Mediaboss Marketing

From Judge Ezra Friedlander's opinion, joined by Judge Paul Mathias, in R.W. v. J.W., decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals Friday:

R.W. appeals from the entry of a permanent protective order against him, contending that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the petition for an order of protection filed by J.W., a woman with whom he was in a romantic relationship, and by finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the legal conclusion to issue the order. We affirm.

To sum up the evidence before the trial court and in the words of the trial court, "[s]ome time between August 10th and September 11th the matter blew up and all of the parties involved, [K.B.], [R.W.] and [J.W.] were saying nasty things to each other, back and forth imploring the other to leave them alone." [K.B. was an acquaintance of J.W., and an ex-girlfriend of R.W.] The evidence and inferences therefrom supporting the issuance of the protective order in favor of J.W. was that K.B. was with R.W. after his relationship with J.W. soured. When they were together, R.W. had shared with J.W. his plans to send the video of a nude K.B. to the man she was then dating. A part of the plan involved creating a new account on social media through which to reach that man at work. J.W. counseled against R.W.'s plan.

R.W. left a threatening voicemail for J.W., which made J.W. feel threatened and terrified. R.W. made several attempts by various means to contact J.W.'s husband. During a period of time where K.B. was with R.W. in Chicago, she [presumably K.B.-EV] downloaded semi-nude and nude pictures of J.W. from R.W.'s password-protected phone. She then sent them to J.W. and R.W. with her own disparaging commentary about what was depicted, further adding commentary purported to be from B.O. {a man with whom J.W. had previously had a sexual relationship}.

R.W. contacted J.W. to inform her that "somehow" K.B. had come into possession of those photographs. He did nothing to stop any action by K.B. despite this awareness. K.B. feigned sympathy for J.W., adding that she did not want those photographs to come into the hands of J.W.'s four young sons or husband or be disseminated to her children's school and through the City of Valparaiso even though "someone" had told her that those actions were a possibility.

Just prior to the hearing set for the Illinois protective order, J.W. discovered that a Bumble account had been created with her email address containing pictures of her, one of which she had only sent to R.W. and the other of which had to be taken down from the account. The words used in that account to describe J.W. bore a striking similarity to the language used by K.B. when discussing her theory that J.W. had herpes and that her behavior was trashy or tramp-like.

At the hearing on J.W.'s protective order request, R.W. refused to answer 32 separate questions pertaining mostly to how K.B. came into possession of the pictures of J.W. that were meant only for R.W. and the creation and existence of the Bumble account, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. "Although the refusal to testify in a civil case cannot be used against the one asserting the privilege in a subsequent criminal proceeding, the privilege against self-incrimination does not prohibit the trier of fact in a civil case from drawing adverse inferences from a witness'[s] refusal to testify."

The trial court correctly found from the evidence and the inferences from the evidence that "there is no evidence that R.W. tried to stop or block [K.B.'s] harassment or stalking behavior utilizing or threatening to use the photos against [J.W.]," and correctly concluded that "like [K.B.], [R.W.] was engaged in bringing harassment to bear on [J.W.]" There was more than sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact which, in turn, support the conclusions of law in favor of granting J.W.'s petition for a permanent protective order against R.W.

And here's Judge Terry Crone's concurrence:

I agree with the affirmance of the protective order against Rafer Weigel, but I write separately because I respectfully disagree with my colleagues' decision to refer to Weigel by his initials instead of his name.

No statute, court rule, or court policy entitles Weigel to anonymity. In fact, pursuant to the Rules on Access to Court Records adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court, Weigel's name is presumptively accessible to the public. See Ind. Access to Court Records Rule 4(A) ("A Court Record is accessible to the public except as provided in Rule 5."). Some of the stated purposes of those rules are to "[c]ontribute to public safety" and "[p]romote governmental accountability and transparency[.]"These overlap with the stated purposes of the Civil Protection Order Act, which was enacted by the Indiana General Assembly "to promote the: (1) protection and safety of all victims of domestic or family violence in a fair, prompt, and effective manner; (2) protection and safety of all victims of harassment in a fair, prompt, and effective manner; and (3) prevention of future domestic violence, family violence, and harassment."

