Mediaboss Marketing

Jul. 20ATHENS A jury that had listened to hours of detailed financial testimony Monday in the public corruption trial of Limestone County Sheriff Mike Blakely was not present to hear the judge warn the final witness of the day that he had a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination.

It was the sixth day of the trial and the first day in which witnesses were called in the state attorney general's prosecution of the 10-term sheriff on 11 felony counts of theft and ethics violations.

Retired Judge Pamela Baschab had the jury leave the courtroom before issuing the Fifth Amendment warning to Trent Willis, founder and CEO of Red Brick Strategies in Huntsville. Red Brick assisted Blakely in his successful 2014 reelection campaign.

Willis, it turns out based on the colloquy between the lawyers as they argued motions to the judge, is the subject of an investigation involving the disappearance of funds from the campaign account of state Rep. Richie Whorton in 2018, a campaign that Red Brick Strategies managed. A separate investigation involving Willis or his associates was mentioned but not described.

In a whispered sidebar with Baschab while Willis remained on the witness stand, Assistant Attorney General Clark Morris, head of the attorney general's anti-corruption unit, appeared to alert the court to the pendency of the investigations and the possible need for Willis to be advised he had a right not to incriminate himself. Baschab had the jury escorted to the jury room and then placed her head in her hands.

After the jury left, Morris acknowledged the investigations, but said Willis is not receiving any special treatment as a result of testifying in the Blakely case.

Blakely defense attorney Marcus Helstowski complained that information about the investigations was not turned over to the defense despite discovery requests early in the case. Morris said her anti-corruption unit did not know about them because a different unit of the office was handling them.

Story continues

"It is embarrassing to our office that this happened," Morris said, and explained that at the time the Attorney General's Office was "siloed" so information on the activities of one unit was not shared with other units.

Blakely's lawyers made a motion that Willis be disqualified as a witness because of the prosecution's failure to notify the defense earlier of the investigations, and that the jury be advised to disregard the testimony that came before he was advised of his rights. The defense also moved for a mistrial, which was denied.

Baschab advised Willis his testimony was suspended until 9 a.m. today, and she advised the lawyers to file briefs outlining their positions on whether he could continue his testimony.

Red Brick Strategies

Before the abrupt end to his testimony, Willis had been providing details on a $4,000 check Red Brick Strategies had issued to Blakely and which, according to other testimony, Blakely deposited into his personal account.

Willis said he reached an arrangement with John Plunk, a lawyer in Athens, and Blakely that Red Brick would handle consulting for Blakely's campaign, which would include designing advertisements, direct mail campaigns and related political work.

Willis said his firm generally works for Republicans. Blakely is a Democrat. Willis said he feared that if campaign disclosures with the Secretary of State's Office showed his firm had received payments from Blakely's campaign account, it would undermine his ability to work with future Republican candidates.

To avoid this issue, Willis said, it was agreed that Plunk would pay Red Brick, rather than the campaign committee. He said it was his expectation that these would be reported as "in-kind contributions" from Plunk to the Blakely campaign, so Red Brick would not appear on the forms.

He said Plunk or a company associated with Plunk made five of the six monthly payments agreed upon at $3,500 each, and he invoiced Plunk for the final $3,500 payment on Nov. 7, 2014, days after Blakely won the election.

Willis said Blakely's campaign committee issued a check for $7,500 to Red Brick on Nov. 14, 2014. In separate testimony, Blakely campaign treasurer Tom Watkins said he issued this check at Blakely's request. According to Willis, Blakely contacted Willis and asked if he could receive a refund for the $4,000 overpayment. Also on Nov. 14, Red Brick issued the $4,000 refund check to Blakely. According to separate testimony, the check was deposited in Blakely's personal account three days later.

Willis testified he signed the check, but Blakely filled in the amount and payee. Asked by Morris why he would give Blakely a blank check, Willis responded he trusted him because "this is the sheriff of Limestone County."

According to phone records, Willis and Blakely spoke twice on Nov. 13, 2014, and eight times the following day.

