Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Newly revealed text messages published by CNN show a timely dialogue between Utah Sen. Mike Lee and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows following President Bidens election victory in November 2020.

On November 7, the day Biden was officially declared the winner, Lee sent Meadows a message that he wanted former President Donald Trump to see:

Dear Mr. President, We the undersigned offer our unequivocal support for you to exhaust every legal and constitutional remedy at your disposal to restore Americans faith in our elections. This fight is about much more than just this election. This fight is about the fundamental fairness and integrity of our election system. The nation is depending upon your continued resolve. Stay strong and keep fighting Mr. President.

The statement was cosigned by several prominent conservative groups.

In separate messages that day, Lee said they were not issuing it as a press release but added use it however you deem appropriate.

In addition, he said, if its helpful to you for you to leak it, feel free to do so.

To which Meadows replied ??

Lee then began a lobbying effort to get attorney Sidney Powell in front of Trump. Lee called Powell a straight shooter.

Powell gained national prominence following a Nov. 19 press conference with other members of Trumps legal team, chiefly Rudy Giuliani.

Hours after the news conference, Lee texted Meadows saying he was worried about the Powell press conference. Adding that the potential defamation liability for the president is significant here and that the president should probably disassociate.

Meadows replied that he was also very concerned.

In late November, Lee then began a campaign to promote right-wing lawyer John Eastman, who had a plan that involved sending different electors in states that Biden won.

Lee previously told Washington Post veterans Bob Woodward and Robert Costa that he didnt know of the Eastman plan until January.

In a Dec. 8 text, he shot Meadows an idea:If a very small handful of states were to have their legislatures appoint alternative slates of delegates, there could be a plan.

Eastman recently invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when questioned about communications by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

On Dec. 16, Lee appeared to ease on the idea of overturning the election results, saying in messages to Meadows:If you want senators to object, we need to hear from you on that ideally getting some guidance on what arguments to raise. I think were now passed the point where we can expect anyone will do it without some direction and a strong evidentiary argument.

On Jan 3., Lee said he had grave concerns about how aggressive Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was being in the fight over the results.

He told Meadows that Trump has a legit shot at 2024, and warned of the developments harming his future prospects.

At a rally on Jan. 4, Trump told the crowd that he was a little angry at Lee after the Utah senator officially came out against the efforts.

Lee later vented to Meadows:Ive been spending 14 hours a day for the last week trying to unravel this for him. To have him take a shot at me like that in such a public setting without even asking me about it is pretty discouraging.

Two days later:

See the original post:
New text messages reveal Mike Lees efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Trumps favor - TownLift

FORT WALTON BEACH, FL Our Crisis in Corrections series continues with the story of a former Florida prisoner who's now paralyzed after being beaten by corrections officers.

The I-Team learned that while the state has paid out $4.65 million tax dollars to settle the case, the officers believed to be responsible for having beaten Cheryl Weimer have yet to face criminal charges, nearly three years later.

We traveled more than 400 miles to visit Weimar in Ft. Walton Beach at one of the few facilities in Florida that can provide for her extensive needs and accepts convicted felons.

Weimar appreciates the little things, like a few minutes of fresh air in a park, away from her nursing home.

This is a blessing, Weimar said when we met her.

She hopes by speaking out, she may help prevent other incarcerated individuals from suffering at the hands of corrections officers.

'Its like someone took an ax and went right through me'

The day we met was our fourth planned interview. The others were canceled when the 53-year-olds fragile health failed. Shes been hospitalized seven times in six months.

But that day, she enjoyed her favorite meal, a Big Mac.

This hamburger is so delicious," Weimar said. "Do you see the cheese and the lettuce?

Her care manager, registered nurse, Gina Arsenault, fed her.

All she can do is lay in her bed, lay in her chair," Arsenault said. "Shes highly dependent for any task brushing her teeth, combing her hair, getting a shower."

Every waking moment shes in pain.

I can feel my bones," Weimar said. "Its like somebody took an ax and went right through me.

WFTS

Yet she believes Floridas prison system is far more broken than her body.