As described in lurid detail above, Weigel threatened and publicly humiliated J.W., who sought and obtained a protective order against him. Weigel has challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that order. If we had ruled in his favor, he could have petitioned to expunge all records relating to the protective order pursuant to Indiana Code Chapter 34-26-7.5. But since we have affirmed the trial court's determination that Weigel harassed J.W., I can think of no principled reason why this Court should shield his identity from the public.

Indeed, naming the perpetrator of such depraved acts could only contribute to public safety, promote governmental transparency and accountability (by this Court and by any law enforcement agency that might have occasion to enforce the protective order, respectively), and prevent future harassment of J.W. and others.

For a media account of the underlying scandal, see the Chicago Tribune (Sophie Sherry); Weigel had been a Chicago TV news anchor.

Go here to read the rest:
Indiana Judges Disagree: Should Targets of Protective Orders Be Pseudonymous? - Reason

Sean Ellis was 21 years old when he was convicted for the 1993 murder of Boston Police Det. John Mulligan.

Two mistrials and a third that cemented his lifetime sentence spelled out Elliss fate until 2015, when a court ruling reversed his convictions on first-degree murder and armed robbery charges. In 2018, after calls for another trial, charges against Ellis were withdrawn.

Now, Ellis, who spent over 22 years behind bars and whose attorneys had long sought that fourth trial, is telling his story in a new Netflix documentary that hit the streaming service Wednesday, Trial 4.

The eight-part series begins with Ellis out on bail.

He has maintained that he is innocent in the grisly crime that unfurled early one morning outside a Walgreens drugstore in Roslindale. The subsequent investigation was helmed by corrupt detectives that some have said may have worked to cover up their own wrongdoings in making a speedy arrest.

But whether Ellis is in prison or not, prosecutors have said hes their man.

Heres five things to know about the case and the details surrounding it:

Mulligan, a 27-year member of the police department, was shot as he worked a private security detail at a Walgreens drugstore on American Legion Highway in Roslindale early on Sept. 26, 1993.

The 52-year-old detective was over halfway through a midnight-to-6 a.m. shift when first responders received a 911 call for an officer needing assistance around 3:54 a.m. Mulligan was shot four or five times in the front of his head, according to a report inThe Boston Globe the following morning.

Investigators said Mulligans department-issued 9mm Glock semiautomatic pistol was missing, although he was shot with a different gun: a .25-caliber weapon.

This was a cold-blooded, premeditated murder of a Boston police officer, then-Police Commissioner William J. Bratton told reporters. There were some elements that would lead one to describe it as execution-style an assassination.

Ellis, then a 19-year-old from Dorchester, has said he went to the store to buy diapers. He was with Terry L. Patterson, also 19, of Hyde Park, who was convicted of murder in the case but later had his conviction overturned on appeal, according to theGlobe.

Witnesses told authorities they saw Pattersons Volkswagen Rabbit at the store, and one witness, Rosa Sanchez, told police she saw a man she later identified as Ellis crouched next to Mulligans Ford Explorer before shots were fired, the newspaper reported. A forensic examiner initially reported finding Pattersons fingerprints on the vehicle.

Later, Elliss then-girlfriend recalled him retrieving two guns from his home, which he left at her apartment, according to the Globe.She and a friend ultimately left the weapons Mulligans pistol and the firearm he was shot with in a field where police discovered them.

Over a week after Elliss arrest on Oct. 6, 1993, his mother, Mary Jackie Ellis, struggled to comprehend how her son was charged in such a horrific crime.

I wanted my children to follow my example, she told aGlobe reporter. I wanted them to become involved in their community, in cleaning up their buildings and taking pride in their neighborhood.

The senior Ellis admitted she had called the police before on her own son. In September 1992, authorities were called after her son allegedly left their house with the child of her then-boyfriend following an argument. Ellis was later charged with assault and battery, family abuse, and threatening to commit a crime and was placed on probation, the Globe reported.

When he was arrested for Mulligans murder, his only outstanding charges unrelated to the slaying were for kidnapping and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon both brought on by a family dispute, according to the newspaper.

Still, she explained, the murder didnt square right with what she knew about her son.

I cant visualize it, even in his deepest anger, that my son would take somebodys life, she said.

Elliss first two trials in January and March 1995 both resulted in juries voting 9-3 to convict. He was ultimately convicted that September and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

His conviction sat on the theory of felony murder, according to the Globe. In other words, because Ellis participated in the robbery of Mulligan, he should be held responsible for his murder.

