35 Burst results for "Federal District Court"
Real Estate Groups Ask Federal Court to Block New Eviction Moratorium
"Real estate groups are asking a federal court now to block the Biden administration's new eviction moratorium. The CDC extended it for 60 days in counties with a high spread of covid 19. On Wednesday, the Alabama Association of Realtors and other groups asked the Federal District Court in Washington, D. C to immediately blocked the
Supreme Court agrees to hear death penalty case against Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
"S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider the Justice Department's request to reinstate the death sentence for Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Appeals court last year, cited errors by a lower court and sent the case back to the Federal District Court. Tsarnaev was sentenced to death for his role in the 2013 attack that killed three people and wounded more than 260. Others.
Congressman, NAACP sue Trump and Giuliani over Capitol riot
"And adviser to former President Donald Trump, says his longtime lawyer and confident Rudy Giuliani is not representing him in legal matters at this time. They are both named in a new lawsuit over the Capitol attack. In a lawsuit filed in federal District Court in Washington, the N W. A S A P and Democratic congressman Bennie Thompson claim for president Trump Rudy Giuliani, the proud boys in the oath keepers conspired to incite the January 6 riot. And that they violated the 18 71 Ku Klux Klan Act by preventing Congress from carrying out its official duties. A Trump advisor Jason Miller says Trump is not organized or insight or conspire to incite any violent oxes Rachel Sutherland. The suit seeks unspecified damages. This is Congress plans, hearings on security issues and a non 11 style commission. To
Line 3 pipeline lawsuit fails, campaigners want Kansas City name change, and Dakota Access pipeline protests continue
"This is national native news. Tonia gonzales tribes and environmental organizations lost a legal battle to stop construction of the line. Three pipeline in northern minnesota. But their attorney says there are still some good options in the fight against the pipeline as melinda to whose reports monet naismith is a staff attorney with earthjustice. She is representing the red lake band of chippewas. The white earth band of ojibway the indigenous rights group honor the earth and the sierra club. In fighting the three hundred forty mile pipeline tributary third. The minnesota court of appeals rejected the request for a preliminary injunction to stop work on it and bridge. The canadian company building line three claims it is exempt from needing a new presidential permit to cross the us. Canadian border because the pipeline is considered a replacement project and it secured that permit decades ago. However naismith says it's an entirely new pipeline along an entirely new route so it really is a new project. In any case she said the us president can resend the permit at will like president biden. Just did for the keystone excel tar sands pipeline. A second option is to get the army corps of engineers to resend several permits. She argues the core granted illegally last november under the clean water act which allowed construction to start but the law is very clear that before issuing a permit under the clean water act and an evaluation under the national environmental policy act or niba that the army corps needed to look at the risk of spills from the pipeline and needed to look at how that risk of spills would affect local tribes and tribal resources and they did neither here in the line. Three earthjustice filed a lawsuit in federal district court in washington. Dc last december seeking to get the permits overturned naismith also filed for a preliminary injunction which would allow her clients to have their day in court. Melinda to who's national native news members of indigenous groups demonstrated outside the tampa bay. Buccaneers that stadium in florida sunday as football fans headed in for the super bowl. They held change the name signs calling on the visiting kansas city team to end. Its use of native names and is a leash. Norris with the group. Florida indigenous rights and equality says much of the day was spent educating the public about indigenous people. Rethought we have to at least go stand and educate and make a statement that it's not okay to objectify and dehumanize indigenous people of our land inc. we're building awareness for sure and It's i think it's just interaction at a time so we've had a couple of positive interactions and then some that are not so positive but i think at any any type of interaction is a step in the right direction to create a shift and as soon as you turn the light on and bring awareness to something People have to think about it even if they don't want to and they're mad about it they still have to think about it so i think for that. We are building awareness in harboring is an education to this area on this issue members from the group not in our honor based in the kansas city area traveled to tampa to join the demonstration. Planes were also rented which flu around tampa over the weekend. With change the name banners the standing rock youth council is hosting a run to call on president biden to shut down the dakota access pipeline young people from the standing rock and cheyenne river sioux nations. Plan to run to the site of the no dapple resistance counts for years ago in north dakota. The run to the cannonball river is scheduled to begin on tuesday. I'm antonio
Dominion Voting Systems sues Rudy Giuliani over false election claims, seeks $1.3 billion
"Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani over accusations of false election claims. James flipping reports, Giuliani has argued Dominion voting machines were easily manipulated and part of a plot in key states. Under the electoral system to change votes and this past year's presidential election. The company filed a defamation lawsuit against Giuliani and the Federal District Court in Washington Dominions accusing the former mayor and president Trump ally of carrying out what it calls a viral disinformation campaign in an attempt to alter the results of the election. Seeking around $1.3 billion in damages. A Manson family member could
Amazon Is Accused of Driving Up the Price of E-Books
"New lawsuit accuses Amazon of driving up the price of E books. The suit filed Thursday in federal District Court in New York. Alleges that a deal between the tech giant and five major book publishers has led to higher E book prices for all consumers because it prevents rival retailers from selling any of these publishers E books at a lower price that on Amazon
Key arrests from the Washington, DC riot so far
"He's got the latest today. Michael Welcome back to the show. Thank you so much for having me mark. We're seeing dozens that have been charged already. In the days since a mob of Trump supporters storm the U. S Capitol and disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election results Now to be clear some of those folks that were there that broke into the capital Did themselves harm like they were wearing their badges for the place that they're employed by and once their employers found out about it, they fired those folks. But the Justice Department officials are also saying they've been able to with the help of the American people. Nab some of the people that are responsible for breaking in. In fact, three of the highest profile accused rioters from last week siege have been arrested in charge like Jake of Anthony. Chance, Lee, You probably don't know the name or the AK. He goes by Jake and jelly. This is the guy who they were calling on some level. The guy who made the list that had makeup and horns and of some form of for blanket on him or something. They're saying he's the Cuban on shaman. That's what he calls himself and as the Cuban on shaman he has been arrested for breaking into the capital, in fact, technically turned himself into the FBI on their office on Thursday after the whole riots went down on Wednesday afternoon. So he turned himself in. He is now facing charges. The guy who's responsible for carrying around Nancy Pelosi's lectern in the capital has been arrested in his facing charges. Adam Christian Johnson eyes also gonna be facing charges here and Richard Barnett. That name may not sound familiar, but you've seen his boots. He was the guy who was sitting in Nancy Pelosi's desk with his feet up on her desk are allegedly stole a piece of mail from her desk to prove that it was him. That was there. He was arrested on Friday in Arkansas and is scheduled to appear in federal court tomorrow and will ultimately be extradited to Washington, D. C and they're not the only ones. I mean, you've got Derrick Evans, who I don't necessarily think this was a smart move but videoed himself breaking into the capital, saying we're in. We're in Derrick Evans is in. So he referred to himself in third person posted it all on his social media posts, and here's the problem. He was a lawmaker in West Virginia's house of delegates. So when he did that, and was brought up on charges federal charges for breaking in, he had to resign from West Virginia's house of delegates on Saturday for doing that, and then, Lastly, Lonnie Kaufman, I don't know how much we're gonna hear about this because He's the guy that 70 year old from Alabama who allegedly brought guns and 11 Mason jar Molotov cocktails to the perp protest in his pickup truck. Now, from what we're hearing, none of those were used, but they were dangerously close. The vehicle is parked dangerously close to the capital. So what kind of charges will be brought for him? We're not sure. But we do remember how shocking it was that there was a truck that was found with Molotov cocktails and weapons so There will be some element of charges there. And that's just the starting point now Mark because we've got 17 cases, according to federal prosecutors that will be making their way into federal District Court with names attached to them, alleging serious high penalty crimes like violent entry and assaulting federal officers. Then you've got another 40 cases in the District of Columbia Superior Court on lesser charges like Curfew violations and non violent gun crimes that are also going to go through and this is just the starting point. They believe there's going to be more to come. The Cuban on Shaymen should face
California church sees victory in order from high court
"California's code restrictions on religious services got a boost today from the U. S. Supreme Court. The high Court's ruling is not a final victory for Harvest Rock church, but it definitely strengthens its case more now from KCRW's Gerald Saxman. The Supreme Court decision leaves the state's health orders in place for now. But it throws out a ruling by a federal district court in Los Angeles that rejected harvest rocks challenge to caps on attendance and restrictions on indoor services. In a 5 to 4 decision that Justice has said the L. A District court had to reconsider Harvest rocks case in light of a ruling they made last week that the state of New York could not enforce certain limits on religious services. Pasadena based Harvest Rock has 160 churches around the state. Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Council, which represents the ministry, called the ruling quote a great relief for churches and places of worship. In its lawsuit, The church describes California's restrictions as tyrannical and his KCRW's Gerald Stats
"federal district court" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM
"And only allowing take out delivery from restaurants. Earlier today, the US Supreme Court ordered a lower court to reexamine California's restrictions on indoor religious gatherings. Although the order leaves the California restrictions in place for now, it throws out of Federal District Court ruling that rejected a challenge to the limits from a Pasadena based church, which has more than 160 churches across California. Last week, the Supreme Court split 5 to 4 and holding that New York could not enforce certain limits on attendance at churches and synagogues Access John Decker in Washington president elect Biden pledging free covert vaccines for every American distributed equitably as the FDA prepares to hold a hearing next week. President Trump's election challenges have a booster in the U. S House, Alabama Republican Mo Brooks tells Fox across America on Fox News talk He will try to object the certifying state's electoral college results when Congress meets the certified each state's slate of electors on January. 6th. United States. Congress is given blanket authority. To be the judge and jury on every election contest for every elected federal office. The challenges states slate of electors, a member of the House and Senate must both request the debate, Brooke says. So far he does not have a firm commitment from a senator to join his effort. Rejecting the state's electoral slate would also require a majority vote by both the House and Senate. An unlikely scenario Axis Jared help earn in Washington America is listening to Fox, please. Is the cost of finishing the basement worth the benefit.