When I woke up in the ICU knowing that I was paralyzed from the neck down, I didnt see me making it, she said.

Cheryl Weimar

A troubled early life

She had one of the worst upbringings Ive ever seen of any of my clients, attorney Ryan Andrews said.

Andrews represented Weimar in her lawsuit against the Florida Department of Corrections. He said Weimar may look like the girl next door in photos he provided, but she was an abused child, ran away from home, turned to prostitution and began drinking and using drugs. By her early 20s, she was homeless.

She was living under a bridge after Hurricane Andrew and gave birth on all fours under an overpass, Andrews said.

Cheryl Weimar

Weimar was arrested for petty crimes over the next two decades. In 2014, her then-boyfriend Steven Horowitz was arrested for punching and kicking her in the ribs at a Broward County motel.

He beat her up," Andrews said. "He got out, came back. She was afraid, stabbed him, then she got arrested."

In 2015, Weimar was convicted of domestic violence for stabbing Horowitz with a steak knife and was sentenced to seven years at Lowell Correctional Institution in Ocala.

I had to fight, I had to do the best I could to get out of the situation, Weimar said. He nearly killed me.

Arsenault previously worked as a nurse at the prison and said the living conditions were terrible for inmates.

Court evidence photo

A brutal beating leads to a broken neck

On August 21, 2019, Weimar was assigned to clean toilets, but she said she was in pain from a hip injury.

I did about seven toilets and I realized I couldnt do anymore," she said. "So, I got down to the eighth one and I said 'I cant do it.'

Thats when she said correction officer Ryan Dionne and Lt. Keith Turner handcuffed her and then attacked her in front of more than a dozen witnesses.

The lieutenant came running up in the back with his steel-toed boots and put it right through my spine," Weimar recalled. "I mean, I went to my knees."

According to the lawsuit, while she was on the ground, "they brutally beat her with blows to her head, neck, and back."

The lawsuit alleges Weimar was elbowed and kneed in the back of her neck by at least one of her attackers, causing her to suffer a broken neck.

In one of the videos, her chin is touching her chest in a way thats physically impossible without a broken neck, her attorney, Ryan Andrews said.

Andrews said he could not share the disturbing videos due to a settlement agreement.

Her labored breathing, her attempts at crying; it was horrible," Andrews said. "Her begging. Saying she couldnt move her extremities. It was horrific."

Weimar was airlifted to a hospital, where she underwent multiple surgeries and months of treatment.

Corrections officers had questionable pasts

Initially, the guards accused of assaulting her remained on the job, despite their questionable pasts.

Everybody covers everybodys back, Arsenault said. You just sweep it under the rug and go about your business.

Both Dionne and Turner had records of violence toward women and girls.

According to the lawsuit, "Dionne was arrested in 2013 for beating his then-girlfriend as well as biting her neck and head area."

The charges were dropped when his victim refused to testify, allowing Dionne to qualify for employment by the Florida Department of Corrections.

The lawsuit also alleges Turner showed, "violent, threatening, and abusive conduct towards women based on dozens of inmate complaints against him."

A DOJ investigation into the mistreatment of prisoners at Lowell said Turner was accused repeatedly of sexually abusing multiple prisoners. However, he remained in his position until 2019, when he was arrested on charges of sexually molesting two girls.

They could have terminated one of the individuals for any of 10 different things that he had complaints against him for," Andrews said. "They didnt and that gave him the opportunity to be there and do what he did to Cheryl Weimar."

Transcripts show Dionne and Turner asserted their Fifth Amendment right more than 600 combined times during depositions.

In the affirmative defenses, Dionne and Turner filed in the lawsuit, they stated that their actions were not committed in "bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton or willful disregard of human rights or safety."

Attempts to contact Dionne and Turner for comment were unsuccessful.

The Florida Department of Corrections settled the lawsuit in 2020 and paid $4.65 million.

Dionne resigned from his position several days later.

After nearly three years, no charges against officers

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Department of Corrections spent more than two years investigating the beating.

Their findings were turned over to the Marion County State's Attorney in Nov. 2021, but nearly three years after the attack, neither officer has been charged.

They have everything they need to charge these guys, Andrews said.

