Mediaboss Marketing

Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

The information contained in Item 2.03 of this Current Report on Form 8-K isincorporated by reference in this Item 1.01.

Item 2.03. Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an

On May 9, 2023, Barings BDC, Inc. ("BBDC") entered into an amendment (the"Fourth Amendment") to the Senior Secured Revolving Credit Agreement, dated asof February 3, 2019 (as amended by the first amendment thereto, dated as ofDecember 3, 2019, as further amended by the second amendment thereto, dated asof December 29, 2021, as further amended by the third amendment thereto, datedas of February 25, 2022, and as further amended by the Fourth Amendment, the"ING Credit Facility"), among BBDC, as borrower, Energy Hardware Holdings, Inc.,Barings BDC Finance I, LLC and Barings BDC Senior Funding I, LLC, as subsidiaryguarantors, the lenders party thereto and ING Capital LLC ("ING"), asadministrative agent.

Under the Fourth Amendment, among other changes, the maturity date of the INGCredit Facility was extended to February 21, 2026.

The above summary is not complete and is qualified in its entirety to the fulltext of the Fourth Amendment and related documents, which is attached hereto asExhibit 10.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

* Schedules to this Exhibit have been omitted in accordance with Item 601 ofRegulation S-K. The registrant agrees to furnish supplementally a copy of allomitted schedules to the SEC upon its request.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

The rest is here:
BARINGS BDC, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet...

By now, you have already heard what happened last week on the New York Subway. A gentleman named Jordan Neely, who seemed to be experiencing a mental health crisis, reportedly had a threatening interaction with other subway passengers. One of those passengers, a Marine Veteran named Daniel Penny subdued Mr. Neely and in the course of doing so, allegedly caused his death.

My experience with urban public transportation is from a different city, and a few decades earlier, but I have seen my share of shady characters on the subway. I always felt safe on the subway during rush hour, when it was very white-collar and there seemed to be safety in numbers, but after-hours travel in the shadowy underground is not for the timid.

I also recall that the specter of homeless people suffering from mental illness is a part of everyday life in the city. Sometimes they ask for money; sometimes they yell at intersections. Often, we know them by name and associate them with specific neighborhoods. They were usually animated and could be disruptiveand they didnt always smell greatbut in my experience, they never hurt anyone.

Like most stories, there are bound to be two sides. I think the case will come down to what witnesses say that Mr. Neely did or didnt do immediately before he was restrained. Was Neelys provocation an assault, or was it speech? If it was only speech, was it speech that would make the elusive reasonable person perceive a threat of violence? I wasnt there and I take no position. We will see.

What I find more interesting about the case is the sequence of events after the incident. First, Mr. Penny was questioned and released without charge. Then, protesters quickly organized and demanded his arrest. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Penny was invited downtown for a free sitting with a photographer and to post a $100,000 bond.

The question raised in my mind today is one that has been debated by legal scholars since long before the launch of our relatively young judicial system. How, when, and to what extent should public opinion influence justice?

The easy answer is that law enforcement should be in contact with the citizens. Were learning, I think a bit late, that their demographics should even reflect the citizens. In most cases, the enforcement side of the equation is answerable to their respective governing authorities (i.e. state, federal, or local), except in the case of County Sheriffs, who are typically elected. The prosecutors follow a similar model. Federal, state, and municipal prosecutors, answer to elected officials but are directly elected at the county level.

Courts, on the other hand, should be independent and free of external influence. They should be able to rely upon and maintain the laws passed by representatives of a free people. That part makes sense to me. An alternate point of view is that courts wield a great deal of power and need to be held accountable. Public scrutiny keeps those powers in check and public approval is a source of much-needed legitimacy.

Personally, I think we enjoy sufficient representation from elected officials and that our justice system is robust enough to sort out any bad actors.

Resorting to mob action doesnt cross my mind, but I have the privilege of knowing that my elected officials will return my phone call. People who feel less enfranchised will undoubtedly have another point of view.

Here in Nebraska, we vote to retain our judges after whats called an assisted appointment. Im comfortable with that system, but in Texas, Illinois, and a handful of other states, judges have full-blown, partisan elections with campaign contributions and all of the baggage that follows. Is that an appropriate amount of public influence? Whats the right formula? How do we best balance public accountability with independence and freedom from systemic compromise? Its a tricky equation, and I sometimes wonder if were getting it right.

I also find it ironic that public influence would be linked to legitimacy. I suppose a court could go too far with an unpopular decision and lose public support, but at least for now, I am confident that the courts are better informed, more cautious, and ultimately more trustworthy than the general public.

