Mediaboss Marketing

In the scandal surrounding the classified documents Donald Trump kept at Mar-a-Lago, the former president and his lawyers appear to have everything they want. Team Trump insisted that a Trump-appointed judge assign a special master in the case to review the materials, and she complied. Team Trump asked for a specific judge to fill the role, and the Justice Department complied.

Its against this backdrop that the former president and his defense attorneys still have a problem, not with prosecutors, but with the special master they sought out. NBC News reported:

Donald Trumps attorneys said in a filing Monday night that they dont want to disclose to a court-appointed special master which Mar-a-Lago documents they assert the former president may or may not have declassified. In a four-page letter to the special master, Trumps attorneys pushed back against Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearies apparent proposal that they submit specific information regarding declassification to him in the course of his review.

In other words, the Trump-requested arbiter asked the former president and his lawyers to disclose details about the documents he claims to have declassified. They responded that they dont want to comply.

Why not? Because as Team Trump told Dearie, they dont want to be forced to fully and specifically disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment.

Or put another way, Team Trump fears that a criminal indictment against the former president or others in his operation might be on the way, and answering the special masters question might undermine a future legal defense.

The process is off to a great start, isnt it?

Complicating matters, this isnt the only area of concern for the Republican. Dearies draft plan also set a deadline of Oct. 7 for the inspection process, while Team Trump responded that it wants to drag out the process until the end of November.

Whats more, a Politico report added, Trumps team also raised concerns about Dearies request for information about whether any subsequent Fourth Amendment litigation filed by Trump to reclaim the documents should be filed with the magistrate judge who authorized the search in the first place: Bruce Reinhart, who Trump has assailed without basis as biased against him.

With U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, everything was a breeze for the former president. The young, conservative jurist simply ignored potential concerns about her professional reputation and gave Trump, who tapped her for the federal bench two years ago, pretty much everything he wanted.

If the Republican expected his handpicked special master to follow Cannons lead, it appears hes going to be disappointed.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Go here to read the rest:
Team Trump pushes back against its own special master in docs case - MSNBC

Eroding our rights in the legal system

The Supreme Court took on five cases that limit the ability of Americans to defend themselves in acourt of law.

1. In Shinn v. Ramirez, thecourt ruled 6-3that federal judges cannot hear new evidence from death row inmates, arguing that their state-appointed lawyers did not provide constitutionally adequate defense, eviscerating the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment guarantees everyone the right to an effective, competent attorney, even if they cant pay.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the perverse decision hamstrings the federal courts authority to safeguard [the Sixth Amendment] right and that the Courts decision will leave many people who were convicted in violation of the Sixth Amendment to face incarceration or even execution without any meaningful chance to vindicate their right to counsel. Across the term, the court chipped away at incarcerated peoples rights, and made it more difficult for them to bring writs of habeas corpus, which are one of the most powerful means of challenging wrongful convictions and sentences.

2. In another 6-3 ruling, the court chipped away at our Miranda rightsthe rights given to people in the United States upon arrest since the 1966 rulingMiranda v. Arizona, requiring that law enforcement inform suspects of their right to remain silent, to have legal representation, and against self-incrimination. In Vega v. Tekoh, the court ruled 6-3 along partisan lines that Americans cannot sue officers who fail to inform them of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney during an arrest. By removing consequences for violating someones Miranda rights, the court almost certainly made it more likely that law enforcement will infringe upon peoples rights and put their legal status and safety at risk.

3. The Supreme Courts assault on the Constitution included going after Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. In Egbert v. Boule, the court heldagain 6-3 along partisan linesthat border patrol officers who violate the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be sued. That gives these officers more power to search the homes of anyone within 100 miles of a border without fear of consequence.

That ruling does not just affect immigrants. Its everyone who lives within the border zonenearlytwoout of three Americans. The ruling doesnt take away your Fourth Amendment rights under the Constitution. It just makes it easier for border patrol, and potentially other federal law enforcement agents, to get away with violating them.

4. The Trump-packed court majority denied every stay of execution application that came before it last session, eliminating rights for vulnerable people facing execution. The Supreme Court denied the emergency stay of execution petitions and overruled two stays of execution ordered by lower courts, allowing all 13 people who applied for relief to be put to death.

