Mediaboss Marketing

The city of Columbus announced Thursday thatit is ordering six officers to answer questions about potential criminal misconduct by other officers during summer racial injustice protests Downtown.

But the police unionsays those officers do not have to comply under the terms of the contract with the city, and that threats of insubordination charges are empty.

More: Complaint alleges investigators hired by Columbus using unconstitutional tactics to force officer interviews in police probe

On Thursday morning, the city Department of Public Safety said independent investigator Richard Wozniak, a retired FBI agent, issued "Garrity notices" to six police officers "compelling the officers to answer questions."

If officers don't cooperate, the announcement said, they could face departmental charges of insubordination. The announcement said the six officers are "strictly witness officers" and not the focus of criminal investigation.

"Information they can provide is essential to the ability to identify officers who may have committed a crime, and necessary for any prosecution of those who might be charged with crimes," the announcement said.

More: Cost of probe into possible Columbus police crimes during protests passes $50,000

The city's contract with Fraternal Order of Police Capitol City Lodge No. 9 says that no member officer regardless of whether they are the focus of the investigation or not is required to give evidence if the investigation could result in criminal charges.

"If a member has been advised that the investigation may result in criminal charges, the member's refusal to answer questions or to participate in the investigation shall not be considered insubordination or like offense," the contract says.

Glenn McEntyre, assistant director of public safety, said the city disagrees "with that interpretation of the contract."

The independent investigation, which was announced in June by Mayor Andrew J. Ginther, seeks to determine whether Columbus police officers committed any crimes while responding to civil unrest here that began on May 28, three days after the death of George Floyd while in the custody of Minneapolis police.

More: City seeks public's help in investigation of criminal misconduct during summer protests

Wozniak and former Franklin County assistant prosecutor Kathleen Garber were hired as an independent investigator and special prosecutor, respectively, to conduct the investigation.

Chapter 1903.01 of the city's ordinances requires police to investigate "whenever any person is physically injured or any property is damaged or destroyed by an employee of the city, or when city property is damaged or destroyed as a result of criminal action or a traffic accident."

Last week, Garber and Wozniak issued investigative subpoenas to five officers using a rarely, if ever, used section of Columbus City Code. Attorneys for the officers filed a complaint and motion for a restraining order, saying the subpoenas violated the union contract, Ohio's constitution and Ohio's rules for criminal procedure.

Garber withdrew the subpoenas shortly after the complaint was filed.

In Thursday's announcement, the city said Garber has determined that "there is probable cause to believe that someofficers committed misdemeanor crimes" and that other officers witnessed those crimes.

More: Pepper spray used as protests over death of George Floyd spread to Columbus

"Extensive efforts have been made to elicit the cooperation of those witness officers, including assurances of immunity from prosecution or administrative sanctions," the city said. "To date, only five witness officers have agreed to be interviewed, only after receiving a guarantee that they would not be criminally prosecuted. The other identified witness officers have refused to be interviewed or provide information on other officers who appear to have committed illegal acts."

The city said officers also have been provided an internal website to provide information anonymously.

"The only investigative means left to determine if a witness officer has information is by Garrity interview," the city said.

Garrity rights protect public employees from beingcompelled to incriminatethemselves during investigatory interviews conducted by their employers. The protection is provided under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states employeescannot be compelled by the government (their employer) to be a witness against themselves, and the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause that covers public employees of municipal, county and state governments.

The protections are named Garrity rights after Edward Garrity, police chief of Bellmawr Township, New Jersey, who along with five other employees was told they must answer questions in a 1961state attorney general's investigation into whether they were involved in fixing traffic tickets in Bellmawr and Barrington Township or lose their jobs. Their statements were later used to prosecute and convict them.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned their convictions in 1967, ruling in Garrity v. New Jersey that the statements of Garrity and the other employees,made under threat of termination, were unconstitutional because they were compelledby the state in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court ruled the option to lose their means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak or to remain silent.

The city said Wozniak has asked 60 officers to be a part of the investigation and55 have refused, 44 of them through attorneys.

In a statement, Garber said the focus of the investigation is accountability.

