Mediaboss Marketing

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Five active-duty service members sued President Trump Wednesday over his intentions to ban transgender personnel from serving in the military.

The directive to reinstate a ban on open service by transgender people violates both the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington by five anonymous Jane Does.

They are represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

Trump announced in a series of tweets on July 26 that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.

[Trump announces ban on transgender service members ]

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

The military has not issued a policy on how that directive would be carried out. The suit states that upon information and belief, the White House turned [Trumps] decision into official guidance, approved by the White House counsels office, to be communicated to the Department of Defense.

Since the Obama administration lifted the ban on transgender troops in June 2016, hundreds of service members have come out and are serving openly. A Rand Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon last year estimates that there are about 11,000 transgender troops in the reserves and active-duty military.

All five of the plaintiffs said they relied on the 2016 policy change when they notified commanding officers they were transgender. Besides the constitutional challenges, they ask the court to find Trumps intentions would be a violation of the promises government has made to members of the military.

Because they identified themselves as transgender in reliance on defendants earlier promise, plaintiffs have lost the stability and certainty they had in their careers and benefits, including post-military and retirement benefits that depend on the length of their service, the suit states.

The suit is expected to be the first of several filed once the ban is officially issued.

The plaintiffs are a Coast Guard member who has written a prospective letter of resignation; an Air Force active-duty service member of nearly 20 years who served twice in Iraq; and three Army soldiers.

In a news release, one plaintiff says: My experience has been positive and I am prouder than ever to continue to serve. I am married and have three children, and the military has been my life. But now, Im worried about my familys future.

Read the original here:
Active-duty military members sue Trump over transgender ban - Washington Post

It speaks volumes that the past weekwhich featured an all new presidential agitprop production, rumors that an entire field of shadow GOP primary candidates are emerging to challenge Trump in 2020, and another patented Twitter hissy fitqualifies as a fairly quiet one in the Trump Administration, but that's 2017 for you. Still, boiling beneath the surface of the relative calm are the 16-23 DC-area souls that comprise Robert Mueller's shiny new grand jury. We begin this week's power rankings (see last week's here) with with him...

1. Robert Mueller (Last Week: 2) The Special Counsels impanelling of a grand jury in the Russia investigation, while not uncommon, is significant because it gives Mueller the power to subpoena any documents related to the investigation, and to compel any witness to testify under oath, rather than as a non-binding courtesy, as weve seen in Congressional testimonies to date. What you can expect then, if any crimes were committed, is a lot of pleading the Fifth. Legally speaking, a Fifth Amendment assertion is an admission of guilt of a crime, which, assures indictment and keeps the investigation rolling until heads do as well. Vox reported last week that as many as 10 senior FBI officials will testify, completely throwing out the window the He said, He said defense Trump was hoping to use against James Comey. And again, the fact that Mueller and his team havent so much as raised their head to defend against the administrations attacks should worry the hell out of Trump.

2. Paul Manafort (NA) The Ukrainian oligarchys favorite bank teller will be possibly the hardest target in Muellers investigation, will definitely be called before the grand jury, has almost certainly committed crimes that may have been recorded, and has no position in the administration. He then, is our pick for first player to roll on everyone else.

3. Jared Kushner (10) Last week we said OG Kush was the most likely administration candidate for prison, but was largely skating thanks to the personnel circus happening within the White House. One grand jury announcement later, and it appears Kushner will be facing much oath-swearing and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege for the foreseeable future. Kushners only below Manafort because he has familial incentive to keep the administration afloat.

4. Donald Trump (3) - Combined polling average today: 36.6% approval In his first Twitter tantrum of the Kelly era, Dear Leader attacked Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal for lying about having served in Vietnam. This line of attack would be more effective coming from someone who hadnt received five deferments during the war and never served himself. In other news, the walls are closing in.

5. Mike Pence (NA) The VP doth protest too much, wethinks.

6. H.R. McMaster (NA) The alt-right and Russian social media bots have turned against the National Security Advisor (who enjoys a largely stellar reputation among the sane) for his alleged anti-Israel, anti-Russia, andmost-importantanti-Bannon views, leaving Trump in the unenviable position of defending him against the only people likely to ever vote for him again.

