Mediaboss Marketing

Whats Quickly? Its where readers sound off on the issues of the day. Have a quote, question or quip? Call Quickly at 312-222-2426 or email quickly@post-trib.com.

Even though most Americans do not agree with the radical actions being taken by the Supreme Court, they are still pushing their agenda in defiance of our democracy. I see this as a last-ditch effort for the religious sect to try and control and hold onto any influence they had on people.

Republicans know that they cannot possibly win in November on their practically non-existent policies, so they are counting on two other things: gerrymandering and voter suppression. So far, courts packed with partisan Republican judges are giving them permission to do both of these things as often as they like.

More of Trumps side of the story might come out if so many of his former lawyers and staff didnt always plead the Fifth Amendment. They know that if they actually did tell Trumps side of the story theyd be in very deep trouble.

Abortion is such a hot-button issue. I have never had an abortion but I would never judge someone for making that decision. There are many people who should have had one rather than bringing a child into this world and then allowing them to be assaulted, physically and sexually or to go hungry. That is the kind of abuse that is not understandable. Not everyone is meant to be a parent, and everyone knows someone that has kids that shouldnt have them.

After initially saying that she wanted to clear things up, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomass wife, Ginni Thomas, has said that she does not want to meet with the Select Committee because she doesnt think that she has much information to share. How funny, she planned and helped pay for the insurrection, and she pestered Republican lawmakers to push for overturning the election, yet she thinks she doesnt have much to share?

A little bit about this Mr. Ornato who they claim is disputing Miss Hutchinsons account of Trumps behavior in the Beast that he relayed to her. Mr. Ornato was reassigned to Secret Service Training because he was not trusted to protect President Biden, as he had become very close to Donald Trump.

Twice-weekly

News updates from Northwest Indiana delivered every Monday and Wednesday

Did you ever think that oil companies are keeping gas prices high to help Republicans get elected in exchange for more tax breaks?

On July 23, 2017, 39 immigrants were found dead in the back of a trailer in a Wal-Mart parking lot in San Antonio, Texas. Republicans were silent then as they are now about that because Trump was President and Abbott was Texas governor. This also happened in 2003 when Bush was President. You cant pick and choose when something horrific is really bad, depending on who is in power.

Rep. Lauren Boebert says she is tired of separation of church and state. How about the Quran or Buddhists or possibly the Wiccan religion could guide us?

Remember that you can still be a Republican if you do not vote for Trump. You just know he is not in his right mind; he lost the election and it was a riot.

Never fails that when I want to know what the left is thinking, and up to, I just read the Quicklys. Im sure this wont ever make it for others to view, because thats how the left works, they are all about silencing dissenting views or opinions of their agenda. And I now know that the P-T is a far left leaning propaganda pusher of fake news. Prove me wrong! If this never makes it to the public, then you just did!

After the abortion ruling, the Vatican said that anti-abortion activists should be concerned with other issues that threaten life, such as easy access to guns, poverty, and rising maternity rates. If you are really pro-life, you dont get to cherry-pick only one issue and focus on that while the others are ignored.

Read more at http://www.post-trib.com/opinion.

Follow this link:
Quickly: Readers sound off on the issues of the day - Chicago Tribune

Winston-Salem police said a group "lured" an alleged predator into a Target and took action into their own hands. Police urge people not to do this.

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. Winston-Salem Police said three men with Dads Against Predators "lured" a 25-year-old man to the Target on Hanes Mall Boulevard last Tuesday.

Dads Against Predators is a group, who's mission is to confront predators who try to meet with children, and post it on social media to bring light to the issue.

The group talked to the man through the social media app Meetup and police said the group confronted him at Target, wanting to know why he was there, and that's when a fight broke out and the man who was "lured" took out a handgun and hit a group member in the leg.

It has experts urging caution about taking matters into your own hands because there's a lot at stake and confronting someone who may have committed a crime can become violent quickly, ruin an ongoing investigation and could hurt innocent bystanders.

Both Greensboro attorney Jason Keith and retired Greensboro police officer Marc Ridgill are not directly involved in the case, but said the risks outweigh the benefits of being a hero.

Ridgill said only police can take immediate action.

"Someone that's not a law enforcement officer, with the authority to arrest someone, has no authority to get them off the street, you have to go through the police department to do that," said Ridgill.

