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: SCOTUS Is Set To Hear A Potentially Huge Abortion Case

Abortion

On Monday, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, who is also a <a href="https://firstliberty.org/team/josh-hammer/">constitutional attorney</a> by training, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEFIlHWRTr8">joined</a> &#8220;Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler&#8221; on One America News Network to discuss California&#8217;s recent <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/7/20902884/california-deepfake-political-ban-election-2020">passing</a> of a law banning so-called &#8220;deep fake&#8221; videos when those videos are aired close to an election. As <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/7/20902884/california-deepfake-political-ban-election-2020">explained</a> by The Verge, California&#8217;s law &#8220;makes it a crime to distribute [within 60 days of an election] audio or video that gives a false, damaging impression of a politician’s words or actions.&#8221; However, as The Verge continues to explain, &#8220;[p]otentially deceptive video or audio will also be allowed if it includes a disclaimer noting that it’s fake.&#8221;
The issue, as it appeared to Wheeler and Hammer, is the danger of politicians delegating power to judges to ban forms of audio or video that they, using their discretion, determine to be deceptive. Wheeler and Hammer both discussed the example of David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress, whose videos exposing systemic corruption at Planned Parenthood were decried for years by the Left as &#8220;deceptively edited&#8221; before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated, in a footnote earlier this year, that the videos were not deceptively edited. As Hammer <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fifth-circuit-panel-center-medical-progress-josh-hammer">reported</a> at the time for The Daily Wire, the Fifth Circuit opinion&#8217;s sixth footnote reads:
<blockquote>In fact, the record reflects that [the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited. And the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage. Moreover, the district court also suggested that there was no evidence that any of [Planned Parenthood&#8217;s] research was federally funded, so the regulations relied on by OIG might be inapplicable. But the record actually establishes that the UTMB study was funded by the National Institute of Health.</blockquote>
With that context in mind, Wheeler began by asking Hammer whether California&#8217;s law could even withstand a First Amendment challenge. Hammer said that the issue is &#8220;probably right on the line&#8221; of unconstitutionality, and proceeded to explain why the law&#8217;s delegation of discretionary power to judges is problematic:
<blockquote>You know, it&#8217;s probably right on the line. I mean this is in California, so this would ultimately get appealed to the California Supreme Court and &#8230; if it&#8217;s a First Amendment challenge, [would] actually go to the Ninth Circuit because we need a federal court [for that]. These are liberal courts; traditionally, over the past 15-20 years, the Left has increasingly sided against free speech. So I could see the courts there upholding it.
But you know, here&#8217;s the thing, Liz. Anthony Kennedy — someone who I am NOT a fan of, I would be mortified to share on national television some of the things I&#8217;ve said in my private life about Anthony Kennedy — but if there&#8217;s one thing that Anthony Kennedy was wonderful on throughout his entire career, it was free speech. And he really said it best in the landmark case of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf">Citizens United v. FEC</a> in 2010. Kennedy said, quote: &#8220;It is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.&#8221; And that&#8217;s kind of the classic American axiom — that is how we have always comported ourselves in the public square and the realm of politics. &#8230; The way the combat speech is with more speech. It is not to attempt to write vaguely worded statutes that &#8230; take power away from the elected political branch and ultimately are just empowering federal judges to interpret these broadly worded statutes. That&#8217;s what this is doing — it&#8217;s empowering judges to decry it as right and wrong. It&#8217;s an anti-democratic movement it is a totalitarian power grab and really, people of all political stripes should not stand for this.</blockquote>
WATCH:
<iframe title="CA Passes Law Banning &quot;Deep Fake&quot; Videos Close To Elections" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YEFIlHWRTr8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Josh Hammer OANN screen grab 10.07.19

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: California Bans &#8216;Deep Fake&#8217; Videos Close To Elections