At the time of his third trial who exactly pulled the trigger and took Mulligans life had never been officially established, the Globe reported.

Mulligan, of West Roxbury, joined the Boston Police Department in 1966 and apparently loved his job.

Not long after joining the force, Mulligan began working practically around the clock, often picking up overtime shifts and raking in six-figure yearly salaries. After his death, he was remembered for racking up hundreds of arrests.

OneGlobereport called Mulligan an old-fashioned, bare-knuckles sort of cop headstrong and street-savvy and blunt.

Most people take the family first and their job second, Michael Carroll, then-vice president of the detectives union, told the Globe the day of Mulligans murder. John really enjoyed the job, to the extreme. He was relentless.

But his reputation in the department faltered in the years before his death.

In 1989, Mulligan was suspended after an internal investigation found he double-billed the force for some of his overtime shifts, according to the Globe.

In 1992, he was branded as a problem officer by the department, whose internal audit found he ranked fifth out of its 1,950 officers for having the most complaints filed against him. Mulligan was the subject of 24 misconduct investigations in his 27-year career.

And in 1986, Mulligan was mentioned in a federal corruption probe of the force, in which a drug dealer testified the detective was among many officers who protected his operations in exchange for payoffs, the Globewrote following Mulligans death.

Mulligan invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when he went before a grand jury; he was not charged with a crime.

In 2015, when Suffolk Superior Court Judge Carol Ball ordered a new trial for Ellis, she wrote how Elliss defense attorney, Rosemary Scapicchio, discovered new evidence that suggests there was corruption within the investigation of Mulligans homicide itself.

Balls ruling indicated police received tips that Mulligan was involved in crimes with the detectives who investigated his death, including the armed robbery of a suspected drug dealer only 17 days before his death, according to theGlobe.

Ball also wrote that authorities received tips from three different people that implicated a city police officer and his son in Mulligans murder, the newspaper reported. The tips said the pair believed the detective had harassed a teenage female relative all information Elliss defense did not receive, Ball said.

Richard Mulligan, the detectives brother, said his brother was never charged with a crime.

Sean Ellis is guilty, he said. The evidence is compelling. I dont think hes fully paid for what he did.

Prosecutors at the time also fired back, saying that Balls findings did not present one single piece of evidence that contradicts the strong evidence that proved Ellis guilt at trial.

In our judgment, this was a conviction based on direct, reliable, corroborated evidence, Jake Wark, a spokesman for then-Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley, told the Globe. We fully intend to present that evidence to a new jury if necessary.

Still, in 2016, the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of a new trial for Ellis based on the new evidence of corruption inherent in the case, including that the FBI had heard there was a contract out for Mulligans murder and that he and other detectives robbed a marijuana dealer of over $26,000 weeks before his death, according to theGlobe.

Elliss cousins, Celine Kirk, 17, and Tracy Brown, 23, two sisters, were shot and killed on Sept. 29, 1993 three days after Mulligans death in a Mattapan apartment.

Craig Hood, 18, of Brockton, confessed to the killings carried out in front of Browns two young children and told police the incident stemmed from an argument he had with Kirk over a gold chain, according to theGlobe.

Hood was convicted in 1995 of second-degree murder and sentenced to two consecutive life terms with eligibility for parole starting in 2033.

Following the murders, relatives of Kirk and Brown said Kirk was at the Walgreens the night Mulligan was murdered with Ellis, buying diapers for their niece, according to the Globe. The family members, who asked not to be identified, also had said Hood and Patterson knew one another, the newspaper reported.

One relative told theGlobe that Ellis was questioned by police about his and Kirks presence at the Walgreens the night of the murder only after the two sisters were killed.

Investigators, at the time, said only three employees were in the store at the time of Mulligans murder.

Ellis was arrested hours after the burials of Kirk and Brown.

Boston Police Dets. Walter Robinson, Kenneth Acerra, and John Brazil played pivotal roles in the investigation against Ellis.

The trio helped secure witnesses and physical evidence from Mulligans murder, Ball, the Suffolk Superior Court judge, wrote in 2015. All three had also been the detectives later accused of joining Mulligan in robbing the suspected drug dealer just a little more than two weeks before his death.

