Mediaboss Marketing

The jailed producer says his poor health makes giving a deposition nearly impossible and his pending criminal case in L.A. puts him at severe risk of self-incrimination.

Harvey Weinstein is asking a New York federal judge to stay proceedings in a civil suit brought by Alexandra Canosa.

The former Weinstein Co. employee in 2018 sued Weinstein, along with the company and several of its directors and executives, claiming he repeatedly raped and assaulted her under a looming threat of retaliation to her career. On Thursday, Weinstein's attorney Imran Ansari told the court that it's practically impossible for the jailed producer to sit for a deposition because of his poor health and that the matter should separately be put on hold pending the outcome of the criminal case against him in Los Angeles. Under the current proposed deadlines, his deposition would need to be completed by Jan. 29.

"Mr. Weinsteins health has had a dramatic decline this week, as heavily reported in the media," writes Ansari in the motion, which is posted below. "These health concerns make it practically impossible to conduct his deposition and impedes his fundamental right to participate in his defense."

According to the filing, those health concerns include diabetes mellitus, extensive coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, chronic leg pain, arthritis, anemia, spinal stenosis and several others, which Ansari argues put him at heightened risk for contracting COVID-19. (Reps for Weinstein on Thursday said that while he has recently been sick with a fever he has so far tested negative for COVID-19.)

That alone should be enough, Ansari argues, but because the nature of Canosa's claims that he sexually assaulted and raped her is related to the criminal charges he's facing, there's also a severe risk of incrimination.

"Notwithstanding Mr. Weinsteins vehement denials of these salacious accusations, and evidence to support that any sexual relationship was completely consensual, these allegations closely resemble the charges of sexual misconduct in the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office," writes Ansari. "In the absence of a stay, Mr. Weinsteins constitutional rights to defend himself against the criminal allegations are unreasonably and unfairly burdened. Mr. Weinstein would be forced to make 'the difficult choice between being prejudiced in the civil litigation,' if he asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege, 'or from being prejudiced in the criminal litigation if he waives that privilege in the civil litigation.'"

Weinstein is currently facing 11 felony charges in L.A., including rape and sexual battery, and while his extradition to California has been put on hold because of the pandemic, his attorney says it's imminent.

Canosa's attorney Thomas Giuffra on Friday sent The Hollywood Reporter this statement in response to the filing: "Despite being convicted of rape and now residing in a penitentiary, Weinstein continues to attempt to delay justice for the survivors of his evil acts. This is not surprising as he will never want to submit to questioning regarding his serial acts of abuse."

Nov. 20, 11:05 a.m. Updated with a statement from Alexandra Canosa's attorney.

The rest is here:
Harvey Weinstein Asks Court to Pause Civil Suit Because of Severe Health Issues and Risk of Incrimination - Hollywood Reporter

Court filings: In court papers filed under seal last week, the FTC said Bannon agreed to appear for an in-person interview at the commission in September, but then didnt show up. The FTCs filings were unsealed Friday and a federal judge scheduled a hearing for Dec. 8 on the agencys request.

FTC lawyers said they want to question Bannon about whether the Facebook user data collected by Cambridge Analytica still exists and was shared with anyone else.

Any further delays in discovering additional information about where the deceptively obtained Facebook profile data may be located, or with whom it may have been shared, would further harm consumers, the FTCs lawyers said.

Previous difficulties: The FTC had some difficulty serving Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, with a subpoena last year, but the agency said he was formally served in November 2019. An interview in March was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic. Bannons lawyers then negotiated a new interview for September, with the caveat that the former Trump strategist would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to any questions.

In August, Bannon was separately charged with money laundering and conspiracy to commit wire fraud for allegedly using donations intended to build a private border wall on personal expenses. He pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The day before his scheduled interview in September, Bannons lawyers told the FTC he wouldnt be coming. The FTC asked the court to require Bannon to sit for an interview under oath.

More:
FTC asks court to force Bannon to testify on Cambridge Analytica scandal - POLITICO

Michigans public health code is the law, and so are the emergency orders coming from Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Director Robert Gordon.

Gordons actions differ in legal basis from Gov. Gretchen Whitmers emergency orders that the Michigan Supreme Court struck down on Oct. 5.

Even some of the most ardent challengers of Whitmers executive orders recognize the legal authority of MCL Section 333.2253 (1), which states that if Gordon determines "that control of an epidemic is necessary to protect the public health, the director by emergency order may prohibit the gathering of people for any purpose and may establish procedures to be followed during the epidemic to insure continuation of essential public health services and enforcement of health laws.