"If laws were broken, we will hold those responsibleaccountable," Garber said."It is concerning and disappointing that the people standing in the way of that accountability are fellow officers."

Mark Collins, who represents the officers who have been given the Garrity notices, said they will be pursuing legal options "to prevent the city from violating these officers constitutional and contractual rights."

"In Ohio, individuals cannot be forced to give interviews on misdemeanor crimes. That's the law," Collins said. "The contract requires the city to follow the law, so by ordering them to do something against the law, it not only violates the law but it also violates the contract."

Collins also said Garber's statement would imply the officers who are "strictly witness officers" could face criminal charges.

"If what she claims she believes is true, and if the officer doesn't respond to a crime they witnessed, it could be dereliction of duty," Collins said.

Collins also said if Wozniak and Garber have evidence, they could file the charges in Franklin County Municipal Court.

"If they have the probable cause, file the charges," Collins said. "File the charges and we'll see you in court."

Collins added that information provided in a press release from the city including an example of how Garrity works is incorrect, showing a lack of understanding by those leading the investigation.

"If an officer is given Garrity, they have to talk," Collins said. "If they don't, they can get fired for insubordination. They don't have Fifth Amendment rights at that point, but the information can't be used in criminal prosecutions. That's the whole point of having Garrity."

To date, Wozniak and Garber have been paid more than $100,000 combined for the investigation.

The city also hired BakerHostetler, a local law firm whose partners have previously donated to Ginther's campaigns, in a no-bid contract to investigate any administrative wrongdoing. That contract was for $500,000.

The city has not yet provided a dollar amount as to how much that administrative investigation has cost to date, citing the potential for more investigations to take place after Wozniak and Garber have finished their work.

The BakerHostetler investigation resulted in 49 reports, some of which involved multiple complaints. Of the 49 reports, only eight involved sustained allegations and only one of the eight resulted in discipline. That officer was given documented counseling for not filing the proper paperwork.

Three allegations were withdrawn, 28 were not sustained, 19 were unfounded and five were exonerated.

bbruner@dispatch.com

@bethany_bruner

Go here to read the rest:
City issues order to force Columbus police officers to give evidence in protest probe - The Columbus Dispatch

While the COVID-19 relief bill brought the $15 an hour minimum wage.

Looking back in history, the fight for a minimum wage has been full of political struggle and labor conflict. Here are some notable developments in U.S. history.

The first state-level minimum wage law was passed by Massachusetts in 1912. Soon, other states followed suit over the next two decades. But the state laws were reversed by the Supreme Court in a case called Adkins v. Childrens Hospital of D.C., which ruled that a minimum wage violated employers and workers rights to liberty of contracts under the Fifth Amendment.

In 1938, at the height of the Great Depression, the first federal minimum wage was passed under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act to improve workers living condition and boost their purchasing power amid the colossal disruption in the American economy. The rate was set at 25 cents per hour, which is worth about $4 today.

Since then, Congress has raised the minimum wage 22 times under 12 different presidents. Most times, Democrats held a majority when Congress approved a minimum wage increase. The current level is at $7.25 an hour, set in 2009.

States and cities have the right to set their own minimum wage standards. Now, 29 states and D.C. have minimum wages above the federal level.

Since 1938, the federal minimum wage went up bit by bit every few years. However, the increase stopped in the 1980s, mostly under the Reagan administration. At the time, America ushered in a wave of conservative thinking that bolstered the idea of the free market. The argument against increasing minimum wage is that it would result in a decrease in jobs, because businesses would be less inclined to hire more workers.

The minimum wage has caused more misery and unemployment than anything since the Great Depression, Ronald Reagan said in 1980 about the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Reagan also suggested that employers should be able to pay young people at a rate lower than the federal minimum wage. He said that teenaged workers tend to be unskilled and a lower-than-minimum wage would help relieve the high youth employment rate, which was more than 18% in 1980.

In 1989, Congress passed an amendment to the 1938 law so that it applies only to businesses with a $500,000 annual revenue. It also mandates small retail businesses to pay its workers the minimum wage and overtime pay in any work week in which they either engage in commerce or make products that will be sold in another state.