Ball wrote that the prosecution was in a rush to judgement with Elliss arrest and subsequent conviction.

From the beginning of the investigation, the apparent criminal misconduct of Detectives Acerra, Robinson, Brazil, and Mulligan gave the surviving partners a motive to cover up any evidence of their own crimes and to contribute to a quick arrest and conclusion to the investigation so that it did not turn in their direction, Ball wrote, according to the Globe. Defense counsel should have had the opportunity to make that argument to the jury.

In 1998, Robinson and Acerra pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from a 27-count indictment, including that they stole over $200,000 and took bribes in exchange for offering lenient sentence recommendations, according to the Associated Press.

Brazil was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony.

In 2016, the state Supreme Judicial Court ordered another trial for Ellis based on the new evidence that Mulligan was a corrupt officer and on his association with the trio of detectives who investigated his death.

These detectives would likely fear that a prolonged and comprehensive investigation of the victims murder would uncover leads that might reveal their own corruption, the late Chief Justice Ralph Gants wrote in the courts decision.

Additionally, Sanchez the key eye witness who identified both Ellis and Patterson as the two men she saw around Mulligans car and Acerra knew one another, GBH reported.

Acerra and Sanchezs aunt had been romantically involved at one point. Sanchez, and her husband, had initially identified another man not Ellis as the one she saw at the scene, according to the Globe.

Prosecutors have long said that even with the compelling corruption evidence introduced in recent years, there remain elements of the case that support the case against Ellis.

The information surrounding Mulligans own past does not delineate from the facts that Ellis possessed the murder weapon and his then-girlfriends fingerprint was found on Mulligans pistol.

Although prosecutors intended to bring Ellis back to court after his release in 2015, charges against him were withdrawn in December 2018.

The trial evidence and testimony in 1995 proved Mr. Ellis guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors at the time called the case against him overwhelming, then-acting Suffolk County District Attorney John Pappas said. But the passage of more than two and a half decades has seriously compromised our ability to prove it again. For this reason, my office will file paperwork today ending the prosecution of Mr. Ellis for first-degree murder and armed robbery.

Pappas noted however that Elliss two convictions for possessing the murder weapon and Mulligans pistol remained undisturbed.

He also acknowledged that the decision to drop the more serious charges had to do with three corrupt police detectives. Pappas said prosecutors did not believe Mulligan was involved in the corruption, but it is now inextricably intertwined with the investigation and critical witnesses in the case.

Furthermore, the decision to withdraw charges was not made based on the notion that Ellis was wrongfully convicted, according to Pappas.

Let me be clear: that is not the case here, he said. If at any point we had any reason to believe that Mr. Ellis was wrongfully charged or convicted, we would have acted on it immediately.

Patterson, whose murder conviction was overturned on an appeal, eventually received a reduced charge of manslaughter in 2006, according to the Globe. He was ordered to serve 22 years but was soon released based on good behavior and time already served.

In the 25 years since Det. Mulligan was murdered in cold blood, not one piece of evidence developed by prosecutors, defense counsel, or anyone else has pointed to anyone but Sean Ellis and Terry Patterson, Pappas said. Of all the people in all the world who might have killed John Mulligan, only they were present at the time and place he was killed by their own admissions, supported by eyewitnesses and physical evidence.

Watch the trailer for Trial 4:

Enable breaking news notifications straight to your internet browser.

Great, youre signed up!

See the original post:
5 things to know about the Boston murder case at the center of a new Netflix documentary series - Boston.com

For years, Keith Raniere won glowing endorsements from the Hollywood actresses, millionaires and Ivy League graduates who studied his teachings during self-help classes offered by his company Nxivm.

Most of them have now distanced themselves from Mr. Raniere after he was convicted and sentenced to 120 years in prison for using Nxivm (pronounced NEX-ee-um) to commit sex trafficking and other crimes.

Among other things, a jury found that women in Nxivm were recruited under false pretenses to join a secret sorority that Mr. Raniere formed, where they were branded with his initials near their pelvises, groomed to be his sexual partners and kept in line with blackmail.

Still, despite trial evidence that Mr. Raniere possessed child pornography, manipulated his followers by keeping them starved and sleep-deprived and committed a long list of federal crimes, a handful of these recruits insist that Mr. Raniere changed the world for good. And now, they are unleashing a public campaign to undermine his conviction.