"federal district court" Discussed on WTVN
"6 10 W TV and 5.8 million Ohioans casting their ballots in this year's general election. The votes at this point are still being counted. But Joe Biden has seems to be very confident at this point that he is going to win the presidential race. Meanwhile, the presidency itself hinges on four battle grounds. As Biden and Trump and race to that magic number of 270 electoral votes. But there is also the legal implications at this point, and I want to bring in Andy True ceviche whose are 16 W, TV and legal analysts at this point. Good morning, Andy. Good morning, Brandon. How are you? Hey, good. I really appreciate having you and especially your brain and your knowledge because with Trump, making the statements that he did early yesterday morning, Neither himself or his campaign made it clear how the president would challenge this election in the Supreme Court and how that would play out. But could could you break that down for us? And just tell us let's just say, OK, it goes forward. How? How does this work? Sure. So, so a couple things real quick. Each state has different recount it Some states. There's automatic recount. Let's say Pennsylvania, for instance, if it's less than 5%, or less Vote. It's an automatic recount. Um other states do not like Michigan is not automatic. You could request it, but it's not automatic. And so when President Trump said or his campaign, so we're going right to the Supreme Court. He can't do that. Under Article three, Section two of the Constitution the Supreme Court on Lee has original jurisdiction. You can only go straight to the Supreme Court. If it's a state vs the state of Florida, Georgia for water rights, or if the state is a foreign government, so so the Trump campaign would have to go. Into a federal district court level, then Court of appeals and what they would have to alleges. Some constitute institutional violation, meaning what the current lawsuits that have been filed in three states. Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan. In Georgian, Michigan. He's alleging are observers aren't being allowed into count the votes. Therefore, we don't know if every votes be counted. We should be allowed in. That's really a state law issue. Uh, the Gore V. Bush. If you remember that I won't get into the hanging chads so to the Supreme Court took that issue is because if the Legislature in a state says Here's what the procedures are. If any of the county officials deviate from that, that's a state issue, and if they do it on their own, they follow it and in the candidate believes that's wrong at state issue If the county officials deviate from that, that's when the Supreme Court that that has national port In each county acting differently, disenfranchise disenfranchises other counties so under the federal Equal Protection Law in the Constitution, the Supreme Court in 54 decision and Gore v. Bush said. We have jurisdiction so it's he's got an uphill battle. I will say the one Case. I think that he may have something is his case in Pennsylvania and what he's alleging there is that He's saying that the Legislature said all ballots must come in by the end of election Day, November 3rd and then the state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, not work. As long as they're postmarked. We're going to give them to Friday that case went to the Supreme Court. It was a 44 decision because 80 County Barrett did not vote. Participate and justice, Alito said. Wait a second. We should be deciding this today. Justice Roberts sided with the liberals and punted and justice, Alito said. We should decide this today, the Legislature said. It's all about have to be in So any balance that come in between after 12 12 midnight on November 4th Till this Friday. Justice Alito at least said, segregate those ballots, and if they make a difference, it will go back up to the Supreme Court. If that makes sense, and and so what they're saying is because the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Deviated from what the Pennsylvania Legislature said All ballots must be in by the end of election Day. That is an equal protection issues that will go that I believe the Supreme Court will take back up. But Trump has to show it makes a difference Invited is 200,000 votes ahead and only 100,000 votes came in. During that time period after November 3rd. The Supreme Court would not take it up because they would say the issue's moot. In law. They call it muteness, meaning that even if you win, President Trump this case, you still lose the election in Pennsylvania, and Biden still has to 70. So he's got some very hard hurdles to do and sorry for the long answer. No, it's just a long, complicated process that he has to show. He's got a lot of evidence, like in Michigan. You can't just say I want a recount. You have to show an alleged fraud or mistake has evidence of that. He's got an uphill battle. 16 w. TV and legal analyst Andy True Ceviche is with us this morning. No, Andy actually one of the most exciting guests that we were happy to have this morning because we knew this might be coming with possible legal action with Supreme Court. I guess my question has to do we see states changing some of these laws. To make it Mohr Universal for the next election. Because this is incredibly complicated. It's a one big spider Web. That's a great question, and it needs to be done on a federal level. And and just, for instance, the uh, Electoral Electoral Count act of 18 87. The federal government actually said, Listen, we can't have all these states. You know, turning in ballots at a certain time, different times. So what they said is we're going to set a time We're going to set a safe harbor one meaning that if they certified before Congress accepts that it's safe harbor. They have to do it. The states have to certify the election six days or more before Congress meets and then the state can't be sued for that, And then second, they said that the Electoral College must meet on December 14th. Actually, they said the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, so this year it's December 14th. So they passed. It hasn't really been visited since the Electoral Count Act of 18 87 and the federal government needs to pass some uniformity, saying, Here's how we're going to do it. Here's the deadline's Here's one about have to be received. If I could just take 10 seconds to show sort of the unfairness. If with Pennsylvania's law if you go to your voting booths in Pennsylvania polling place, and it closes at eight, and there's no line and you show a potato won the doors. We're gonna be locked. You don't get the vote at 801. PM, But if you have a mail in ballot you could go to, um you know the post office if it's open or or anything that will post market at 11, 59 and 59 seconds, get it postmarked. And then it can come in a week later three days later in North Carolina, weak like weekend half later and be counted there to the person who's locked out of the polling place because the rules say the polling places close at eight. The Legislature says ballots have to be received by the end of Election Day on November 3rd. So I think you asked a great question, but it has to be done on a national level. How oxymoronic is that? Andy? I didn't even think about that. So, Eddie to wrap it up. How long could this take? Because correct me. If I'm wrong, Bush, Gore and that mess lasted What 34 weeks. I forget Correct. 35 days, okay? Okay. So any idea how long any guesstimate How If this does take legal implications with the Supreme Court? How long can this last So he's already asked for a recount. But he has no excuse me doesn't have to. Trump doesn't have to win Wisconsin. It's an automatic recount. If it's 1%, or last separated them, so they're going to recount. He's asked for a Georgia is 0.5% or less. It's not automatic, but he can request it and so to answer your question of South Carolina's 1% or less, and it is an automatic recount, meaning the state will do it whether anyone asked for it or not..