The increase of federal minimum wage picked up again in the 1990s, rising from $3.35 an hour in 1989 to $5.15 an hour in 2007. That year, President George W. Bush signed into law the Fair Minimum Wage Act to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in three stages over two years. It marked a victory for the Democrats who had been pushing for a change for the past decade. However, since 2009, the federal minimum wage has stagnated at $7.25 an hour, while the cost of living has become higher and higher.

In November 2012, a couple hundred fast food workers, backed by Service Employee International Union (SEIU), demonstrated under the banner of $15 in New York City. It marked the beginning of the Fight for $15 grassroots movement to demand a $15 hourly wage, a wage that people can live on.

At first, the demand to almost double the federal minimum wage was a fringe idea in Washington, even within the Democratic party. President Barack Obama endorsed a raise to $10.10 an hour in 2014. Hillary Clinton said that she favored a $12 an hour minimum wage in 2015, before endorsing the Fight for $15 effort shortly after.

The movement mainly focused at the state and city level. Seattle became the first city to adopt the $15 standard in 2014, following the victory of Ed Murray, a mayoral candidate backed by SEIU. New York and California, two large progressive states home to many of the members in the Fight for $15, also followed suit. Progressive activists then moved to moderate and conservative states like Illinois and Arizona. Since January 2014, 28 states and D.C. have raised their minimum wages.

Besides fighting on a local level, Fight for $15 also targeted big businesses like McDonalds, Walmart, and Target.

Now, the movement has long extended beyond fast food and retail. A $15 an hour minimum wage nationwide has become a mainstream idea widely embraced by the Democrats.

The most recent debate about federal minimum wage sees a divide among three camps, not conforming expected ideological or business groupings.

As for the long-held belief that a raise in minimum wage would kill jobs, the Congressional Budget Office said in February that a rise in the minimum wage to $15 an hour would result in 1.4 million job losses by 2025. Other studies have shown mixed results. Some even indicate that higher minimum wages increase employment.

That Congressional Budget Office assessment also estimated that raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.

Since the beginning of 2021, 20 states have raised minimum wages. Many fast-food and retail giants, including McDonalds, Amazon, Target, and Costco have committed to paying workers at least a $15 minimum wage.

But the fight for higher pay and labor rights continues. Experts say the new battlegrounds could lie in hero pay, tipped minimum wage, and joint employment.

The pandemic has highlighted how many people in America are living close to the financial edge. For years, working one full-time job has not been enough for many minimum wage workers to get by. Should a full-time job in America guarantee a living wage? NBCLX storyteller Cody Broadway explores how the system is working against our essential workers.

Link:
The Fight Over Minimum Wage Has a Long History in the US. Here's What to Know About It - NBC 6 South Florida

Under current federal law, only men are required to register for the draft. The Supreme Court upheld 50 U.S.C. 3802(a) inRostker v. Goldberg (1981). At the time, women could not serve in combat roles. But in 2016, the Obama Administration allowed women to participate in combat roles. Subsequently, the National Coalition for Men challenged the federal law as a violation of the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment. In 2019, a federal district court judge in Houston declared the policy unconstitutional. But in 2020, the Fifth Circuit found that the district court's judgment "directly contradicts" Rostker.

The National Coalition for Men filed a cert petition on January 8. The SG's response was due on February 11. Acting SG Prelogar sought a one month extension.

This extension is requested to complete preparation of the government's response, which was delayed because of the heavy press of earlier assigned cases to the attorneys handling this matter.

One month later, the Acting SG requested another extension:

This extension is necessary because the attorneys with principal responsibility for preparation of the government's response have been heavily engaged with the press of previously assigned matters with proximate due dates.

What is going on here? Adam Liptak suggests that change may be afoot:

The Trump administration defended differing registration requirements in the appeals court. The Biden administration has twice sought extra time to respond to the petition seeking Supreme Court review in the case,National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, No. 20-928, and its brief is now due on April 14.

It is possible that the Biden Administration will agree with the petitioners and decline to defend the constitutionality of the statute. This move would echo the Obama administration's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor. In both cases, these laws did not run afoul of any Supreme Court precedent. Rather, subsequent practices (arguably) cast doubt on the validity of past precedents. Lower courts cannot anticipatory disregard Supreme Court precedents, but the executive branch apparently can.