Four of the people awaiting execution had intellectual disabilities. Four were challenging Oklahomas lethal injection protocolsa state which has a cruel history of botched executionsbut the court refused to halt their executions. Ultimately, one of the people executed in Oklahoma, John Grant,asphyxiated on his own vomit during the lethal injection. A lower court had stayed Grants execution, but the Supreme Court reversed that order and pushed the execution forward; he was killed just hours later.

5. The court used its shadow docket to shield police who use excessive force from accountability. In Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna and City of Tahlequah, OK v. Bond, theCourt reversed two lower court decisions denying qualified immunity for officers involved in two excessive force cases. One of the cases involved a fatal shooting. Qualified immunity shields police officers from accountability for their actions in excessive force claims, allowing them to essentially torture at will. Doing so almost certainly makes it more likely that officers will use excessive force. This is from the shadow docket, so no justices fingerprints are on the decision.

6. In three voting rights cases, the Supreme Court instituted racially gerrymandered maps in three separate states. In a trifecta of voting rights casesMerrill v. Milligan, Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, andArdoin v. Robinsonthe court continued its assault on the Voting Rights Act through three shadow docket decisions that undermine Black voting power.

In February, the court allowed Alabama to reinstate a racist voting map after a lower court held the map was unlawful. Several weeks later, the court threw out a Wisconsin Supreme Court redistricting ruling that adopted a map adding a majority-Black seat to the state legislature. And in the last week of the term, the court intervened to revive Louisianas racially gerrymandered congressional map, which had been blocked by a lower court.

7. The court made it extremely difficult for immigrants to get help when the government violates their rights. InGarland v. Gonzalez, the courts conservative supermajority ruled 6-3 on partisan lines that noncitizens cannot receive class-wide injunctive relief when the government violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). As a result, when the government violates the rights of a whole class of noncitizens, courts are unable to require immigration officers to provide relief like bond hearings to all affected people; instead, each individual noncitizen must separately request and be given a bond hearing.

On the same day, June 13, the court issued an 8-1 decision in Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, holding that noncitizens are not entitled to specialized bond hearings after being detained more than six months. Together, these two cases leave many vulnerable noncitizens without recourse to defend their rights and could leave people in detention indefinitely.

8. The court also harmed resident immigrants, leaving thousands without recourse to challenge unfair Board of Immigration Appeals decisions. InPatel v. Garland, the court ruled that federal courts cannot review decisions made by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appealsleaving some of the most vulnerable among us without recourse to challenge unfair decisions. Pankajkumar Patel, who has lived and worked in the U.S. for more than 30 years and raised a family here, was denied permanent residence status because of a mistake on his drivers license application years ago. The Supreme Court shut down his ability to fight that decision, and he and his wife face deportation proceedings without recourse.

9. The court denied U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico their right to access certain Social Security benefits in U.S. v. Vaello-Madero. Jose Luis Vaello Madero was a recipient of SSI benefits while living in New York, and then moved to Puerto Rico in 2013. He continued to receive benefits, but when the government discovered he had moved, they ended his benefits and sought to claw back $28,000 from him. He sued, arguing that the exclusion of Puerto Rico residentsU.S. citizensviolates the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendments Due Process Clause. The court held that the U.S. government can deny SSI benefits to disabled U.S. citizens living in Puerto Ricoresidents who are overwhelmingly Latinoand people of color. More than 300,000 people were impacted by this ruling.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor noted that the decision is especially devastating because Puerto Rico has no congressional representation, and therefore has no other means to correct the punishing disparities suffered by citizen residents of Puerto Rico under Congress unequal treatment.

10. The court issued a devastating blow to tribal sovereignty inOklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, upending decades of precedent and basic principles of federal Indian law to strip power away from tribes in criminal justice matters on native lands. National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) President Fawn Sharp called the ruling an attack on tribal sovereignty and the hard-fought progress of our ancestors to exercise our inherent sovereignty over our own territories.

It was only a few months ago that Congress loudly supported tribal sovereignty and tribal criminal jurisdiction with the passage of the Violence Against Womens Act, reaffirming the right of Tribal Nations to protect their own people and communities, but make no mistake, today, the Supreme Court has dealt a massive blow to tribal sovereignty and Congress must, again, respond.