Ridgill said police also know how to properly handle evidence to take it to court.

"Folks that take matters into their own hands can be a problem because even though they mean well, they're not trained in Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment constitutional law, they're not trained in Criminal Procedure, they're not trained in in how to handle evidence and any mistake in any of those can either cause reasonable doubt for a jury or cause a procedural problem that a judge will be forced to, by law, throw the case out," said Ridgill. "Providing information is one thing, taking matters into your own hands is completely another."

He said most likely you can cause more problems than actually helping and can ruin an investigation, keeping the person who might have committed a crime out on the streets.

"You can only be tried once because of double jeopardy, so, if you're lucky, they'll declare a mistrial and you can try them again, but if you're unlucky, and that mistake really messes up the case and they're found not guilty or the case is thrown out because of it, then you may be causing more problems than your than you're helping," said Ridgill.

Attorney Jason Keith said it can also put you into legal trouble.

"The concern in this case is where you bring a very highly confrontational situation, such as this one, where this individual is being invited, he's considered a predator and he's being confronted by a person that's not law enforcement trained, there's a high probability that something might go negative the way it went in Winston-Salem at the Target," said Keith.

According to Winston-Salem Police, the group assaulted the man they were confronting.

Keith said while their intention was likely to just expose a predator, getting physical means assault charges could come.

He said there is also concern over leaving the scene before police arrived.

"If a crime has been committed, such as in this case, there was a shooting inside of the target location, the officers do have permission where they can go back and charge the person for not complying or for hindering an investigation, such as obstruct, resist to delay a police officer investigation that they're conducting," said Keith.

Keith said Target has enough probable cause to press trespassing charges against the suspect since the situation put shoppers in harms way and the store had no time to prepare for the incident.

"There are ultimately concerns at any point in time from any commercial establishment, because persons convened here for purposes other than shopping," said Keith.

The best advice from both Keith and Ridgill is to let police handle it.

"contact somebody locally, let them get involved, let them handle it and that is a being a true hero, in the sense of this type of case regarding predators," said Keith. "If you have any information that's forth coming, call the police and let them do it and maybe it might stand up in court and maybe it might have an attempt to help some people instead of put them in harm's way."

"The best thing you can do is continue to plan the information and support law enforcement as much as you can," said Ridgill. "We would like to end sexual predators online, but we're not going to be able to address them if people are taking matters into their own hands and thinking they can just turn over something."

It's unclear if Target has interest in pursuing charges.

Winston-Salem Police said they are not currently looking for the three men involved, currently there are no charges filed against anyone in this case, and police did not say if there will be.

Police did say the Winston-Salem Gun Crime Reduction Unit is still investigating.

Read the rest here:
Experts warn against vigilante justice groups conducting their own investigations - WFMYNews2.com

Recent Supreme Court decisions and what they mean

The recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision that many have been dreading has put many Americans on high alert as their lives have been changed significantly. Many have expressed their dismay about living through major plot points in American history. While a plethora of people are focused on one decision SCOTUS has made, they may be neglecting the others.

One of the many rulings the Supreme Court has made affected Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. The ruling was made on June 29, 2022, which states the Federal Government and the State have the concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Native Americans against Native Americans in Indian country. This basically means that if a non-Native American individual were to commit a crime against a Native American in their territory, the state would have the power to prosecute. This goes against the previous ruling Worcester v. Georgia, where they barred the state of Georgia from exercising jurisdiction within the Cherokee Nation lands. This new ruling essentially strips Native American lands of their judicial power. Many individuals, like Tik Toker, @paraoxicalfemme, are worried that the Indian Child Welfare Act will now be in the hands of SCOTUS as well.

Another recent SCOTUS decision includes Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which took place on Jun. 27. It notes that the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from governmental reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression. The case was based on a football coach who lost his job after openly expressing his religious beliefs after football games. As students began to join the coach in prayer, the district declared that he was not allowed to pray with the students, which led him to begin praying silently on his own time. However, since he was in view of students and faculty he was let go, as it infringes on the separation of church and state. The Court has now ruled that the school district violated his religious rights and that public school officials have a constitutional right to pray publicly and lead students in prayer during school events.