But there would be one significant difference between this case, andWindsor. In 2011, the House was controlled by Republicans. As a result, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) retained Paul Clement to intervene in the case. Now, both houses are controlled by Democrats. If DOJ sends a 530(d) notification to Congress, and there is no majority to defend the statyute, what happens? In my view, the case would be over, as there is no adversity. The federal law would not be enforced by the current administrations, but the next administration could resume enforcing it. (Good luck with rescinding millions of female registrations). Or, the Court could keep the case alive by appointing an amicus. (Hell, make it Paul Clement for nostalgia's sake. Though, this case arose from the 5th Circuit, so we would likely see a CT clerk.) And if the Court upholds the statute, the Biden administration would have to continue enforcing the regime.

Of course, Congress could also repeal this statute. But that move would require political accountability. It is much easier to decline to defend a law, and let it fall into desuetude.

The Acting SG will soon have to make another difficult decision. The Court granted review inUS v. Tsarnaev, the Boston marathon bombing case. President Biden has stated he opposes the death penalty. Adam Liptak reports:

After the appeals court ruling, lawyers for the federal government during the Trump administrationurged the Supreme Courtto hear the case.

The case presents President Biden with an early test of his stated opposition to capital punishment. Were the administration to decide not to pursue the death penalty against Mr. Tsarnaev, the Supreme Court case would become moot.

Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, answered generally when asked about how Mr. Biden would approach the case.

"He has grave concerns about whether capital punishment as currently implemented is consistent with the values that are fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness," Ms. Psaki said at a press briefing on Monday. "He has also expressed his horror at the events of that day and Tsarnaev's actions."

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Will his SG defend the death penalty sentence below? If he doesn't, then presumably DOJ would have to take the same position in all pending federal cases involving the death penalty. And these decisions would be final. If Biden no longer seeks the death penalty against Tsarnaev, I don't think a future President could seek to reimpose that sentence.

Yesterday, I observed that the decision to appoint an SG is extremely important. These two cases illustrate the high stakes.

See the rest here:
What will the SG do in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System? - Reason

The University of Southern California has reached a record $852 million settlement with more than 700 women who accused a former gynecologist on campus of sexually abusing them as patients and the prestigious school of trying to cover it up, attorneys said on Thursday.

The law firm representing many of the women in the case said the payout agreed to by USC and the plaintiffs marked the largest sexual abuse settlement with a university and the biggest personal injury payout by any college or university in US history.

The deal, resolving lawsuits brought by 710 women in California state court, stems from allegations against George Tyndall, who practised at USC for nearly 30 years before the private, Los Angeles-based university suspended him in 2016, then allowed him to quietly retire without immediately reporting him to the state medical board.

A separate $215 million settlement of a federal class-action case in 2018 and a more recent $50 million cluster of individual state court settlements brings the total payout USC has agreed to pay in the Tyndall scandal to $1.1 billion.

No further civil claims are outstanding.

Tyndall, who has denied wrongdoing, lost his medical license and has been charged with sexually assaulting 21 patients under the guise of gynecological treatment or exams. He has pleaded not guilty to 35 felony counts and remains free on bail. No trial date has been set.

His civil defence lawyer was not immediately available for comment.

Tyndall was technically a party to the USC settlement but lacks any funds to contribute, Vince Finaldi, a lead plaintiffs lawyer and negotiator of the deal, told Reuters.

The former physician, now in his 70s, was deposed for the civil litigation but invoked his Fifth Amendment right under the US constitution to avoid self-incrimination, Mr Finaldi said.

The flood of lawsuits brought by former patients against Tyndall and USC accused the university of negligence and complicity, asserting school officials were aware of his misconduct for years but kept him in a position to continue preying on students placed in his care.

The enormous size of this settlement speaks to the immense harm done to our clients and the culpability of USC, plaintiffs attorney John Manley said in a statement. It is a direct result of a billionaire-dominated Board of Trustees that placed fundraising, prestige and the USC Brand above the safety of vulnerable female students.