7. John Kelly (7) A week and a half in, the General doing an admirable job getting the house in order (relatively speaking) and getting a lot of media attention for it. In any other presidency this would be cause for celebration. In this one, you can almost see the praise eating away at the First Orange Veneer.

8. Jeff Sessions (NA) Our esteemed Attorney General continued on his mission to get out of the Prezs dog house by tossing some red meat to the base by launching a war on leaks, upping his Sisyphean crusade against legal marijuana (against his own advisors recommendations) and beginning an all-new crusade against affirmative action. His gambit may actually pay off politically, but he appears to be acting as his own agent, which, history shows, roils the boss.

9. Rod Rosenstein (NA) After the announcement of the Mueller grand jury, the Deputy Attorney General (leading the DOJ in this matter thanks to Sessionss recusal) went on Fox News Sunday and clarified that, despite warnings of red lines from the Trump camp, Mueller has the right to investigate any and all crimes uncovered over the course of his investigation, including those related to Trump family finances. Gulp.

10. Stephen Miller (NA) The leading candidate for White House Communications Director following Mooch got that way thanks to a condescending, hypocritical rant against a CNN reporter over a combination of legislation Trump promised not to pursue and a poem on the Statue of Liberty that has sacrosanct to the American experiment. Hell fit right in, for awhile.

Original post:
10 People Causing the Most Panic In the White House This Week - UrbanDaddy

Topeka lawyer Margo E. Burson faced a formal complaint based on the losses of more than $183,000 by two Topeka women.

The family of one woman said she violated their trust. A nursing home had asked her repeatedly to fill out required paperwork for the other woman.

But when Burson appeared at a disciplinary hearing before the Kansas Supreme Court and was asked what authority she had to remove money from a clients account without a judges approval, she paused.

At this time, I decline to answer, Burson said.

Im sorry. What? Justice Dan Biles asked.

I decline to answer, Burson said.

Are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Biles asked.

Yes, Burson said.

With that, questioning about the status of the money ended. That hearing was June 15.

The Fifth Amendment protects a defendant from testifying to something that might be self-incriminating. A witness may sometimes plead the Fifth in district court cases.

But disciplinary administrator Stan Hazlett said he couldnt recall the protection being used in an attorney disciplinary hearing.

In a letter dated July 18, Burson voluntarily surrendered her Kansas law license, and the Kansas Supreme Court disbarred her a day later.

Burson was facing two complaints filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, which polices the conduct of Kansas lawyers, based on the losses of more than $183,000 by two Topeka women.

The estate of Dorothy May Harvey, an 89-year-old woman who died in September 2011, and a 96-year-old woman living in a senior care facility reported the losses. The name of the older woman hasnt been disclosed in public documents.

Betrayed

Family members were grateful for Bursons help during Harveys final illness, and Burson got initial accounting to family within days of Harveys death.

We trusted her implicitly, said Don Peters, a brother-in-law of Harvey who is married to her sister, June Peters.

Peters, who lives outside of Kansas, said Harveys obituary even reflected respect for the attorney.

The family expresses their deep appreciation to Margo Burson, who lovingly managed her health care affairs, the obituary said.

But the closing of the estate is still ongoing, Peters said. The Peterses became a little suspicious about a year after Harveys death, and by September 2016, they registered a complaint with the disciplinary administrators office.

In essence, she violated our trust, very seriously, Peters said. We feel betrayed, not so much for the money lost but for the time (lost).

Ten internet transfers totaling $66,000 were made from the Harvey estate account, then were deposited into Bursons operating account, according to disciplinary administrators records.

The transfers started on Aug. 19, 2016, and ended on Jan. 30, 2017, and ranged from $1,000 to $19,000 for each transfer, the records show.

We did trust her for years, unfortunately, until we learned she didnt merit our trust, Peters said. She is now our ex-lawyer.

In the other complaint against Burson, more than $117,249 wasnt paid to the account of a 96-year-old woman living at Brewster Place, officials said.

The disciplinary administrator received a complaint from an individual reviewing accounts on behalf of Brewster Place, where Burson had power of attorney for a resident beginning in 2005.

Records show Brewster Place sent letters and emails to Burson on numerous occasions asking her to fill out and file a Medicaid application, a request that began in March 2014.

By February 2017, the residents balance due to Brewster Place was more than $99,000, and on May 24, the balance was $117,249.