Texas Supreme Court rejects Republican effort to toss nearly 127K votes in Houston area
"A legal cloud hanging over the nearly one hundred twenty seven thousand votes or cast in harris county was at least temporarily lifted sunday when the texas supreme court rejected a request. I several conservative. Republican activists and candidates to throw out early baoding's from drive polling sites is the state's most populous and largely democratic county. The texas tribune reports. The all republican court denied the request without an order or opinion as justice. It did last month similar lawsuit by some of the same plaintiffs. Those republicans are pursuing a similar lawsuit in federal court. They're hoping to get the votes thrown out by doing that cry. Few voting violates the constitution. Hearing in that case is set for today in houston in a federal district court
"federal district court" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Within the limits of the common denominator that we have which in the United States Constitution and that that's just respect for the stage that ISS the federal Constitution. A state action requirement on my right It does with a state be free Tio not have a state action requirement. I and that aware of any principle that would prevent a state from in a statute or constitutional provision States could be the master of their own constitutions. And what I mean, When I'm talking about state action, they'd actually requirements. So the on ly constitutional Division I think in our constitution that applies directly to individuals is the 13th amendment, which prohibits slavery. The 14th amendment, which is the context in which the state action requirement has been exported Supreme Court case law in the civil rights cases Means that equal protection guarantee Or even all the bill of rights that are incorporated through it, like the First Amendment on Ly apply to the government. So when I'm teaching this to my kind law students when I tell him is that I can tell my kids at the dinner table. The First Amendment doesn't apply here often say like, Hey, what about my freedom of speech, and I'll say you don't have any in my house. It is the love Amy, but public universities are different than private universities. In that regard. The First Amendment applies to government run institutions, but not too private university. I don't know what the laws right now, but I think there was a case Maybe it's been overruled. But to California Supreme Court based on its alleged on its constitutional history. Has ruled that tub. The First Amendment in the California Constitution of First Amendment verse has no state action. It doesn't just protect you against government. It protects you against everybody. You know that some interesting litigation. I read somewhere. That you are an admirer of Kate Chopin. Yeah, Who is she was and why you admire her? Well, she I When I was in college back in my English major days, Louisiana was a Louisiana. That's right. And she, she wrote a book. Focused on Louisiana and a woman who comes to Louisiana from now I can't remember what part of the South she was from. Talk about her. Coming accustomed to New Orleans and its particular Culture and I very much appreciated that because you know it, especially, you know as a new Orleanian. I thought it was an insightful look into what the history of Orleans is like. In my family, you know my great great grand parents. I came to New Orleans from France and my family has been in New Orleans for generations. And so its history is important to me. Michelle Panhead. Of very feminist point of view, too. She did before time. She did. Two more Tell me what the legal authorities years if you know. For a universal injunction We got about 600 federal judges, Federal district I could be off by few And they have They not only have limited jurisdiction, but they have limited then you if you will. They They hear cases on a certain geographical area. How can One Federal District Court judge. A limited venue. And John Congressional statute. Our presidential executive order for the entire United States Continental another wife. Well, that is a disputed issue of law That's in litigation in the court. It's been on the court stock it the authority of District Courts issue nationwide injunction so that would take me down the path of opining on a case that could wind up in litigation in front of me. Okay? I got one liners question help. It's an easy win it isthe. It's a sincere question. I'm generally curious. Who does the laundry in your own way, increasingly have been trying to get our Children to take responsibility for their own. But those efforts are not always successful. So We run a lot of loads of laundry. Well, you're very impressive, Judge. Thank you, Senator. I yield back, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Kennedy Center Blackbird. Thank you, Mr Chairman, Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee Republican endurance today. We appreciate it. I have a couple of things for the record a letter in support of Judge Bear from the Republican National lawyer's Association and then also the upend. That was in the Washington Post September 25th. It's by John Garvey it I taught and worked with Amy Cockney Barrett tears what people get wrong about her faith. It is Hey, is President of the Catholic University of America and it is in support of her nomination and confirmation without objection. While I've been on my mind. Thank you for reminding me. I have a letter from Reverend Franklin Graham supporting your nomination. And Jack Goldsmith professor law from Harvard. Leonard, Those introduced those two things, Mr Chairman. Yesterday. I asked, including record letters in opposition, the nomination from 50 Organizations of immigration a better balance in 88. Other organisations, support rights working families, 320 law professors. Specializing in health law disposal on constitutional law in the alliance for Justice Lawyers for good government over 6200 attorneys without objecting. Thank you, Mr Chairman, just a couple of things again, tying up some loose sands before we let you get on your way. Senator Harris mentioned, as did others that they would like to see us working on covert relief again. I want to remind my colleagues they had the opportunity to vote on this a couple of weeks back, and if Senator, Senator Harris chooses to come in next week, she's going to have the opportunity to vote. Uncovered relief. Once again, she mentioned the California fires and in relation to her comments to you about climate change. I would just remind my friend Senator Harris that it is pointed out regularly that these fires occur every year some years. More are more difficult than others and way we just grieve the loss of property in life and livelihood for Californians. But we also note that California State officials have not been successful in getting their forest management plans under control so we would know those things. Judge Barrett. I think it is no secret that the Democrats are trying to drum up. Ah lot of hysteria about you to spread some fear and misinformation, and much of this is centered on americanshealth care, and here's the reality. Our friends across the dais here are warning to do a single payer government run system, and they fear their constitutional court would block them. From taking control of health care from taking private health insurance away from 153 million Americans, and they have centered this entire attack. Talking about the CIA or Obamacare. And as I said yesterday, there are 8.3 million Americans in the Obamacare program and in addition to the 153 milion That have private health insurance. There are 57 million senior Americans that have been paying in to Medicare all there working life. And they would lose that with a government run single payer system. And I feel like that our friends across the dais have really tried to paint you. As a monster with an agenda. And I have appreciated that you have said repeatedly I have no agenda and we know that a ZAY said. They've got their goals like have there going healthcare for socialized medicine for ending the doctor patient relationship for making a bureaucrat patient relationship? They've even said pre existing Condition coverage would go away, which is not true that is widely supported by Republicans and Democrats. It actually originated with Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House. And they've also said older Children would lose their health care, not truth. Again that has bipartisan support. But I think what has struck me the most through some of these comments is that they say that you have to have diversity in orderto have equality. But what I have watched them do through this entire process of questions and talking with you. An opening statement is they have chosen intellectual isolation. As opposed to having diversity bring a different perspective. And to me that is really Very sad. And to my friends across the hour. I would say that the American people are no more afraid of the ideas of a Catholic woman. Then they are of the words splattered on a protest poster being held by a liberal. Woman. I don't fear that I've also found a few things said about you to be unnecessarily condescending, and I regret that I know that They that some on the left thinks they can verbally pound you into submission to a more leftist agenda. I found it very curious. That one of our colleagues even said And the thanks here you would usher in Conservative activism on the court. But one of the things that those of us on our side of the aisle continued to say We don't want activist judges from either the left or the right..
"federal district court" Discussed on V103
"By November. 3rd needs to register. Make sure that your voter registration is still active. Sometimes people are removed from the poles. We want to make sure that everyone who's eligible is already registered the vote. There's a big debate about should vote by mail. By mail, Absolutely, especially in cities and places like Chicago, where the weather is difficult. At times, you wanna vote early as we can do in Illinois and several other states? Or if you are a senior, and you're not His mobile is one where you probably want to get that mail and value can drop. You can have somebody pick it up and drop it off for you there many ways to vote. Male in it used to be called absentee ballot. The difference is you don't have to tell why you're not going to the pole. You're not going because you don't want to go. You can't go. You don't have to make up a reason. You can vote by mail That gives you the freedom of voting early, but also voting without having to stand in long live not having to worry about Covitz. We want everyone vote who will be or has is already 18 And this electric wire you voted You voted for President, of course by president because that person a point I recommend people for the federal District Court, not just with Supreme Court. That person has a Cabinet of people. The Justice Department, the Education Department. That person has people who are over housing, federal houses that personal point for a number of people, But you're not voting for President. You're voting. All the way down the ticket for US Senate. Those people confirm judicial appointments to the federal judiciary. A senator's make all sorts of decisions. But they also approved of The president's cabinet they have. The Senate has a lot of controls. The Senate was holding up a stimulus right now, so you know, there's a power in the Senate. You also one of the members of the United States House of Representatives. They have a lot of power in terms of appropriations, and the census is tied into that because the district's adjoin based on population trends. I also want to get into something that Rainbow push has been instrumental and that is supplying kids with the backpacks full of school supplies for the starting school year this year. School has just started this past week. But it's a virtual experience by and large for the overwhelming majority of CPS students. Well, it's not the CPS, but also the students who are and the Outside of Chicago, and the, um the suburb school has started remotely or some kind of half remote and half in person. He's away. Students need pencils and paper and we're going to be provided school supplies. You will need their help. We need people to help donate. Paper and pencils. And now than you have hand sanitizer, they will need math. Numair, not from new math. We need tohave help students have Ah! Those plastic head year, Wherever if they go back to a classroom, they have the protection of the hand sanitizer. They also need They're all couples. No kids have learned to share. We don't want them sand in the world called it. So we're gonna have our back to whom a rally at the end of the month and we'll be giving more information. But in the meantime, you can donate that going the rainbow push dot or or you could drop off school supplies that are building Between The hours of eight and one Monday hard it was to give the address. I know where it is. But give the tree 9 38 50 street. We need to help. So that we can make This back to school. As exciting as it has been over the years. This is a difficult time for many students for parents trying to figure out how the negotiate This pandemic. Work and make sure the Children alone and what do we do? Particularly in light of the frustration that people in the community feel with regard to the mistreatment of African Americans at the hand of police, or even in terms of systematic racism, turning a deaf ear to that, I think about the incident with Chicago native Daniel Prude. Over in Rochester. What is it that you're advising people to do the vent their frustrations and we only have about 40 seconds here. What they need to vote. You gotta vote about it. And then you could call push. We are doing something We are looking at. The systemic racism. We're gonna have a conference on systemic racism Has it impacted education and what number should they call? 7733733366..