Historians tell us that our founding fathers wrote our Constitution with two threats in mind: tyrants and the mob. Our Fourth Amendment is intended to protect us against law enforcement, but the founders dedicated a whole unelected branch of government to counter our mob-controlled, publicly elected officials.

When I see prosecutors appear to bend to public sentiment, I think of our darker days when hooded rioters plucked people out of jail for pre-judicial lynchings. Im not suggesting thats what happened in New York.

We simply cant know, but its one of those areas that we need to watch carefully. Our system of justice is far from perfect, but I think its fair to most people, most of the time, and we need to preserve that trust with our watchful eyes.

View post:
Column: : Justice, tyrants and the mob (5/19/23) - McCook Daily Gazette

On April 3, 2018, Jeffrey Parker called 911 from his Huntsville, Alabama residence and threatened to blow his head off. Huntsville Police Department (HPD) officers Pegues and Beckles were dispatched to the call. Upon arrival, Pegues drew her pistol and made a partial entry through the front door, thereby exposing half her body to the inside. She observed Parker sitting on a couch with what appeared to be a gun at his own head. She told Beckles, still outside, what she saw. Beckles informed police dispatch that Pegues had seen Parker with a gun to his head. [1]

Officer Darby heard Beckles radio call about a guy with a gun threatening suicide and responded. Darby arrived and saw that Pegues had her gun drawn but pointed down. He commanded her to point her gun at Parker because he thought that Parker could kill her. Pegues moved completely into the residence and briefly raised her gun but almost immediately lowered it. Both Beckles and Darby followed her inside and demanded that Parker drop the weapon.

Pegues also pleaded with Parker to drop the weapon, but he kept it pointed at his head and refused to drop it. Darby, believing that all three officers were in danger of being shot, fired at Parker and killed him.

Darby was charged with murder. After a jury trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Officer Pegues testified at Darbys trial that prior to Darbys arrival, she attempted to de-escalate the situation, but that once Darby entered the residence, she could feel the tension just rising. She testified that Parker didnt threaten her or do anything to make her believe he wanted to do anything other than commit suicide.

Officer Beckles testified that at no time during this event did he feel the need to take deadly force action. He stated that Parker didnt make any overt action to indicate that he was about to point his weapon at the officers. He estimated that Parker was ordered to drop the weapon about seven times but failed to comply.

An HPD detective investigated the shooting incident and testified that he found no evidence that Parker ever made a hostile determination towards anybody other than himself.

Officer Darby testified that upon entering the residence he realized that all three officers had no cover between them and Parker. He ordered Parker to drop the gun twice, but Parker refused. Darby shot and killed him. Darby also presented testimony from three other law enforcement officers (expert witnesses) who each testified that Parker's refusal to put his weapon down constituted an imminent threat to the responding officers' lives. [2]

After both sides presented their evidence, Darby requested the trial judge to charge the jury as follows: "The reasonableness of an officer's actions in using deadly force must be objectively reasonable judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, the fact that officers are forced to make split-second decisions, and in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them at the time.

In support of his requested jury instruction, Darby cited the United States Supreme Court opinion in Graham v. Connor. [3]The trial judge rejected Darbys requested instruction. Instead, the judge provided the jury with a general self-defense instruction that is available to all citizens who assert self-defense as a justification for their actions. This permitted the jury to examine Darbys conduct from the perspective of an ordinary citizen rather than a trained law enforcement officer.

Darby appealed and argued that the trial judge delivered an erroneous self-defense instruction that permitted the jury to ignore, as irrelevant, the expert testimony from several witnesses that reasonable law enforcement officers would believe they were facing an imminent threat to their personal safety.

The decision of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals [4]

The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed Darbys conviction and ordered that he receive a new trial. The court ruled that it was not bound to accept Darbys offered instruction that was based upon the Supreme Courts opinion in Graham v. Connor. The court explained that Graham does not govern a state courts application of state criminal statutes because it involved a civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. (The federal civil rights statute). [5]Nonetheless, the court observed that the Alabama legislature passed a self-defense statute designed for Alabama peace officers that states: "A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes it necessary in order [t]o defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force." [6]

The court ruled that the trial judge erred by giving the jury a self-defense instruction designed for ordinary citizens instead of an instruction intended by the Alabama legislature to be used for peace officers in self-defense situations. The court explained, [T]he Alabama Legislature has made clear that there is a unique standard to be used in judging a police officer's use of deadly force in self-defense or defense of another while acting in his capacity as a police officer. Thus, the proper perspective from which to evaluate a police officer's use of deadly force in such situations is indeed that of a reasonable police officer in the same situation.