Center for Medical Progress

On Tuesday, the Dhillon Law Group, where I serve as an election law attorney, filed a lawsuit against the state of California. This lawsuit alleges that California is <a href="https://publiuslex.com/pf/nvra/">violating federal law</a> by not ensuring that only citizens are on the state&#8217;s voting rolls. Three California voters brought this lawsuit: Roxanne Hoge, Ali Mazarei, and Corrin Rankin. Both Hoge and Mazarei are legal immigrants who earned the privilege to vote by becoming citizens of the United States.
In 1993, a Democrat-controlled Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). This law mandated that states create more options for individuals to register to vote. This law also placed restrictions on the states on how they were to maintain their voter rolls. Under the NVRA, the state has a duty to regularly maintain the voter rolls by removing those individuals who had died or moved away.
The NVRA also requires a state&#8217;s secretary of state to determine the eligibility of each applicant before placing him or her on its voter rolls. Eligibility throughout the NVRA means that there is citizenship. Thus, the NVRA requires the states to ensure that someone is a citizen prior to placing him or her on the voter rolls.
State records show that before the California secretary of state&#8217;s office places an applicant on the voter rolls, it checks with state administrative records to ensure the individual is not a felon and that the voter application is not a duplicate. The state admits that it does not review state administrative records to determine if an applicant is a citizen of the United States. If California does not even bother to check the citizenship status of voter applicants, it can continue to claim to the media that there is no evidence of non-citizens being placed on its voter rolls.
Last year, the California secretary of state admitted he had no idea how many non-citizens were on the voter rolls. Earlier this year, a state audit was released that showed non-citizens were not only registered to vote, but had voted in California elections. These two news stories made it clear that California did not use state administrative records to ensure that only citizens were being registered to vote. Rather than follow federal law and make a determination of citizenship before placing an applicant on the voter rolls, the state simply waits for a scandal to break before responding by removing a non-citizen from its voter rolls. This is improper.
The California secretary of state has claimed that there is no state administrative record that tracks citizenship of Californians. This is clearly not true, since a state audit was able to determine that non-citizens were not only on the voter rolls but had also actually voted. Contrary to what the secretary of state wants the media to believe, there are multiple state administrative records that contain the citizenship status of voters. Every applicant for a state driver&#8217;s license is required to provide proof of identity. These proof-of-identity documents include citizenship status. If an individual cannot prove that he/she is lawfully a United States citizens, a driver&#8217;s license is still doled out but that individual is supposedly not simultaneously also registered to vote.
By bringing this lawsuit, the plaintiffs desire to hold the secretary of state&#8217;s feet to the fire. It is time that California be required to follow federal law and ensure that everyone who is on the voter rolls is actually eligible to vote. This lawsuit is necessary because California has a bad habit of thumbing its nose at federal election laws and dragging its feet as long as possible. When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 — which required states to establish a statewide voter registration list — California was the last state to comply. It did not do so until 2016.
Earlier this year, Judicial Watch won a major victory against California requiring the state to follow federal law in removing from the voter rolls those who have died and those who have moved. California had chosen to simply not send out the required notices, and the voter rolls were thus bloated with ineligible voters.
Californians deserve the assurance that the state is following federal law and ensuring that only citizens are on the voter rolls. By its own admissions, the state is not verifying voter applicants&#8217; citizenship status. Since California has claimed that it is not doing anything wrong, this lawsuit had to be brought to force California to follow the NVRA.
&nbsp;
Mark Meuser is an election law attorney with the Dhillon Law Group, which is based in California. You can follow Mark Meuser on Twitter <a href="http://twitter.com/markmeuser">@markmeuser</a>.

California on atlas

MEUSER: Legal Immigrants Sue California For Failure To Verify Voters&#8217; Citizenship Status