"federal district court" Discussed on WJR 760
"Our Mister producer does fast work here's the Washington post piece written by a former judge appointed by Clinton and now another Clinton judge the one handling the Flynn case miss channeling the clip fling case read this piece and decided this judge Gleason was one of three who wrote this piece should formalize it in an Amiga secure I. brief to the court and here's what they write that justice department moved to dismiss the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn does not need to be the end of the case and it shouldn't be justice department has made conflicting statements to the federal judge overseeing the case MEG Kelly now the federal judges a friend of his what about Clinton here's the authority the tools the obligation to assess the credibility of the department stated reasons for abruptly reversing course the department's motion to dismiss the Flynn case is actually just a request when the requires quote leave of the court unquote before its effective now here's where the activism kicks in the executive branch has on review of authority to side with the prosecutor case once it secures an indictment the proceedings necessarily involve the judicial branch it's and the law provides that the court not the executive branch decides whether an indictment may be dismissed now this is really absurd who's going to prosecute the case genius is a former federal judge of course the executive branch to sides of a case will be dismissed the judge's role is ministerial its ministerial that's it the responsible exercise of that authority is particularly important here where defendants pleaded guilty is already been accepted government motions to dismiss at this age are virtually unheard of no they're not not with new evidence that you have Brady violations and you have corruption in the prosecution and the documents are revealed any career U. S. attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri who's also a former federal prosecutor there is a current federal prosecutor was former assistant prosecutor we can't go forward with this case would be non justice and injustice rather prosecutors deserve a presumption of regularity the benefit of the doubt they are acting honestly in following the rules but when the facts suggest they've abused their power the presumption fade to prosecutors attempt to dismiss a well founded prosecution for impermissible or corrupt reasons the people would be all serve this you see what's happening here he just flat out states his politics it's not up to date judge to decide whether the case should be prosecuted it's up to the executive branch I would remind Mister Gleason that the executive branch existed before any federal District Court in the land because its judiciary act that created the federal district courts they're not even in the constitution nor our appellate courts the only judge a court in the constitution is the supreme court and what this John Gleason is suggesting is that separation of powers be violated but the judge determine whether the case should be prosecuted the judge is supposed to oversee the case I would listen does a bridge too far got I how I would I would hope that the people are cases in front of this guy what take another look he assumes prosecutors attempt to dismiss a well founded prosecution for impermissible are corrupt reasons the opposite is the case says there's been nothing regular about the department's effort to dismiss the Flynn case the record reeks of improper political influence there you go hours after the career prosecutor broccoli withdrew the department moved to dismiss the indictment in a filing signed only by an interim US attorney a former aide to Attorney General Barr who bar had installed in that position ladies and gentleman the facts are in reach are revealed by the documents nor does this article point out that existing US attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri who has a long record of being a career prosecutor is the one who came to the conclusion and so this is a pretext and Gleason and o'neill and Miller no it Mr Gleason you're happy to call I'd be more than happy for you to call in this program to debate this point if you'd like I've given up asking these people to come on the show they don't they don't want to come on they never come on and so now he writes fortunately the court has many tools to vindicate the public interest it's not the court's job to vindicate a public interest god can you imagine if they decide the case in front of it not to vindicate a public interest it can require the career prosecutor explain why stepped off the cases another federal judge recently did when the trump administration attempted to replace a trial team litigating the politicization of the census that's not what happened if you're not going to advance the position of the executive branch prosecutors are not Hellboy where they're not supposed to be there not rogue operators the ultimately worked for the president of the United States if you're not going to advance the case that the present United States is bringing all the way to the Supreme Court of course you should be removed this is shocking absolutely shocking so what's happening here is has the justice department Jensen Dorham bar others no doubt are trying to unravel what's taken place or whether it's the Flynn case the stone case whether it's the FBI and so forth you now have this former judge and others urging the current charge to Stonewall take cover up that's what's going on here that's what police in trying to do and Solomon is a disgrace for using this op ed to then reach out to Gleason it kind of reminds me it's not the same thing of course but it reminds me the inside outside game we have McCabe leaking to a reporter then the reporter writes the story and that story shoes for a FISA complaint man oh man ladies added we am thinking we've lost our country here I really am do these people think that they're they're the ones carrying forth the trip because you know they have to decide what's in the public interest what's right the the progressive ideology the soft Marxism really is ubiquitous in this society now it truly really yes I'll be right back.
Supreme Court hears case on "Obamacare" birth control coverage changes
"The Supreme Court appears divided over trump's rollback of contraceptive coverage under obamacare and the court considers a challenge to the ban on robo calls this a bream quartered oral arguments today over the trump administration's giving employees in universities abroad religious opt out from the obamacare requirement that they offer free birth control coverage through their health plans from the first question Chief Justice John Roberts the possible pivotal vote suggested the administration had gone too far but being a refer exemption reaches far beyond that in other words not everybody who seeks the protection from coverage has those same objections so I wonder if and your reliance on refresh is too broad to use Richard Garnett a professor at the university of Notre Dame law school explained the issue here the real issue what the fun part of the P. the real issue in this case is probably not what a lot of people think it is a much a layer so one question will meet me decide to step back the issue here is whether the administrative agency and questioned HHS has the authority to create the accommodation that it created a lot of help of what the issue was not the issue is not whether the constitution requires that the combination it's not whether the religious freedom restoration act requires this accommodation it's really a question of administrative law did the agency create accommodation in the correct way and what the acting within its authority when it did during the oral argument hi I thought that the some of the justices seem to be talking about trying to re litigate questions that I I don't really think are the ones that are presented unification people could be about whether the contraception coverage mandate is a good idea or whether the hobby lobby case was correctly decided you know what what happened here the the federal agency determined to change its own rules and then some state the card is that because he didn't like that changing the rules they were going to say that they lack the power to change them and I act that the court is not going to agree with that claim some other additional fun kind of log geek technical question like the federal District Court have the power to issue a nationwide injunction on a policy or does it have the power only issue an injunction within its jurisdiction and do they have what's called standing to challenge changes to federal regulations we because they predicted those changes will result in some cost to them I'm a law professor or you know log each perspective and all kinds of things falling around in this case but it's not really about whether or not one believes that contraception coverage mandate is a good idea or whether one believes that the hobby lobby case was rightly divided some of the justices seem to be talking to a broader audience perhaps and yeah justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who by the way was participating from the Johns Hopkins hospital after undergoing gallbladder treatment yesterday she kept coming back to the cost of exemptions to women saying that this would be tossing to the winds Congress's intent that women have seamless and no cost coverage yes the popping to the wind damage I think three different times that might be a good example of what I'm talking about I mean it's clear that doesn't convert think that the change in regulations that the HHS adopted are are are bad policy but you know the question of what Congress's intent was that is I think a little more complicated I mean after all the portable character self didn't contain a contraception coverage mandate that was created by the administrative agencies have now decided to re craft the accommodation in the agency is changing it you don't roll the clock going against what Congress actually Anderman exemption from the coverage mandate from the very beginning that it is never been a blanket requirement there always been employers who are exempt in a balancing act so I think the claim that the latest regulations are a dramatic departure from what Congress did it difficult to maintain the better complaint it seems to me you know the kind of administrative law complaint that the agency crafted the new accommodation in a way that might not have followed the strict requirements for notice and comment on the outside complication and so on but it came time to in which state that so long as the agency does get that input at some point it's permissible but you were I think you're exactly right to pick up on the fact that we just didn't Berg was speaking to a larger audience about the broader policy question but I don't really think that broader policy questions the legal question before the court in this particular
Wisconsin governor suspends in-person voting for primary
"Brand well because of current virus Wisconsin governor Tony Evers has suspended in person voting in tomorrow's presidential primary he's a Democrat and his order comes after nearly a week of back and forth with Republicans in the state legislature there they rejected a request from the governor to postpone the primary like other states have meanwhile the Supreme Court is weighing a lower court judge's order to extend Wisconsin's deadline to submit absentee ballots Jessica Levinson is here to talk about all this with us she's a law professor at Loyola law school in a regular legal legal hello hello well let's begin with even order it postpones in person voting and he did that unilaterally does he have the authority to do that I'm gonna give you everybody's least favorite law professor answer we're not sure and I actually think we're gonna be saying that a lot over the next few months I mean there's going to be a big issue of trying to secure elections and protect elections in the time of a global pandemic and so does the governor have the power to unilaterally change the election date spent a lot of I've been back in Wisconsin about that I hate to say it but we'll know when a judge rules on whether or not that's permissible right and Republicans have resisted that why have they resisted postponing in person voting right so there's no question that legally speaking if the Republican controlled legislature had decided that yes we will postpone the date of the election that that would have been permissible that they as a state as the representatives of the state could have done that what they've said is that we can't postpone for a couple reasons one they said it's not just the presidential primary that's on the ballot it's also a lot of state and local races and we don't want those to stand vacant now Inc in the governor's executive order he said they don't have to stand vacant I'm just going to extend the terms of the state and local officials what the Republicans have also said is that they don't want this huge change an influx of vote by mail because they're worried about issues of fraud and essentially that the election would lack integrity I think all of us frankly the studies on that indicate that those aren't real fears that we don't have to worry about voter fraud date what's much a much bigger worry is making sure that everybody who wants to vote actually camp out right and so along those lines there's also this dispute over absentee ballots a federal judge extended the deadline in Wisconsin and that was upheld by the federal by a federal appeals court but now the Republicans have appealed to the US Supreme Court what's going on there with the absentee ballot dispute yeah what's going on there is there's