Mediaboss Marketing

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Aug. 19, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --Isaac Wiles & Burkholder, LLC (Isaac Wiles), a full-service law firm in Columbus Ohio, is proud to announce that thirteen of their attorneys have been recognized as Best Lawyers in America2022 in Columbus, OH and their Managing Partner, Mark Landes, has been named "Lawyer of The Year" 2022, First Amendment Law, in Columbus by Best Lawyers, the prominent legal peer review and rating organization.

Isaac Wiles Best Lawyers in America 2022 includes the following attorneys and the specialized practice areas they are recognized for:

Donald C. Brey

Administrative / Regulatory LawCommercial LitigationLitigation - First Amendment

David M. Whittaker

Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization LawLitigation Bankruptcy

Maribeth Meluch

Commercial LitigationLitigation - Intellectual Property

Bruce H. Burkholder

Construction LawLitigation - Real EstateReal Estate Law

Gregory M. Travalio

Consumer Law

Timothy E. Miller

Corporate Law

William J. Browning

Elder Law

Jeffrey A. Stankunas

Employment Law - ManagementLabor Law - ManagementLitigation - Labor and Employment

Christopher J. Geer

Family Law

Frederick M. Isaac

Family Law

Thomas L. Hart

Land Use and Zoning LawLitigation - Land Use and ZoningReal Estate Law

Mark Landes

Litigation First Amendment, "Lawyer of the Year 2022"Litigation - Labor and EmploymentLitigation - Municipal

Philip K. Stovall

Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization LawLitigation Bankruptcy, "Ones to Watch 2022"

Recognition byBest Lawyers is based entirely on peer review in the legal industry. Their methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of the quality of legal services. Recognized attorneys have earned the respect of their peers within their specialized practice areas.

Additional recognitions are also awarded to individual lawyers with the highest overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic region. Only one lawyer is recognized as the "Lawyer of the Year" for each practice area specialty and location.

Isaac Wiles holds a unique position among Ohio law firms. Built to serve the needs of middle-market businesses as well as closely held companies and high-income individuals, our full-service firm leverages strong ties to Ohio's legal and business community. Always approachable, honest and hard-working, we're true to our Midwestern roots. The result is a firm with an entrepreneurial mindset, a collaborative team of sharp thinkers that's always invested in our clients' success.

SOURCE Isaac Wiles Law Firm

http://www.isaacwiles.com

Read the original post:
Thirteen Isaac Wiles Attorneys Recognized as Best Lawyers in America 2022 and Managing Partner, Mark Landes is Recognized as "Lawyer of The...

(Reuters) - A free-speech advocate and Pennsylvania attorney has renewed his bid to block the adoption of a now-revised anti-harassment and discrimination rule for lawyers, which is set to go into effect Wednesday.

Attorney Zachary Greenberg filed an amended complaint Thursday in Philadelphia federal court following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's adoption of an amended Rule 8.4(g).

Greenberg had successfully challenged the state's adoption of the American Bar Association-backed Rule 8.4(g) last year -- a federal judge blocked its implementation in December, finding it would chill an attorney's right to free speech outside of the courtroom or a pending case.

After abandoning an appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March, the state amended Rule 8.4(g) in July.

"It's different, but it still suffers from the fatal flaws that caused the earlier version to violate the First Amendment," said Ted Frank, whose Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute is representing Greenberg.

Greenberg has asserted that the rule's broad scope puts him unfairly at risk of violations due to his job as a program officer for the non-profit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which involves presenting and writing about offensive and derogatory language, including racial and homophobic slurs.

Even if the state promised not to pursue disciplinary charges against him, Greenberg said he would have to censor himself out of fear of inadvertently offending someone, who in turn might file a complaint against him.

The old version of the rule said attorneys must not "by words or conduct, knowingly manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment or discrimination," while the new rule prohibits attorneys from "knowingly [engaging]" in that conduct. The new Rule 8.4(g) also further defines the practice of law, harassment and discrimination.

Despite the revisions, the new Rule 8.4(g) restricts freedom of speech and expression at speeches, debates and CLE presentations, Greenberg alleges. The new rule also has "novel, expansive, and vague definitions" of harassment and discrimination that are not tied to state or federal law, his new complaint says.

U.S. District Judge Chad Kenney in December held that the old Rule 8.4(g) "will hang over Pennsylvania attorneys like the sword of Damocles." He criticized the rule as promoting a "government-favored, viewpoint monologue" that "creates a pathway for its handpicked arbiters to determine, without any concrete standards, who and what offends."

