Mediaboss Marketing

A portrait of the actor, singer and civil rights activist Paul Robeson painted in 1930 by the British artist Glyn Philpot has been rediscovered through painstaking research, after it was sold nearly 80 years ago under the title Head of a Negro.

The painting, one of a number of Philpots portrayals of people of colour, will go on public display in Chichester, West Sussex, from 14 May, in the first exhibition of the artists work for almost 40 years.

Philpots portrait depicts Robeson playing Othello at the Savoy in London in 1930, the first time in a century that a black actor had been cast in the title role of Shakespeares tragedy, and a milestone in theatre history. In 1833, Ira Aldridge had been racially abused while appearing in London as the Moor of Venice.

Robesons co-star, Peggy Ashcroft, who played Desdemona, was repeatedly asked by interviewers whether she minded being kissed by a coloured man. Her response was robust. Of course I do not mind. I see no difference in being kissed by Paul Robeson and being kissed by any other man, she told the Daily Sketch in May 1930.

Although the production received mixed reviews, Robesons performance was acclaimed, with the audience demanding repeated curtain calls. Philpot took his niece to see the play and then invited Robeson and his wife to dinner.

The biography of Philpot, a successful society portrait painter who was elected to the Royal Academy at the age of 38, notes that Robeson sat for him but the painting was long thought to be lost. Simon Martin, director of Chichesters Pallant House Gallery, which is holding the exhibition of Philpots work, set about tracking it down.

Trawling through images in archives and auction databases, he matched a portrait with a photograph of Robeson in costume as Othello. Philpots family had sold the painting in 1944, several years after the artists death, under the anachronistic title Head of a Negro. Subsequently sold again and now in a private collection, the painting was tracked down with the help of Christies auction house.

It was an exciting discovery, said Martin. I had a hunch this painting was Robeson, but I had to match it with press photographs of him playing Othello, and then trace the work.

The portrait has a nobility about it, he added. Othello was the defining role of Robesons career a seminal performance in theatre history. Philpot obviously recognised that it needed to be recorded.

As well as acting, Robeson the son of a runaway slave, who was born 124 years ago on 9 April was an athlete, lawyer, singer and political activist. He starred on Broadway and stages around the world, and his bass-baritone voice made him a recording star.

He spoke out against fascism, colonialism and racism. During the McCarthy era of the 1950s, his US passport was revoked and 85 planned concerts cancelled. Robeson was brought before the House Un-American Activities Committee and asked to identify members of the Communist party and to admit to his own membership. Invoking the fifth amendment, Robeson told the committee: You are the non-patriots, and you are the un-Americans, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Philpots subjects included the poet Siegfried Sassoon and prime minister Stanley Baldwin, along with ballet dancers, opera singers and actors. Unusually in the first few decades of the 20th century, he also created sensitive portrayals of people of colour. They included a Jamaican man, Henry Thomas, who was the subject of a number of portraits in the 1930s; the African-American tenor Roland Hayes; a Martinican cabaret performer known as Tom Whiskey, and an African American boxer named Joe.

Glyn Philpot: Flesh and Spirit opens at the Pallant House Gallery in Chichester on 14 May

Read the original post:
Lost portrait of black actor and rights campaigner Paul Robeson to go on show - The Guardian

The Fifth Amendment is one of the most widely known aspects of civil cases. This is a privilege bestowed upon the civil rights of civilians. It is incorporated in the criminal procedures and other aspects of the constitution of the United States.

The clause of the Fifth Amendment civil case ensures that a defendant can evoke certain benefits. The Fifth Amendment is applicable to all levels of the government. This includes the federal, state, and local levels of the government.

As a civilian, what kind of Fifth Amendment privilege in civil cases can you enjoy? In this article, we will look into the fifth overall amendment of the constitution.

The fifth amendment provides specific privileges to civilians in civil cases. Defendants of a case can invoke the fifth amendment in civil cases that can be useful for them in the case. So, what does the fifth amendment say?