No Michigan court has ruled that law unconstitutional.

But there will be legal challenges to some elements of Gordons orders, including the Pause to Save Lives order that went into effect Wednesday, Nov. 18.

Read more: Heres what changes in Michigan under new COVID-19 restrictions, in place for 3 weeks

Those legal challenges are not the same as previous opposition to the governors executive orders, said David Kallman, an attorney who represented several business owners affected by Whitmers orders, including the Owosso barber Karl Manke, who famously refused to shut down his shop.

This is a lot different than the Governors executive orders, he said. Those were violating separation of powers and delegation and all those things... We dont have those same issues here. What we have here are statutes through (MDHHS) where theyve been delegated direct authority by the legislature to enter certain orders.

State and local health departments are charged with stopping the spread of communicable diseases, said Linda Vail, Ingham County Public Health Director. That includes actions intended to maintain health services, as MCL 333.2253 states, which she said is now impossible on a local department level without additional controls on communities.

Weve got such widespread illness right now, that the gathering of people is simply hazardous, she said. One of our mandated services is control of communicable diseases. Well, we cant control communicable disease if it gets out of control and we lose our typical capacity to control epidemics... Those orders are put in place to get us back to a level where we can control and contain disease.

State law charges health departments with the control and elimination of infectious or communicable diseases.

Michigan added another 5,772 new coronavirus cases and 62 new deaths on Wednesday, Nov. 18, as the daily average for the last week climbed to 6,932 cases and 61 deaths per day.

Read more: Hospitals send urgent message as coronavirus spread threatens Michigans U.P.

There were 3,792 patients hospitalized with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19 as of Wednesday. Of those patients, 809 were in ICU beds and 396 were on ventilators. Hospital bed capacity is also at risk without additional health department controls, Vail said.

The legal authority of public health codes and subsequent emergency orders exists in states across the country, Vail said. She pointed to Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court case that establishes precedent going beyond the restriction of gatherings.

That case involved mandatory vaccinations in Cambridge, Massachusetts to curb a smallpox epidemic. The court ruled that government can restrict individual liberty under the pressure of great dangers to the safety of the general public.

Routinely, when you see challenges to the health code, you will see this U.S. Supreme Court case cited as case law, Vail said. Challenges that have happened in the 100 years since have pointed back to this case to support the health code and its constitutionality.

In Michigan, the public health code was first ratified in 1919, after the outbreak of the Spanish Flu. It was updated in 1978, and has not been overturned in a state or federal court.

When people call Kallman for legal advice to challenge the new orders, he starts out by explaining what the states health code undeniably does allow, such as declaring an epidemic and limiting gatherings. But there may be limitations to orders based on first amendment grounds, he said.

The health code says if (Gordon) determines that theres an epidemic... is anyone seriously going to argue that were not in an epidemic now? I cant see a court ruling that theres no epidemic right now," Kallman said. "The second thing is, when the director determines theres an epidemic, he can do two things: One: he can issue an order to prohibit gatherings for any purpose. Thats pretty broad language...

Thats when you start getting into constitutional issues, he continued. For example, if Director Gordon gave an order saying no more church services and you guys cant meet at all... I can tell ya, wed be filing a lawsuit tomorrow, because now youre directly colliding with the constitution.

The Pause to Save Lives order does not prohibit gathering for religious worship. Lawful protests, such as anti-lockdown rallies in Lansing or racial equality marches in Detroit that may have violated orders earlier this year were likely not subject to enforcement due to First Amendment protection of the right to assembly, Kallman said.

Kallman is currently representing businesses opposing mask requirements ordered by Gordon.

Read more: Chiropractor challenges Michigans new mask mandate in lawsuit

He argues that health departments must be allowed to provide health services, but that doesnt reach all the way to mandating individual behavior.

If the local or county health department wanted to hand out masks for free, thats a service like free flu shots. Thats a service they can provide, he said. But now, were going to mandate that you have to wear a mask. How is that a service?

Another challenge to the health code comes from the Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association. Part of Gordons newest order bans dine-in service at restaurants and bars, but allows for takeout and delivery services.

The MRLA projects 6,000 restaurants could shutter by spring if theres a prolonged closure and no federal aid. It also expects 40% of restaurants to close temporarily during this time and 250,000 Michigan workers in the industry to be laid off.