The defendants in the case are members of the state Supreme Court's disciplinary board and its prosecutorial arm, the office of disciplinary counsel. Spokespersons for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, which is representing the defendants, declined to comment.

The case is Greenberg v. Haggerty, et al, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 20-cv-03822.

For Greenberg: Adam Schulman of Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

For defendants: Michael Daley and Megan L. Davis of Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts

Read More:

Pa. drops appeal over attorney conduct rule that drew free speech activists' ire

Pennsylvania turns to 3rd Circuit in fight over ABA-backed professional rule

Judge blocks anti-harassment rule for Pa. lawyers, citing its 'constant threat' to free speech

Pennsylvania lawsuit sets up fight over anti-harassment rule for lawyers

David Thomas reports on the business of law, including law firm strategy, hiring, mergers and litigation. He is based out of Chicago. He can be reached at d.thomas@thomsonreuters.com and on Twitter @DaveThomas5150.

Continued here:
Pa. attorney sues to stop resurrected anti-discrimination rule - Reuters

Charles H. Jones| Register-Guard

Saying an entire class of people is immoral, such as Blacks or Jews, is generally considered prejudicial and hateful. I would be surprised to see, and dont recall seeing, such racist statements in The R-G. Yet, versions of atheists are immoral have appeared at least eight times in the past four years including three columns within the last year.This is usually stated in less obvious, but logically equivalent, variations of morality derives from God.But, after all, how can atheists be moral when they deny the source of morality?

This isnt just a philosophical issue. There are countries where atheism is a capital offense. Ive met someone who is hiding for fear of their life because they left Islam. Complete shunning loss of family, friends and jobs is not unusual when people leave some religious communities. Ive met someone who was kicked out of their house at 16 for leaving Christianity.

The acceptance of openly stated anti-atheist prejudice epitomizes religious privilege. But this privilege shows itself daily via in God we trust and under God. Public promotion of faith and prayer also is an example of this privilege and prejudice. And it is very concerning that the Supreme Court is legalizing religious discrimination based on this prejudice.

Claims of moral superiority based on God arent limited to denouncing atheists. There are religions where not believing in thepropergod deserves eternal torture. Even within a single religion, Gods supposed morality has been used to claim supremacy and privilege for men, heterosexuals, the monogamous, the married, whites and castes (among others).

Another harmful result of morality from God is the promotion of the United Statesas a Christian nation. Stating the mistaken belief that the Constitution is based on biblical principles reduces the roughly 30% of the U.S. that are non-Christian to second-class citizenry. Ive personally been told I should leave the country because Im atheist. This erroneous belief also played a part on Jan 6. Most of the people in the Capitol mob werent just white supremacists, they were also Christian Nationalists. Their movement is partially motivated by the belief that Christians are morally superior. Their violent actions are even supportable by Jesus militant side (Matthew 10:34). The Christian god is an authoritarian figure a divine king, not an elected official.

I am not saying all theists are inherently immoral. I am not claiming there is a single external source of morality and you are immoral if you deny it. I claim, and the evidence supports, that theists are simply mistaken about their source of morality. For example, most people today condemn slavery, yet slavery is doctrinally supported by the three largest religions. Jesus never denounced slavery and implicitly condoned it, while Paul explicitly wrote, Slaves, obey your earthly masters … (Ephesians 6:5-6); Mohammed owned slaves; and then theres karma. Even if some doctrinal passage appears to be anti-slavery, it demonstrates doctrinal self-contradiction rather than elimination of the doctrinal support. This is evidence that people look for doctrine to support their preexisting beliefs rather than deriving their beliefs from doctrine or God.

Religions are doctrinally in opposition. Yahweh is not Allah is not Zeus. Reincarnation does not lead to Valhalla.Claiming belief in one religion is claiming that all other religions are false. (Why claim one of thousands of religions if you dont think its the one true and thus superior religion?) If you want to promote unity to bring everyone together you have to keep your religion out of the public square. This is the reason for the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This is why it is unconstitutional to promote religion in public schools and why it is polite to hold a moment of silence rather than a prayer at public gatherings. I fully support peoples right to their religious beliefs, but that same right allows me to say, Keep them to yourselves; theyre divisive.

Where does morality come from? There are arguments based on evolution, but most people are unaware of them. I believe most people, secular or not, derive morality from love, compassion and humanism. Isnt having a conscience part of the human condition? Would you rape and murder if God didnt tell you not to?

Whats more important, promoting morality and unity, or claiming one group of people is morally superior to all others?

