Mediaboss Marketing

Amid arguments in the U.S. Senate over whether the impeachment of former President Donald Trump is constitutional, and in the U.S. House over whether $1.9 trillion is enough money to borrow and distribute to select taxpayers and institutions, there have been rumblings among Democrats to make it more difficult for the Supreme Court to invalidate or permit states to gnaw away at Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Roe is the 1973 Supreme Court opinion that essentially establishes within the privacy of the patient-physician relationship the right to choose to abort a baby in the womb.

The opinion holds that during the first trimester of pregnancy, the states have no interest in regulating abortion beyond the health of the mother. During the second trimester, the states can regulate the procedures used, but they may not ban or interfere with abortions. During the third trimester, the states may ban or permit abortions.

Roes medical cornerstone is viabilitythe ability of the baby to live outside the womb. In 1973, viability, generally, was at the beginning of the third trimester. Today, viability is closer to conception.

Hence, state regulations protecting post-viable pre-third trimester babies.

Roes legal cornerstone is the absence of personhood.

The opinion offers that because philosophers, theologians, scientists and physicians cannot agree on when personhood attaches, then neither will the justices of the Supreme Court. Thus, Roe declares that the baby in the womb is not a person.

Yet, legally, if the baby in the womb is a person, then a host of constitutional protections insulate the baby from being killed by her mother and her physician.

The Fifth Amendment prevents the federal government which gives millions a year to Planned Parenthood from impairing life, liberty and property of people without due process. The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from impairing life, liberty and property without due process, compels them to treat persons within their borders similarly what is an unlawful killing for me is an unlawful killing for theeand compels the states to guarantee privileges and immunities; foremost among which is the right to live.

I offer this brief constitutional explanation of Roe as a background to discuss what is coming our way.

Coming our way is a massive effort by pro-abortion rights forces at the state and federal levels to shore up Roe to insulate it from interference by the Supreme Court and thereby make abortions more available and, in some states, performed at taxpayer expense.

President Joseph R. Biden has stated that he wants Congress to enact a statute that will put into positive law the right of every woman to kill her unborn child at any time, irrespective of what various states have enacted to preserve the lives of unborn children.

Is the baby in the womb a person?

Biden does not want to answer that question. I dont know how conversant he is in philosophy or constitutional law, or common sense, but he wont go near this.

Last week, the Senate defeated a measure that would have protected the lives of babies whosurviveabortions. Some abortions involve the slaughter of the baby in the womb and the methodical removal of her remains.

Some involve the chemically induced expulsion of the baby from the womb, which usually kills the baby, but not always. The Senate vote was not only humanly repulsive it permitted the states to permit the mother and the abortion provider to let the surviving baby dieit violated the obligation of the government to uphold the Constitution.

Is the baby in the womb a person?

Many states are wanting here as well, as they will not answer this question. They know the constitutional obligations imposed upon them by the 14th Amendment. Yet like their federal counterparts they are on the cusp of advancing the killing of more unborn children.

In New Jersey, for example, where abortion is lawful up to the moment of birth not because of legislation but by a rule established by the Board of Medical Examiners and upheld by the courts, and where it is taxpayer-funded, also mandated by the courts proposals are making their way through the legislature to codify into law the right to take the life of an unborn child at any time at state expense, along with a prohibition on autopsies for the aborted babyso it will be unknown if the mother and her physician starved the baby to death.

Is the baby in the womb a person?

Here we are in 2021 talking about killing babies by scalpels, chemicals and starvation.

We are, and we will be for some time. Even if the Supreme Court invalidates Roe v. Wade and the states are free to go their own way New Jersey, all killing all the time; Pennsylvania, no killing at any time we still have a Constitution that imposes profound restraints upon the power of the states to permit killings, and which gives Congress the power to enforce state compliance.

Is the baby in the womb a person? Of course, she is.

The baby has human parents, and her body contains all the genomic materials to grow into human childhood and adulthood. The denial of personhood to babies in the womb is akin to the judicial denial of personhood to Blacks before the Civil War. In the very essence of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that our right to life is inalienable.