The court observed that the ordinary citizen self-defense instruction given to the jury permitted the jury to ignore extensive testimony from multiple witnesses regarding the training a police officer receives with respect to confrontations with an armed person. The court noted that this testimony supported a finding that a reasonable police officer in Darby's situation could have concluded that Parker's conduct represented the imminent use of deadly force. In other words, that testimony supported a finding that Darby acted in self-defense or defense of another when he shot Parker.

Heres a summary of the lessons law enforcement officers can take from this case:

1.It would later be determined that Parker was holding a flare gun that had been intentionally painted black,but there is no evidence indicating that any of the officers were aware of that fact.

2.Quote is taken from the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals opinion.

3.490 U.S. 386 (1989}. In Graham, the Supreme Court created an objective reasonableness standard for police use of deadly force grounded in the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Further, the Court ruled that when police use of force situations are evaluated, the fact that officers are forced to make split-second judgments must be considered.

4.Darby v Alabama, (CR-20-0919) (3/24/23).

5.The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals determined when reviewing state criminal statutes, it is not bound to follow a constitutionally grounded Fourth Amendment-based opinion of the United States Supreme Court regarding the standard for police use of deadly force. The Alabama court cited a quote from a California case, People v. Perry, 36 Cal. App. 5th 444, 465, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 522, 536 n.10 (2019) as authority for declining to follow Graham v. Connor regarding its application to a states criminal statutes. The California court ruled, Perry contends throughout his briefing that we are bound to apply the standards articulated in Graham in this case. Graham was a civil rights action brought pursuant to section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code and it involved an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment. Long-standing and deeply held principles of federalism counsel that we have no obligation to import those standards into our state law defining criminal offenses."

See also, People v. Couch, 461 N.W.2d 683, 684 (1990) in which the Michigan Supreme Court rejected the prosecutions argument that the U.S. Supreme Courts opinion in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), requires it to change the Michigan fleeing felon rule to comply with the Supreme Courts ruling in Garner, (i.e. Deadly force cannot be used against unarmed and non-dangerous fleeing felons). The Michigan Supreme Court explained that Clearly, the power to define conduct as a state criminal offense lies with the individual states, not with the federal government or even the United States Supreme Court.

The Alabama court did not offer any United States Supreme Court opinion or federal appellate opinion as authority for its decision on this issue. It is unknown whether the federal courts would agree with the Alabama, California and Michigan courts that have considered this issue.

6. 13A-3-27(b)(2), Ala. Code 1975.

7.490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). See also, recent university law review articles that take the position that state courts are not bound to follow the Supreme Court opinions in Graham and Garner when confronting use of deadly force issues involving state criminal charges directed at police officers. For example, see, Flanders, Chad and Welling, Joseph (2015) Police Use of Deadly Force, State Statutes 30 Years after Garner, Saint Louis University Public Law Review, Vol. 35: No.1, Article 7. And Shah, Raoul, (2018) Licensed to Kill? An Analysis of the Standard for Assessing Law Enforcements Criminal Liability for Use of Deadly Force, Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice, Vol. 39/ Issue 1.

8.The new bill, commonly referred to as AB-392 is found at Calif. Pen. Code 835a (c)(1), (A)-(B).

9.SeeKathleen Y. Murray, Exploring A Necessary Standard For the Use of Excessive Deadly Force by Law Enforcement: A Flawed Solution With Positive Potential,University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 52, p. 397 (Spring 2021).

10.Calif. Pen. Code 835a (c)(1), (A). Deadly force must be necessary To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

11.Calif. Pen. Code 835a (e)(2). Based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer would believe that a person has the present ability to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury.

12.See, Calif. Pen. Code 835a (e)(3).

Read the original here:
Alabama appeals court reverses murder conviction of Ala. officer ... - Police News

The Oakland Town Commission voted at its May 9 meeting to terminate interim town manager Jack Butler without cause and to appoint Town Clerk Elise Hui as the interim manager until a permanent one can be hired. A search is being conducted.

The town of Oakland has voted to terminate Jack Butler without cause effective immediately, Mayor Kathy Stark said. Severances will be paid based on his contract terms.

Butler has been serving as interim manager since the previous town manager, Steve Koontz, retired April 1.

Its not for cause, and we wish him well, Stark stressed of Butlers termination.

The Town Commission engaged an executive recruitment firm to manage the process of recruiting a permanent town manager. The town has looked at all the applications, and the search has been narrowed to five.

We have some very good candidates, Stark said. We are hopeful that well be able to make an offer next Friday (May 19).

Hui will handle both job duties until a new manager is hired.