Charles H. Jones, Ph.D., is a retired mathematician. He organizes the Eugene Atheist Pub Social through Meetup. He writes the Starting From Doubt blog atstartingfromdoubt.blogand you can see his macro flower photography atphoto.chjonesconsulting.com.

Read the rest here:
Guest view: Whose morality carries more weight? - The Register-Guard

Legal battles over masks in schools are being fought across the country, including in Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas.

This story also appeared in The Conversation

Rather than clarifying policy, these legal challenges have led to more confusion.

As a new school year begins and COVID-19 hospitalizations rise across the country, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that students wear masks in school to help slow the spread of the coronavirus.

This guidance, and schools responses to it, has resulted in an intense debate. Some parents argue that they should be able to decide when and where their children wear masks, whereas others argue collective health and safety concerns take priority over individual choices. These arguments fall sharply along partisan lines, with 88% of Democrats supporting mask mandates and 69% of Republicans against the requirements.

State rules reflect this division. In eight states, as of Aug. 16, 2021, laws were enacted or governors issued orders banning public schools from requiring students to wear masks. On the opposite side of the debate, 12 states and the District of Columbia are requiring students to wear masks indoors.

Further complicating matters, some school districts have acted in outright defiance of their states regulations. These conflicts pose one key question: Who has the power to control the health and safety measures schools take state leaders or local officials?

Texas provides a good example of this conflict. Even after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued an executive order banning school mask mandates, local officials in several school districts adopted policies that required students to wear masks.

Simultaneous legal battles across multiple state court districts ensued and resulted in inconsistent rulings on whether banning masks in schools is constitutional.

On Aug. 15, the Texas Supreme Court weighed in, siding with the governor and saying that schools cannot require masks. Yet some schools still do, defying both the governor and the states highest court.

With all of the partisan rhetoric, lawsuits and conflict, many parents are left bewildered about how to proceed with the school year.

This is not the first time legal battles have erupted in the wake of a public health emergency. During the influenza pandemic of 1918, state and local governments enacted a variety of restrictions to combat the spread of the virus. As they must now, officials had to make hard decisions about whether to close schools or prevent public gatherings. Mask mandates even existed in some areas. State and local judges routinely upheld these measures.

Many of the same constitutional questions debated over 100 years ago arise today about mask mandates and other pandemic-related regulations.

Long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent recognizes that states have broad powers to regulate the health and safety of their citizens during a public health crisis.

But no right is absolute. When evaluating a states actions in a pandemic, courts weigh the governments interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens against an individuals civil liberties.

Common challenges against COVID-19-related regulations argue that some requirements violate the First Amendment or an individuals right to liberty, including the right to make choices about ones own health.

Over the past year, the challenges that have been most successful in the courts argued that certain COVID-19 rules violated the First Amendment right to freely exercise ones religion.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court recently blocked the state of California from enforcing COVID-19 restrictions on an at-home Bible study group and prevented New York state from enforcing occupancy limits on religious services.

But with respect to mask mandates, legal precedent supporting similar challenges is not as strong.

For example, in Maryland, a federal district court recently suggested in a decision that litigants were unlikely to succeed with claims that challenged mask mandates as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment.

Arguments that mask mandates violate an individuals constitutional right to liberty defined by a leading legal resource as freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual face an even greater uphill battle. Courts have interpreted the Constitution as giving elected officials leeway when it comes to social policy, particularly in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties.

This does not bode well for challenges like one recently filed in Nevada, which claims mask mandates infringe upon the fundamental right of parents to make child-rearing decisions.

On the other side of the debate, in some states litigants have gone to court to advocate for more stringent COVID-19 regulations.

In Florida, two different lawsuits seek to overturn the governors ban on school mask requirements. They claim that the Florida Constitution guarantees a safe school environment and grants local governments the authority to govern schools.

Some of the more successful lawsuits have focused on the fact that, by law, most states can regulate mask wearing in only public schools. This means that state laws and orders that ban mask requirements do not extend to private schools. In Arizona, Arkansas and Oklahoma, lawsuits claim that this creates unconstitutional distinctions between public and private students rights to a safe educational environment and therefore, they say, the state cannot ban mask mandates in schools at all.

All of this fighting within and among the states led the Biden administration to step into the fray. While the federal government cannot constitutionally command the states to do something, it can create incentives for them with money.

In response to the governors orders in Florida and Texas that prohibit mask mandates in schools, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona reminded both states governors that federal CDC guidance recommends students wear masks. Cardona also suggested that the Biden administration would closely monitor whether the states were meeting requirements for federal relief funding under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. That law requires states to adhere to CDC guidance, including implementing mitigation strategies such as contact tracing or mask requirements, in order to receive the federal money the act provides.

