Mediaboss Marketing

CLARKSBURG, W.Va. (WV News) A 60-year-old convicted 39 years ago in a Harrison County homicide now is accused of violating his federal supervised release in a 2006 federal drug case.

Charles Raymond Wable is accused of violating his supervised release by unlawfully possessing an assault-style rifle that had a loaded high-capacity magazine and had a round in the chamber.

And now Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Cogar is trying to prove that Wable also tried to persuade another male to lie by saying the gun was his.

During a Nov. 10 final hearing on the petition to revoke supervised release, the male, a young man, testified that it was his gun.

Keeley then granted a government request for a continuance to investigate the young mans testimony.

The young man, visibly shaken, appeared for a second time Friday and was informed of his Fifth Amendment rights by Keeley. She also has arranged for the young man to be appointed veteran area counsel, probably either Tom Dyer or Shawn Morgan.

The judge also declined to rule yet on the petition to revoke Wables supervised release. She told Cogar and Federal Defender Brian Kornbrath that she wants to listen to tapes of phone calls Wable made since he was jailed Sept. 25, and also review a transcript of those calls. Because of the possibility of further criminal charges, I need to look at this pretty carefully, Keeley said before scheduling a December resumption of the hearing.

Additionally, she indicated she may want the young man to take the stand again, even if its just to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The young man was visibly shaken during his appearance before Keeley.

During the Nov. 10 hearing, the young man testified hed bought the gun at a roadside stand and then put it under Wables mattress after firing a few rounds.

Wable took the stand Oct. 2 in his preliminary revocation hearing and denied the firearm belonged to him.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is investigating Wable for the possible filing of new criminal charges over the gun possession, U.S. Probation Officer Benjamin Ahmed testified during the Oct. 2 hearing.

Cogar put on just one witness Friday, ATF Special Agent Jared Newman. Newman testified about finding work records that put into question the young mans testimony about buying the gun Sept. 25 and putting it under the mattress that day.

Newman also testified about listening to the jail calls and how that could correlate to the governments belief that Wable was trying to hire someone to lie about the gun possession or in legal terminology, allegedly trying to suborn perjury.

The gun was found Sept. 25 at Wables residence by federal probation officers Vinnie Zummo, Evin Thomas and Travis Roberts, Ahmed testified Oct. 2.

In addition to a Harrison County second-degree murder conviction from 1981, Wable has convictions from the Southern District of West Virginia for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and for breaking into a post office, Ahmed has testified.

Wable also is on the supervised release for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. On Sept. 4, 2007, Keeley sentenced Wable to 188 months in prison in that case.

Wable, of Lumberport, also is under indictment in Harrison County Circuit Court on a charge of felony fleeing with reckless indifference.

That charging document was handed up by grand jurors in early September. Harrison Circuit Judge James A. Matish has yet to reschedule the trial after Wable was arrested by federal authorities on the supervised release revocation allegation.

On the state fleeing charge, Wable in late 2019 led law enforcement on a pursuit through the Wyatt, ODells Knob and Pine Bluff communities, law enforcement has alleged.

Wable drove off from a traffic stop while Harrison Deputy Ryan Harris was checking IDs and criminal history information, according to the criminal complaint.

The pursuit was brought to a halt near Peora when Harrison Deputy J.R. Flanagan successfully deployed stop sticks, causing flats to all four tires of the vehicle driven by Wable, according to law enforcement.

On the second-degree murder conviction, Wable was sentenced to 5 to 18 years, with an effective sentencing date of April 18, 1983, according to Lawrence Messina, state communications director, who cited information from the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Wable was granted parole Nov. 7, 1988, and discharged from parole early, on Nov. 29, 1993, according to Messina.

Follow this link:
Harrison County West Virginia man with murder & other felony convictions accused of violating supervised release by possessing assault rifle - WV...

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