Piggy-backing from this trails Carson v. Makin on Jun 21. This requires Maine to give public money or taxes to private religious schools. Virtually declaring the separation of church and statea principle directly stated within the constitutionunconstitutional. Negating Everson v. Board of Education, where the court declared no tax in any amount can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions.

Pays tuition for certain students at private schoolsso long as the schools are not religious is discrimination against religion, Chief Justice John Roberts claims in regards to Maines private religious education.

The most discussed ruling is the Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, decided on Jun 24. This case brought up the topic of abortion and overturned the previous Court ruling, Roe v. Wade. Mississippi Gestational Act states that unless there is a medical emergency or in the case of severe fetal abnormality, a person should not intentionally/knowingly induce or perform an abortion greater than 15 weeks gestation. A doctor at Jackson Womens Health Organization, an abortion clinic, challenged this stating it was a constitutional right to receive an abortion, i.e. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. SCOTUS ruled against this.

The constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that did away with Roe.

An additional opinion involves ones Miranda rights, Vega v. Tekoh on Jun. 23. Deputy Vega questioned Tekoh at a medical center where Tekoh worked regarding the reported sexual assault of a patient. Vega did not inform Tekoh of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. After Tekoh was found not guilty he sued Vega for violating his constitutional rights. Many people are unaware of these rights therefore, officers are required to make these rights known upon arrest. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that rather than a constitutional right, they are a set of rules designed to protect the Fifth Amendment. In other words, it does not violate the constitution to not be read ones Miranda rights.

Furthermore there are various firearm related rulings as well. In the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the State of New York makes it illegal to possess a firearm without a license, in or outside the home. Those who wish to carry outside of their homes must have an unrestricted license to carry a pistol or revolver; if they can prove a proper cause. Two adults in New York were denied an unrestricted license for lack of a proper cause and they sued the state officials. SCOTUS has sided with the two law-abiding citizens and state that the New York proper-cause agreement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

A decision that not many people are aware of encloses Egbert v. Boule, which was ruled on Jun. 8, 2022. In 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act gave border security certain additional authorities. Within a reasonable distance or 100 miles from the U.S. border a huge segment of the country predominantly occupied by radicalized and marginalized communities federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to conduct searches at the border to prevent illegal entry into the U.S. However, the law explicitly prohibits Border Patrol agents from entering homes without permission, a warrant or probable cause. In this case, Robert Boule alleged that border agent, Erik Egbert, violated his Fourth Amendment rights by coming onto his property without permission and then attacking him when he protested. Previously those who had been faced with damages would be able to receive compensation for the damages. However, the courts ruled this will no longer be the case, no longer holding officers accountable for the damages done to a home within a 100 miles from the border.

An additional case that many are oblivious to is the Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez ruling from late May. David Martinez Ramirez and Barry Lee were convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death. Nonetheless, they found that their trial counsel had been ineffective for failure to conduct adequate investigations. The Supreme Court held that a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state post-conviction counsel. Thus even if ones legal support is ineffective, they have no right to challenge the decision of the court based on the shoddy legal support.

There are many SCOTUS cases that have yet to surface on major social media platforms. Nevertheless, as a citizen of the United States, it is our right to know what rights are being taken away and changed at the drop of a dime. A plethora of people are fearful as to what rights they may rule on next and how that will change their lives. Many of the Justices are making decisions that not everyone agrees upon, thus the best thing one can do is to stay educated and know your rights. For more information, visit supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21.

Excerpt from:
Blurred Lines the JTAC - JTAC News

In their relationships with President Donald J. Trump in recent years, Roger J. Stone Jr., his longtime political adviser, and Michael T. Flynn, who was briefly his national security adviser, have followed a similar trajectory.

Both were either convicted of or pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the investigation into the Trump campaigns connections to Russia. Both were pardoned by Mr. Trump after the 2020 presidential election. And both supported Mr. Trump in his relentless, multilayered efforts to reverse its outcome and remain in power.

The two were, in a sense, together again on Tuesday, when both were mentioned within an instant of one another at the House select committee hearing by Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Mark Meadows, Mr. Trumps final chief of staff. Ms. Hutchinson told the panel that on Jan. 5, 2021, a day before the Capitol was stormed, Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Meadows to reach out to Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn.

