Mediaboss Marketing

Section 446 of the California Code of Civil Procedure concerns the verification of pleadings. Subdivision (a) provides that an answer to a complaint generally must be verified in either of two following circumstances:

The first exception does seemingly applies to any party, including a party that is not an a natural person. In a recent case, however, the state argued that the exception did not apply to corporations because corporations have no privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988).

The Court of Appeal, however, rejected the state's argument:

"Section 446, subdivision (a) does not refer to a 'person' being compelled to be a witness against themselves. Instead it refers to a 'party' who might be subjected to a criminal prosecution. How the word person has been interpreted in the context of the constitutional privilege is immaterial."

Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Auto Group v. Superior Court,Cal. Ct. App. Case No. A159623 (Oct. 20, 2020). The Court made it clear that it was not extending the privilege against self-incrimination to corporations and that corporations will likely have to provide responses under oath in discovery.

View post:
Court Holds That Corporation Need Not Verify Its Answer - JD Supra

Famed sports bettor Billy Walters, who was convicted of insider trading back in 2017, contends that the federal government illegally leaked information to the media.

Walters says that FBI agents leaked stories about him, and purposefully inflated the scope of the investigation, to push him to reveal more over a wiretap, Walters lawsuit filed Thursday in New York alleges.

Hes seeking a declaratory judgment confirming that his fifth amendment rights were violated by the defendants, including David Chaves, an agent in the New York FBI field office, and Preet Bharara, who served as US District Attorney for the Southern District of New York for eight years.

[Track all of your bets by downloading The Action Network App.]

Walters also wants a trial to discover compensatory damages for how his image was destroyed, as well as the recouping of associated attorney fees.

In 2017, Walters was found guilty of an insider trading scheme, netting more than $43 million on tips concerning the status of milk maker Dean Foods. Walters frequently golfed with Dean Foods CEO Tom Davis, who pleaded guilty and cooperated with the investigation. The longtime Las Vegas resident received a five-year prison sentence and a $10 million fine.

The story was well covered by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, the beneficiaries of the leaks, thanks to inclusion of Walters friend, pro golfer Phil Mickelson, who the government alleged made $931,000 on a tip from Walters to buy Dean Foods stock.

Mickelson then allegedly used that to pay Walters back for a gambing debt. In 2016, Mickelson paid the $931,000 back to the Securities & Exchange Commission, plus $105,000 interest.

Mickelsons name was mentioned at Walters trial more than 100 times, but Mickelson pleaded the fifth and never testified.

Walters has been a legendary name in betting lore. He moved from Kentucky to Las Vegas in 1980 after being convicted on bookmaking charges.

He did almost no media for more than 30 years, until he agreed to do an extensive piece with 60 Minutes in January 2011.

On the show, Walters said he had never had a losing year in 30 years of sports betting. Correspondent Lara Croft talked of his $20 million jet and his seven homes.

In 2014, Walters sold one of those homes for $13 million and another his 10,000 square foot mansion near San Diego went on the market for $26.9 million last month. Walters has been living there since late April when he was released from a Florida prison due to Covid-19.

While Walter went to jail, and has to serve until Jan. 2022, Chaves, the lawsuit said, retired in 2017 without any consequences for his alleged actions.

See more here:
Rovell: Billy Walters Files Lawsuit Alleging Federal Agents Leaked Stories to the Media - The Action Network

This morning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,inNorth American Butterfly Association v. Wolf,revived the North American Butterfly Association's Fifth Amendment Due Process claim against the Department of Homeland Security for intruding upon a wildlife sanctuary along the U.S.-Mexico border. Dismissal of the NABA's other claims, however, was affirmed.

Judge Pillard wrote for the court's majority, joined by Judge Tatel. Judge Millett dissented. Judge Pillard's majority summarized the case as follows:

The National Butterfly Center, a 100-acre wildlife sanctuary and botanical garden owned by the nonprofit North American Butterfly Association, lies along the border between the United States and Mexico. Butterfly Center staff discovered in 2017 that a segment of the wall the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to build on the border with Mexico would run through the Center's premises. After DHS confirmed that plan and asserted control over parts of the Center, the Butterfly Association sued.