The right to live is the highest right there is.

Any society that can impair the right to live by declaring any groups to be nonpersons has rejected the self-evident concepts of right and wrong and cannot long endure.

Negating personhood is the most dangerous thing the government can do. It is a one-way slippery slope. Whose personhood will the government negate next?

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Notre Dame Law School, was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey. He sat on the bench from 1987 to 1995. He taught constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School for 11 years, and he returned to private practice in 1995. Judge Napolitano began television work in the same year. He is Fox News senior judicial analyst on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network. He is the host of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business Network. Napolitano also lectures nationally on the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, civil liberties in wartime, and human freedom. He has been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and numerous other publications. He is the author of five books on the U.S. Constitution. Read Judge Andrew P. Napolitanos Reports More Here.

Creators Syndicate Inc.

Here is the original post:
'Personhood' Still at the Heart of Abortion Wars - WBAP News/Talk

To the editor:

The Bruni project is unfortunate. The collective response is shameful.

There seems scant evidence that anyone is enthusiastic about the proposed project. The undesirable implications have been covered ad nauseam and bear no further explication.

The collective response, however, does.

Please Support Local Advertisers

The Bruni family has worked hard for years, contributing to the town, enriching its character, and providing products that were valued.

Theyve paid taxes on the property and maintained it. It is theirs to do with as they please within the established regulations. Period.

And yet the progeny of many folks who shopped at the market and benefited from the familys hard work are now joined by ideological newcomers, all intent on violating the Constitutions Fifth Amendment by depriving the Brunis of their property rights.

Anyone who rubs their chin and opines sagely and in a grave tone about how some bylaw or regulation might be creatively interpreted to stop the project is fundamentally a collectivist an adherent of the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

I doubt any of them were present to help Joe build the shop, run the bakery at 0-dark thirty long before most were up, pay the bills for past-date food that had to be thrown out, etc.

And Im certain that none have lobbied to reduce the property taxes in the meantime.

So heres my challenge. If you can comfortably wear the mantle of collectivist, so be it.

If, however, youre startled (maybe even horrified) to realize what destructive ideologies weve allowed to become normalized to the point that they seem reasonable to many, then heres your chance to swallow the bitter pill, agree that the project is undesirable, but support the familys right to do with their property what they wish within a reasonable interpretation of existing regulations.

The only moral alternative is the private collection of enough money to create a private entity, support ongoing maintenance and other costs, and acquire the property at a price agreeable to both entities (which, at this point, will reflect the huge sums the owner has had to put into simply exercising their rights, but perhaps offset by some discount to reflect the sigh of relief to be done being harassed and pilloried.)

Ed MarshWoods LaneIpswich

Like Loading...

Read the original:
Letter: Bruni has right to do as he pleases within the law - The Local Ne.ws

from the so-dark-we-could-only-get-everything-we-needed dept

It's been clear for some time that the FBI and DOJ's overly dramatic calls for encryption backdoors are unwarranted. Law enforcement still has plenty of options to deal with device encryption and end-to-end encrypted messaging services. Multiple reports have shown encryption is rarely an obstacle to investigations. And for all the noise the FBI has made about its supposedly huge stockpile of locked devices, it still has yet to hand over an accurate count of devices in its possession, more than two years after it discovered it had been using an inflated figure to back its "going dark" hysteria for months.

An ongoing criminal case discussed by Thomas Forbes for Fortune provides more evidence law enforcement is not only finding ways to bypass device encryption, but access contents of end-to-end encrypted messages. This isn't the indictment of Signal (a popular encrypted messaging service) it first appears to be, though. The access point was the iPhone in law enforcement's possession which, despite still being locked, was subjected to a successful forensic extraction.

In the Signal chats obtained from one of [the suspect's] phones, they discuss not just weapons trades but attempted murder too, according to documents filed by the Justice Department. Theres also some metadata in the screenshots, which indicates not only that Signal had been decrypted on the phone, but that the extraction was done in partial AFU. That latter acronym stands for after first unlock and describes an iPhone in a certain state: an iPhone that is locked but that has been unlocked once and not turned off. An iPhone in this state is more susceptible to having data inside extracted because encryption keys are stored in memory.