When I did a crime, I had to pay for my crime," Weimar said. "I feel as though theyre not above the law. I feel as though they should have to pay for what theyve done to me and they havent."

If you have a story you think the I-Team should investigate, email us at adam@abcactionnews.com.

MORE CRISIS IN CORRECTIONS:

View original post here:
Officers accused of inmate beating which left woman paralyzed not charged nearly 3 years later - ABC Action News Tampa Bay

Responding to an attorney-discipline investigation in Maryland often involves balancing the requirement to cooperate with Bar Counsel, versus the need to prepare a vigorous defense. The equation is made more nettlesome when the right against self-incrimination is invoked, primarily because of confusion concerning the Fifth Amendment's impact on attorney-discipline cases.

The Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment "not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him or her not to answer official questions put to him or her in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings."As part of these protections, the Supreme Court has held that an attorney may not be disciplined for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in an attorney disciplinary proceeding.

In Spevack v. Klein, the Supreme Court considered a disbarment proceeding against an attorney who refused to honor a subpoena, product documents, and testify because to do so would potentially incriminate him. The attorney-respondent in Spevack invoked the Fifth Amendment and the trial court ordered disbarment because it found the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to him because he was an attorney.

The Supreme Court reversed and found that under the Fifth Amendment, an attorney who invokes the Fifth Amendment can suffer "no penalty," meaning "the imposition of any sanction which makes the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege costly."The Court found that the Fifth Amendment is to be construed broadly and that the "privilege has consistently been accorded a liberal construction."Importantly, attorneys are "not excepted" from the protections of the Fifth Amendment because the "threat of disbarment and the loss of professional standing, professional reputation, and of livelihood are powerful forms of compulsion to make a lawyer relinquish the privilege."

The Court of Appeals in Maryland has long-recognized that attorney disciplinary matters require basic due process protections,including the Fifth Amendment.While there is not a significant body of case law analyzing the Fifth Amendment in the context of ethics cases, the Maryland Court of appeals has held that the Fifth Amendment applies in attorney discipline cases.Indeed, the Court of Appeals has cited Spevack with approval for the proposition that as for inquiries from Bar Counsel, "the attorney's duty to respond is qualified by the privilege against self-incrimination." Given the approach taken by the Court of Appeals and the Attorney-Grievance Commission, practitioners should be mindful of two things when invoking the Fifth Amendment in attorney discipline cases.

First, anticipate that Bar Counsel may allege that an assertion of the Fifth Amendment is somehow a failure to cooperate with its investigation which amounts to a violation of Maryland Rule 19-308.1. While this is unlikely, it is important to make clear that any assertion of the Fifth Amendment is consistent with one's cooperation with Bar Counsel's investigation.

Second, anticipate that bar counsel will likely try to penalize the assertion of the Fifth Amendment, likely via an evidentiary ruling by the trial court prior to trial. When faced with an argument that any such ruling would likely run afoul of Spevack and Maryland case law, Bar Counsel will likely argue that no penalty has yet occurred since no sanction has yet been entered by the Court of Appeals. But that should not matter given that Spevack holds the imposition of "any sanction which makes the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege 'costly,'"is improper, and that the "threat of disbarment"is sufficient to constitute such a sanction. Accordingly, it should not matter that a respondent-attorney was not immediately disbarred or otherwise disciplined; rather, what matters is that the respondent-attorney invoked the Fifth Amendment and was penalized in some fashion for doing so.

The bottom line is, the Fifth Amendment applies in attorney-discipline cases and respondent-attorneys have a right to assert it just like any other party in a case. Accordingly, the trial and appellate courts should be wary of allowing Bar Counsel to penalize attorneys for asserting their Constitutional rights, even though the scope of the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment may potentially be impacted by the specifics of the case.

