Mediaboss Marketing

Washington An alleged member of the Patriot Boys militia group charged with multiple crimes stemming from the January 6 Capitol attack said he would plead guilty to one felonycount of assaulting officers with a pole on Monday after prosecutors said they made an unintentional procedural error since initially charging him.

Lucas Denney of Texas was accused of multiple felonies via criminal complaint, a charging document does not require the consensus of a Grand Jury, in December of 2021. Court documents alleged he grabbed a large tube outside the Capitol building and swung it at officers before he made his way to a large police line inside the west tunnel of the Capitol.

Denney was arrested and detained and has remained in jail since December.

Under the Speedy Trial Act, a formal indictment must be brought by a grand jury against any defendant within 40 days of criminal complaint. But in Denneys case, prosecutors failed to do so, instead indicting him on a single count of assaulting or impeding officers on March 7, 2021, months after his initial arrest in December.

LEAH MILLIS / REUTERS

His defense team filed an emergency motion to release him from jail because of the law violation.

Each day Mr. Denney remains in custodial detention is an additional day that his liberty rights are denied without due process in violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment, Denneys defense attorneys wrote, Mr. Denney should not be made to sit in a jail cell even a single day longer while the Government tries to explain away its failure to comply with the law.

In a rare move, prosecutors agreed that they made a mistake in not bringing the indictment quick enough and said Denney should be released and the charges dropped, but asked the judge to do so in a manner that allowed them to present Denneys case to a Grand Jury again. This would leave the possibility of another indictment looming.

The charges alleged were serious and their error was unintentional, the government said, so they should be given another shot to potentially indict Denney.

The charges against Denney are of the utmost seriousness. Those charges arise within the context of the attack on the U.S. Capitol, on January 6, 2021, a criminal offense unparalleled in American history, Mondays filing said.

There is no evidence of bad faith, a pattern of neglect, or something more than an isolated incident that resulted from a number of unfortunate factors, prosecutors added.

But during a court hearing Monday that was initially scheduled as an arraignment where Denney would be given the opportunity to enter a plea on the single count charged in the indictment, his defense attorney William Shipley alleged the government brought the indictment in bad faith after he said they were sent scrambling to get an indictment on the books following their procedural error.

And in yet another unusual move, the attorney indicated his client was ready to admit guilt and plead guilty to the single count on the indictment without entering into an agreement with the government, a move that would effectively prevent prosecutors from bringing any more charges against their client due to double jeopardy rules.

Most of the more than 220 guilty pleas entered in the January 6 investigation have involved cooperation or other legal agreements with the government to avoid going to trial.

Mr. Denney is here, prepared to admit his conduct and plead guilty to the only pending charge, Shipley told Judge Randolph Moss. The defense told the judge they viewed the evidence against their client and said he was ready to admit guilt to one count.

The judge agreed with the defense that Denney had been mistreated, even telling prosecutors, Theres no excuse to treat a person like that. But he stopped short of allowing the defendant to plead guilty on Monday, explaining he needed more time to examine the case law. This was a novel predicament prosecutors got themselves into, the judge reasoned, and he needed more time to rule accurately.

Defense attorney Shipley objected to the proposed delay, telling the judge he feared the government would use the schedule as a way to return a more extensive indictment against his client.

Prosecutor Jennifer Rozzoni told the judge, however, that after discussing the case with a supervisor, the government would not oppose Denneys surprise decision to enter a guilty plea to assaulting an officer with a pole on January 6.

The U.S. Attorneys Office declined to comment for this story.

We appreciated the government conceding its error and acknowledging Mr. Denneys right to plead guilty and will rely on Judge Mosss judgment at sentencing, Shipley told CBS News.

Denneys arraignment, where he will likely plead guilty to the lesser count, is now set for Thursday.

See more here:
January 6 defendant says he will plead guilty to assaulting officers - Sand Hills Express

On Tuesday, attorneys are scheduled to argue over whether former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder may invoke his Fifth Amendment right and not testify at a civil trial concerning the Flint water crisis.