When the complaint was filed in June, Burson hadnt completed the Medicaid application process, and the resident remained at the facility.

Brewster Place does not wish to evict the woman, the complaint said.

Worn out

In an interview last week, Burson said she couldnt talk at length about the disciplinary case.

I am not in a position to discuss it at this time, Burson said.

The disciplinary action coincides with Bursons planned retirement, she said. Burson said she had planned to retire at the end of the fiscal year, which was June 30.

The timing on the other matter happened to coincide with her retirement, she said.

It was a surrender of the license, Burson said, rather than a knock down, drag out (disciplinary hearing). Some of us are worn out and ready to do something else.

A full evidentiary hearing was scheduled for Aug. 17 before a three-member panel of lawyers, but that was canceled after Burson surrendered her license.

During her June 15 appearance before the Kansas Supreme Court, Burson asked for time to complete documents for several other clients. She cited her health as a reason for retiring, saying she developed arthritis in the mid-1980s.

Lawyers facing serious allegations in disciplinary cases appear before the supreme court justices, and hearings are recorded on video. Serious cases include alleged acts of dishonesty, misappropriation of money and extreme misconduct.

The day Burson appeared before justices, they temporarily suspended her law license.

Hazlett, the disciplinary administrator, said she was disbarred a month later as a result of the allegations against her and her decision to surrender her license.

Hazlett said he would turn over the investigative materials to a law enforcement agency, and they can decide on how to proceed.

Contact reporter Steve Fry at (785) 295-1206 or @TCJCourtsNCrime on Twitter.

Read more:
Topeka lawyer for elderly women takes Fifth, disbarred amid ethics questions - Topeka Capital Journal

Uber unsealed former CEO Travis Kalanicks deposition in the Uber versus Waymo self-driving car technology case over the weekend. Kalanick, who was deposed for more than six hours last month, spoke about when he learned that Anthony Levandowski, who formerly worked at Google, downloaded documents related self-driving technology.

The deposition yet again confirms that Uber was focused on building its technology from the ground up. Uber never wanted any Google material, and took steps to prevent any such material from ever coming to Uber, an Uber spokesperson told TechCrunch.

Waymos suit alleges Uber knew about these documents at the time when Uber acquired Levandowskis self-driving trucking startup Otto. In Kalanicks deposition, he says he did not have any knowledge of the documents until shortly Waymo first filed the complaint in February.

I was pretty serious with him about making sure that these files had not and will not make it to Uber, Kalanick said in his deposition. He went on to say that, And I wanted to make it absolutely clear that no files of any kind from anybodys previous employer make it to Uber.

While Levandowski was still employed at Uber, Kalanick at one point directly asked him if any of the files made it to Uber, to which Levandowski said no.

In his deposition, Kalanick said Levandowski was expecting a bonus at Google and downloaded the documents to make sure hed get that bonus. The deposition, which is nearly 200 pages long, also touches on whether or not Kalanick thought what Levandowski was improper. Kalanick said yes, to which he was then asked why he didnt fire Levandowski at that point.

I was really hopeful that he would cooperate and tell the Court the facts of the matter, cooperate with our investigation, he said. And that was part of what this discussion was about, was just make the declaration, testify. And it may be that I was holding onto that possibility, trying to trying to get him to cooperate with the Court, with our investigation internally. And you know, it was Fing stupid. It was it it yeah. It it just felt like if he could if he could just say what he did and why, and that if you just cooperate, the would be great.

Levandowski, of course, has not cooperated. He very early on in the case invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Another key element of this case is Alphabet CEO Larry Page, who was seemingly unprepared in his deposition last month. In Kalanicks deposition, he describes a call between him and Page from October 2016. According to Kalanick, they spoke about flying cars as well as driverless cars and potential partnership opportunities. Page was not very interested in partnering on self-driving tech, Kalanick said in his deposition.

He he was he was upset about what he what he kept talking about was us taking his IP, Kalanick said. Page kept saying that Uber had taken Googles intellectual property, Kalanick said. And I kept responding and telling him that hiring his people was not taking his IP.

Kalanick went on to describe that it felt like he and Page didnt understand each other and that Page wouldnt explain what his exact issue was.

I told him, we will open up our facility if you think we have taken IP, Kalanick said. Like, come take a look. We will have your people take a look. We will dig deep and make sure. But we were very confident about the process of acquisition and the process we have in hiring people.