Go here to read the rest:
Cooperation Versus Self-Incrimination: Asserting the Fifth Amendment in Attorney Discipline Cases - Lexology

On April 5, in Heights Apartments v. Walz, a unanimous panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that a Minnesota state eviction moratorium (enacted for the purpose of mitigating the Covid pandemic) likely qualifies as a taking of private property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They based their ruling in large part on the Supreme Court's June 2021 decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which held that temporary physical occupations of property qualify as "per se" takings, that automatically require compensation. Before Cedar Point, conventional wisdom assumed that most temporary physical occupations are subject to the complicated Penn Central balancing test, under which the government usually prevails.

Here is the key passage from the Eighth Circuit ruling:

Heights alleges the EOs effectuated physical takings because they forced landlords to accept the physical occupation of their property regardless of whether tenants provided compensation. The Walz Defendants contend that no physical taking has occurred because landlords were not deprived of their right to evict a tenant. Rather, they argue, the [governors executive orders] imposed only a restriction on when a landowner could evict a tenant, making it similar to Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) (finding a rent control ordinance was not a physical taking). Since the parties briefed this issue, the Supreme Court decided Cedar Point Nursery, which is instructive in this case.

In Cedar Point Nursery, the Supreme Court determined a California regulationrequiring agricultural employers to permit "union organizers onto their property forup to three hours per day, 120 days per year" was a per se physical taking under theFifth and Fourteenth Amendments.. The Court explained:

"Whenever a regulation results in a physical appropriation of property, a per setaking has occurred." Id. at 2072. It is immaterial whether the physical invasion is"permanent or temporary," "intermittent as opposed to continuous," or whether thegovernment is directly invading the land or allowing a third party to do so.

Cedar Point Nursery controls here and Yee, which the Walz Defendants relyon, is distinguishable. The rent controls in Yee limited the amount of rent that couldbe charged and neither deprived landlords of their right to evict nor compelledlandlords to continue leasing the property past the leases' termination. 503 U.S. at52728. The landlords in Yee sought to exclude future or incoming tenants ratherthan existing tenants. Id. at 53031. Here, the EOs forbade the nonrenewal andtermination of ongoing leases, even after they had been materially violated, unlessthe tenants seriously endangered the safety of others or damaged propertysignificantly.

According to Heights' complaint, the EOs "turned every lease in Minnesota into an indefinite lease, terminable only at the option of the tenant." Heights has sufficiently alleged that the Walz Defendants deprived Heights of its right to exclude existing tenants without compensation. The well-pleaded allegations are sufficient to give rise to a plausible per se physical takings claim under Cedar Point Nursery.

I think the Eighth Circuit is right about this. The reasoning of Cedar Point readily applies to eviction moratoria. I reached much the same conclusion myself, in a July 2021 post analyzing a takings claim filed against the now-defunct federal eviction moratorium enacted by the Centers for the Disease Control, and later invalidated by the Supreme Court on grounds unrelated to takings. The takings case against the federal eviction moratorium continues, as affected landlords are (if they prevail) still entitled to compensation for the time during which the moratorium was in effect.

Technically, the Eighth Circuit ruling isn't a final decision on the merits. It merely reverses the trial court's decision to dismiss the case, and remands for "further proceedings." However, the appellate panel made clear they think the per se physical takings claim is likely to prevail.

The Eighth Circuit also reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims that the eviction moratorium violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution, and that the moratorium might qualify as a taking even under the Penn Central test. By contrast, they upheld the dismissal of a claim under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment.

I will leave the Contracts Clause and First Amendment issues to experts in the relevant fields. As for the Penn Central claim, I am skeptical that it can ultimately succeed (though the test is admittedly murky). The Eighth Circuit is also more equivocal about that issue than the per se taking argument. They merely concluded that it is plausible enough to survive a motion to dismiss. But the Penn Central argument won't matter if the courts ultimately conclude that the eviction moratorium was a per se taking under Cedar Point.

The Eighth Circuit ruling does not address the argument that an eviction moratorium intended to mitigate the spread of Covid might fall under the "police power" exception to takings liability. This issue might well come up as the case continues. I am skeptical that courts either will or should push the police power exception so far. But the boundaries of that exception are admittedly murky.