Two engineering firms Veolia North America (VNA) and Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam (LAN) consulted on Flints water system during the water crisis and are being sued on behalf of four plaintiffs who were children during the crisis.

The children were exposed to lead and other contaminants in their drinking water. Theyre seeking financial damages from the engineering firms. The firms deny theyre liable.

Snyder is on a long list of potential witnesses the defense may call.

He has already been disposed in the case, but since the deposition, Snyder, along with eight others, was indicted on criminal charges related to the Flint water crisis.

Snyders attorney has informed the federal judge hearing the case that the former governor plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege if he is forced to appear as a witness.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees no person can be compelled to be a witness against him or herself.

Four other potential witnesses facing criminal charges, including two former Flint emergency managers, have also indicated they plan to plead the Fifth if they are called to testify.

In a motion filed with the court last week, attorneys for VNA say the five cant invoke their Fifth Amendment protection since they have already testified under oath in pre-trial depositions:

"None of the five witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege during his depositioneven though the Michigan Solicitor General was actively and publicly re-investigating the water crisis and had pledged to seek additional indictments against the people responsible for the crisis."

"These witnesses have testified at length in depositions; some have answered reporters questions; two even have testified before Congress. But they have yet to testify in open court. They should do so here."

Lawyers for Snyder and the others say they are concerned attorneys for the engineering firms plan to ask their clients questions beyond what was asked during pre-trial depositions.

In a filing with the federal court on Friday, Snyders attorney laid out what he believes is the real intent of calling the former governor to testify in the civil case.

VNA doesnt care what Governor Snyder says about his alleged 'misconduct and failures,' vis-a-vis the Flint Water Crisis, attorney Brian Lennon writes in his motion, Rather, VNA hopes to force Governor Snyder to repeatedly invoke the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury and thereby shift blame away from itself.

U.S. District Judge Judith Levy has scheduled a hearing on the issue for Tuesday.

In addition to Snyder, former emergency managers Darnell Earley and Gerald Ambrose, former aide to Snyder, Rich Baird, and former City of Flint employee Howard Croft have all indicated they want the court to quash their subpoenas to testify. Snyder and Croft are facing misdemeanor charges related to the water crisis. Ambrose, Early and Baird are facing more serious felony charges.

The civil trial is the first of potentially many related to the Flint water crisis.

Its being referred to as a "bellwether" trial, since it may serve as a guide for how other civil litigation related to the crisis may proceed. It is expected to last four months.

It is unrelated to the $626 million settlement of claims against the State of Michigan, city of Flint, Rowe Professional Services and McLaren Flint Hospital. More than 50,000 people have applied to be part of that settlement. They have until May to complete the application process to receive a share of the settlement.

View post:
Judge to hear arguments over Fifth Amendment claims in Flint water crisis civil trial - Michigan Radio

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On March 15, 2022, Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. (the "Company"), aDelaware corporation, entered into the Fifth Amendment to Tax Asset ProtectionPlan (the "Fifth Amendment") between the Company and Computershare TrustCompany, N.A. (the "Rights Agent") that amends the Tax Asset Protection Plandated May 5, 2017, as amended (the "TAPP") between the Company and the RightsAgent.

The Fifth Amendment amends the definition of "Final Expiration Date" under theTAPP to extend the duration of the TAPP and makes associated changes inconnection therewith. Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, the Final Expiration Dateshall be the close of business on the earlier of (i) December 31, 2023 or (ii)December 31, 2022 if stockholder approval has not been obtained prior to suchdate.

The foregoing description of the Fifth Amendment is qualified in its entirety byreference to the full text of the Fifth Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit4.6 and incorporated herein by reference.

Item 3.03 Material Modification to Rights of Security Holders.