Update with comment from a Waymo spokesperson:

This deposition confirms a number of points Waymo has been making since we filed this case, including not only that Mr. Levandowski improperly downloaded files from Waymo but that he had ample opportunity to inject Waymos trade secrets into Ubers technology, given he actively advised Uber engineers on LiDAR design even well before he ran Ubers autonomous driving program. Waymo has significant and direct evidence that Uber is using stolen Waymo trade secrets and we look forward to presenting that evidence at trial.

You can read the full deposition below.

Read the original:
Uber discloses details of Travis Kalanick's deposition in Waymo lawsuit - TechCrunch

What are the basic underpinnings of a federal grand jury? In the excerpt from the National Constitution Centers Interactive Constitution, Paul Cassell and Kate Stith lookat their origin as related to the Fifth Amendment.

The first part of the Fifth Amendment reads as follows: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and Stith, from the Yale Law School, explained the presence of Grand Juries in the Constitution, in a common interpretation of the Fifth Amendment:

The first of the criminal procedure clauses requires that felony offenses infederal courtbe charged by grand jury indictment. (A grand jury is a panel of citizens that hears evidence that the prosecutor has against the accused, and decides if an indictment, or formal criminal charges, should be filed against them.)

This is one of only a few provisions of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not held to apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (the others being the Third Amendments protection against quartering of soldiers, the Sixth Amendments requirement of trial in the district where the crime was committed, the Seventh Amendments requirement of jury trial in certain civil cases, and possibly the Eighth Amendments prohibition of excessive fines).

That the Court has been reluctant to apply the grand jury requirement to the states is unsurprising. While the origins of the grand jury are ancientan ancestor of the modern grand jury was included in the Magna Cartatoday, the United States is the only country in the world that uses grand juries. In addition to the federal government, about half the states provide for grand juriesthough in many of these there exist other ways of filing formal charges, such as a prosecutorial information followed by an adversarial but a relatively informal preliminary hearing before a judge (to make sure there is at least probable cause for the charge, the same standard of proof that a grand jury is told to apply). As early as 1884, the Supreme Court held that the grand jury is not a fundamental requirement of due process, and Justice Holmes lone dissent from that judgment has been joined by only one Justice (Douglas) in the intervening years.

Recent scholarship has upset the previous understanding that the grand jury was from its inception venerated because it was not only a sword (accusing individuals of crimes) but also a shield (against oppressive or arbitrary authority). In its early incarnation in England, the grand jury was fundamentally an instrument of the crown, obliging unpaid citizens to help enforce the Kings law. Over the centuries, the idea of a citizen check on royal prerogative became more valued. By the time of the framing of our Constitution, both the grand jury (from the French for large, in sizetoday grand juries are often composed of 24 citizens), and the petit jury (from the French for smalltoday criminal trial juries may be composed of as few as six citizens) were understood, in both Britain and the colonies, to be important bulwarks of freedom from tyranny.

Few in the modern era would espouse such a view. The former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals (that states highest court) famously remarked in recent years that because prosecutors agents of the executive branchcontrol what information a grand jury hears, any grand jury today would, if requested, indict a ham sandwich. While this is a useful exaggerationthe Supreme Court has held that federal grand juries need not adhere to trial rules of evidence, or be told of evidence exculpating the defendantfew prosecutors, fortunately, are interested in indicting ham sandwiches! Rather, the greatest advantage grand juries now provide (at least in federal courts, which are not as overburdened as state courts) is allowing the prosecutor to use the grand jury as a pre-trial focus group, learning which evidence or witnesses are especially convincing, or unconvincing.

At least in federal court, grand juries are here to stay. The institution is written into the Fifth Amendment too clearly to be interpreted away. Moreover, neither pro-law enforcement forces (for obvious reasons) nor allies of those accused (because occasionally grand juries do refuse to indictin the legal parlance, returning a no true bill) have reason to urge their abolition through amendment of the Constitution.

You can read more from Cassell and Stith on the Fifth Amendment, and matters of debate from different perspectives, at our Interactive Constitution at: goo.gl/dsDFKb

Filed Under: Fifth Amendment

See original here:
Interactive Constitution: Grand Juries and the Fifth Amendment - Constitution Daily (blog)