two parallel tracks one there's a legal track that we were just talking about which is this argument by Republican lawmakers that it really infringes on the integrity of the election to do things like increase vote by mail or route increase the amount of time that you would have to return your ballot and that's kind of the legal argument that's going up and back the second track is really a political one where for Democrats it's better if there's more time if more people show up for Republicans it's really a big game if we don't count those vote by mail if we don't extend the time there's a really big judicial action in the Wisconsin Supreme Court Republicans have I believe the reporting is openly said you know it might have been actually better to have the selection when it's a lower turnout so we're sure we can keep that particular seat this is really a preview of I think a lot of what we might see in the fall these parallel tract arguments on the one hand legal on the other hand political okay let's turn to another story in the news right now in the midst of this huge pandemic at least six conservative states of trying to restrict access to abortion a federal District Court judges blocks nearly all of those orders but not in Texas the fifth circuit court of appeals left aligned Texas go into a fact on a temporary basis so I know a lot of states are saying no to elective medical procedures right now but there seems to be at a time difference here rate when it comes to having an abortion is not considered an elective procedure but not by the American college of obstetricians and gynecologists in so it's gonna feel like deja vu all over again from about forty five seconds ago but what we're seeing in this case is also two different arguments one is the legal argument of whether or not you can basically prohibit and or postpone these abortions the other is really the political argument a lot of Republican controlled states trying to restrict access to an abortion so you know to your question is this really an elective procedure no it really my understanding is medically is not considered an elective procedure and of course there is a much different timeline when it comes to an abortion at a certain point out you've waited so long that it might be for instance illegal under the state's loss to happen abortion in so this brings up again this kind of Wu Ming fight at the Supreme Court at some point we'll have to take up about the contours of abortion rights what grounds on what grounds did the court of appeals let the Texas law go into effect yes so what the Texas court said and as you said this was really an out liar decision every other federal court that's taken the sap has said no you can't implement these types of prohibitions or restrictions Texas court said as the state has the power to do that looking at the states broad police powers to do things like limit the number of elective procedures you have to do other things like we talk about all the time like closing restaurants cook closing schools that it would fall within that power so I think the conservative fifth circuit really kind of went out on a limb and frankly I don't think the ruling is consistent with the current standard they Casey versus Planned Parenthood distinct standard so do you think the Supreme Court will take this one up when it convenes at when and if it reconvenes physically and or virtually it you know it depends on how long this particular prohibition is in place but I think it's gonna be really hard for the court to avoid this they may try and issue some very short opinion which basically says this isn't consistent with our current standard and then wait for a bigger case to come before them to really make the decision about whether or not states can essentially say there's an emergency exception to the current standard that there's an emergency
Trucking Scores a Win in Rhode Island Tolls Case
"An appeals court has determined that the trucking industry's lawsuit against Rhode island's truck only tolling system is valid and can proceed in federal court U. S. court of appeals for the first circuit ruling in this past week that the lawsuit is not barred by the tax in junction act which were struck so restrict rather the power of federal district courts to prevent the collection or enforcement of state taxes now listen to this the appeals court opinion states charges fairly described as tolls are not taxes under the tax in junction act because the core it maintained the tolls are not a tax they are therefore not immune to a federal court challenge the trucks only telling system is part of governor Gina Raymondo is are road works program which is projected to generate four point seven billion dollars to finance infrastructure projects in the state trucking industry leaders who ardently opposed the truck only tolls hail the appeals court decision as a
American Airlines And Mechanics Union Head To Federal Court
"A trial is scheduled for Monday in federal District Court in fort worth Texas an American Airlines request for a permanent injunction against two mechanics unions the airline claims mechanics are defying a court order and continuing a work slowdown that is disrupting flights mechanics union say American is at fault they say the airline walked away from
Subpoenas for Trump financial records on hold pending appeal
"President Trump's accounting firm must turn over his records to congress. Federal district court ruled on Monday, rejecting his legal teams argument. Lawmakers had no legitimate power see subpoena the files from that his legal team would appeal rather than permit. The firm matzahs USA to comply with the subpoena and the ruling legal fight is far from over the ruling by the judge whose name is meadow of the US district court for the district of Columbia was an early judicial test of the president's out to systematically, stonewall subpoenas by House Democrats stymying, their ability to perform oversight of Mr. Trump and the executive branch after winning control of the chamber in last year's midterm elections. Mr. Trump's legal team led by William s convoy had argued that the house committee on oversight and reform had no legitimate legislative purpose in seeking from financial records that was just trying to dig up dirt like finding out whether the president broken lawyers for political reasons. So the subpoena exceeded its constitutional authority, Democrats claim they need the records because they're examining, whether foreigners are in a position to us business dealings with the president to hidden influence over American policy, making and whether ethics and disclosure laws needs to be strengthened judge meta is in Obama appointee. Of course, he said that the justification was sufficient to make the subpoena. Valid he said these are facially valid legislative purposes. It is not for the courts to question, whether the committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations accordingly. The court will enter judgement in favor of the oversight
"federal district court" Discussed on KDWN 720AM
"Katie tell you when kill me, but I think we should really stay focused on what's actually happening on, on the border security and humanitarian crisis. These flows are unprecedented. They're creating dramatic challenges for law enforce professionals trying to manage it. But we also talking about a situation where children are at risk, where children are being smuggled, where children are in the hands of some of the most violent crime organizations in this hemisphere. And we haven't had a solution from congress to stop that. Yeah. And Kevin Macalinsan is desperate, trying to keep his composure, he's been doing this business for in the business. Forever now is all homeland to go over, but it just exasperated about what he's going through because he's got a flu. Sarah staredown these border patrol agents says, I'm unable to help think about that friendless Cayenne, TR and lake havasu Arizona. Hey, brad. Brian. So, you know, whatever happened to sending these people to sanctuary cities. Yeah, I don't know. You saw the pushback from south Florida. You so the pushback from Buffalo New York, but we should send. Why not? I mean like California. I mean I. Resident there for many, many years. I mean one is you just drop these people at one hundred spring street, that's where the federal district court is if drop on every federal district court in the state, and that starts, it off and going all up close to Washington, and then go on the east coast. These are people that are most of these people that are in the sanctuary area. They're not on the board or they have no clue. What's going on here? And frankly, they should see it in their own backyard. And saying this is coming to you. Courtesy of the congress, it isn't doing their job. They are going to San Diego because we have room there, but for how much longer I mean these countries are emptying out there emptying out, and the, the way works, these cartels, getting money, they may be charged eleven thousand dollars for the trip. They put down a thousand and when they get here, earning money, they take a percentage, plus the interest. So essentially, they're slaves working in the US for drug cartels. So they could buy more drugs and pollute, our streets, even further.
Felicity Huffman Pleads Guilty in College Admissions Scam
"Hollywood star Felicity Huffman has pleaded guilty to participating in the college admissions scandal. Steve Kastenbaum has details. On her appearance in a Boston courtroom yesterday. Huck Finn was still against silent. As she came and went from federal district court in Boston inside the courtroom, though, she was tearful as she accepted responsibility for paying fifteen thousand dollars for bribed Proctor to correct wrong answers on her daughters. SAT exam. However Huffman told the court that she and her daughter have been working with a neuropsychologist since her daughter was eight and she's been getting extra time for tests since she was eleven the prosecution, then told the judge they were seeking four months in prison for Huffman, the desperate housewives actress will be sentenced on September
Southwest Airlines, Dallas And Southwest discussed on The Opening Bell
"Southwest Airlines is suing it's mechanics in various union leaders in federal district court in Dallas, the carrier wants to have a court order to the mechanics to stop what they're calling a system wide campaign to encourage write ups of non safety maintenance issues that have grounded planes at Southwest
"federal district court" Discussed on Undisclosed
"You we rely on a procedural ground, which which is that I under- the federal statute a petition of habeas corpus has to be found within a year of the time that the kitchen or discovered the evidence, which I is claims rely I and in our case, you know, the on when we based our claims all of it. Well, not all but most of it had been discovered more than a year before we found our federal claim we knew that going in. So we also ask for relief from the statute of limitations on the ground that we believe the evidence shows that Ray. Save was actually innocent, which is the standard the federal standard. I that would allow the federal district court to review on raise claims on the marriage notwithstanding any procedural false for notwithstanding that the statute of limitation has run. So we lost on procedural grounds. In addition, the court been much college chicken of appeal ability, which means that the court did not think that we have raised and issue that presented a cold crave. And so would not have given us the right to appeal to the fourth circuit. Right. So so as a result of that we were four to ask the port circuit to grant the certificate of appeal ability on and I it set on the case for about a year. And then after a year insured five win question for appeal which was whether we could demonstrate by the pines of the evidence. Then Ray was actually in the right? And then the United States court of appeals for the fourth circuit, this recent opinion that has come down. They do they find that Finn has established actual innocence. And they do so both by looking at issues related to Harris as well as related to Jones. And so what did they find about Jones in the eyewitness identification this case? Well, first of all agreed that the Arana were suggestive in violation of constitution that Joan just dedicated of raid was not reliable and among other reasons because e claim that he. Was standing two feet from the men who killed hollering with a shotgun in the evidence. I demonstrated conclusively that the man had been killed with a handgun not a shotgun. And of course, thought that that undermined Jones is credibility. I in addition Jones was unable to describe the face of the man who allegedly was Ray Finch. I at the time, you know, we have other graphs showing that raid and beard and mustache and Jones had no time was able to describe the perpetrator as having had a beard or much stash and some of the court going that a a reasonable juror would not have found his identification. Nations credible. Right. Never regard to Harris. Again, the person who testified about seeing Finch outside this country store, and we have some questions about the timing. What were the developments with him and what he had to say after nineteen seventy six the court relies upon? First interviews Paris, today's later, Iran out to his home. And he asked him is if the rate inside the store that night, I and Harris told him that he had not and that although he thought the man he saw was rain. I hear know for sure that it was rate. I he said that on ginger Lehtonen them that that was not helpful for. And then before Jones testified trial the prosecutor and owns burning back into a probably a lawyer's eye broom..