See the description set out under "Item 1.01 - Entry into a Material DefinitiveAgreement," which is incorporated by reference into this Item 3.03.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Continue reading here:
ADVANCED EMISSIONS SOLUTIONS, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Material Modification to Rights of Security Holders (form 8-K) -...

OPINION:

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 Mr. 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, Mr. 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, Mr. 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, Mr. 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 Mr. 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.

Andrew P. Napolitano is a former professor of law and judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey who has published nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

Read more from the original source:
U.S. sanctions on Russia violate the Constitution - Washington Times

What's next for Jussie Smollett after his release from jail on Wednesday? Several legal experts gave their opinions in interviews with Fox News Digital.

Smollett was granted a release on bond from the Cook County Jail in Illinois pending the appeal of his conviction. A panel of three appellate judges came down with the ruling in a 2-1 decision granting the former "Empire" stars release after posting a personal recognizance bond of $150,000.

It is nearly the amount of the $120,106 restitution Smollett was ordered to repay after he was convicted of lying to Chicago police about being the victim of a hate crime in 2019.

As the appellate judges have released Smollett on his own recognizance, he will not fork over any of the amounts so long as he agrees to appear in court as required.

The legal experts who weighed in on the court's decision as news of Smolletts release swiftly spread raised questions as to why the three-judge panel elected to spring the actor from jail, as well as what this could potentially mean for his conviction appeal.

JUSSIE SMOLLETT RELEASED FROM JAIL PENDING APPEAL: UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CHARGE SOMEONE TWICE, LAWYER SAYS

According to one criminal defense attorney, while Smolletts celebrity status hurt him in his trial and the subsequent sentencing handed down by Judge James Linn, the decision to free him pending his appeal was "a great sign" for the embattled singer and performer after he was recently sentenced to 150 days in jail and 30 months of felony probation in addition to the restitution.

Los Angeles-based defense attorney Lara Yeretsian who is not involved in the case told Fox News Digital minutes after the release order was granted Wednesday that she believes Smollett, 39, "has got some really good grounds for his release."

During Smolletts sentencing hearing on March 10, his legal counsel argued he had been the victim of a double jeopardy conviction based on the Fifth Amendment Clause and doubled down on the idea in court that it was "unconstitutional to charge someone twice" for the same offense.

Story continues

JUSSIE SMOLLETT SENTENCE: OSUNDAIRO BROTHERS BREAK SILENCE, HOPE RULING BRINGS CLOSURE TO PEOPLE OF CHICAGO

At a Wednesday news conference held outside the Cook County Jail in Chicago, double jeopardy arguments from Smolletts legal team were mentioned again and were based on Cook County state's attorney Kim Foxx originally dismissing the indictment against Smollett in exchange for him forfeiting his $10,000 bond.

Following Foxx's dismissal of the initial charges, special prosecutor Dan Webb was appointed to the case, and he ultimately charged Smollett. However, the actors lawyers argued that jeopardy had already been attached, and he couldn't be prosecuted a second time.

Now, Smollett's defense attorney Nenye Uche is seeking to file an appeal of the verdict.

"We are very happy with the ruling made by the Illinois District Appellate Court," Uche said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "We are pleased that sensationalism and politics will be put aside and we can finally have an intellectual discussion about our laws with our esteemed appellate court.

"Three years ago, Jussie and the State of Illinois reached a deferred prosecution agreement in which he paid a $10,000 fine and performed community service. As a result, the case was dismissed," the statement continued. "To be recharged and prosecuted for the exact same thing, a second time, is not just morally wrong, but certainly double jeopardy and thus unconstitutional especially as it concerns an innocent man."

Yeretsian believes Smolletts lawyers have a firm point and that the three-judge panel might have felt similarly as the justice system should take only the law and the Constitution into account.

"The one aspect that really, really sticks out for me as far as appeals go is the special prosecution I mean, it's almost unheard of," she explained of the appointment of special prosecutor Webb. "Smollett had a deal. He took the deal. He met his part. He had a contract with the prosecution to do community service and he forfeited his $10,000 bond and in return, they gave him a diversionary deal and once he finished his community service and forfeited his bond, this case was dismissed the same counts."