According to the US constitution, the Fifth Amendment provides privileges where a person cannot be upheld to answer for a capital or a criminal act. A person can be held to answer for those acts only with the presence or indictment of a jury. However, there are certain cases that it will not work. For instance, the case involving military or naval forces will not have the scope to invoke the fifth amendment. In addition, if you are involved in the same subject matter twice, you will not be able to enjoy the privilege of the Fifth Amendment.

Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment allows a defendant to never witness against oneself. The defendant of a criminal act cannot be denied from their liberty, due process, property, or life-related issues. The Fifth Amendment has a clause limiting the police procedure. The right to a grand jury investigation has not been added, but the rights to double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and immunity from unlawful taking of private property without remuneration have already been implemented to the states.

The Fifth Amendment rights involve protecting both a defendant and the witness from testifying against themselves. For instance, when a witness is asked to disclose a shred of evidence, the witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment to not testify the evidence. How can the witness do that? The witness must have fear and logic in his or her head that the disclosure can be used against him or her. This can incriminate the person. Therefore, a witness invokes the fifth amendment to save himself or herself.

Just like this, a defendant of a criminal act can also invoke the Fifth Amendment. While others may think that it just proves the defendant is guilty of the crime by not answering the court trial, the Fifth Amendment provides human rights to the defendant. As a result, even a person charged with a criminal case can invoke the Fifth Amendment and enjoy its privilege.

The Fifth Amendment is mostly connected to criminal cases. However, there are some exceptions. If you want to invoke the 5th Amendment to a civil case, there must be certain conditions fulfilled.

The Fifth Amendment privileges can only be enjoyed in a civil case when the person disclosing the evidence fears criminal charges against him or her. To invoke the Fifth Amendment in a civil case, you must have legitimate cause and fear of incriminating yourself that can result in criminal case trials. You must have a logical fear that the testimony can be used to instigate a criminal case against your name. Only then can you use the Fifth Amendment privileges in a civil case.

If you invoke the Fifth Amendment, you get the right not to testify against something as a witness to the crime. Generally, the amendment is invoked to same oneself from disclosing evidence that can be used against that same person. The privilege can be invoked in several scenarios.

In most cases, the Fifth Amendment is invoked in criminal trials. Originally, the Fifth Amendment provides the defendant a privilege to not testify against himself or herself. However, people also invoke it when they are called as a witness to a criminal case of someone else. A criminal case defendant can invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever the person feels that the evidence may be used against him or her. Moreover, the witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever they feel that their testimony can be used to incriminate them. Such a privilege is applicable to any form of a criminal act.

You can assert the Fifth Amendment right in civil cases as well. Even though civil cases do not have criminal penalties, a person can invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever he or she thinks that the evidence can take the case to the criminal court. If there is no substantial fear, the Fifth Amendment cannot be invoked in a civil case.

Apart from trials, you can plead the Fifth Amendment in other proceedings. If you are asked to be a witness in an administrative law proceeding, you can invoke this right. In addition, you can invoke this right during a grand jury investigation proceeding. Moreover, the right of the Fifth Amendment can be invoked if you are arrested and in police questioning. In both state and federal cases, a witness can also invoke this right in the situation of a deposition.

There are other scenarios where a person can invoke this right. For instance, you may be going through both civil and criminal cases. If you are asked to testify in front of a government body while being investigated for a criminal case, you can invoke the Fifth Amendment in the civil case that can incriminate you for the criminal case.

You cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment in any statement. There must be a legitimate reason behind your fear. On the one hand, the Fifth Amendment protects someone from using their answer for criminal prosecution. On the other hand, your answer or the testimony may not be protected by the Fifth Amendment if it does not aid in criminal prosecution in the first place.

If any court wants your fingerprint, blood test, or urine test, you cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment. The right is only applicable to communicable pieces of evidence. The other things are considered non-testimonial. Therefore, preventing the collection of such samples through the Fifth Amendment is not possible.