Seizing a phone in this vulnerable state allows investigators to obtain evidence from "locked" phones by using forensic tools like those sold by Cellebrite and Grayshift. Signal's encryption works. But that encryption doesn't matter -- not if law enforcement has access to the device. Encryption protects against message interception but even the strongest forms of encryption can't secure communications on a partially unlocked device. In this state, it's as simple as hooking up a phone to an extraction device and letting the device do the work.

It's not clear which forensic option was used, but it does show encryption isn't making phones and communications "warrant-proof." A locked device (rather than one in an "after first unlock") is going to be tougher to crack, but it's far from impossible. And if it is indeed impossible, a wealth of information can be recovered from cloud backups, unencrypted communications platforms, social media services, and any number of third parties that collect information and location data from cellphone users. In only the rarest cases will investigators have almost nothing to work with.

Even in those cases, there are options. Investigators can roll the dice on Fifth Amendment challenges and hope a court orders arrestees to unlock their devices. They can also seek consent to a search -- something that's never a one-and-done thing when law enforcement has both suspects and their devices in its possession.

This case shows multiple layers of encryption are mainly a hassle at this point. It's enough to keep people's devices secure in case of loss or theft, but it's not much of an impediment to investigators with powerful forensic tools at their disposal.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: access, doj, encryption, evidence, fbi, going dark, law enforcement

Read the original here:
Gun Trafficking Investigation Shows The FBI Is Still Capable Of Accessing Communications On Encrypted Devices - Techdirt

SPECIAL TO DEVILS LAKE NEWSROOM| Devils Lake Journal

Steve Martinez Takes Principled Stand Against Use of Grand Jury to Repress Indigenous Environmental Movement

BISMARK- Water Protector Steve Martinez is confined in Burleigh County Detention Center after refusing, on principle, to give testimony before a federal grand jury. This Grand Jury, like the one at which Martinez refused to testify three years ago, ostensibly involves a criminal investigation into events leading to the grievous injury of Water Protector Sophia Wilansky. It has been the position of Morton County, ND that Ms. Wilansky was not injured as a result of excessive force by law enforcement, but by the actions of Water Protectors. In a federal civil rights lawsuit against Morton County, however, Wilansky says she was shot in the arm with a concussion grenade by a sheriffs deputy on November 20, 2016, when law enforcement attacked hundreds of unarmed people objecting to the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) with high pressure fire hoses, impact munitions, explosive grenades and chemical weapons.

Opposition to DAPL rallied thousands of environmental and Indigenous rights activists to the Oceti Sakowin prayer camp at Standing Rock, ND in 2016 and 2017. These Water Protectors were met with heavily militarized intervention from the oil companys private security forces, the Morton County Sheriffs Office, and numerous assisting agencies. Since March, 2017, DAPL has leaked over 1000 gallons of oil into sensitive water sources, and the Energy Transfer link connecting DAPL to Texas has leaked over 5000 gallons of oil. On January 26, 2021, the appeals court in Washington D.C. upheld a lower court ruling which found that the permit allowing DAPL to cross beneath the Missouri River on unceded Lakota / Dakota / Nakota lands violated key federal environmental laws, by failing to consider the risk the pipeline poses to the Standing Rock Sioux and other Indigenous nations who depend on the river for drinking water, as well as cultural, spiritual, and economic survival. After years of struggle and irreversible harm to both land and people, the rulings affirm the positions of the Water Protectors, and mean that DAPL is currently operating illegally.

After Mr. Martinez refused to submit to a grand jury in 2017, US Attorneys released him from subpoena. Three years later, Mr. Martinez was served a new subpoena, just days after a significant ruling in Ms. Wilanskys civil suit. The near simultaneous timing of the civil order and the new grand jury subpoena casts doubt on the legitimacy of the subpoena, argued Martinez lawyers in a motion to excuse him from the Grand Jury. U.S. Magistrate Judge Alice Senechal denied that motion.