"federal district court" Discussed on KTOK
"Glad you're with us. We're waiting hopefully want to see what happens with the judge in the Flynn sentencing case there was a three pm deadline eastern time south three oh six eastern with at the special counsel needed a hand over all the relevant information. As it relates interview information as it relates to general Flynn. I went through all of this in great specificity in detail yesterday. I still cannot believe that this has happened in our country. The judge in this case a guy by the name of Emmet Sullivan. And he was the one that presided over the appeal overturned in the Ted Stevens corruption case Ted Stevens. If you don't remember convicted on eight counts when he was as a Senator also running for reelection lost his reelection. But every one of those in every one of those charges it was overthrown. And this judge got so mad and so angry New York Times described it this way Emmet Sullivan speaking in a slow deliberate manner that failed to conceal his anger saying that in the twenty five years he's been on the bench. He had quote never seen mishandling misconduct. Like what I have seen by the Justice department. Prosecutors who who tried the Stevens case. They right. He did a lacerating judge Sullivan's lacerating fourteen minute speech focusing on disclosures that prosecutors had improperly withheld evidence in the case virtually guaranteeing reverberations beyond the dismissal of the verdict in the case of Senator Stevens. And by the way, Stevens lost his whole career over it. So he was not guilty. And this this is what I keep saying Andrew Weisman has this history. We've talked to author of the book licensed to lie Sydney Powell many times. It's a must read book when you think that it can't happen in America. It can happen in America and the history of tampering with FBI three. Oh twos. And I thought the federalist made a very strong case that I really make sense that while there had to be an earlier three. Oh, two because both struck and page allude to it there. Text messages and Komi alluded to reading it before he was fired in may. But yet the official one on the record. Well, that would be the. The three two from August. But Flynn was interviewed the first week of the Trump presidency on January twenty fourth. So I mean, this this is this is gonna be fascinating. I I don't know why I I can see this judge. Maybe I'm wrong. Throwing the whole thing out the plea everything and say it's over based on misconduct. And I wonder if he will do what he did the last time last time he ordered literally a special investigation into the prosecutors, which is almost unheard of. And you know, he talked about the actually named the judge named a federal district court by Bill Clinton. Anyway, talked about the troubling tendency he had among prosecutors to stretch the boundaries of ethics restrictions concealing evidence to win cases. It is a danger that you see with prosecutors that it becomes a becomes a game of winning and losing to them instead of what's right, and what's wrong. And what's just and what's not just. You know that we throw around the term prosecutorial discretion all the time. But it really does mean something because I do think if that's your job day in and day out, maybe become cynical dealing with a lot of bad people. And you you think everybody's lying, and you think everybody's corrupt. But sometimes there are good people that can caught up in bad situations that they're not guilty of and wanting to to weed them out and find the truth ought to be the goal not about winning and not about losing. What's interesting Kimberley strassel had a great piece out noting on this all today about judge Emmet Sullivan demanding that Robert Muller produced. These key documents to justify his indictment of of general Flynn. Now, the problem here, too is you gotta remember none of the FBI agents thought that general Flynn had lied including struck including McCabe, and including Komi and the czar part of this is the statement that Komi had made let's go back and play the statement that we have this is James Komi admitting. Well, I tried to pull off the interview in the Bush administration or the Obama administration, but I saw an opening and I took it. But before the agents actually went in there was a call with Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director, and he's telling general Flynn. No, you don't need a lawyer, and they're going in in a relaxed manner to to see well, what's general Flynn's mood. The problem is they already had illegal surveillance unmasking in this particular case and raw intelligence, they had basically a print out of the conversation that general Flynn had would assume soon. To be Russian counterpart. And anything that he said that maybe didn't match perfectly meaning his recollection with what was on the transcript they were going to nail him for lying to the FBI. But the question is will that never happen. Anyway, here's what Qomi said, which I think should blow everybody away you look at this White House. Now, the cartoon imagine.
"federal district court" Discussed on MSNBC Rachel Maddow (audio)
"You, we will be back to this story and just a little while it was an absolute curveball today. But now tonight we are also covering this ABC news reporting tonight that the president's campaign chairman has reached a tentative plea deal to plead guilty in federal district court. Now, I have to say it is not like we didn't know this might be coming after Paul. Manafort was convicted on eight felony charges last month in district court federal district court in Virginia. The Wall Street Journal was first to report that Manafort was seeking to work out a plea deal with prosecutors to potentially avoid his second federal felony trial this month in Washington DC the journal reported at the time that Manafort had sought talks with prosecutors on that matter. But those talks had quote, broken down that was the initial report from the Wall Street Journal. Then last Friday night. Late in the evening. Bloomberg news reported that Manafort was talking to prosecutors about a potential guilty play. That was Friday night from Bloomberg. Then on Tuesday this week, the Washington Post matched that Bloomberg reporting Manafort is trying to get a plea deal with prosecutors and that's not surprising right at this point, it is not surprising that Paul Manafort would be looking for a lifeline to avoid the legal bills and the stress of mounting a defense in a second big, multiple felony federal trial. He's already going to prison for years for the felonies that he was just convicted of maybe if he pleads guilty instead of fighting the next round of felony charges. Maybe he could get some kind of break on his sentence. Certainly gonna break on his legal Bill, legal bills. And I mean, again, to be honest, sorry to say this, but the exact length of time President Trump's campaign chairman spends rotting in prison for his multiple felony convictions isn't necessarily a matter of acute national concern. Right know he's going to prison. Does it really matter if he gets prison sentence shortened or lengthened a little bit? I don't know. But it is a very big matter of national concern, a matter of acute national concern. If the way the president's campaign chairman is going to try to lessen his time in prison is not just by pleading guilty, but also by agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors, special counsel's office. In any case, they may be pursuing against the sitting president of the United States, and that prospect is why after all of that reporting over the last few weeks, this from ABC news yesterday was really the breakthrough report here president's campaign chair. Yes, like everybody says is seeking to plead guilty seeking a deal in conjunction with a guilty plea. But crucially what ABC news outed yesterday was this quote, Muller's office is seeking cooperation from Manafort for information related to President, Donald Trump and the two thousand sixteen campaign. That was yesterday from ABC news. Now tonight. They've reportedly gotta deal first reported again by ABC news thus far, nobody else has matched it. Although a number of news outlets tonight have reported that talks are definitely underway. If the president's amid all this other news, right? If the president's campaign chairman is pleading guilty tomorrow morning in federal court to more felony charges. That is a big deal. But if he is pleading guilty and pledging to cooperate with prosecutors from the special counsel's office in their investigations into the president that is bigger than a big deal. And if that's what we're going to wake up tomorrow, I have a few questions I need answered in order to prepare for that possibility. Joining us now is Chuck Rosenberg. He's the former US attorney in the eastern district of Virginia, former senior FBI in Justice department official Mr. Rosenberg, Chuck. Thank you very much for.
"federal district court" Discussed on Off The Hook
"And then if he is able to do that, what they would do is making application to let say the FIS accord or any federal district court, if they could really make a great case about this being a national security issue, perhaps somebody working on the best of a foreign power. They could perhaps obtain a Fiso warrant to begin surveilling people within the White House to determine who's communicating with whom that could include their personal communications, personal devices, their home networks, things like any kind of communications and then separately. If it were to go to an individual federal court and they could convince a judge that this was a national security issue, they may. The to have federal judge issue a subpoena to reveal the source in which point the New York Times would be placed in a position of revealing the name and identity of this particular source to federal judge or having the reporters held in contempt. I, I'm gonna push on that. I think that would be plausible that's I would. I'm not going to go down that with you because of the current special counsel they're coordinating their coordinate with other indictments and other cases. And I'm curious where you think that might fall in your hypthothetical. Yeah. Well, I, I don't necessarily know. I mean, that's a good question. I think the special counsel would be rather interested in speaking with this particular anonymous source. In fact, they may have already. Yeah, there's nothing stopping anybody from contacting special counsel and saying, hey, I have additional information here that this person is violating his his oath of office. One other thing, I would not discount those names that came out with official denials based on the bubble. Statements in that book because they're playing the game. If they, if even now I'm giving them a lot of credit, assuming one of the, the like John Kelly and Mattis these guys that came out with this sort of classic. I mean, it was like right into the Trump template. Apologies. There's at least half a dozen of right that had to come out after this book was released and I, I don't want to again, like guess, honestly, I don't care. Like Alex said. One of those people may be lying just to continue to perpetuate in this administration as deeply as they choose Trump is hearing this as heads going to explode. He, he thought those people were eliminated suspects. But you're saying that if they deny right away, they might be the guilty ones trying to absolutely name. They are playing his game set up the rules. They'll just continue to play it and then be as faced. But. In the interest of what's right, and just to look a little closely at this from our particular perspective as hackers. I'm heading off all the tweets. Hey, Hecker radio show. How can you spend half an hour talking about Trump. This is a massive case of social, social engineering, and social engineering is a central arm of the whole hacker world. And we are watching a huge case of really talented social engineer..