President Joe Biden followed up Cardonas letters to the governors with a phone call of support to one of the superintendents who adopted mask mandates in violation of his governors executive order.

If it all sounds confusing and as if the law is all over the place regarding school mask mandates, thats because it is. The nations schools are subject to a complex web of local, state and federal laws that make it difficult to impose uniform standards.

Add in an intense political battle over the appropriate policies to adopt in the wake of the delta variant and you have precisely the kind of situation that may well end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read the original post:
Who has the power to say kids do or dont have to wear masks in school the governor or the school district? Its not clear - The Current GA

The state of Iowa has agreed to pay $70,000 and improve First Amendment training for state troopers in order to settle a lawsuit filed last year by five protesters who were banned from the Iowa Capitol Complex.

Jalesha Johnson, Louise Bequeaith, Brad Penna, Brandi Ramus, and Haley Jo Dikkers were among seventeen people whom state troopers had banned from the capitol grounds following a July 1, 2020 Black Lives Matter protest that led to numerous arrests. They filed suit last October against Iowa Department of Public Safety Commissioner Stephen Bayens and several Iowa State Patrol officials, saying the bans violated their rights under the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Under a settlement U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger approved on August 17, the Iowa Department of Public Safety and Iowa State Patrol agreed to withdraw all verbal and written bans, sometimes called trespass warnings, issued to each plaintiff and other persons receiving such notices on and after July 1, 2020. The state will inform affected individuals in writing that the bans were rescinded and that they may continue to enter and use the Iowa Capitol Complex on the same basis and under the same terms as any other law abiding member of the public.

The state will pay each plaintiff $5,000 and $45,000 to Des Moines attorney Nate Mundy, who along with the ACLU of Iowa represented the protesters. The Iowa State Patrol also agreed to continue First Amendment training for officers assigned to the capitol complex.

Attorneys for the state and ACLU agreed in June on terms to settle the lawsuit. The three-member State Appeal Board unanimously approved the settlement agreement earlier this month, and the federal courts action finalized the resolution.

Judge Goodgame Ebinger had ruled last December that the bans likely burden more speech than is necessary to achieve the significant state interests of preventing violence and ensuring public safety, since there was no way for protesters to petition to exercise their First Amendment rights at the Capitol or on the Capitol Complex grounds.

The ACLU of Iowas legal director Rita Bettis Austen said in a written statement on August 17,

The Capitol Complex is approximately 24 city blocks and includes many traditional public forumsplaces where Iowans often go to express their rights of free speech like the West Capitol Terrace, outdoor green spaces, sidewalks, streets, paths, and areas around public monuments. There is perhaps no more important traditional public forum in Iowa than the State Capitol.

The area is intentionally designed for Iowans to gather and speak to an audience of leaders from all three branches of state government. Before we obtained a preliminary injunction in this case, the ban meant that the protestors were unable to participate in demonstrations organized by BLM or other groups on the grounds. The ban also would have prevented the banned protesters from communicating directly with legislators and the Governors office during the upcoming 2021 legislative session. This outcome was important to protect the First Amendment rights of our clients and all other Iowans to speak, assemble, and petition their government for redress of grievances.

Appendix: Full text of August 17 news release from the ACLU of Iowa:

Des Moines, Iowa Today the federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowaapproved and adopted a settlement in which the Iowa Department of Public Safety and Iowa State Patrol (ISP) agreed to withdraw bans that the ISP issued to 17 BLM protesters last summer, including five ACLU clients. The bans forbade the protesters from going to the Iowa Capitol Complex grounds for six months or a year.

Earlier this month, the Iowa State Appeals board voted to approve a recommendation by state lawyers to settle the lawsuit out of court. The settlement included the law enforcement agencies agreeing to not issue similar bans in the future, to continue to provide training on First Amendment rights to the Iowa State Patrol Post 16 (which is responsible for law enforcement on the Iowa Capitol Complex grounds), to pay a financial settlement to the ACLUs five clients, and attorney fees.

Rita Bettis Austen, ACLU of Iowa Legal Director, said, We are very pleased with this outcome. We are grateful to our clients for challenging the constitutionality of these bans. They are protecting their fellow protesters and everyone else who wasnt a plaintiff in this case by getting the bans of all protesters withdrawn. Thestate also agreed to not to issue the same type of ban in the future.