According to a letter obtained by The Daily Wire, a group of prominent conservative leaders have staked out their opposition to Judge Halil Suleyman (&#8220;Sul&#8221;) Ozerden, the president&#8217;s <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/16/trump-judicial-nominee-1417561">controversial</a> pick to fill a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-judicial-nominees-3/">vacant Mississippi-based seat</a> on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Ozerden, who is presently a U.S. district court judge in Mississippi, has been assailed by many due to concerns stemming from alleged exegetical sloppiness and alleged hostility to religious liberty.
The letter&#8217;s signees include First Liberty Institute President and CEO Kelly Shackelford, Conservative Action Project Chairman Alfred Regnery, Morton Blackwell, Dr. James Dobson, Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Chairman Jenny Beth Martin, ForAmerica President David Bozell, March for Life Action President Tom McClusky, and Wallbuilders Founder David Barton. The letter reads, in relevant part:
<blockquote>Conservatives have grave concerns about the nomination of Judge Halil Ozerden to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Specifically, the undersigned raise issue with his commitment to religious liberty, and more broadly, with his commitment to advancing the original meaning of the Constitution. &#8230;
Ozerden’s indifference to religious liberty in [the case of Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 1:12-cv-00158-HSO-RHW, slip op. at 7–8, 15 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 20, 2012)] is indicative of a judicial style that is short on substance and which demonstrates a troubling indifference to the textualism we would hope to see in a circuit court judge.
A demonstrated commitment to religious liberty and a deference to the Constitution as it was originally written are the hallmarks of a prudent jurist. Principled conservatives must stand against judges being elevated because of who they know, rather than a proven history of a solid conservative judicial philosophy.
As Sen. Ted Cruz, who has argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, &#8220;for a lifetime appointment on the court of appeals, I believe we should be looking for someone with a strong, demonstrated record as a constitutionalist. I have significant concerns that Judge Ozerden&#8217;s judicial record does not indicate that he meets that standard. For that reason, I do not believe he should be on the court of appeals, and I will oppose his nomination.&#8221; Senator Cruz is correct. Hopefully, other principled senators who care about our courts will join him.</blockquote>
As the letter indicates, stalwart conservative Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has already <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/ted-cruz-halil-sul-ozerden-nomination-1492305">come out in public opposition</a> to Ozerden&#8217;s nomination. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has indicated he will support the Ozerden nomination, while many conservative eyes remain fixed on Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) — a fellow former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee who has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47899/hammer-senator-josh-hawley-most-important-freshman-josh-hammer">already fought multiple battles</a> thus far in 2019 against Trump administration judicial nominees. It is unclear whether Hawley will fight at least one more.
As a recent judicial clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit myself, I wrote a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48881/hammer-sul-ozerden-very-weak-fifth-circuit-pick-josh-hammer">Daily Wire op-ed</a> in June explaining my own personal opposition to the Ozerden nomination:
<blockquote>What Judge Ozerden did in Catholic Diocese of Biloxi represents nothing less than a deliberate indifference — indeed, perhaps an outright hostility — to the interests of religious liberty. And religious liberty, of course, is easily one of the most indispensable issues by which senators ought to vet and assess judicial nominees. &#8230;
As a very recent Fifth Circuit law clerk, I can attest that the Court&#8217;s en banc votes — in which important cases are brought before all active judges — are oftentimes nail-biting affairs. The Fifth Circuit is being made great again, but it is not quite fully there yet. &#8230; And this Mississippi seat promises to be the proverbial Anthony Kennedy seat on the Court — the swing vote in en banc voting who will decide crucially important matters of intense interest to conservatives.
We should have zero question marks from the nominee for this Mississippi seat.</blockquote>
Some of Ozerden&#8217;s tough-on-crime defenders have attempted to defend his nomination by pointing to his purported tough sentencing practices as a district court judge but, as I tweeted yesterday, even that proposition is unclear at best.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Pablo Vega-Ontanon, an illegal alien from Mexico, was caught with enough fentanyl to kill 500,000 people. Maximum sentence was life imprisonment and a $10 million fine.
Sul Ozerden sentenced him to six years plus supervised release. <a href="https://t.co/Ko1nPnHNaM">https://t.co/Ko1nPnHNaM</a>
— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1174778372225785856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Time is running short for fellow conservative senators to join Cruz — Ozerden&#8217;s U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation vote will likely be held next week.

US. Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals

Key Conservatives Double Down On Opposition To Trump Judicial Nominee

Birth Control

Josh Hawley

Obamacare

Ted Cruz

In 2016, the mobile game Pokémon Go took the world by storm. Players spent hours per day walking around their neighborhoods and cities in an attempt to catch virtual creatures from the popular franchise. Non-gamers and gamers who were not necessarily Pokémon fans joined in the action.
But the phenomenon was not without its problems. In some cases, players trespassed in order to capture Pokémon, leading to complaints from certain homeowners and business owners. Many of these complainants filed nuisance lawsuits, which were combined into one class action lawsuit against Niantic, the company that created the game.
Earlier this year, attorneys working on the lawsuit proposed a settlement that would require Niantic to remove Pokémon gyms and stops that were near homes, among other agreements. The Hollywood Reporter <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/pokemon-go-creator-agrees-tighter-leash-virtual-creatures-end-class-action-1187097?utm_source=twitter">wrote</a> that complainants included stories like those of “the residents of the Villas of Positano, an oceanfront condo in Hollywood, Florida, who during the height of the Pokémon Go phenomenon, woke up in the early morning hours to hundreds of players behaving ‘like zombies, walking around bumping into things.’&#8221;
Niantic agreed to the settlement offered by the plaintiffs back in February, but a judge issued the <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6379118/8-30-19-Pokeman-Go-Order-Approving-Settlement.pdf">final judgment</a> on August 30. This order accepts an amended settlement agreement that was proposed in April. The settlement requires Niantic to do the following for Pokémon Go players in the U.S.:
<ul>
<li>Resolve complaints within 15 days for 95% of cases each year,</li>
<li>Remove Pokéstops and gyms that are within 40 meters of persons filing complaints within five business days after agreeing to do so,</li>
<li>Maintain a database of complaints for one year and avoid placing future Pokéstops and gyms on single-family residential property,</li>
<li>Maintain a form on the Niantic website allowing homeowners to require a Pokéstop or gym be removed if it is within 40 meters of their property and avoid replacing such a Pokéstop or gym,</li>
<li>Provide a message when groups of 10 or more participants are in the same area warning them to be “respectful of their real-world surroundings” or something similar,</li>
<li>Create specific instructions for those reviewing complaints,</li>
<li>Manually review “a statistically significant percentage” of new Pokéstops and gyms to ensure there won’t be complaints, and</li>
<li>Maintain a mechanism allowing public parks to request their hours of operation be listed on existing Pokéstops and gyms to avoid trespassing,</li>
</ul>
There is no mention of a specific amount of monetary compensation, but it appears Niantic will be responsible for the plaintiffs’ legal fees.
The earlier report from The Hollywood Reporter said plaintiffs sought $1,000 awards each while the law firm sought “up to $8 million in attorney’s fees and $130,000 in expenses.”
This is not the only lawsuit involving the popular Pokémon Go game. Last year Niantic refunded the costs of tickets purchased to Pokémon Go Fest — which became the Fyre Festival of mobile gaming. People purchased tickets to attend the event in Chicago, but due to the high volume of people, festival attendees were unable to play the game due to connection problems. Engadget <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/26/pokemon-go-fest-niantic/">reported</a> Niantic settled a class action lawsuit regarding the festival for $1.57 million in April 2018.

Pokemon Go

Final Judgment Issued In Class Action Lawsuit Involving Popular Video Game Pokémon Go

Eight Covington Catholic High School students are suing presidential hopeful Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), CNN&#8217;s Ana Navarro, The New York Times&#8217; Maggie Haberman, and other media players for defamation.
Lawyers for the students — identified as John Does 1-8 — &#8220;filed a defamation suit on Thursday in Kentucky’s Kenton County Circuit Court against 12 individuals — lawmakers, journalists/media figures and social media personalities included,&#8221; <a href="http://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/exclusive-8-covington-catholic-teens-sue-most-egregious-high-profile-individuals-for-defamation/">Law&amp;Crime</a> reported Friday.
In January, high school boys from Covington Catholic wearing pro-Trump &#8220;Make America Great Again&#8221; hats were <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42416/heres-what-you-need-know-about-confrontation-emily-zanotti">smeared</a> as racists by politicians and members of the mainstream media for allegedly harassing a Native American man who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42586/fact-check-update-video-shows-nathan-phillips-james-barrett">claimed</a> to have served in the Vietnam War, Nathan Phillips. But after <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/42423/read-it-teen-center-covington-catholic-hs-amanda-prestigiacomo">full video context</a> came out, it was clear that the boys did no such thing; they were the ones confronted by Mr. Phillips and were brutally harassed earlier by another activist group.
According to Law&amp;Crime, Rep. Deb Haaland (D-NM), Kathy Griffin, ABC News’ Matthew Dowd, former CNN employee Reza Aslan, Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King, Kentucky entrepreneur Adam Edelenare, Princeton University History Professor Kevin M. Kruse, Mother Jones Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery, and Rewire.News Editor-in-Chief Jodi Jacobson are all being sued by the Covington students, in addition to Warren, Navarro, and Haberman.
&#8220;Several of our Senators, most-famous celebrities, and widely read journalists, collectively used their large social media platforms, perceived higher credibility and public followings to lie and libel minors they never met, based on an event they never witnessed,&#8221; the lawsuit says, according to the outlet. Law&amp;Crime did not link to the suit so as to protect the minors from having their addresses exposed.
&#8220;These defendants called for the kids to be named and shamed, doxxed and expelled, and invited public retaliation against these minors from a small town in Kentucky,&#8221; the suit continues. &#8220;The defendants circulated false statements about them to millions of people around the world. The video of the entire event, known to the defendants, exposed all of their factual claims against the kids as lies. The defendants were each individually offered the opportunity to correct, delete, and/or apologize for their false statements, but each refused, continuing to circulate the false statements about these children to this very day on their social media platforms they personally control.&#8221;
As reported by <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/49980/judge-dismisses-nick-sandmanns-lawsuit-against-paul-bois">The Daily Wire</a> earlier this month, a lawsuit filed on behalf of Nick Sandmann — a &#8220;MAGA&#8221; hat-wearing teen who became the face of the most egregious media smears — was dismissed by a Kentucky judge on July 26. U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman (an appointee of former President Jimmy Carter) dismissed the $250 million suit targeting The Washington Post because the outlet never mentioned Sandmann by name.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49980/judge-dismisses-nick-sandmanns-lawsuit-against-paul-bois">Judge Appointed By Jimmy Carter Dismisses Nick Sandmann’s Lawsuit Against Washington Post</a>