A Federal Judge Reinstates the Clean Water Rule for 26 States
"One of the first moves the President Donald Trump made back in two thousand seventeen was rescinding the waters of the. United States rule Wallis a move that was applauded by farmers throughout the country well that disputed federal rule. Governing the waters of the United States it's come back to life and affects California and twenty five, other states the rule would, expand the federal agencies jurisdiction over both water and land a judge in. South Carolina sided with, environmental groups in partially reinstating the rule groups led by the American Farm Bureau have asked the court to stay that ruling. Pending appeal Michael, Clements, has more action by a federal judge in South Carolina has revived the two. Thousand fifteen wanders of the US, rule making it the law of the land in twenty, six states Don perish American Farm Bureau. Federation senior director of regulatory relations says the ruling is a major setback and af PF and others are working. To defeat it that court said The. Trump administration could not delay implementation of that rule and that is a. Significant setback and it creates a real problems frogger culture you've got one judge in South Carolina telling the nation twenty six states they've got to implement a rule this already been found to be likely illegal farmers and. Ranchers, in those twenty six states are now subject to the flaw. In two thousand fifteen Motors rule that parish says will create uncertainty have. Detrimental impacts to their operations clearly it's going to leave farmers out there open to be challenged it also creates huge conflicting permeating album Gatien's. There's gotta be some core districts that have to implement both the existing rule the nineteen Eighty-six rule is. Well as the new twenty fifteen ruled depending upon which state they're operating in and that's going to, be very disruptive a coalition, including a BF notify the South Carolina federal district court that they will. Appeal the court's ruling, that reviewed the two thousand fifteen waters rule we went back and asked the judge because of disruption in the problems it's. Going to create To reconsider we've also gone to court in, south Texas to. Ask that judge to provide nationwide. State and then we're also asking the administration to put his head down we know that he's got work to do but. We need them to finalize this repeal is soon, as
"federal district court" Discussed on Here & Now
"The defining characteristic of the program for payers is work now well, but the families might say in response host families that they pay upfront fees, something like nine thousand dollars to agencies that work this program through the State Department. They pay one hundred ninety five a week to the young women. They have to pay up to five hundred dollars for the coursework. They say that they're paying well, and you're pointing to one of the most systemic flaws within the way that this program. Set up, which is the sponsor agencies are really who's profiting during a hearing over a a Maryland Bill last year to protect on all internationally, recruited workers. One host family said that they were compensating there appear at over forty two thousand dollars a year which included the van that they lent to their appar in the gas money that they gave to her so that she could pick up their children. They included that within her compensation. The bottom line at the end of the day is the pair was being paid four dollars and thirty five cents an hour. It seems like a complete misunderstanding of what this program is. I am speaking full disclosure, somebody who was a nanny for ever when I was a young person. The assumption was that when you became a member of that family, your costs of living in the home were absorbed into the family there in lies. Another problem with this program au-pairs are workers who are sold a cultural exchange. Families on the other hand are being told that they're going to get cheap labor out of this program, but oh pairs take on debts in order to arrive here and take advantage of this cultural exchange. Instead they're paid very little and the money doesn't go very far towards paying off the debts they've acquired while the Boston. Globe has some numbers. They said women pay an estimated five hundred to twenty five hundred dollars just to get into the program, but aren't there some state laws that require employers to pay minimum wage and offer time off for essentially nannies or domestic workers? Yes, there are whether you're entitled to protections under those laws depends on the state in which you live. I think the most significant legal case pending right now is a case in which plaintiffs allege that sponsors fraudulently misrepresented the pair program in the federal district court in Colorado's determined that, oh pairs have viable claims, and the court has explained that under the fair labor standards. Act. This practice of deducting room and board from wages should not be allowed. So this is making its way through the legal system. I'm assuming that there are some families as we said for whom this works. But what are some of the suggestions for clearing up this either confusion about how it's supposed to work or abusive, how it's supposed to work. One, fundamental area that needs to change is the way that the sponsor agencies are functioning. These are agencies that are advocating at the state and federal level and litigating to keep au-pair wages low and to carve pairs out of worker protections will you actually are saying to eliminate the recruitment fees so that the payers don't have to pay. It does not make sense for appears to be arriving here indebted that is a recipe for exploitation of workers. We believe that those are costs that can be absorbed by sponsor agencies, which are indeed big businesses. But we. Also believe that there's a lot that could happen in terms of the interactions between au-pairs and families. Then a great way is filling out something like an odor host family agreement. And in fact, we've developed one such agreement that will be passing along to appears. Oh, is this something we can post it our website? Absolutely. Good. Good. So families can have that as well because it seems like a a large part of this misunderstanding. And that leads to another one of your recommendations, transferring oversight of this program to the department of labor? Yes. They certainly would do a better job than the department of state which doesn't have experience vetting host families and making sure that abusive has families don't remain within the program. That's Elizabeth Maldon public policy director at central data store h. o. Delme grant and Representative with the international labor recruitment working group, their report shortchange the big business behind the low wage j. one pair program, Elizabeth. Thanks so much. Thank you Robin. And again, we'll have that contract at here now dot org. We interviewed Democratic Senate candidate Betto auroras part of our Senate tracker series. You can find that interviewed here now dot org..
White House admits 559 children still separated from their families
"This is an important story on developments in law in the Trump era. There are judges now across the country who are fighting back against the way. This administration has crackdown immigration while also failing to come up with a solution to the family reunification problems it caused. Now, it's been over two weeks since a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reunite all the two and a half thousand migrant children, separated from their parents. Now, the good news is most have been reunited, but five hundred fifty nine remain in government custody and three hundred sixty five parents of those children have been deported which is it self an ongoing humanitarian crisis. Now on Thursday, a federal district court, judge voice outrage when discovering the the Trump administration was deporting, mother and daughter while they're court, hearing was still happening. And this was a highly unusual move. The judge demanding the plane turn around and bring them back to the US and threatening to hold the attorney. General of the United States, Jeff Sessions and contempt. Something we were discussing a different context or earlier tonight. Now those two people seeking asylum, we're basically trying to escape what they call gang violence from El Salvador. And that's part of a lawsuit that has been filed by the ACLU the challenges, the way that sessions has excluded people who are fleeing gang violence from getting asylum. Meanwhile, the union that represents three hundred and fifty immigration judges in our country is pushing back against pressure from the Trump administration to try to speed up these deportations. This is something called the national association of immigration judges, and they did something important. They filed a grievance against Jeff Sessions DOJ. This was on Wednesday when it began because it occurred after there was a DOJ replacement of a Philadelphia judge who was delaying the deportation of this young undocumented immigrants from Guatemala. Now, this judges union is basically arguing that the DOJ is overstepping into thority and undermining a key key concept. Sept judicial independence. I'm pleased to say that I'm joined now by judge. Dan lay marks president emeritus of the national association of immigration judges. She's practice immigration law for forty one years in San Francisco, a judge. Thank you for making time to walk through this tonight. Thank you so much for having me are it's a complicated issue. It is, and one that is important and that you and your colleagues of argued has both a legal do process dimension and a moral dimension. So for people who are falling this and saying, what does this mean? The judges are kind of pushing back against what Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration are doing? How does that work? And what are you trying to achieve. People have to remember that the immigration judges in the United States are administrative judges, which is a distinction that means we work within the department of Justice. Unlike most judges, that means that we have a boss attorney general sessions. Congress sets the laws, but many of the policies that are implemented are established through the attorney general and directives that he or she makes. But immigration judges are the trial level judges who decide whether or not someone is actually in the country illegally. And if so, whether that person is entitled to some kind of benefit such as a Silom. So we need a guarantee of judicial independence of decisional independence so that we can be sure that political pressures are not affecting the way that judges are allowed to carry out their role and. Recently, we have felt additional encroachments on our ability to do our job as judges. And that's what brought us to this very unusual step of choosing to take an individual's case, a labor union grievance for a sitting immigration judge and for our association to join with this judge and to publicly release what the grievance is in order to help highlight how our signal independence is being encroached just to pause on that because you're you're running through a lot of important stuff. Is it fair to say that your organization has taken this as you put it unusual step because of your view of how extreme the Jeff Sessions encroachment has been on what would otherwise be your thority to handle these cases that is accurate, but I wanna make it clear as well that we are not a partisan organization. We. We are professional association and we have had criticisms of encroachment on her independence in different ways, smaller ways by several administrations, both democratic and Republican, and we have pushed back, but not quite as dramatically as we're doing now, do.