Widespread faculty and student outrage over the universitys handling of the matter after allegations against Tyndall surfaced in media accounts in 2018 led then-USC president CL Max Nikias to resign.

The scandal even prompted the Chinese government to voice deep concern over published reports that many of the alleged victims were students from China.

The USC Board of Trustees ratified Thursdays settlement, which the university said was reached with assistance from a private mediator and a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge.

Im deeply sorry for the pain experienced by these valued members of the USC community, USCs current president, Carol Folt, said in a statement. We appreciate the courage of all who came forward and hope this much-needed resolution provides some relief to the women abused by George Tyndall.

University officials have previously acknowledged failing to act on a number of complaints made against Tyndall between 2000 and 2014 but denied a deliberate cover-up.

Trustees Chair Rick Caruso, named to head the board after the scandal came to light, conceded on Thursday that the university fell short by not doing everything it could to protect those who matter to us most our students.

Individual payouts in the latest settlement would likely range from mid-six-figure sums to millions of dollars, Mr Finaldi said.

The USC settlement far exceeds the $500 million payout agreed to by Michigan State University to resolve civil claims stemming from allegations of serial sexual abuse leveled against Larry Nassar, a former USA Gymnastics team doctor on the schools staff.

Nassar was sentenced to up to 300 years in prison in a pair of 2018 trials after more than 350 women testified of abuse at his hands.

By comparison, the Los Angeles Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church paid out $660 million in 2007 to 508 victims of sex abuse by multiple members of the clergy. Reuters

See the article here:
US university to pay $1.1bn to women abused by former gynecologist - The Irish Times

A defense attorney filed a motion this week attempting to keep a jury from hearing an alleged confession of a woman who is accused of helping her boyfriend cover up the murder of a 20-year-old Fort Hood soldier almost a year ago.

Cecily Aguilar, 22, was being held without bond in the McLennan County Jail on Thursday. She is accused of helping Army Spc. Aaron Robinson, 20, dispose of the body of Vanessa Guillen after he had killed her with a hammer on April 22, 2020, according to a federal criminal complaint.

Spc. Aaron David Robinson is the man who took his own life while being a suspect in the disappearance of Spc. Vanessa Guillen, Fort Hood officials said.

During a hearing next month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske is set to rule on a 16-page motion to suppress that was filed by Aguilars defense attorney on Wednesday.

According to the motion, Aguilar made statements during an interview with police on June 30, 2020, without being advised of her Miranda rights, which would be a violation of her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

The officers did not provide Aguilar (with) Miranda warnings until after three hours of questioning, the motion reads. Instead, they encouraged her to tell them about the alleged crime in order to help herself, without ever informing her that what she said could be used against her in court

Aguilars defense attorney claims that her Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure were violated before the statements were made, when police performed a traffic stop on a vehicle in which she was a passenger.

The detention morphed into an arrest. (The traffic stop) was not supported by a warrant or reasonable suspicion, according to the motion. Any evidence obtained from the illegal seizures and fruits therefrom should be suppressed.

A hearing on the motion to suppress will be held on April 27 at the federal courthouse in Waco.

Aguilar pleaded not guilty on July 14, 2020, to one count of conspiracy to tamper with evidence and two substantive counts of tampering with evidence. If convicted, she faces up to 20 years in federal prison for each count, according to the U.S. Attorneys Office, Western District of Texas.

So far, four trial dates most recently for March 8 have been set in her case. As of Thursday, no new trial date has been set.

Vanessa Guillen case

The case dates back 11 months. Guillen was reported missing on April 23, 2020.

Months later, on June 30, 2020, her remains were discovered by contractors working along the Leon River near Belton.

The criminal complaint alleges that Robinson murdered Guillen on April 22, 2020, with a hammer and that Aguilar helped him attempt to dispose of the body.

Robinson died on July 1, 2020, from a self-inflicted gunshot wound after he was confronted by Killeen police, officials said.

Aguilar initially lied to police to cover for Robinson, but later helped investigators by letting them record several phone conversations with him, according to the complaint.

Link:
Lawyer tries to throw out confession of Killeen woman charged in Vanessa Guillen case - The Killeen Daily Herald