The testimony was relevant to a count in the indictment alleging that Blakely stole money from his campaign account. Blakely's treasurer testified that if a refund was due, it should have been deposited in the campaign account, not Blakely's personal account.

Campaign contributions

Earlier in the day, the testimony focused on two other campaign contributions.

Blakely was endorsed by the local Realtors organization and received a $1,500 donation from the Alabama Realtors Political Action Committee in December 2014, a month after Blakely had won the election. According to testimony from bank officials Monday, Blakely deposited the money into his personal banking account at Bank Independent, not the campaign account at First National Bank. Blakely's campaign treasurer said he always made the deposits into the campaign account. He said he never reported the PAC contribution to the state because he did not know about it.

Austin Hinds, who is an owner of Austin Hinds Motors in Marshall County, testified he contributed $2,500 to Blakely in November 2017. A copy of the check listed its purpose as "reelection donation." Blakely deposited the check into his personal account, according to banking records. The campaign treasurer testified he did not report the contribution on campaign finance reports because he did not know about it.

In February 2018, campaign treasurer Watkins said, Blakely told him he had received $2,500 in cash as a contribution from Hinds. According to questions by the prosecution, Blakely told Watkins this was just days after one of the sheriff's subordinates was notified that Blakely was being investigated. Blakely gave Watkins a $2,500 check drawn on Blakely's personal account and Watkins deposited it in the campaign account, listing it on state records as a contribution from Hinds made Feb. 2, 2018.

Proceedings began Monday morning with a motion to dismiss filed by one of Blakely's attorneys. Nick Heatherly argued that the charges alleging that Blakely stole from his campaign accounts should be dismissed because Blakely was effectively the owner of the accounts and could not steal from himself. He said the allegations only amounted to violations of the Fair Campaign Practices Act, not theft, and that charges filed under that law were time-barred because they were filed beyond the statute of limitations.

Baschab denied the motion.

eric@decaturdaily.com or 256-340-2435. Twitter @DD_Fleischauer.

Read more here:
Judge in Blakely trial suspends testimony by witness under investigation - Yahoo News

Aiming to prevent re-imposing mandatory mask-wearing when students head back to school in September, a group of parents and students is suing Gov. Phil Murphy and the state commissioners of education and health in U.S. District Court in Newark.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Princeton attorney Bruce Afran on July 9, names Murphy, Commissioner of Education Angelica Allen-McMillan and Commissioner of Health Judith Persichilli.

The lawsuit alleges that imposing mask mandates and other restrictive measures on school children is burdensome, and restricts and limits the rights of speech communication, association and privacy protected by the First, Fifth and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Murphy lifted the face mask, barrier and social distancing requirements for children and adults at theaters, malls, stores, restaurants, houses of worship, weddings and similar community settings earlier this year but not in schools.

The mask mandate and other COVID-19 measures that apply only to school children and not to others who gather in public violates their First Amendment rights, the lawsuit said. This includes wearing a mask throughout the school day, which inhibits their ability to clearly communicate verbally and non-verbally through facial expressions.

Requiring children to stay at least six feet apart at all times including lunch and to stay inside the Plexiglass barrier surrounding their desks also violates the First Amendment right to free association, the lawsuit said.

The requirement to sit behind a Plexiglass barrier, enforcing a separation between students, is an alienating experience and a type of imprisonment within the classroom, Afran said.

Applying the mask mandate and other measures that target school children but not others who gather in public violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the lawsuit said.

Those mandates also violate the equal protection clause of the New Jersey Constitution, thereby depriving plaintiffs of their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said.

Murphy and Allen-McMillan specifically stated that school districts are empowered and authorized to continue social distancing and physical separation between students, the lawsuit said.

Murphy also expressly reserved for himself the power to reimpose mask mandates and other restrictions in the schools via executive order, the lawsuit said. The complaint challenges state officials power and authority to do so.

There is a very realistic chance that the mask mandate will be reinstated, Afran said.

Children are being used, in a sense, as tools in a great experiment. The governor does not have the statutory power to do this, Afran said.