After Martinez appeared before the Grand Jury on February 3, and invoked his First and Fifth Amendment rights, Magistrate Judge Senechal ordered him to give testimony. Martinez refused. In a secret proceeding in a sealed courtroom, the Court held him in contempt of its order, and over the objections of counsel, had him confined until such time as he agrees to testify, or the Grand Jury investigation terminates up to 18 months.

The Governments efforts to force Steve Martinez to collaborate with the Federal Grand Jury seeking to shift the blame for Sophia Wilanskis injuries from law enforcement to Water Protectors have been plagued by due process violations, procedural errors, undue haste, and secrecy, say his lawyers. Martinez intends to challenge the finding of contempt, but remains prepared to serve the term of confinement, rather than participate in a proceeding characterized by secrecy and coercion.

Grand juries are secret proceedings, at which prosecutors control the presentation of evidence to grand jurors in an effort to secure an indictment. Neither defense counsel nor judges nor any member of the public may be present. Witnesses must answer questions or risk being jailed until either they are coerced into compliance, or the grand jury expires. Due to their secrecy, grand juries are highly susceptible to abuse, said attorney Moira Meltzer-Cohen. There is a long history of grand juries being used to intimidate politically disfavored groups, from abolitionists to union organizers, anti-war advocates, and civil rights activists. This Grand Jury, which criminalizes movements for native sovereignty and environmental justice, is one more instance of such abuse.

In addition to his objections to the grand jury as an institution, Martinez believes it is being used to suppress his rights to assembly, association, religion, and free speech. In a call from jail Saturday morning, he reaffirmed his conviction, saying The state should not be intimidating people and trying to blame us for harm they caused. I didnt want to lose my freedom, but they are not going to break me. Martinez partner Leta Killer wrote in a heartfelt social media post: Yesterday, my love Steve Martinez stood his ground as a Grand Jury Resistor regarding the movement at Standing Rock. … [T]he Feds are still grasping straws trying not to be held accountable for the terrible things law enforcement did to peaceful, prayerful Water Protectors. … Seeds of awareness & unification [will] spread all over the world for voices to speak out [about the need] to protect our natural resources for all of our future generations. Martinez enjoys widespread support, as he joins, for the second time, a long line of activists committed to the welfare and self-determination of their movement communities. Mni Wiconi! (Water is Life!)

K. William Boyer is the Managing Editor of the Devils Lake News Journal. He can be reached at kboyer@gannett.com, or by phone at(701) 662-2127.

Be sure to follow Devils Lake Journal on our twitter page, @devilslakenews, and like us on Facebook!

The rest is here:
Indigenous Water Protector Jailed in North Dakota for Refusing to Cooperate With Secret Grand Jury - Devil's Lake Daily Journal

On 28 January 2021 the EU Commission published the fifth amendment to its 19 March 2020 Temporary Framework on state aid in reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak (see our blog post).

The guidance document was previously amended on 3 April 2020 (see our blog post), on 8 May 2020 (see our blog post), on 29 June 2020 (see our blog post) and on 13 October 2020 (see our blog post).

The EU Commission noted in the fifth amendment to the Temporary Framework that it expects the European economy to barely return to pre-pandemic levels in 2022. It therefore decided to prolong the availability of the measures set out in the Temporary Framework until 31 December 2021, including the instrument allowing governments to cover part of companies' fixed costs and the temporary removal of all countries from the list of "marketable risk" countries under the short-term export-credit insurance Communication (STEC).

Additionally, the fifth amendment raises the aid ceilings for certain instruments and introduces a new possibility to convert repayable aid measures into non-repayable forms of aid.

Lastly, it clarifies the conditions of compensation under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

Prolongation until 31 December 2021

Considering Member States positive feedback and the ongoing second wave of the pandemic, the EU Commission adopted a further six-month extension of the Temporary Framework, thereby prolonging it until 31 December 2021. Member States wishing to extend their national aid measures approved by the EU Commission under the Temporary Framework need to notify the EU Commission and provide the required information set out in the fifth amendment's annex.