The Association contends that DHS' presence on and use of parts of its property to prepare for and carry out construction of a border wall violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and two environmental statutes. The district court dismissed all claims, concluding the Association stated no viable constitutional claim and that section 102(c)(2)(A) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-546, as amended (IIRIRA) (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1103), strips jurisdiction over the statutory claims because the DHS Secretary waived application of environmental laws with respect to the construction of roads and physical barriers to be built at the Center. See N. Am. Butterfly Ass'n v. Nielsen, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2019). We affirm dismissal of the Butterfly Association's statutory and Fourth Amendment claims but reverse dismissal of the Fifth Amendment claim and remand for further proceedingsconsistent with this opinion.

The broad waiver provisions of the IIRIRA clearly grant the DHS Secretary the authority to waive statutory obstacles to wall construction, so those aspects of the ruling are quite straightforward (assuming, of course, that there is no non-delegation problem with the breadth of the authority delegated to DHS with that provision). The NABA tried to get around the IIRIRA, but to no avail.

The IIRIRA does not, and could not, waive the Department's constitutional obligations. On the constitutional claims, the panel majority concluded the NABA "failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim of unreasonable seizure of property it acknowledges to be 'open fields,'" but did state "a procedural due process claim under the Fifth Amendment."

Here is a portion of Judge Pillard's discussion of the NABA's claim:

A procedural due process violation under the Fifth Amendment occurs when a government official deprives a person of property without appropriate procedural protectionsprotections that include, at minimum, the basic requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard. . . .

The Butterfly Association alleges that CBP has asserted control over the National Butterfly Center by entering, maintaining a regular presence on, and taking charge of areas of the Center without notice to or consent from the Association. . . . The complaint alleges that CBP installed sensors at the Center to detect above ground activity, widened private roadways within the property, cut down trees, and threatened to destroy the Association's private gates and locks without warning. . . . Those property deprivations are unexcused, the complaint alleges, by any citation on DHS' part to a "lawful basis for their intrusion and destruction of" the Butterfly Center or any effort by DHS to "acquire an interest" in property admittedly not its own through any legally recognized "steps for doing so." . . .

The due process claim survives because the government has not established that its statutory authority to enter private property to patrol the border licenses all of the alleged intrusions at the Center. For example, DHS has not argued that the contractors it allegedly employed to widen a private road at the Center . . . are "immigration officers" entitled "to exercise the power to patrol the border conferred by [8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3)]" by entering private property, 8 C.F.R. 287.5(b). Nor has it established that widening private roadways, installing sensors, or regularly stationing CBP agents on Center property . . . all fall within the statutory authorization for "patrolling the border," 8 C.F.R. 287.1(c), or justify entry onto private property under section 1357(a)(3). . . .

With allegations that government officials and contractors have entered the National Butterfly Center to alter private roadways and install sensors, and that CBP has maintained an enduring presence at the Center in connection with planned border-security infrastructure, the Butterfly Association plausibly pleads a deprivation of property without due process. At the pleading stage, we of course express no view as to whether DHS agents in fact behaved as the Butterfly Association has alleged or whether the Association's Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim will ultimately prevail.

Judge Millett dissented on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Her dissent begins:

Cliffhangers may make for good storytelling, but they are no good for establishing appellate jurisdiction. Because the district court dismissed the complaint in part without prejudice and with express leave to amend and to seek emergency injunctive relief, and then did nothing more to conclude the case, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

The majority opinion offers a thoughtful theory of jurisdiction. The problem is that the Supreme Court has already answered this same jurisdictional question the opposite way. That decision binds this court. And the Supreme Court's disposition should come as no surprise. Statutory text, structure, and established principles of appellate jurisdiction foreclose our review because the district court's dismissal of the complaint was by its plain terms not final when entered by the court. The mere passage of time, without more, could not by itself make the judgment final. Neither could the litigants, through their actions or inaction, step into the shoes of the district court and singlehandedly cause the entry of a final judgment in the case. Without jurisdiction, we lack the power to address the merits. For that reason, I respectfully dissent.

One final editorial comment. In environmental policy debates it is common to present environmental conservation and the protection of private property rights as if they are in opposition to each other. Yet as this case shows, the constitutional protection of private property can also protect environmentally sensitive placesin this case, a wildlife refugefrom government excess. This is a point Ilya and I explored in our paper on the environmental consequences of unrestrained eminent domain authority, and I've examined in the context of species conservation and uncompensated takings.