The Fifth Amendment provides certain human rights to the person standing on a trial or witnessing a trial. Although the right is mostly invoked in criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment privilege in civil cases ensures that no person is wrongfully accused of criminal charges for their own testimony. This is applicable for both the defendant and the witness of a case.

Visit link:
Fifth Amendment Privilege in Civil Cases - Tony Merchant ...

Former President Donald Trump and two of his children filed an appeal in their fight against the New York attorney general's attempt to depose them as part of a civil investigation into the Trump Organization, saying a lower court erred by denying the Trumps' request to quash their subpoenas for testimony.

In their appeal filed Monday, Trump and his children Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. argued that if New York Attorney General Letitia James wants their testimony, she should bring them before a state grand jury investigating the Trump Organization, where witnesses receive transactional immunity for their testimony in New York.

The Trumps' attorneys wrote that if the attorney general's office is allowed to depose their clients, the state's constitutional and statutory protections can easily be "eviscerated if the same agency involved in the criminal investigation simply opens up a 'civil' investigation into the very same matters."

"The question is whether the (Office of the Attorney General) can use the office subpoenas to avoid the grand jury process and compel testimony from those whom it does not wish to grant immunity," the appeal states.

A state judge ruled against the Trumps' request in February, saying they could invoke their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions, which Eric Trump did during his 2020 deposition. Attorneys for the Trump family argued that a jury could draw an "adverse inference" if the Trumps opted not to answer questions in depositions.

New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron had ordered the Trumps to sit for depositions by March 10, but the former President and his children reached a deal to delay those appearances until after an appeal is decided.

James said in court filings in January that her office's civil investigation had uncovered significant evidence that the Trump Organization used "fraudulent or misleading asset valuations to obtain a host of economic benefits, including loans, insurance coverage and tax deductions" and that financial statements had numerous "misleading statements and omissions."

A parallel criminal investigation conducted by the Manhattan district attorney's office has been looking into the former President and his business and whether they misled lenders, insurers and others by providing false or misleading financial statements about property values. But the investigation has reached an impasse, and two top attorneys resigned earlier this month after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said he was not prepared to authorize an indictment against the former President, CNN previously reported.

The Trumps' attorneys wrote that it is "undisputed" that the criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney's office targets the valuations and appraisals of Trump's properties in financial statements to taxing authorities and financial institutions, just as the attorney general's investigation does. The Trumps' attorneys cited a filing from the attorney general's office in January where it writes that "coordination between parallel civil and criminal proceedings is standard procedure."

In their appeal, the Trumps' attorneys also ask the appellate court to reverse Engoron's decision and allow there to be a hearing on the "scope and extent of coordination" between the Manhattan district attorney's office and the attorney general's office. The Trumps' attorneys want to ask whether two attorneys from James' office are providing information or reporting back to the attorney general's office. The Trumps also want to ask whether the attorney general's office is providing all of the information it has collected to the district attorney's office, and whether it would immediately provide subpoenaed testimony to the district attorney's office, among other questions.

In a statement shortly after the appeal was filed, James said her office will continue to follow the facts.

"Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump were ordered by a judge to comply with our investigation into Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization's financial dealings," James said. "Despite continuous efforts to impede this investigation, no one can stop our pursuit of justice, no matter how powerful they are."

Attorneys for the Trumps again outlined public statements made by James about Donald Trump in their appeal, calling them "an extraordinary and unprecedented barrage of inappropriate public statements" since she ran for office in 2018, threatening to investigate and prosecute Trump and those close to him. The appeal argues that Engoron's decision did not address James' comments, saying they reveal "extraordinary animus" on James' part and cannot be ignored.

The-CNN-Wire

& 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

See original here:
Trumps file appeal to try and stop depositions in New York attorney general investigation - WKTV

Braswell testified in the case last week, but admitted to no wrongdoing.