Murphy would have to abide by administrative procedures that require public hearings before rules that limit childrens rights could be carried out, Afran said. There have been no public hearings and the State Legislature has not taken action, he said.

Mandatory mask wearing and other measures are not only a violation of basic fundamental liberty rights of children, but there is no rational basis for them, Afran said.

Children are not known to be truly susceptible in any real way to COVID. There has been virtually no child mortality in any significance from this disease, he said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed 397 deaths of persons up to 18 years old as attributable to COVID-19 nationwide as of July 14, according to agencys website. This compares to 609,000 deaths attributable to COVID as of July 20, according to covidusa.net.

The Princeton, Lawrence and East Windsor Regional school districts brought some students back into the classroom using hybrid learning, in which they divided their time between in-person and remote learning, during the 2020-21 school year. Other students chose to stay home and learned remotely.

Asked about the number of children who have tested positive for COVID-19, Princeton Health Officer Jeffrey Grosser said 66 children under 18 years old tested positive for the illness. Six of those 66 cases were linked to school-based exposures, he said.

Clearly, there is overlap with family and sibling exposures, so those six cases are confirmed exposures within the school and no other known COVID-19 exposures, Grosser said.

In the Lawrence Township Public Schools, 96 students tested positive for COVID-19 between January and April, said Ross Kasun, the superintendent of schools. The district only knows of the cases that were reported to it, he said.

Students who were only on remote learning did not have to share information with the school district, so those numbers may be low, Kasun said. There were many cases of students who were learning remotely and who did not report test results to the district, he said.

In the East Windsor Regional School District, which includes East Windsor Township and Hightstown Borough, there have been 202 students who tested positive for COVID-19 since September 2020.

None of the cases listed on the East Windsor Regional School Districts COVID-19 dashboard are directly related to an exposure while in school, said Mark Daniels, the superintendent of schools.

Through the contact tracing process, it appears the positive cases were associated with activities and interactions that occurred while students were outside of school, Daniels said.

This would include household or family transmission, community activities and social gatherings, Daniels said.

Afran dismissed the need for harsh, draconian measures in the schools. Adults can be vaccinated against COVID-19, he said.

Read the original here:
Lawsuit filed to prevent mandatory masks in schools - centraljersey.com

WORCESTER In the fall of 2011, Joan Honig, a longtime real estate lawyer consulting for a local nonprofit, was asked to gather information about a possible rehabilitation project in Worcester.

A stalled project at 5 May St., a large buildingthe city was working with a developer to rehaul into 13 units of affordable housing, seemed like the kind of jobher client, the South Middlesex Opportunity Council, was well suited to tackle.

Honig, as is standard for such deals, visited the site and spoke with the developer and city official driving the project, with an aim of understanding how much money had been put into the building and how much cash was still needed.

Thus began a monthslong process that led to frustration, stalemate and, a decade later, a witness stand in federal court.

They had so much prior financing, and the building was unfinished, Honig, a former state housing official, told a federal prosecutor Tuesday as she detailed a succession of confusing interactions that left her wondering where the money went.

Tuesday was the seventh day of trial for Jacklyn M. Sutcivni, the former city chief of staff for economic development accused of aiding developer James E. Levin of bilking the government of $2 million in federal rehabilitation funds.

Levin is serving a 37-month prison sentence after admitting to fraud and conspiracycharges, while Sutcivni is putting her case to the jury.

Levin has not been called to testify by prosecutors, and asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify for the defense after a judge foundhe might perjure himself on the stand.

Prosecutors have spent hours asking witnesses about their dealings with Levin and Sutcivini, with lawyers for the former city official noting that many of those witnessesdealt primarily with Levin.

Honig who took great care with her wordsTuesday, pausing often to consult her old notes testified that both Sutcivni and Levin failed to deliver the financial information she needed to assess the project.

I was getting changing numbers about everything, she said, and conflicting stories.

The now-retired consultant said it appeared Levin was interested in getting something from SMOC for the building after running into funding woes.

But after visiting the building in September 2011 and seeing how little work had been done, she said she and SMOC officials wanted specifications on expenditures so they could assess how much money they might need to finish it.