Elizabeth Warren

NEW SUIT: Covington Teens Sue Sen. Warren, Ana Navarro, Other Media Players For Defamation

Ana Navarro

Kathy Griffin

Maggie Haberman

Imagine an on-fire progressive named Amy decides to pursue her dreams and start a company that writes speeches for progressive politicians and non-profits. Her goal is simple: Use her talents to help promote the policies she believes in and lives by. But just three weeks after the company launch, a local politician asks her to write an Independence Day speech endorsing Donald Trump.
What should she do? Easy answer, right. No way would Amy do that.
But what if a local law required her to write that speech? What if a law forced Amy to use her talents to advocate for the very ideas she detests most? And what if that law fined Amy $500 per day until she submitted the speech?
Impossible? Too far-fetched? Well, it’s happening in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Two conservatives, Grant Strobl and Jacob Chludzinski, recently started a political consulting firm called <a href="http://www.thinkrightstrategies.com/">ThinkRight Strategies LLC</a>. ThinkRight offers to do things like write speeches and draft Facebook posts that support conservative positions. But an Ann Arbor law forbids public accommodations (entities like businesses that serve the public) from “discriminating” on the basis of political beliefs. And that means ThinkRight cannot legally decline to create material supporting progressive causes. That would be illegal “discrimination.” And the law fines violators up to $500 per day until they comply.
But Ann Arbor’s law doesn’t just affect conservatives. Under this law, a Jewish speechwriter who offers her services publicly cannot decline to write a speech advocating for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel. A pro-abortion consultant cannot decline to design fliers criticizing abortion on behalf of pro-life political candidates. A progressive writer cannot refuse to praise President Trump’s immigration policies in a speech.
That’s not just wrong. It’s egregious. No one should be forced to express a message she disagrees with as the price of earning a living.
Public accommodation laws exist to make sure no one gets kicked out of a restaurant because of sex — or barred from a hotel because of race. These laws exist to combat actual status discrimination. They were never meant to compel people to promote positions with which they disagree.
When these laws start requiring that, they’re no longer combatting discrimination. They’re mandating certain views — and punishing people who believe differently than do those in power.
This hurts everybody. Once the government has this kind of power, no one’s beliefs are safe; just because a view is allowed today, what’s to stop the government from switching its target tomorrow? The only way to preserve our freedom to live and work in accordance with our deepest convictions is to advocate for that freedom for everybody.
Unfortunately, Ann Arbor isn’t the only government trying to force people to express beliefs with which they disagree.
In Colorado, <a href="https://adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/masterpiece-cakeshop-v.-elenis">cake artist Jack Phillips</a> lost all of his wedding business — over 40% of his annual revenue — because the government tried to force him to violate his conscience and design a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. In Phoenix, Arizona, <a href="https://adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/brush-nib-studio-v.-city-of-phoenix">calligrapher Joanna Duka and painter Breana Koski</a> face up to six months in jail because they can’t handcraft wedding vows that celebrate same-sex marriage. And in Minnesota, <a href="https://adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/telescope-media-group-v.-lindsey">filmmakers Carl and Angel Larsen</a> also face jail time because they can’t produce films celebrating same-sex weddings.
All these artists serve people in the LGBT community. They just can’t promote certain messages. Just like a LGBT web designer who generally serves Muslims but can’t create a website for a Muslim client that criticizes same-sex marriage, these other artists can’t covey certain messages with which they disagree. None of this is discrimination. It’s called diversity. It’s the freedom to disagree with each other — yet still treat each other with dignity and respect.
If the government can force cake designers, calligraphers, and filmmakers to convey messages with which they disagree, nothing stops it from forcing a progressive speechwriter to pen a pro-Trump paean she detests.
So the truth at the center of Grant and Jacob’s lawsuit, <a href="http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10805">ThinkRight Strategies LLC v. City of Ann Arbor</a>, goes deeper than political or ideological disagreements. It goes to the core freedoms we all share — our freedom of conscience, our freedom to live and work consistent with our deepest beliefs, and our freedom to disagree. When these freedoms get taken from one of us, we all lose. Let’s hope these freedoms have not yet disappeared in Ann Arbor — for everyone’s sake.
Jonathan Scruggs is senior counsel and director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives at <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/">Alliance Defending Freedom </a>(<a href="https://twitter.com/AllianceDefends">@Alliance Defends</a>), which represents ThinkRight Strategies.