Last month, eight of his female supporters including a former actress, corporate lawyer and doctor released videos online that pushed back against the groups reputation as a sex cult, saying they consented to being branded and were never forced into sexual relationships with Mr. Raniere.

At a news conference on the day of Mr. Ranieres sentencing, his supporters defended their time with Nxivm. Their comments came after they watched a former Nxivm member tell the court that Mr. Raniere sexually abused her starting when she was 15 and he was 45 an allegation that Mr. Ranieres lawyers have never disputed.

The effort to exonerate Mr. Raniere was in keeping with how Nxivm had long dealt with its critics; former members who challenged Mr. Ranieres methods were shunned from the community and sometimes targeted with lawsuits that drove them into bankruptcy.

Nxivm lured recruits with its expensive Executive Success Programs, tapping into a desire for personal growth within elite circles. Around 18,000 people have taken its courses since 1998.

What made Nxivm an illegal enterprise, prosecutors said, was the fraud, extortion, immigration violations and sex crimes that took place over 15 years under Mr. Ranieres direction. A jury convicted Mr. Raniere on all counts after a six-week trial last year. Five women in his inner circle have also pleaded guilty to felony charges.

And yet, Mr. Raniere maintains a small and loyal following among people with careers in law, medicine and business. In letters to the court last month, Mr. Ranieres supporters touted their degrees from top universities.

Cults like going after people who are bright because they will represent the cult very well, said Rachel Bernstein, a therapist who specializes in treating former cult members. Intelligence is not a predictor of cult involvement.

Cult experts say it is not uncommon for followers to stand by a leader who has gone to prison or died. Clinging to the group may be more comforting than the prospect of leaving, which may require finding a job or reconciling with family and long-lost friends.

Theyre what we call true believers, said Janja Lalich, a sociologist and cult expert who has worked with Nxivm defectors. It shows the depth of their indoctrination and the extent to which they have internalized his rhetoric.

During the pandemic, Mr. Ranieres supporters regularly danced outside the Brooklyn jail where he was housed. They released a jailhouse phone call with Mr. Raniere as a podcast.

One vocal supporter of Mr. Raniere is Nicki Clyne, the former television actress from Battlestar Galactica who now describes herself as an advocate for criminal justice reform.

Ms. Clyne has said she was part of the secret womens group inside Nxivm called DOS, an acronym for a Latin phrase meaning Lord/Master of the Obedient Female Companions.

Trial witnesses testified that the group had a pyramid structure where lower-ranking women were referred to as slaves and overseen by female masters who reported to Mr. Raniere.

To honor their vow to the group, the women were regularly required to hand over what was known as collateral, including nude photographs or the rights to their financial assets, according to trial testimony.

Prosecutors said it was extortion and fraud. Former DOS members testified at trial that they obeyed Mr. Ranieres sexual orders under the fear that their collateral would be released.

Ms. Clyne was not charged, but prosecutors said in a court filing last month that she had directed some women inside DOS to delete the collateral from their computers and transfer it to hard drives stored with her lawyer. Ms. Clyne denied the allegation in an emailed statement.

Ms. Clyne is married to Allison Mack, the former television actress who is awaiting sentencing after she pleaded guilty to crimes stemming from her role as a top DOS recruiter. Prosecutors have called it a sham marriage to allow Ms. Clyne, a Canadian native, to stay in the United States.

Ms. Clyne said in her statement that the marriage was born from genuine love.

With regards to Mr. Raniere, she said: If I discover that predatory, underage sex took place, I will denounce it wholeheartedly and reconsider my views.

She and other followers of Mr. Raniere were now reviewing the trial evidence and keeping an open mind, she said.

In the videos released last month, Ms. Clyne and seven other former DOS members said they voluntarily participated in the master-slave relationship.

Everyones going like, if you say anything different than whats been said, then youre an idiot, youve been brainwashed, youve been abused, Sahajo Haertel, who describes herself on LinkedIn as a humanitarian and entrepreneur, said in one video.

But Mr. Ranieres supporters have gone further than just sharing their experiences: they have sought to publicly undermine confidence in the legal system by attacking the prosecutors, the victims and the judge who oversaw Mr. Ranieres trial.