Rita Braswell, the administrative program manager in the Atlanta department of public works. Elvin E.R. Mitchell testified that he gave bribery money to Mitzi Bickers, who then gave some of those funds Braswell to steer work to Mitchell's company. Braswell, who testified in the case in March, was placed on administrative leave. (City of Atlanta flyer)

Credit: City of Atlanta

Rita Braswell, the administrative program manager in the Atlanta department of public works. Elvin E.R. Mitchell testified that he gave bribery money to Mitzi Bickers, who then gave some of those funds Braswell to steer work to Mitchell's company. Braswell, who testified in the case in March, was placed on administrative leave. (City of Atlanta flyer)

Credit: City of Atlanta

Credit: City of Atlanta

Braswell has worked for the city since 2005, according to her LinkedIn profile. Shes held her position in the public works department since July 2011. She did not respond to a call and voicemail left for a number listed for her name.

The city placed Alexander on leave more than a week ago, after Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Davis alleged Bickers gave cash to Alexander to secure millions of dollars of work for Mitchell removing snow, debris and hauling salt in the wake of the 2014 Snowjam storm. Prosecutors allege Alexander bought personal items and paid off at least $30,000 in debt with the payments.

The mayors office previously told the AJC that federal authorities have never given city officials the names of any employees tied to the case. It appears that neither Alexander nor Braswell have been charged in the investigation.

Suspended city employee suspected of steering millions in contracts is refusing to testify at trial

Suspended city employee suspected of steering millions in contracts is refusing to testify at trial

Defense attorneys for Bickers said last week that they subpoenaed Alexander, and that she was cooperating until the lawyers were told she planned to take the Fifth or exercise her right under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution against self-incrimination. The attorneys sought a mistrial due to Alexanders decision, but U.S. District Court Judge Steve C. Jones rejected their request.

Mitchell said some city leaders began to ask questions about costs associated with the contracts steered his way. For instance, former Atlanta Commissioner for Public Works Richard Mendoza and others zeroed in on the higher hourly rates he charged compared to competitors for snow removal at Georgia Tech in the wake of the January 2011 storm.

Despite the concerns, Mitchell got the contract and charged the city around $1.2 million for the work. Bickers allegedly received $190,000 as a kickback from the deal.

When asked how Bickers planned to spend the money, Mitchell alleged: Any monies that I paid (Bickers) would be spread around by other city officials.

October 10, 2017 Atlanta - Elvin E.R. Mitchell Jr. walks to the federal court Tuesday morning, October 10, 2017. Contractors Elvin E.R. Mitchell Jr. and Charles P. Richards Jr. are scheduled to be sentenced Tuesday in federal court for their roles in the Atlanta City Hall bribery scheme. HYOSUB SHIN / HSHIN@AJC.COM

October 10, 2017 Atlanta - Elvin E.R. Mitchell Jr. walks to the federal court Tuesday morning, October 10, 2017. Contractors Elvin E.R. Mitchell Jr. and Charles P. Richards Jr. are scheduled to be sentenced Tuesday in federal court for their roles in the Atlanta City Hall bribery scheme. HYOSUB SHIN / HSHIN@AJC.COM

Mitchell told the court that after Bickers left City Hall in 2013, he more openly forwarded emails, phone messages or other correspondence with city officials such as Alexander.

When the National Weather Service forecast the January 2014 storm that ultimately crippled Atlanta for days, Mitchell accused Bickers of contacting him to repeat their earlier efforts.

Bickers allegedly told him: I believe we can get some of this work, just like last time.

See the original post here:
Second Atlanta employee on paid leave over alleged ties to bribery trial - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration has undertaken a vast scheme against Russian economic actors, which it characterizes as sanctions. The scheme consists in seizing assets, freezing assets, and prohibiting lawful and constitutionally protected commercial transactions.

All of this is aimed at dissuading Russian President Vladimir Putin from his determination to use extreme state violence to neutralize the government of Ukraine and install a government more favorable to the Kremlin. Yet, the targets of these sanctions are neither Putin nor the Russian state. Rather, his friends and political supporters, as well as Russian banks and commercial entities, and even American banks and commercial entities, have been targeted and hundreds of millions of consumers and investors have been harmed.