Ms. Hutchinson acknowledged that she did not know what her boss may have said to the men, and Mr. Stone denied on Tuesday that any call with Mr. Meadows took place. But her testimony was the first time it was revealed that Mr. Trump, on the eve of the Capitol attack, had tried to open a channel of communication with a pair of allies who had not only worked on his behalf for weeks challenging the results of the election, but who also had extensive ties to extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, who were soon to be at the forefront of the violence.

The question of whether there was communication or coordination between the far-right groups that helped storm the Capitol and Mr. Trump and his aides and allies is among the most important facing the Jan. 6 investigators.

Barring a criminal prosecution or something else that could force the details of the calls into the public sphere it could be tough to be figure out exactly what if anything Mr. Meadows discussed with Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn.

Since late last year, Mr. Meadows has refused to comply with a committee subpoena that seeks his testimony about the weeks leading up to Jan. 6 a move that risked his indictment on contempt of Congress charges. As for Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn, both repeatedly exercised their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination during their own interviews with the committee.

Mr. Flynns interview was especially remarkable, according to a recording of it played at the hearing on Tuesday. A former three-star general who still collects a military pension, Mr. Flynn pleaded the Fifth Amendment even when he was asked if he believed the violence at the Capitol was wrong, and whether he supported the lawful transfer of presidential power.

Ms. Hutchinson also told the panel that she recalled hearing about the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers while the planning was taking place for Mr. Trumps public event near the White House on Jan. 6 a time, she explained, when the former presidents lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, had been around.

It is possible that Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn will receive more attention when the panel reconvenes for its next public hearing in July. That is when Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, has said he intends to lead a presentation that will focus on the roles far-right groups like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and the 1st Amendment Praetorian played in the Capitol attack. Mr. Raskin has also promised to explore the connections between those groups and the people in Mr. Trumps orbit.

Both Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn fit that description, having maintained extensive ties to far-right groups in the postelection period. Much of the contact came at pro-Trump rallies in Washington when the men were guarded by members of the groups, who served as their bodyguards.

For over a year, Mr. Stone has repeatedly denied that he had any role in the violence that erupted at the Capitol.

Mr. Flynns lawyer has failed to respond to numerous requests for comments about the role his client played in the events of Jan. 6 and the weeks leading up to it.

As early as Dec. 12, 2020, the 1st Amendment Praetorian protected Mr. Flynn when he appeared as a speaker at a pro-Trump march in Washington. Joining the group as security at the event were members of the Oath Keepers, including the organizations leader, Stewart Rhodes, who has since been charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol attack.

The 1st Amendment Praetorian also helped Mr. Flynns onetime lawyer, Sidney Powell, gather open source intelligence about allegations of election fraud that was ultimately funneled into a series of conspiracy-laden lawsuits she filed challenging the voting results, according to the groups leader, Robert Patrick Lewis.

Mr. Lewis, by his own account, played a minor role in another, even more brazen, attempt to overturn the election. He has claimed that, on Dec. 18, 2020, he drove Mr. Flynn and Ms. Powell to the White House for an Oval Office meeting at which they sought to persuade Mr. Trump to use his national security apparatus to seize voting machines around the country in his bid to stay in power.

On Jan. 6 itself, according to audio recordings obtained by The New York Times, a few members of the 1st Amendment Praetorian protected Mr. Flynn again. Around the same time, according to court papers filed in a recent defamation case, a member of the group, Philip Luelsdorff, was briefly present in the so-called war room at the Willard Hotel where pro-Trump lawyers, including Mr. Giuliani and John Eastman, had set up shop to plan the objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote count.

Ms. Hutchinson told the House committee that Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn were also at the Willard on Jan. 6. She further testified that her boss, Mr. Meadows, wanted to make plans to visit the war room, a decision that she felt was inappropriate. She testified that Mr. Meadows ultimately decided not to go to the hotel and said that he would dial in instead.

Mr. Stone, a Florida resident, had ties to the Proud Boys well before Mr. Trump lost the election, especially to Enrique Tarrio, the groups former chairman, who lived in Miami before his arrest on sedition charges connected to the Capitol attack.