Continue reading here:
Due Process for Butterflies in the D.C. Circuit - Reason

I walked into the house and set my things from school and work on my bed. I went into the kitchen and spoke with Grandpa and Autumn for a few moments. Then, I turned towards my place at the table and saw the envelope that was addressed to me. I looked at it. In the left-hand return address, I saw the Absentee Ballot Office. It had finally come!

I sat down at the table, took out my Cross pen, and slowly opened the envelope. This was the moment I had been waiting for. I remembered reading about President Lincoln in Team of Rivals and how he had sent out absentee ballots to members of the military during the Civil War. I thought of our founding mothers and fathers what they had to go through so that we might be free. I remembered working in the U.S. Capitol, walking those sacred halls, taking part in our government. As I sat down to vote for the first time for the office of President of the United States, I couldnt help but feel proud. I was finally having my voice counted. I was voting.

I filled in the little bubbles next to the candidates that I supported. I read the ballot measures, understood what they were saying and cast my vote. I looked at the judges and knew who I wanted to see retained and who I did not. I was informed.

We all know how divisive and nasty this election cycle has been. We all saw that first presidential debate, the whole world saw it. I have also seen the last four years.

I have learned about the spying of the Trump campaign and the impeachment proceedings. I have seen Speaker Pelosi declare the creation of a Commission on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. I have seen the riots across the country. I have heard the chants. But, through it all, I have been able to look through the smoke and the smog to see the everyday American.

It was not on the news when we made a music video singing Lean on Me or we had the Lip-Syncing Challenge. It was not on the news when we came together as a community to support the seniors who graduated by holding a parade with Cordova on the sidewalks to support us. It didnt make the news when our churches prayed for our people and for our country. No, the America I know is not on the news every night. We are the America I know, and this gives me great hope.

William Deaton is a graduate of Cordova Jr./Sr. High School and is leader of the Cordova Precinct of the Republican Party.

The rest is here:
Commentary: First time voting offers hope - The cordova Times

To the editor:

Whether you like it or not, the government can forcibly take over companies at whim with the full force of the law behind it.

This power is called eminent domain, enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, which states nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

So President Trump can just take over TikTok and its $50 billion in U.S. operations market value, right? Not exactly. At least U.S. District Court judge Carl Nichols doesnt seem to think so, which is why he put an injunction on the TikTok ban that President Trump activated Sept. 20.

So whose side is the law actually on? Although it is clear cut on paper, in practice, this seems to be a gray area. There are precedents for the federal government undoing done deals and forcing foreign companies to sell off their shares. President George H.W. Bush did that with the China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corp., in 1990, and President Barack Obama did that with Ralls Corp., in 2012.

Both were Chinese companies that were considered national security threats. But neither are a parallel to TikTok, which has 6,500 employees, nearly 2 billion customers, and a mammoth $75 billion global market value. Bringing TikTok down would mean bringing all those people down with it.

Secondly, social media apps arent exactly physical shops the government can bulldoze to smithereens. The website will still be there after the ban. People in the United States just wouldnt be able to use it which constitutes a gross violation of peoples First Amendment rights, which courts wouldnt allow.

At best, this is what might happen. TikTok might be forced to close its physical offices in the United States, but the website and the app will continue to be in use over here.

All things said, the fact remains that on April 10, 2018, TikTok China announced that it would give preference to Chinese Communist Party members in its hiring, and increase its censors from 6,000 to 10,000 employees.

How can such foreign influence be counteracted here in the United States legally? The easy answer is to come up with better local companies, and the onus for that is tech startups.

But for the lack of proper legislation, entrepreneurs cant even find out if their investment is legal or not until they have already invested their money.

This is not a good environment for business as it detracts investors from putting money into ventures, given their legal risks and uncertainty.

What the government can do is come up with more robust blanket legislation, instead of resorting to whimsical executive orders on a case-by-case basis.

TikTok is not alone. Gay dating app Grindr and messaging app WeChat also have been subjected to such bans. To avoid more debacles like this in the future, lawmakers should look to formulating air-tight legislation so that every time such a thing happens, they dont have to rely on presidential overreach and the long judicial review that follows.

S.M. Salam

The rest is here:
Is the time up for TikTok? - The Riverdale Press