"federal district court" Discussed on Undisclosed
"Briefs in Brendan's case saying that they now use his interrogation video to train police, how not to interrogate. Wow. Yeah. So it's exciting to see the change happening and you know, this is something we're really dedicated to millions tens of millions. I don't know. Maybe hundreds of millions of people watch Netflix series, not everybody has kept up on Brendan's case since then, but I remember being on a panel with Steve, I think what a year and a half ago. And I remember you telling me that you had just gotten off the phone with Brendan and you were literally preparing for him to come home. At the end of that week, I think this was like around thanksgiving of twenty sixteen if I'm remembering correctly. But a lot's happened since the series and lot's happened since that conversation with you. So could you kind of give us an update on procedurally, the case, what's happening? What has happened in the last few years wall sees is we've been litigating this case for ten years and I, we had to the gate. He didn't state courts. I actually at the time because I had won a false confession case in Wisconsin's supreme court thought we had a great chance of winning. I thought that if judges looked at this tape had the same reaction that you and millions of other people had where I didn't know is that the makeup of the Wisconsin supreme court would change dramatically between the time of the case that I want. And the time that Brendan's case got to that. Court and change in ways that made it Berkeley impossible for granted to get relief as it turned out, we lost in the intermediate appellate courts, and then the Wisconsin supreme court refused to even take case. So when you and I were on that panel, we had been litigating in federal court where we won in the federal district court on a writ of habeas corpus. And then we saw bond. We sought to get Benton, Brendan out pending is appeal in the seventh circuit. And. We want the federal district court agreed to release branding. No media trucks were surrounding the prison, and we, you know, we, we manage Brennan's expectations because we knew that nothing was final and the seventh circuit entered a stay of the district court. Judges order until they had an opportunity to hear an appeal Brendan's rid of habeas corpus grant in the district court. So Brennan was never released. And we then one in the federal in the first round in the seventh circuit in a two to one decision. And then the court took on Bonk review, which means the entire court reviews the decision of the panel. Is that at the request of the state or is that the? I mean, we knew the state was going to push this case. You know, as far as could go, we also knew that we were going to push to the supreme court appre lost in that on Bank review. And we did. Lost four to three in a decision still keeps me up at night, but. We lost by one vote in one of the judges that we had hoped would be on the court retired of few weeks before the court was argued. And so now we're supreme court. What is the status bay for supreme court? You filed cert- you're asking the supreme court to or had they taken the appeal yet? Yeah, we've got a petition pending, and this has been a a process that's really been been since we have to go through. It's we're, we're so happy that it's it's gone the way it's gone. We've been joining the third petition by former US solicitor general, Seth Waxman, and his team of appellate attorneys at Wilmer HALE in DC. So they've, they've been instrumental on the cert addition that raises not only the involuntary Brennan's confession, but shines light on a widespread national problem that involves the courts not applying long standing law. That's the post to be protective of kids like Brendon in the interrogation room. I mean, that's the ironic thing here. There's there have been supreme court cases on the books for decades, instructing courts to evaluate cases like Brendan's with special care to pay attention to give careful way to things like the ad since of a parent back feeding promises of leniency all these things. But courts are way too often misapplying just ignoring this law and you can see it in cases around.
"federal district court" Discussed on First Mondays
"Was arguing in effect of assistance have trial counsel on in effective assistance of pella council for those council's failure to raise the jura conduct claim during the trial or appellate proceedings at which point it would have been procedurally defaulted but that those claims hadn't been sufficiently developed or explained such napa petitioner could demonstrate caused through those claims but i think that those were the grounds the specific grounds of the petitioner gave for 'cause the other kind of issues lurking in the background is in addition to causing prejudice you know there is an exception for miscarriages of justice miscarriage of justice will also come a procedural default thus far that's you know usually limited to cases of actual innocence but is for example after a case like buck versus davis our opinion versus rodriguez the idea that you're trial your capital sentencing phase was infected by racial prejudice is that a miscarriage of justice as well it's not clear and that might also have been one of the arguments the petitioner was making elite later in the proceedings so then he so the federal district court says get out of here i'm not you know i'm not convinced by this affidavit that that racial stuff had anything to do with this case okay he then seeks permission to appeal the eleventh circuit what you need in habeas cases you need like first permission slip in the nuclear actual appeal saves us all all the time of dozens of sunni time um and all you need for that is is for your claim to be debatable by jurists of reason and the eleventh circuit in the view of the supreme court majority says no you can't have a certificate of appeal ability because nobody could debate that racial animus had nothing to do with this thing so if i could just back it up actually 'cause i actually think that there's another layer of habeas proceedings that's involved in this case so all right yes yes yes yes go ahead right so he went to the district court and argued his misconduct lane in addition to other claims that it's our court deny them then the eleventh he sought a certificate of appeal ability in the eleventh circuit granted him an expanded the certificate a pill ability on some claims but actually not the germ is counterclaim and the eleventh circuit disposed.
"federal district court" Discussed on First Mondays
"If you can show cause and prejudice but the state court says there is no prejudice here because he can't show that even demand as affidavit at this point they say will the affidavit doesn't show that there was any effect on the verdict from this guy it's not the kind of claim you can raise in george anyway but even if he could basically that decant that this evidence sort of wooden show it and the reason this is important is because this sort of conclusion like that there is no connection between this guy's views as stated in the affidavit and the decision to give the death penalty that's a like a causal finding which we treat as a factual finding which is binding on later federal courts in the absence of socalled clear and convincing evidence to the contrary it's like all right fine whatever so now we go to federal district court um he's trying to get sort of relief their sangyo basically the state courts uh are gonna kill me because i'm black and you got to stop them from doing them so he argues in his petition he'd suffered from juror bias among other things but the federal district court says well you haven't introduced enough evidence to overcome this procedural default and it wasn't that sort of lurking in the background is this is all in the sort of like two torkham a procedural to fall for those of you who don't know and you really really should in life because he might have to overcome on yourself you have to show some reason you didn't raise it on direct appeal cause and that it be prejudiced um to me battered happened to you of sort of entertain this and what was not really clear and all the sort of back and forth about this is what that cause was right like a you there's mention of a ineffective assistance of council and things like that but you know leah that sort of the deal like what was the cause for not raising this on direct appeal so from the district court opinions he seems to the judge seems to say that the litigator.
"federal district court" Discussed on Here's The Thing
"Deal with this we need criminal lawyers in here i'm gonna hire a criminal lawyer and bridge higher i hired a college law school classmate initially to talk about a man who later became the chief judge of the good federal district court in dc tom hogan and we talked about it and he suggested charlie scheffer who had worked here in the southern district was a an a very accomplished a prosecutor and have become a very successful criminal defense lawyer and he was terrific uh i that would i for while had one foot in the white house and one foot out of the white house but didn't hide from my colleagues what i was doing neither sphere of very young man when this is happening and you're married of and we talked backstage but how your wife becomes cover bit player of the whole thing is a key as you said the camera found her your beautiful wife maureen demon and she was there she had a huge influence on me i want to explain how you were we'll have a wiring zaini no high every day you know i did not want to get married but i did not want to lose her i had been married and divorced and had a child from that first marriage and i had fallen in love with her and we'd had a a wonderful relationship she wanted to get married and i just knew this was a a bad time i didn't know how bad it was.
"federal district court" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"That's true the supreme court does overshadow the federal district court and the federal appeal court but many the vast majority of cake in controversy and get being resolved by judges who sit on the court and it's why we gotta hear about one hundred fifty or so bacon fees that are out there and that president trump is actively working to fill right now christian before we move forward with the actual numbers 'cause they're pretty startling i i do want to push back and say you know what we're gonna hear in response to what you're saying is look this is a game both sides can play and that you know when obama came into office he put you know radical ideologues from the last on the court right that well you know you're seeing that the republicans killed the filibuster but actually the democrats kill the filibuster you know bore borbor bork all the way down so can you help me understand if i want to think about this in a kind of a neutral and fair fashion y what trump is doing right now is any different from what republicans would say obama did last go round yeah and i guess i would disagree with that character invasion i think that obama president obama was jerry mind for finding judges who could be fair and independent and at the end of the day could draw from margin of bipartisan support one of the longstanding tradition that have been used in the judicial nomination processes that the use of blue foot.
"federal district court" Discussed on PBS NewsHour
"And last year the federal district court agreed while both parties of gerrymandered since the 2010 sensors it's mostly help republicans because they've control the legislature and governor's office in many more states the brennan center for justice in new york has found what it calls extreme maps we're partisan bias largely from gerrymandering currently gives the republican party a net benefit of sixteen or seventeen seats in the us house of representatives republicans have a 23 seat majority we're talking about where you grab and lock in a large share seats and and make it impossible for the party to the other party to win seats the centre's michael league co authored the extreme maps report and also legal brief that supports the wisconsin challenge if the court goes your way true to say this was a big deal this would be a very big deal the court has never port partisan gerrymandering out of bounds in the same way that it port racial gerrymandering out of bounds or other things out of bounds lee notes that prominent republicans including two presidential nominees in a two thousand sixteen presidential candidate backed the effort to limit partisan gerrymandering but reconditioned berg president of those constant institute for law and liberty the conservative group says such limits would be a judicial nightmare the problem that courts have had in this problem goes back thirty forty fifty years is judges have been unable to identify such a judicially manageable standard edinburgh filed a supreme court brief supporting the existing maps and arguing that wisconsin's assembly districts from all of the existing redistricting rules.