In 2019, after Mr. Stone was indicted by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III on charges related to investigation into Russian efforts to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential race, Mr. Tarrio responded by wearing a T-shirt reading Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong at one of Mr. Trumps political rallies. At one point, Mr. Tarrios personal cellphone had a voice mail message recorded by Mr. Stone.

On Jan. 6, when he was staying at the Willard, Mr. Stone was in close contact with members of both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. A Proud Boy from Florida named Jacob Engels accompanied him to Washington and served as something like an aide-de-camp for him on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6.

At that same time, a small detail of Oath Keepers was also assigned to provide Mr. Stone with personal protection. At least four members of the detail are facing charges in connection with the Capitol attack.

Even if the House committee does not provide new insights about Mr. Stone at its next hearing, it is possible that the Justice Departments inquiry into the Capitol attack could unearth something fresh about his ties to the Oath Keepers in particular.

One of the men on Mr. Stones security detail was Joshua James, an Oath Keeper from Alabama. In March, Mr. James pleaded guilty to sedition charges.

As part of his deal with prosecutors, Mr. James has agreed to cooperate with the governments sprawling investigation of the Capitol attack.

Excerpt from:
Jan. 6 Panel Explores Links Between Trump Allies and Extremist Groups - The New York Times

Police took no chances when an armed intruder barricaded himself in the home of an innocent bystander in McKinney, Texas. Following a seven-hour standoff, officers launched a shock-and-awe raid that ended with the suspects suicide. Then they closed the case without paying for property damage.

The city told homeowner Vicki Baker that she was out of luck. So did her insurance company, which covers natural disasters but not deliberate police actions. The broken windows, smashed doors, punctured walls, tear gas-stained fabrics, and flattened backyard fence were her problem even though Baker had nothing to do with the crime and no connection to the intruder other than hiring him in the past as a handyman.

Normally the judicial system sanctions such shirking of responsibility. Federal courts have said for decades that forcing law enforcement agencies to pay for what they break in the course of their duties was legally impossible. But Baker tried anyway. She filed a constitutional lawsuit with representation from our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, and scored an underdog victory on June 22.

For the first time in U.S. history, a jury awarded a property owner damages under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which requires the government to provide just compensation when it takes property for public use. Now, in at least one jurisdiction, the government will have to follow the same rule as schoolchildren: Clean up your own mess.

Author Robert Fulghum imagines the implications in his classic essay, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten: Think what a better world it would be if all governments had a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess. The courtesy seems obvious to Baker, who gave the police permission to enter her home but not to destroy it.

The ordeal started on July 25, 2020, when a former handyman showed up with a 15-year-old hostage and took control of the property as a hideout. Baker was not inside. She had moved to Montana and was in the process of selling the home. But her adult daughter, who was helping to get the property ready, found herself caught in the middle.

After getting permission to leave under the pretext of needing groceries, the daughter called Baker, and together, they called the police. The intruder later released his hostage unharmed, but Bakers house sustained nearly $60,000 in damages. After hearing the facts, the jury said she was entitled to the full amount.

The decision followed a favorable ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where Judge Amos Mazzant III picked apart the citys arguments for why it should not have to compensate Baker. Essentially, the judge ruled that when a city enforces its laws in the public interest, then the public should share the costs of intentional, foreseeable damage. The full burden should not fall on one unlucky bystander.

The courts were not so kind to Leo and Alfonsina Lech when an armed shoplifter randomly chose their Colorado home for a police standoff in 2015. A SWAT team left the property uninhabitable. But when the Lechs sued for damages, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invented a special Fifth Amendment exemption for the police, and the Supreme Court declined to consider the case.

Shaniz West also got nothing in Idaho after officers bombarded her empty house in 2014 during a search for her fugitive ex-boyfriend. And the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office initially told Robert Vansickle no in Florida when he sought compensation for property damage following a 2021 police standoff in his neighborhood.

Vansickle shamed the police in the media until local officials relented and paid for repairs. Baker needed a lawsuit and two years of legal wrangling to get the same result. Yet payment for intentional, foreseeable damage should be automatic.

The Fifth Amendment is clear: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Even a kindergartner can understand the logic.

JeffreyRedfernis an attorney, and Daryl James is a writer at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Virginia.

Visit link:
Texas police destroy home, then try to leave without paying - Washington Examiner