The five candidates will be in Oakland Thursday, May 18, to take a tour of the town with Stark and Public Works director Mike Parker. That evening, a reception will be held from 5:30 to 7 at the Oakland Meeting Hall, 221 N. Arrington St., and Stark said the public is invited to meet the candidates. Those interested in attending should RSVP to [emailprotected]

IN OTHER NEWS:

The Oakland Town Commission approved its consent agenda, which included an agreement to allow the Oakland Police Department to conduct traffic enforcement in the gated communities of Johns Cove and Johns Landing. The homeowners associations made the request. State statute doesnt allow traffic enforcement on private property without a written agreement. The police department will solely be responsible for enforcement, including the scheduling of patrols and the use of radar. All decisions regarding the level of traffic enforcement on the private roads and staffing will be within the sole discretion of the police department.

The commission approved a fourth amendment to the development agreement with Oakland Park regarding a buffer fence between Macchi Avenue and the seventh phase of the neighborhood.

The town proclaimed May 15, 2023, Peace Officers Memorial Day and May 15 through 21, 2023, National Police Week. The proclamation was presented to Chief Darron Esan.

I cant tell you how happy I am with our community policing police department, Mayor Kathy Stark said.

You guys are phenomenal, Commissioner Mike Satterfield said.

A proclamation was read declaring May 21 through 27, 2023, National Public Works Week and presented to Public Works director Mike Parker.

We love the job that you do, Stark said. You have been for a very long time a welcome addition to this town.

Continued here:
Oakland narrows town manager search to five | West Orange Times ... - West Orange Times & SouthWest Orange Observer

On Monday, Special Counsel John Durham released the conclusions of his three-year investigation into the FBI's surveillance of former President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, arguing that the FBI used uncorroborated evidence to secure search warrants against a former Trump campaign aide and "displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor" toward information they received from partisan sources.

Durham's 316-page report found that the FBI failed to act with "appropriate objectivity or restraint in pursuing allegations of collusion or conspiracy between a U.S. political campaign and a foreign power" and that the agency "discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia."

Former Attorney General William Barr appointed Durham in 2020 to investigate whether any federal officials had violated the law in connection with the intelligence and law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns. On that score, Durham's investigation has been long on expectations from Trump and his supporters, but short on results. After three years, Durham has secured one guilty plea and lost two cases at trial after the defendants were acquitted.

However, the investigation has highlighted serious deficiencies with the FBI's warrant applications before the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which is supposed to provide oversight of surveillance activities by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

The Durham report found that the FBI's decision to open an investigation into possible foreign influence on several members of Trump's campaign team and apply for electronic surveillance search warrants against them was "based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence" that likely did not meet the standard for probable cause.

Some of the Durham report's findings have been corroborated by other investigators. In 2019, the Justice Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a bombshell report that FBI agents made a number of significant omissions and errors in their four warrant applications to surveil Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. It also found that FBI personnel "did not give appropriate attention to facts that cut against probable cause." However, unlike Durham, the OIG did not conclude that anti-Trump bias fueled the investigation.

But if FBI agents were willing to cut corners to get a FISA warrant against a presidential campaign aide, it seems highly unlikely Page was the only victim. Follow-up investigations revealed just that.

In a 2020 report, the OIG determined that the FBI regularly ignored its own procedures to make sure FISA warrant applications were accurate. In a review of 29 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrantapplications to surveil Americans, the OIG found that 25 of them had errors or "inadequately supported facts."

As Reason's Scott Shackford wrote, the fact that the FBI was regularly botching search warrant applications before a court with no outside review or oversight should be alarming: "This should be seen as a big dealthe secrecy of the FISC means that Americans who are targeted for surveillance don't know they've been singled out and don't have any defense or due process to stop it. The court itself serves as oversight to protect citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. But until all of this came out, we had little idea how carelessly these warrants were written and reviewed."

Durham's report notes one suggestion from former National Security Agency general counsel Stewart Baker to improve oversight of potentially partisan FBI investigations: having an FBI official who will challenge them at every stepessentially a devil's advocate, or in this case perhaps an angel's advocate.

"As a way to ensure full consideration of the issues in applications that may present very difficultand vitally importantissues, we recommend that the Department seriously consider Baker's proposal for an official to challenge both a politically sensitive FISA application and other stages of the investigation," says the report.

Trump's fantasies of Durham prosecuting and locking up a coterie of deep state agents who orchestrated the "crime of the century" against him are just thatfantasiesbut the civil liberties problems inside the FBI are very real.

More:
The Durham Report Is Right About the Need for More FBI Oversight - Reason