Several showed up to the Brooklyn U.S. attorneys office in September with a video camera to ask prosecutors to sign an affidavit swearing that they followed due process. And last month, they filed a letter with the court that accused the government of tampering with evidence on Mr. Ranieres computer.

Mr. Ranieres lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, said during his clients sentencing that he did not believe the claim was valid and refused to file it himself, even after Mr. Raniere and his supporters asked him many, many times.

These publicity campaigns are distinct from the legal work in the case that has to be done, Mr. Agnifilo said in a statement.

Prosecutors have said Nxivm was financed largely by Clare Bronfman, an heiress to the Seagrams liquor fortune, who was sentenced to over six years in prison for her crimes on behalf of Nxivm.

Ronald Sullivan, a lawyer for Ms. Bronfman, said she was not funding the recent publicity effort.

None of Mr. Ranieres supporters testified at trial, which would have required them to answer questions under oath during cross-examination by prosecutors.

Ms. Clyne and another woman, Michele Hatchette, wrote in affidavits to the court last month that they chose not to testify because of threats from prosecutors. The judge dismissed the claim, saying there was scant and highly questionable evidence of any intimidation.

Ms. Hatchette appeared in a September television interview to defend Nxivm, saying, I think there is a difference between being branded and getting a brand.

But during the criminal investigation, Ms. Hatchette told prosecutors in interviews that she wanted to leave DOS after she was assigned to seduce Mr. Raniere, according to a court filing last month.

She only stayed, she told prosecutors, because of the material she had handed over as collateral, including letters addressed to the police that accused her siblings of abusing their children, the filing said.

In an emailed statement, Ms. Hatchette said: As a result of my experiences in DOS, I am a stronger, more confident woman than I ever thought I could be, and I have an unwavering trust in myself.

Mr. Ranieres relentless publicity campaign backfired with one longtime follower.

Ivy Nevares, 43, who dated Mr. Raniere, said in an interview that she decided to denounce him publicly after seeing the recent efforts to promote him. She said the attacks on his victims were abhorrent.

At Mr. Ranieres sentencing, Ms. Nevares told the court that she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder after Mr. Raniere subjected her to indentured servitude during her nearly 17 years in Nxivm.

Pulled in by Mr. Ranieres teachings, Ms. Nevares moved from New York City to Nxivms headquarters near Albany, N.Y., where the group controlled her rent, her income and her work visa as a Mexican immigrant.

Mr. Raniere demanded she weigh 95 pounds and claimed his spiritual energy would kill him unless he had sex constantly, she told the court.

In early 2018, the government subpoenaed her to testify before a grand jury. On the advice of a lawyer provided by Ms. Bronfman, however, she invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, she said in the interview.

She left the group a few months later. It took her almost a year to stop viewing Mr. Raniere as a Jesus-type figure, she said. I was in the bubble of Nxivm for so long that I didnt know how I could navigate the world, she said.

Ms. Nevares said she wanted to warn the public about what she sees as efforts to rebuild Nxivm and Mr. Ranieres reputation.

If you want to go on believing hes God on Earth, thats fine, she said. But dont go around enrolling people into this very dangerous criminal organization.

Read more from the original source:
Nxivms Leader Is Guilty of Ugly Crimes. These Die-Hards Stand by Him. - The New York Times

Posted Fri, November 6th, 2020 1:48 pm by Andrew Hamm

This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to review, among other things, conflicting lower-court decisions concerning a Trump administration rule that prohibits clinics that receive funds through the federal Title X program from providing referrals for abortion.

The Title X Family Planning Program provides grants to support health services, including cancer screening and pregnancy counseling. By statute, no Title X funds shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. In 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services issued its rule on the ground that [i]f a Title X project refers for abortion as a method of family planning, it is a program where abortion is a method of family planning. The previous rule had allowed Title X clinics to offer counseling regarding abortion and referrals upon request. Challengers of the rule claim that it will prevent providers from complying with requirements that all pregnancy counseling should be nondirective. The administration maintains that the rule resembles a 1988 rule that the Supreme Court upheld in Rust v. Sullivan. The petitions that ask the justices to resolve the legality of the rule come to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the rule (American Medical Association v. Azar and Oregon v. Azar) and the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit struck it down (Azar v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore).

These and otherpetitions of the weekare below:

City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P.20-334Issue: Whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit alone has held, district courts lack[] discretion to deny or reduce appellate costs deemed taxable in district court underFed. R. App. P. 39(e).