Read more: Restaurant groups sue Michigan, ask court to block dine-in restaurant ban

What could become key in lawsuits from restaurants is the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, Kallman said. The clause states: Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. While MDHHS isnt literally taking over private businesses, they could effectively be doing so by limiting what they can do, he argues.

Since the initial shutdowns in the spring, Michigan businesses have been able to receive PPP loans of $150,000 from $5.7 million in federal coronavirus relief funds derived from the CARES Act. Also, $26.1 billion in unemployment benefits have been paid out to Michiganders since March.

Ultimately, the courts will determine the constitutionality of the states orders, Kallman said, and the laws and orders stand until such a ruling.

Could the orders run into those sort of issues? Absolutely," he said. "Hows the court going to come down on that? Your guess is as good as mine.

Vail argues that Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, being more than a century old, has withstood the test of time.

Its 100 years ago, and its still used, she said. Its still supported, still cited, still used by courts in this country to uphold and reiterate the power and the authority ... to protect public health. This aint a new thing, and it aint just a Michigan thing."

Read more from MLive:

Michigans 3-week partial shutdown begins, but some fear it could go into 2021

Many forms of outdoor dining also prohibited during Michigans 3-week pause

Dine-in restaurant ban is a nail in the coffin of Michigan businesses, industry leaders say

Michigan shutters in-person dining, high school sports in response to COVID-19 case surge

The rest is here:
Michigans public health orders are legal under state code, but there will be constitutional challenges - MLive.com

Condemnation in real estate refers to the process of the government taking ownership of private land or property for the purpose of public use or economic development. For example, a town or city may be seeking to expand or make improvements, such as for new infrastructure or buildings, that requires the full or partial use of a private property to complete the project.

Eminent domain is a law backed by the Fifth Amendment that grants the government the right to seize private property for its own use. However, the current owner of the land or property must receive "just compensation," per the Constitution.

While laws vary by state, the process of condemnation generally proceeds in this manner:

While the property owner will most likely not be able to challenge the condemnation process itself, they might be able to argue for higher compensation. It's advisable for a property owner to get an independent appraisal of the property's worth as well as consult with a real estate attorney. However, the court will only look at the fair market value of the property, not sentimental value or any other personal value the owner might wish to be considered.

Even if the property owner challenges the offered compensation, it doesn't slow down the condemnation process. Many states have "quick take" laws that favor the government in getting started quickly on construction and renewal projects. As a result, the compensation will be awarded quickly so title and ownership can be transferred as soon as possible. Any delays could result in decline in the property value, which might hurt the property owner in the long run.

Not all kinds of condemnation involves property for public use. In communities where there is a significant lack of housing inventory, the city or town might use the power of eminent domain to secure property to build more housing, like apartment complexes and condos.

Additionally, not all condemnation proceedings involve seizing the full property, nor is the seizure permanent. For example, part of an owner's private land might be seized to widen a roadway -- they can remain on their property, but they're being compensated for part of it by the government. Or there might only be an easement rather than a full transfer of property ownership; for example, construction crews need access to private property to install plumbing used by the new building.

In situations where properties are unkempt or deteriorating, the town or government agency may condemn the property in order to remove the blight and foster community renewal by renovating or building something new. Eminent domain might be used to secure the property without approval of the owner. In this case, a property owner can avoid condemnation through regular maintenance of the property and land.

Regardless of the circumstances, if you own a property for which the government has issued a notice of condemnation, get a private appraisal and retain legal counsel. Condemnation is not a process any property owner should take on alone if you want to ensure you're being offered just compensation for your real estate investment.

View original post here:
What Is Condemnation in Real Estate? - Motley Fool

On Monday, an attorney with the Justice Department asserted in federal appeals court in Washington D.C. that the government can kill US citizens without judicial review on the basis of the state secrets privilege.

Attorney Bradley Hinshelwood was arguing before the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a case brought by Bilal Abdul Kareem, a US citizen, and Ahmad Muaffaq Zaidan, a Pakistani-Syrian. The two journalists are challenging their placement on the US kill list, compiled by the government at least since the early years of the Obama administration, to carry out extrajudicial political assassinations.

Kareem claims he was targeted for death by the US government while he was in Syria reporting on the civil war there. He says that his interviews with Al Qaeda-linked militants resulted in his being placed on the kill list. In June and August of 2016, he maintains, the US targeted him five times, including a drone strike involving a US-made Hellfire missile.

The government has refused to release any information regarding the two journalists on grounds of national security and the state secrets privilege in relation to alleged national security questions.