We also appreciate the state for working to come to an agreement with us in this case, both to resolve this dispute and to protect the First Amendment rights of Iowans at the Capitol moving forward. Thats the optimal outcome, Bettis Austen said.

The bans were issued to protesters who were arrested while protesting in July 2020, even though most of the charges against the ACLUs clients were dropped.

In October 2020, the ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of five of the 17 Des Moines BLM protesters who the ISP banned verbally and in writing from the State Capitol. The ISP informed the protestors that if they entered the Capitol Complex grounds in the next six months or a year (depending on the protester), they would be arrested.

However, the law that the ISP cited to issue those bans (Iowa Code section 716.8(1)) does not actually authorize any such bans.

In December 2020, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction, saying the ban indeed was likely violating the protestors First Amendment rights. In June 2021, the parties reached an agreement that required approval by the State Appeal Board and the district court to take effect. On August 2, the Appeal Board approved the settlement. Today, the court dismissed the case and approval of the settlement, making the agreement becomes fully effective, resolving the dispute, and ending the case.

Bettis Austen said the activists were banned from a key area for public free speech. The Capitol Complex is approximately 24 city blocks and includes many traditional public forumsplaces where Iowans often go to express their rights of free speech like the West Capitol Terrace, outdoor green spaces, sidewalks, streets, paths, and areas around public monuments. There is perhaps no more important traditional public forum in Iowa than the State Capitol.

The area is intentionally designed for Iowans to gather and speak to an audience of leaders from all three branches of state government. Before we obtained a preliminary injunction in this case, the ban meant that the protestors were unable to participate in demonstrations organized by BLM or other groups on the grounds. The ban also would have prevented the banned protesters from communicating directly with legislators and the Governors office during the upcoming 2021 legislative session. This outcome was important to protect the First Amendment rights of our clients and all other Iowans to speak, assemble, and petition their government for redress of grievances, Bettis Austen said.

Jalesha Johnson, an employee of a Des Moines Public Schools creative arts program, said the win was important not just for her, but for the larger community of protestors.

The most important work we did happened on the Capitol grounds. I feel hopeful and inspired that well be able to frequent the Capitol again. When the ban was in place, it meant I was at risk of arrest by police for nothing more than protesting lawfully at the Capitol. I am relieved that I dont have to feel that way anymore, Johnson said.

Louise Bequeaith, a college student and Des Moines native, said the win was bittersweet. Its hard because this shouldnt have happened in the first place. The Capitol and government are meant to be there for us and to listen. People being punished for protecting our communities and wanting our voices to be heard felt ridiculous. But this is the result that feels like the most justice in this moment.

Haley Jo Dikkers, an educational assistant to elementary school children, said, I think protesting is still an important and vital way to interact with our government, especially if they dont give us other outlets to do so. Im excited to get back to the streets. When youre up against the police that have all this qualified immunity and societal power, I feel like they can get away with pretty much anything. So its really great that now they wont be able to ban people from the Capitol, and I hope they wont try to ban people from protesting in public spaces in the future.

Brad Penna, who owns a coffee shop in Des Moines, said the win is a huge step towards making the most political space in the city and even the whole state accessible to people. They cant ban people following protests now and they know its part of a larger movement.

Before the temporary injunction allowed us back into the area, as a business owner, I would have liked to go to the Capitol when policies about COVID-19 were being discussed. I felt like I didnt have a voice during that time. Now I feel encouraged to once again advocate for our community, Penna said.

Brandi Ramus, who owns a Des Moines vegan bakery, said, I feel like that was a really unreasonable thing that happened to me and the rest of us. Im glad that theyre saying that they were wrong, even though it just seemed like common sense to me. People should be able to protest in public spaces.

I think theres still a lot of work to do here in Iowa as far as protestors and how our state continues to treat us. This is making an example, showing that overreach of law enforcement to silence protestors is wrong. Thats not their place. The police claim they protect and serve the community, but what they are actually doing is battling against it, Ramus said.

The ACLU of Iowa legal team was joined by cooperating Des Moines civil rights attorneys Nathan A. Mundy of Mundy Law Office, P.C., and Glen Downey of The Law Offices of Glen S. Downey, LLC, who also worked tirelessly to represent the five clients in successfully defending against separate criminal charges brought against them after they were arrested while protesting.

Top photos all obtained from the ACLU of Iowa. Top row, from left: Jalesha Johnson, Louise Bequeaith. Bottom row, from left: Brad Penna, Brandi Ramus, and Haley Jo Dikkers.

Follow this link:
Bleeding Heartland - bleedingheartland.com