Levin, with help from city officials, had secured about $2.3 million in federal grant funds for the project. The amount he hadspent depended, Honig said, on who she asked.

Honig testified that Levin indicated there was about $650,000 in funding left, but that Sutcivni had told her the funds had run dry.

While both Sutcivni and Levin cited federal law that required heightened wages for workers as a factor, Honig said that wouldnt come close to accounting for the gap between expenditures and progress.

When she pressed harder, she said, Levin alleged on a phone call that the electrician he hadhired to manage the project had drained bank accounts.

You never heard it. Dont tell anyone, Honig quoted Levin as saying as she read from her contemporaneous notes.

Levins electrician who testified last week he left the job after concerns about Levins integrity and the slow work pace was never charged or accused of wrongdoing.

Instead, prosecutors have presented evidence to jurors suggesting that Levin was under financial strain in 2011 when another city property he had taken on suffered damage that left him liable for more than $1 million in remediation.

Workers who had been hired for 5 May St. were diverted to other Levin projects, the electrician testified, and the plans for the Main South apartment building were constantly changing.

Honig said she asked both Levin and Sutcivni for specific documents relating to 5 May St. including forms showing reimbursement of worker wages and other expenses but never received most of what she had requested.

Emails entered into evidence by prosecutors memorialized the detailed requests for information Honig had lodged over a period of months. She recalled setting up a meeting at Sutcivnis city hall office in hopes of receiving further information, to no avail.

I got nothing, she told the jury.

Honig said when she pressed Levin further on where the money went, he shrugged and said it was probably his fault, and that he didnt know what happened.

She said he admitted to not understanding federal prevailing wage requirements and not being a good money manager.

By early winter of 2012, SMOC gave up on the project, Honig said, after a consultant it hired to check out the building opined it would take well over $1 million to finish.

The consultant, James Hass, testified Tuesday that he estimated about $650,000 had been put into the building as of that time, and $1.7 million more would be needed to complete the project under federal procurement guidelines.

That meant, Honig noted in her testimony, that a project initially anticipated at costing around $2 million was instead potentially going to cost double that amount.

Honig said Sutcivni had told her she estimated it would take between $400,000 and $500,000 to finish the job.

Federal agents have testified that Sutcivni told them Levin encountered unanticipated expenses with the project, and that she and other officials were working with him to get additional funding.

She allegedly told the agents she knew the expenses Levinsubmitted were not all for work he had performed, but maintained he did expend the dollar amounts.

Agents testified Sutcivni never provided proof of the claim, and have noted she, in 2010, bought a condo from a business associate of Levins that appeared to help her shirk a city residency requirement.

Dori Vecchio, the citys longtime director of human resources who left this month to become town administrator in Blackstone, took the stand Tuesday to discuss her role in processing checks to Levin.

Lawyers for Sutcivni have suggested city officials conducted poor oversight, calling what happened a systemic failure influenced by poor internal controls.

Vecchio told the jury Tuesday that she was only responsible for crunching numbers to make sure the project was on budget, not for verifying the accuracy of the reimbursement requests themselves.

Vecchio, who in 2010 was an official in the citys budget office, confirmed that she sent one request from Sutcivni back for changes after noticing an architect had not certified a figure for expenses on the required documentation.

The architect for 5 May St., Steven Petitpas, testified Monday that he hadrefused to certify the expenses because he knew not all the work was done. Emails entered into evidence showed Sutcivni advising Levin to certify the figure himself.

Vecchio said she cut the $720,000 check in question after the form was returned to her signed by Levin with the proper figure listed as certified.

When a prosecutor asked her whether she noticed Levin had signed the document both as the developer and the architect, Vecchio said she had not.

She emphasized that her role was confined to double-checking figures for instance, making sure all the itemized expenses added up to the total and said she had no reason not to trust the figuresher colleague had provided.

Vecchio said the documentation supporting the line items was supposed to be vetted and kept by Sutcivni, who worked in a different department.