COURT ORDERS JUSSIE SMOLLETT BE RELEASED FROM JAIL ON BOND PENDING HIS HATE CRIME HOAX CONVICTION APPEAL

Webb did not immediately respond to Fox News Digitals request for comment.

Furthermore, West Coast Trial Lawyers President Neama Rahmani who is also an uninvolved spectator to the Smollett saga relayed to Fox News Digital that for the three-panel committee to come back with a ruling releasing the actor from jail, "there has to be a clear legal error" allegedly on the part of Judge Linn or prosecutors that pointed to a reason for Smolletts release.

"There are a lot of people unhappy at Kim Foxx," Rahmani explained of the confusion surrounding the "deal" from Foxx that Smollett agreed to but did not officially plead to in signing.

"[Smollett] didn't take a plea, that's why it's a weird issue," Rahmani pressed. "He didn't take a plea. [Foxx] said, 'Listen, forfeit your bond and if you agree to do some community service, I'm going to dismiss.' So that's why it's a weird legal issue."

JUSSIE SMOLLETT SHOUTS HE'S INNOCENT,' NOT SUICIDAL AFTER BEING SENTENCED TO JAIL

Asked point-blank if he believes Smollett now has a decent case for getting his conviction overturned based on his team's Fifth Amendment argument, Rahmani agreed simply based on the decision from the appellate justices.

"Yes, it's a good case, and we know it's a good case because he's already got two out of three justices who are saying that he should be released on bond and his sentence should be stayed while this appeals process is being heard," Rahmani said. "So he's got a very good legal argument for getting his conviction overturned."

Meanwhile, on the side of prosecutors, Rahmani maintained that he understands the proverbial gray area the case straddles, and added that the prosecution was more than fair in raising the fact that Smollett hadnt signed any plea agreement, thus double jeopardy shouldnt apply.

"The trial judge said [Smollett] didn't plead, he wasn't punished, so the jeopardy never attached but what I think the appellate judges are going to say is that by making him forfeit his bond, that's considered punishment jeopardy attaches and you can't [charge him again]," Rahmani said.

Rahmani pointed to Smolletts forfeiture of his $10,000 bond as a litmus not only for punishment but acceptance of the Foxx agreement.

"This one was very sort of nonstandard. Normally, the deals aren't in exchange for forfeiting your bond," he said. "So it's a very atypical case and I think that's why the trial judge [Linn] said, jeopardy didn't attach because [Smollett] never came in here and pled in my courtroom with a plea agreement and all the things that are normally involved with the dismissal."

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

Following the news conference on Wednesday, Tina Glandian of Geragos & Geragos, who is also representing Smollett, told Fox News Digital in a statement: "We are gratified that Jussie will be back with his family and loved ones and look forward to a dispassionate review and reversal of the serial injustices visited upon him."

The courts decision marks the latest chapter in a strange story that began in January 2019 when Smollett reported to Chicago police that he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack by two men wearing ski masks. The manhunt for the attackers soon turned into an investigation of Smollett himself and his arrest on charges that hed orchestrated the attack and lied to police about it.

Authorities said Smollett paid two men he knew from work on the TV show "Empire" to stage the attack. Prosecutors said he told them what racist and homophobic slurs to shout, and to yell that Smollett was in "MAGA Country," a reference to the slogan of Donald Trumps 2016 presidential campaign.

A jury convicted Smollett in December on five felony counts of disorderly conduct the charge filed when a person lies to police. He was acquitted on a sixth count. Judge Linn sentenced Smollett last week to 150 days in jail with good behavior he could have been released in as little as 75 days.

Smollett maintained his innocence during the trial.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

See the original post:
Jussie Smollett released from jail: Will he successfully appeal conviction? Legal experts weigh in - Yahoo News