The EU Commission will evaluate before 31 December 2021 whether the Temporary Framework needs to be further extended or adapted.

Increased aid ceilings

The EU Commission has increased the ceilings set out in section 3.1 (limited amounts of aid) and section 3.12 (aid in the form of support for uncovered fixed costs) of the Temporary Framework. Both had been or were about to be exhausted due to the continued impact of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Therefore, the overall aid ceiling for all industries (excluding primary agriculture, fishery, and aquaculture) is increased from EUR 800 000 to EUR 1.8 million per undertaking.

The aid for companies active in primary agriculture is increased from EUR 100 000 to EUR 225 000.

The ceiling per undertaking active in fishery or aquaculture is increased from EUR 120 000 to EUR 270 000.

As before, the above aid ceilings can be combined with de minimis aid of up to EUR 200 000 per company (up to EUR 30 000 per company operating in fishery and aquaculture and up to EUR 25 000 per company operating in agriculture) over a period of three financial years, subject to complying with the requirements of the relevant de minimis

Additionally, the ceiling for aid in the form of support for uncovered fixed costs is increased. Due to the pandemic, many companies are struggling to cover their fixed costs. To help these companies, the EU Commission introduced a measure allowing governments to contribute to a part of their fixed costs (see our blog post).

The respective aid measures can now be prolonged until 31 December 2021 and cover uncovered fixed costs incurred between 1 March 2020 and 31 December 2021. Compared to the previous ceiling of EUR 3 million, going forward the overall aid shall not exceed EUR 10 million per company and may be granted in the form of direct grants, tax, and payment advantages, or other forms such as repayable advances, guarantees, loans, and equity.

Possibility to convert repayable aid measures into non-repayable forms of aid

To create an incentive to initially choose repayable forms of aid, the EU Commission has provided for the possibility to convert repayable forms of aid (such as repayable advances and loans) into non-repayable forms of financial support such as grants.

The respective aid ceilings (i.e. in most sectors up to EUR 1.8 million per company) will apply in case of a conversion. Member States can convert their measures until one year after the Temporary Framework's expiry, applying transparent and non-discriminatory conditions. These conversion conditions must be notified to the EU Commission.

Extension of temporary removal of all countries from the list of marketable risk countries under the STEC

The EU Commission continues to see a lack of sufficient private insurance capacity for short-term export-credits in general and considered all commercial and political risks associated with exports to the countries listed in the Annex to the STEC as temporarily non-marketable initially until 31 December 2020.

Considering the continuing disruptive impact of COVID-19 on the European economy, the EU Commission has therefore again prolonged the temporary exception of all countries from the list of "marketable risk" countries under the short-term export-credits until 31 December 2021 (previously until 30 June 2021).

Clarification regarding measures allowing compensation under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU

Article 107(2)(b) TFEU allows Member States to grant compensation for damage directly caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. So far, that damage has been defined as caused "by quarantine measures precluding the beneficiary from operating its economic activity."

The updated Temporary Framework extends the definition by including damage caused by "restrictive measures precluding the beneficiary, de jure or de facto, from operating a specific and severable part of its activity."

According to the EU Commission, de facto restrictions comprise, for example, measures capping attendance for specific activities (e.g., events, entertainment, trade fairs). However, less restrictive measures, like general social distancing measures, are not grounds for compensation under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

Additionally, guidance to avoid overcompensation has been added to the new Temporary Framework. Compensation can be given only for strictly quantifiable damage resulting directly from the restrictive measure, and is limited to the profit that could credibly have been generated by the beneficiary in the absence of the measure.

"As the coronavirus outbreak persists longer than we were all hoping for, we need to keep making sure that Member States can provide businesses with the necessary support to see it through."

Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager

Read more:
EU Commission publishes fifth amendment to its Temporary Framework for state aid in relation to the COVID-19 crisis - Lexology