Robert M. Shaw Jr., a former city inspector who worked under Sutcivni in 2010, testified Monday that he was thecity employee tasked with checking in on the projects the city was overseeing through the federal program used for 5 May St.

On cross-examination Tuesday, Shaw testified that it wasnt unusual for contractors to cross off the architect line on reimbursement forms and sign themselves.

However, as Assistant U.S. Attorney Danial E. Bennett drew out in questioning, the other projects being done at the time under the federal grant program were mostly single family residences.

Shaw left the city in November 2010 after a federal grant funding his position dried up.

Sutcivnis trial resumes Wednesday.

More: Former top Worcester housing official wore wire for FBI years before own alleged corruption

More: Via Zoom from prison, developer claims Fifth at trial of former Worcester housing official

More: Worcester housing official trial: Contractor details quitting 5 May St. job after slow pace, integrity concerns

More: Emails show developer, business partner talking about sale of condo to top city official

More: Architect on 5 May St. project refused to sign reimbursement form from developer

Contact Brad Petrishen at brad.petrishen@telegram.com. Follow him on Twitter @BPetrishenTG.

Read the original:
'You never heard it': Consultant details shifting excuses on 5 May St. financials - Worcester Telegram

"The law prescribes strict adherence to regular procedure as safeguard against tyrannical rule."The due process clause of the US Constitution is embodied in Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This rule of law originated in the English common law which can be traced to the Magna Carta. It prescribes strict adherence to regular procedure as safeguard against tyrannical rule. In time US courts expounded on its meaning to include limitations on legislation and protection of certain areas of individual liberty from regulation. While the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment both include a due process clause, the Fifth Amendments due process clause applies to the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendments due process clause applies to state governments. The US Supreme Court interprets these clauses to mean that they provide three protections: Procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings); substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws; and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.The clause is capsulized in American jurisprudence to refer to the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play. It relates to certain immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government (Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366).As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1884 case of Hurtado v. California, the Court said: Due process of law in the [Fourteenth Amendment] refers to that law of the land in each state which derives its authority from the inherent and reserved powers of the state, exerted within the limits of those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and the greatest security for which resides in the right of the people to make their own laws, and alter them at their pleasure.The U.S. Constitutional proscription on unreasonable searches is embodied in the Fourth Amendment which provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The aim is to avoid the evils of general warrants by requiring that each search or seizure should be cleared in advance by a judge, and that to get a warrant the government must show probable cause to justify the search or seizure. Like the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments and the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment emanated from the seventeenth-and eighteenth-century English common law. However, the Fourth Amendment is unique in a sense that it arose out of a strong public reaction to three cases from the 1760s, two decided in England and one in the colonies, namely; Wilkes v. Wood, 19 Howells State Trials 1153 (C.P. 1763), and Entick v. Carrington, Howells State Trials 1029 (C.P. 1765), involving pamphleteers charged with seditious libel for criticizing the kings ministers and, through them, the king himself.In both cases, agents of the king issued a warrant authorizing the ransacking of the pamphleteers homes and the seizure of all their books and papers. (An aside is necessary at this point: search warrants were issued by agents of the Crown on their own initiative.) Wilkes and Entick sued for damages, claiming that the warrants were void and that the searches pursuant to them were therefore illegal. Both Wilkes and Entick won, with powerful opinions issued by Lord Camden, the judge in both cases.The third case was the Writs of Assistance Case. British customs inspectors seeking to stamp out smuggling in colonial Boston were given blanket search warrants, called writs of assistance, that permitted them to search anyplace where they thought smuggled goods might be. (The writs also allowed the inspectors to compel private citizens to help them carry out the searcheshence the writs name.) Some Boston merchants, represented by James Otis, sued, seeking a holding that the writs were invalid. The merchants lost, but Otiss argument, with its ringing defense of individual privacy, became famous and strengthened opposition to British rule. John Adams later said of Otiss argument that then and there the child Independence was born.Historians generally agree that the Fourth Amendment was designed to affirm the results in Wilkes and Entick, and to overturn the result in the Writs of Assistance Case.Three principles arose out of these three cases. First, the government should not be allowed to search without some substantial justification, some reason to believe the place being searched contains the evidence being sought. Second, searches, particularly of private homes, should not go beyond their justification. Third, the government should not use blanket warrants to evade the first two principles.All these were eventually transplanted to the Philippines first through the American organic acts which applied the US Bill of Rights to our country and through the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.