American Medical Association v. Azar20-429Issues: (1) Whether the Department of Health and Human Services rule for the Title X family planning program which prohibits and compels certain pregnancy-related speech between a Title X provider and her patient, proscribing abortion-related information but requiring information about non-abortion options is arbitrary and capricious; (2) whether the rule violates the Title X appropriations act, which requires that all pregnancy counseling under Title X shall be nondirective; and (3) whether the rule violatesSection 1554 of the Affordable Care Act, which requires that HHS shall not promulgate any regulation that harms patient care in any one of six ways, including by interfer[ing] with communications between a patient and her provider.

Azar v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore20-454Issues: (1) Whether the Department of Health and Human Services rule, which prohibits Title X projects from providing referrals for abortion as a method of family planning, falls within the agencys statutory authority; and (2) whether the rule is the product of reasoned decisionmaking.

HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association20-472Issue: Whether, in order to qualify for a hardship exemption underSection 7545(o)(9)(B)(i)of the Renewable Fuel Standards, a small refinery needs to receive uninterrupted, continuous hardship exemptions for every year since 2011.

GE Capital Retail Bank v. Belton20-481Issue: Whether provisions of the Bankruptcy Code providing for a statutorily enforceable discharge of a debtors debts impliedly repeal theFederal Arbitration Act.

Bess v. United States20-489Issues: (1) Whether10 U.S.C. 825, which allows a military commander to hand select members to sit on a general court-martial panel, as applied in Pedro Bess case in which an all-white panel convicted a Black defendant of sexual misconduct against a white woman violates the Fifth Amendment; and (2) whether the lower court erred in declining to remand Bess case for additional factfinding.

Freeman v. Wainwright20-490Issue: Whether the statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition begins when the new judgment entered following resentencing becomes final.

Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines Inc.20-495Issues: (1) Whether, and under what circumstances, claims arising under federal statute are subject to the Railway Labor Acts mandatory arbitration requirement; and (2) whether the undue hardship inquiry in a Title VII case is an affirmative defense to liability.

Oregon v. Azar20-539Issues: (1) Whether the Department of Health and Human Services final rule which prohibits Title X providers from communicating certain abortion-related information to their patients and requires physical separation of Title X-funded care from healthcare facilities that provide abortion services or certain abortion-related information violates appropriations statutes requiring that all pregnancy counseling in the Title X program shall be nondirective; (2) whether the final rule violates Section 1554 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits HHS from promulgating any regulation that creates unreasonable barriers to obtaining appropriate medical care, impedes timely access to such care, interferes with patient-provider communications regarding a full range of treatment options, restricts providers from disclosing all relevant information to patients making health care decisions, or violates providers ethical standards; and (3) whether the final rule is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, including by failing to respond adequately to concerns that (a) the rule requires medical professionals to violate medical ethics and (b) the counseling restrictions and physical-separation requirement impose significant costs and impair access to care.

Posted in City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., American Medical Association v. Azar, Azar v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association, GE Capital Retail Bank v. Belton, Bess v. U.S., Freeman v. Wainwright, Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines Inc., Oregon v. Azar, Featured, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Petitions of the week: Three cases testing the legality of a federal ban on abortion referrals, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 6, 2020, 1:48 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/petitions-of-the-week-three-cases-testing-the-legality-of-a-federal-ban-on-abortion-referrals/

Read this article:
Petitions of the week: Three cases testing the legality of a federal ban on abortion referrals - SCOTUSblog

Methinks it was President Gerald Ford who, after being sworn in to replace the disgraced Richard Nixon, wearily pronounced in his 1974 inauguration, My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

It would be tempting for President-elect Joe Biden to say the same thing but: a) it would be poor form and would deepen the already profound divisions that threaten the nation and b) it would be just plain wrong.

When Nixon boarded Marine One and lifted off from the White House lawn some 46 years ago, we could rest assured that the unindicted Watergate co-conspirator would slink away quietly to rehabilitate his image and, thanks to Fords pardon, escape the clutches of federal prosecutors sharpening their knives and lying in wait.

Support authentic, locally owned and operated public service journalism!

The nation wont be so lucky this time around. The long national nightmare of whats left of the Trump presidency will continue like a dreadful reality TV show that networks refuse to cancel because it attracts lots of eyeballs.