SCRUGGS: New Ann Arbor, Michigan Law Violates The First Amendment

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Michigan

The good citizens of South Dakota have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/07/27/red-state-is-plastering-god-we-trust-walls-public-schools-its-mandatory/?utm_term=.4892ca0ee7c2">elected to adorn their public schools with the nation’s motto</a>: “In God We Trust.” As you might expect, some still view those four words on anything public as an impermissible establishment of religion, a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not. A brief review of our history and law explains why.
Go back to the War of 1812 and one will find reference to one of the earliest versions of what became the national motto. It is in the less well-known fourth verse of Francis Scott Key’s “Star Spangled Banner,” in which we read, “And this be our motto: ‘In God is our Trust.’”
With the republic not yet through its fourth presidency, the idea that “In God We Trust” could be our national motto was so firmly established in the minds of our nascent nation that Key could pen those words with confidence.
A generation later, in 1864, Congress authorized the Treasury secretary to include the phrase “In God We Trust” on our one- and two-cent coins. By 1956, following the signature of President Eisenhower, the motto officially became the nation’s. A year later, Congress added it to our paper currency.
There’s more to the historical use of the phrase, including an early reference to the phrase’s use by a militia group Benjamin Franklin raised during the American Revolution. The point is that “In God We Trust” has been the official, or at least presumptive, motto of the United States for a long, long time.
And the courts have noticed and agreed. Every federal circuit court to have considered the motto has deemed it constitutional — that’s 10 of the 11 numbered circuit courts of appeal, plus the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit!
The Eleventh Circuit, for instance, explained in Glassroth v. Moore that “some acknowledgement of religion,” including the national motto, “are not endorsements of religion.”
In Gaylor v. United States, the Tenth Circuit noted that the phrase’s “primary effect is not to advance religion; instead, it is a form of ‘ceremonial deism.’” In other words, no one thinks those words, displayed on public property — for instance, the Speaker’s rostrum of the U.S. House of Representatives — amount to an establishment of religion.
Instead, the motto is, as the Seventh Circuit explained in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 of Wheeling Township, “interwoven &#8230; so deeply into the fabric of our civil polity” as to become a treasured part of our “patriotic exercises and activities.” And, “whatever may have been their origins, no longer [do these words] have a religious purpose or meaning.”
In 1970, the not-so-conservative Ninth Circuit evaluated the national motto in Aronow v. United States. “It is quite obvious,” observed the court, “that the national motto and slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”
Go back and read that slowly. The Ninth Circuit told America — including anti-religionists annoyed by the public sight of anything religious — that it should be “quite obvious” that the national motto “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”
Forty-three years later, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that holding in Newdow v. Lefevre. If it was obvious in 1970, it should be incandescently clear today: The national motto harmonizes perfectly with our nation’s history and heritage and does not offend our U.S. Constitution.
And, just to be clear, the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with its lower courts. As the Sixth Circuit explained in ACLU of Ohio v. Capitol Square Review &amp; Advisory Board, “The Supreme Court has never questioned the proposition that the national motto can survive scrutiny under the Establishment Clause, and we should be utterly amazed if the Court were to question the motto’s constitutionality now.”
Still, many activists lament the presence of the phrase in public. One anti-religion activist exclaimed that South Dakota’s recent effort is “inaccurate, exclusionary, and aimed at brainwashing American schoolchildren.”
The only brainwashing seems to be from anti-religion activists set on a mission of exclusion and the perpetuation of inaccurate information. Though they still seem willing to accept dollar bills bearing the phrase to fuel their anti-religion efforts, they demand the rest of the country ignore its own history and the myriad court decisions that clearly undermine their legal position.
Should you run up against someone arguing that “In God We Trust” violates the law, you can respond as the Sixth Circuit has at “the idea of any federal court having the temerity” to ban the motto from government property.
That idea, the judges concluded, “strikes us as ludicrous.”
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Deputy General Counsel for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

DYS: Banning ‘In God We Trust’ From The Public Square Is ‘Ludicrous’

Menu