COMMENT DISCLAIMER: Reader comments posted on this Web site are not in any way endorsed by Manila Standard. Comments are views by manilastandard.net readers who exercise their right to free expression and they do not necessarily represent or reflect the position or viewpoint of manilastandard.net. While reserving this publications right to delete comments that are deemed offensive, indecent or inconsistent with Manila Standard editorial standards, Manila Standard may not be held liable for any false information posted by readers in this comments section.

Read this article:
American jurisprudence on searches and seizures - manilastandard.net

We Americans have a contradictory history when it comes to tolerating, or not tolerating, dissent. The latest chapter is the Nikole Hannah-Jones controversy at UNC-Chapel Hill.

The fight, fittingly, played out around July 4th, the most American of holidays. We take off work, grill hot dogs and set off fireworks to celebrate our Declaration of Independence and, supposedly, our dedication to independence of speech and thought.

That dedication has been tested from the nations beginning.

In 1798, Congress and President John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The sedition law outlawed any false, scandalous and malicious writing against Congress or the President and made it illegal to conspire to oppose any measure or measures of the government. A congressman and a journalist were convicted and sent to jail. The laws were repealed or expired after Thomas Jefferson was elected President in 1800.

Race and dissent have long been intertwined. Before the Civil War, Southern states banned abolitionist writing and speaking. The U.S. House passed a Gag Resolution in 1836 to squelch discussion of abolishing slavery. For 100 years after the Civil War, advocating for Black Americans civil rights could be dangerous.

In the 1960s, racist demagogues like North Carolinas Jesse Helms, a television editorialist then, conflated communism and civil rights. In 1983, Senator Helms filibustered against a national holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Helms said King followed a philosophy of action-oriented Marxism that is not compatible with the concepts of this country.

Helms was a father of the Speaker Ban Law that thrust UNC-Chapel Hill into a battle over free speech almost 60 years ago. On the last day of the 1963 session, after just an hour of debate, the legislature enacted the law, which prohibited speeches on North Carolina public college campuses by known members of the Communist Party, persons known to advocate the overthrow of the constitutions of North Carolina or the United States, or individuals who had pleaded the Fifth Amendment in order to decline answering questions concerning communist subversion.

For years, the ban embroiled the university in controversy. Its accreditation was threatened. In 1969, a three-judge federal court ruled that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

Now the university is embattled over Hannah-Jones, who won a Pulitzer Prize for The New York Times The 1619 Project. The project tells how slavery has shaped America since slaves were first brought here over 400 years ago.

Conservatives claim the 1619 viewpoint somehow threatens our 1776 national narrative. But both stories shaped our nations history. Both should be studied.

When Hannah-Jones announced last week that she wouldnt be coming to UNC, the state Republican Party exulted that she will no longer be spreading her divisive agenda at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Is that cancel culture?

Explaining her decision, Hannah-Jones criticized the universitys leadership. She called out Walter Hussman, the Arkansas publisher and big donor for whom the journalism school is now named and who opposed her hiring:

I cannot imagine working at and advancing a school named for a man who lobbied against me, who used his wealth to influence the hires and ideology of the journalism school, who ignored my 20 years of journalism experience, all of my credentials, all of my work, because he believed that a project that centered on Black Americans equaled the denigration of white Americans.

Her decision is understandable. But many people at UNC stuck out their necks for her and may get their heads cut off in retaliation. The fight for freedom of speech and thought will go on without her voice at Chapel Hill.

Gary Pearce was a reporter and editor at The News & Observer, a political consultant, and an adviser to Gov. Jim Hunt from 1976-84 and 1992-2000.

See the rest here:
UNC and the debate over dissent | Editorial Columnists | dailyadvance.com - The Daily Advance