There are so many unanswered questions here: Will Trump concede? Will he cooperate with the transition? And, of course, the one concern on everyones mind: Where will the Trump presidential library be located and what will be inside it?

Worse yet, unlike Nixon, Trump will surely need a legal defense fund. It is not hard to imagine that Trump will resign shortly before President-elect Joe Bidens inauguration and that, after being sworn in for the briefest presidency in history, Vice President Mike Pence will pardon his ex-boss preemptively. But that wont stop local prosecutors such as New York Attorney General Letitia James, who said only a few days ago that she is continuing an investigation into the Trump family and the Trump Organization related to financial impropriety.

Furthermore, there is bound to be a barrage of civil lawsuits, in which case Trump cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment and will be forced to testify. Imagine the ratings. So no, our long national nightmare is anything but over. Its merely transitioning to the next hellish level.

Notwithstanding the complex web of problems confronting our nation, the reasons for Trumps demise itself are actually quite simple. Defeating an incumbent president is a terribly difficult feat to accomplish. The last time it happened was George H.W. Bush in 1992, and before that, Jimmy Carter in 1980. Unlike Trump, both Bush and Carter were weakened by credible primary challenges. Prior to 1980, the last time an incumbent president had been denied a second term was Herbert Hoover in the throes of the Great Depression in 1932.

Throwing out an incumbent president is a high hurdle not only because of the power of incumbency but because the vast majority of successful politicians understand the art of addition. They realize they need to build on their core group of supporters in order to have a more successful term in office and thereby grease the skids for re-election.

Trump, on the other hand, has practiced the science of subtraction. In his four years in office, he has made little effort to reach out to people who did not support him, though its worth noting that he did a little better this year with black males and Latino males than in 2016.

Be that as it may, Trump not only throws red meat to his followers at rallies and on his Twitter feed, but he routinely slaughters an entire cow and hurls it out to his salivating fans, while offending others who held their collective noses and voted for him four years ago. And his poor handling of the COVID-19 pandemic spoke directly to the question he asked wary voters in 2016: What the hell do you have to lose? The question has now been answered.

You cant belittle and insult entire groups and classes of people, blow up institutional norms, provide atrocious leadership in a crisis and then expect love in return. Politics doesnt work that way and neither does human nature.

Think about all the presidents and other political leaders and the inclusive language most of them try to use in their speeches. Have you ever heard Donald Trump say, for example, the aforementioned My fellow Americans ?

Trump has done a disservice to the nation by deepening the urban-rural divide. No matter who had emerged victorious, 40% of the country will still despise and resent the other 40% for the foreseeable future.

On the state level, Trump was soundly rejected in Connecticut by a margin of nearly 58-40%, losing six out of eight counties, winning onlyyou guessed itthe most rural: Litchfield and Windham.

Trumps coattails were not enough to push my former state representative Brian Ohler over the finish line in his rematch against Democrat Maria Horn in the Figthin 64th.

The five members of the states U.S House delegationDemocrats allwon handily. Democratic candidates for General Assembly celebrated gains up and down the ballot, as Senate Dems solidified their majority and their colleagues in the House appear to have done the same. The only questions now are whether Sen. Chris Murphy winds up in the Biden administration, and whether Gov. Ned Lamont, who will be 67 in January, will run for a second term.

State Republican Party chairman J.R. Romano, a strong Trump supporter, is packing it in, opting against pursuing a second five-year term. Good luck finding a replacement. It will likely be a thankless job.

Let this grim era of demonization in America begin to end here and now, Biden said in his victory speech. I pledge to be a president who seeks not to divide, but unify.

Im rooting for him and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, whose historic election is a story in its own right, but Biden will be pushing up daisies before this grim era ends. The nation aches for their success.

Contributing op-ed columnist Terry Cowgill lives in Lakeville, blogs at CTDevilsAdvocate and is managing editor of The Berkshire Edge in Great Barrington, Mass. Follow him on Twitter @terrycowgill or email him at [emailprotected]

DISCLAIMER: The views, opinions, positions, or strategies expressed by the author are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or positions of CTNewsJunkie.com.

Read more:
OP-ED | It's Easy to Beat Trump, But Defeating Trumpism, Not So Much - CT News Junkie