In 2019, the FBIdenied a Freedom of Information Actrequest from WSWS International Editorial Board Chairman David North on similar state secrets grounds. The FBI declared that acknowledging whether it had records on North would threaten national security and foreign intelligence. The FBI also refused to admit or deny whether it had placed North on anylists.

During the hearing, Attorney Bradley Hinshelwooddeclared that the government had the power to target and kill alleged national security threats, including US citizens, and that planning or committing such acts was not reviewable by the courts.

The bald assertion of the governments unlimited right to murder its own citizens evidently stunned Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, part of a three-judge panel hearing the case. She asked Hinshelwood, Do you appreciate how extraordinary that proposition is? She went on to paraphrase his claim as giving the government the power to unilaterally decide to kill US citizens.

Kareem says that soon after the assassination attempts, a Turkish source told him he had been placed on a US target list at the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, where American drones are launched.

Foreword to the German edition of David Norths Quarter Century of War

Johannes Stern, 5 October 2020

After three decades of US-led wars, the outbreak of a third world war, which would be fought with nuclear weapons, is an imminent and concrete danger.

In August, Kareem and a British citizen, Tauqir Sharif, were seized by the radical Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Syrias Idlib Province. He remains in HTS custody.

Kareems case was dismissed last year by US District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who sided with the Trump administrations invocation of the state secrets privilege to withhold information from Kareem on national security grounds.

Trump administration lawyers argued that disclosing whether Abdul Kareem was on the kill list could allow him to evade capture, and risked revealing the existence and operational details of alleged military and intelligence activities directed at combating the terrorist threat to the United States.

In response to that ruling, Kareems counsel, Tara J. Plochocki, explained, For the first time ever, a United States federal court ruled that the government may kill one of its citizens without providing him the information necessary to prove that he is being wrongly targeted and does not deserve to die. The US government could have provided this information but chose not to, and the court found that the governments assertion of national security trumps his right not to be killed.

In Mondays hearing before the appeals court, Plochocki said, Whether its in a parking lot in the United States or abroad in Syria, the government has claimedfor the first time ever in this casethat it has the unfettered and unreviewable discretion to kill US citizens at will.

Hinshelwood dismissed Plochockis statement as speculation, citing the intense fighting that was taking place in Syria in 2016. He said, In all of these circumstances, he [Kareem] is not even the only person present, much less is there anything to suggest that hes actually the target of any of those specific attacks.

A second judge on the panel, Karen Henderson, a George W. Bush appointee, appeared to side with the government, calling Kareems claims of being targeted for assassination a spectacular delusion of grandeur.

The Trump administrations despotic assertion of the right to kill people, including US citizens, without any judicial review is a continuation and extension of powers asserted and acted upon by the Obama administration. In 2011, the US assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki and another US citizen, Samir Khan, in a drone strike in Yemen. Two others were also killed in that strike. Two weeks later, al-Awlakis 16-year-old son, also a US citizen, was assassinated in another drone strike while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant in Yemen.

In 2017, the Trump administration killed al-Awlakis eight-year-old daughter as part of a murderous military raid in Yemen that left at least eight women and seven children between the ages of 3 and 13 dead.

Two lawsuits filed by al-Awlakis father, one challenging his sons placement on the Obama administrations kill list before he was assassinated and another challenging the governments right to kill US citizens without due process, were dismissed by federal courts on the basis that the courts cannot interfere with the executive branch in the exercise of wartime powers, or where national security concerns are raised.

In rubberstamping the right of the president to kill US citizens, the courts have abandoned the basic constitutional framework of the separation of powers, under which the courts are supposed to act as a check on the executive branch.

In March of 2013, Obamas attorney general, Eric Holder, defended the assassination of Awlaki in testimony before Congress and refused to rule out targeted assassinations of American citizens on US soil.

A year earlier, Holder made a mockery of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, when he stated, Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

Holders arguments, as the World Socialist Web Site explained at the time, had fascistic implications:

Holders pseudo-legal arguments in favor of military tribunals and assassinations bear more than a passing similarity to Nazi jurisprudence. Under legal doctrines developed by Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, whose ideas enjoy growing interest and influence in Americas legal academia, national security and military urgency can justify a state of exception, under which basic democratic rights can be abrogated, the rule of law suspended, and the executive branch granted exceptional powers.

The Trump administration, in keeping with its fascistic politics, is asserting in more categorical terms the authoritarian logic of the policies adopted by previous administrations and supported by both parties of American imperialism.

Read more:
Justice Department attorney tells appeals court the government can kill US citizens without judicial review - WSWS