The three judges on the Eighth Circuit panel (Erikson, Gruender, and Stras) are all Republican appointees. It is possible that more liberal judges would have adopted a narrower interpretation of Cedar Point, that would exclude eviction moratoria. But I think it would be difficult to that in a way that is coherent. An eviction moratorium is pretty obviously a temporary occupation of property, as it requires the owner to accept the presence of a tenant whom he or she would otherwise have the right to remove. It thereby goes against the owner's right to exclude, which was the central right at issue in Cedar Point. As Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized in his opinion for the Court, "[t]he right to exclude is 'universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right.'"

I would add, also, that Cedar Point's logic can be used to challenge conservative laws and regulations no less than left-leaning ones, like eviction moratoria. A good example of the former are state laws requiring property owners to allow guns on their land, even if they would prefer to bar them. Thus, liberal judges might have reason to doubt the desirability of adopting a very narrow interpretation of Cedar Point.

Even if property owners ultimately prevail in this case, and other takings claims against eviction moratoria, it remains to be seen how much compensation they would get. Calculating it may not be easy, and there is likely to be considerable case-by-case variation. Nonetheless, these are important cases to follow. They could well set significant precedents constraining future eviction moratoria, and other similar regulations.

NOTE: The property owners in the Cedar Pointcase were represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation. My wife Alison Somin works for PLF. But she has no involvement in this particular case.

See the original post here:
Eighth Circuit Rules Eviction Moratoria are Likely to be Takings Requiring Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment - Reason

Everybody knows April 15 is the deadline every year for individual tax returns to be filed, either electronically or postmarked in the mail.

And if everybody thinks that, everybody is wrong. This year, April 18 will be the final day, without extensions being filed, that ones 2021 returns must be filed to avoid late penalties.

Why is that?

This year, April 15 falls on a Friday. So? April 16 is a Saturday. So? April 16 happens to be a federal holiday in the District of Columbia. Huh?

April 16 is Emancipation Day, which is an observed holiday in the District of Columbia. It marks the date in 1862 during the Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln signed a Congressional act freeing all people held as slaves in the District of Columbia. Under that act, the owners of those slaves then had 3 months to file a claim for reimbursement by the U.S. government for the value of their forcibly freed slaves.

Reimbursement had to be made because slaves were recognized as property under many states laws and those of the District of Columbia. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from taking property away from private parties without compensation. So, the government had to reimburse slave owners for the value of their emancipated slaves.

The D.C. Compensated Emancipation Act, as it was called, is the only time the federal government compensated slave owners of their emancipated slaves. Over 3,000 slaves were freed. This was done prior to the summer of 1862 when Lincoln drafted his Emancipation Proclamation, which was to become effective on Jan. 1 of the following year.

The Emancipation Proclamation ordered the freeing of all slaves then located in rebel-held territory. No compensation was to be paid to those slave owners because this was an act of the commander-in-chief during wartime to suppress a rebellion. Freeing slaves whose labor benefited the rebellion could thus lawfully occur without compensation, so the legal analysis went, because it was no different than seizing cannons, horses or gunpowder that was also property owned and used by enemy insurgents. You dont have to reimburse your enemies for taking their weapons of war.

Washington, D.C., was not in rebel territory. The slaves there were not then being used to aid the rebellion. Thus, those slave owners needed compensation for the emancipation to be constitutionally lawful.

In 2005, federal legislation was enacted in D.C. making April 16 an observed public holiday. By law, when April 16 falls during a weekend, that holiday will be observed on the nearest workday. The holiday thus affects the IRS and other federal offices, as they will be closed on either April 16 if it is on a workday or the workday closest to the 16th if it falls on a weekend.

If the tax-filing deadline is on a weekend, it becomes the next non-holiday anyway.

So, April 16 this year is on a Saturday, which means the holiday is on Friday the 15th, and the IRS is closed. That means tax day is Monday, April 18.

Beware the ides of April. And celebrate Emancipation Day when you emancipate yourself by finally filing those 2021 returns.

Brett Kepley is a lawyer with Land of Lincoln Legal Aid Inc. Send questions to The Law Q&A, 302 N. First St., Champaign, IL 61820.

Read the original post:
The Law Q&A | Why your taxes aren't due till April 18 this year - News-Gazette.com