By prohibiting the use of assets and international money transfers, the sanctions have severely harmed folks in Russia who have nothing to do with Putins war by radically reducing their purchasing power and eliminating many everyday choices from their spending options. All of this was done by presidential edict.

Can the president constitutionally prevent Americans and foreign persons from the lawful use of their own assets and from engaging freely in lawful commercial transactions? In a word: No.

Here is the backstory.

The Constitution was written to establish the federal government and to limit it. The same document that delegates to Congress the power to keep interstate and foreign commerce regular also prohibits the states in the Contracts Clause from interfering in private contracts. But there was originally no comparable prohibition restraining the federal government.

In 1791, James Madison, the author of the Constitution, argued as a member of the House of Representatives against legislation establishing the First National Bank of the United States because he feared federal control of commerce. Of course, it became law, caused recessions and was sunset 20 years later.

Yet in 1816, shortly before the end of his second term in the White House, Madison caved to corporatism and signed into law the Second National Bank of the United States. After its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1824, the feds insinuated themselves into all sorts of economic activity, none of it enhancing personal liberty, all of it favoring their patrons.

While still a congressman, and fearing federal insinuation into commerce, Madison authored the Bill of Rights the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. He crafted the Fifth Amendment to protect life, liberty and property from the government.

By requiring due process a trial at which the federal government must prove fault prior to interfering with any persons life, liberty or property, Madison arguably crafted more restraints on the feds than the original Constitution imposed upon the states.

Similarly, by requiring a search warrant issued by a neutral judge based on sworn testimony of probable cause of crime before the feds could seize any person or tangible thing, Madison again added strength and vitality to his understanding of the Constitutions protections of the primacy of the individual with respect to property and privacy.

Both the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments protect all people and every person, not just Americans. This is critical to an understanding of why the sanctions imposed by the Biden administration upon those as to whom there has been no due process or against whom there have been no search warrants issued are profoundly unconstitutional.

For generations, the government argued that the rights to privacy and due process protected Americans only. In the post-World War II era, the feds have lost those arguments.

Thus, when the feds seize a yacht from a person whom they believe may have financed Putins political rise to power, or even his personal lifestyle, they are doing so in direct violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Similarly, when they freeze foreign assets in American banks, they engage in a seizure, and seizures can only constitutionally be done with a search warrant.

As well, when the feds interfere whether by presidential edict or congressional legislation with contract rights by prohibiting compliance with lawful contracts, that, too, implicates due process and can only be done constitutionally after a jury verdict in the governments favor from a trial at which the feds have proven fault.

As if to anticipate these constitutional roadblocks to its interference with free commercial choices by investors, workers and consumers, Congress enacted the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 and the Magnitsky Act of 2016. These constitutional aberrations purport to give the president the power to declare persons and entities to be violators of human rights and, by that mere executive declaration, to punish them without trial.

These laws turn the Fourth and Fifth Amendments on their heads by punishing first and engaging in a perverse variant of due process later.

How perverse? If the feds seize assets or interfere with contracts involving foreign ownership or interests, and the victims want justice, the persons or entities whose assets have been seized or whose contractual rights have been diminished must consent to the jurisdiction of American courts and prove that they are NOT human rights violators.

These statutes are a federal version of Alice in Wonderland, whereby the punished person or entity must prove innocence. Such a burden defies all American concepts of property ownership, fairness and due process. It is antithetical to our history, repugnant to our values and mocks the Constitution that all in government have sworn to uphold. All persons are presumed innocent. The government must always prove fault.

The restrictions that the Constitution imposes upon the federal government have no emergency exceptions, nor are they theoretical or fanciful. They were crafted by men who knew and had tasted the torments of unbridled government power. They wrote the restrictions to assure that the new federal government could not do to Americans what the British had done to them.

They failed.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Continued here:
Sanctions on Russia violate the constitution | News, Sports, Jobs - Minot Daily News