11. The court made it harder for victims of illegal FBI surveillance on Muslim communities to vindicate their rights. In FBI v .Fazaga, the court held that the FBI can hide its discriminatory surveillance of Muslim Americans under state secrets, barring the plaintiffs religious discrimination claims. Those claims were based on evidence that the government illegally spied on those attending mosques in violation of their constitutional religious liberties and federal law, illegally videotaping their homes and recording conversations in several California mosques.

12. In addition to the more widely reportedWest Virginia v. EPA, whichattacked the Clean Air Act, the court also went after the Clean Water Act and the health and safety of communities, this time from the shadow docket. In Louisiana v. American Rivers, the Court issued a radical environmental decision that revived a Trump-era policy, upending decades of precedent and settled law giving states and tribes authority to protect their waters.

The ruling severely limits the authority of states and tribes to restrict environmentally risky projects, such as pipelines and coal export facilities. The Supreme Courtagaingave no reasoning for shredding 50 years of precedent, issuing only a one-paragraph opinion siding with polluting industries over the tribes and communities whose safety is on the line.

These 12 decisions demonstratewhy the legitimacy of the court is in question. Its not simply because people disagree with an opinion, as Chief Justice John Robertswhined earlier this month. Its because the radical, extreme majority has been dismantling core tenets of the Constitution and settled law, undermining the will of the majority of Americans, throwing out decadeseven centuriesof precedent, and demonstrating that it is an existential threat to the rule of law.

The courts next term, starting in just two weeks, will feature cases that threaten LGBTQ rights, environmental safety, election integrity, affirmative action, and more. That includes Moore v. Harper, an effort by Republican legislators in North Carolina to declare themselves the sole arbiters of federal elections, putting them above the states constitution and the states courts. The specious and radical theory theyre arguingthe independent state legislature theoryis basedon an early 19th-century document that is a well-known fake. In other words: fraud.

The Supreme Court has lost legitimacy, and there isnt much time to correct it. Congress and President Biden must expand the court today to ensure our safety, liberties, and futures.

RELATED STORIES:

Continue reading here:
They overturned Roe and, amid the chaos, gutted 12 more rights and freedoms you might have missed - Daily Kos

(Photo by Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Three thoughts to consider this morning:

You really wouldnt want to be the guy around Mar-a-Lago who came up with the idea for a special master.

Maybe Ron DeSantis didnt really think through this whole flying-migrants-around-the-country thing.

Trumps weekend rally was worse than you thought.

Happy Tuesday.

Get 14 day free trial

Lets start with Team Trumps apparent buyers remorse over the special master they wanted and chose. Judge Raymond Dearie asked Trump to disclose details about any materials he claims to have declassified before calling them his property.

Trump is balking, complaining:

[T]he Special Master process will have forced the Plaintiff to fully and specifically disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment without such a requirement being evident in the District Courts order, the attorneys wrote.

Oh.

Theres more. Trump is worried that Dearie is moving too fast, arguing that his draft plan for review compresses the entirety of the inspection and labeling process to be completed by October 7, 2022.

And

Trumps team also raised concerns about Dearies request for information about whether any subsequent Fourth Amendment litigation filed by Trump to reclaim the documents should be filed with the magistrate judge who authorized the search in the first place: Bruce Reinhart, who Trump has assailed without basis as biased against him.

As Politicos Kyle Cheney notes:

The back and forth comes a day before Trump will make his first bid to convince an appeals court panel to grant him the same deference that Cannon did when she blocked the Justice Departments criminal review of the national security secrets stashed at his Mar-a-Lago home.

Exit take:

**

Its still early days, but this could get messy: Texas sheriff opens criminal investigation into Martha's Vineyard migrant trips.

[Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar] said that 48 migrants appeared to have been lured under false pretenses into staying at a hotel for a couple of days before they were flown to Florida and Marthas Vineyard.

They were promised work, he said. They were promised the solution to several of their problems.

He said a recruiter was paid a "bird dog fee" to gather roughly 50 people around a San Antonio migrant resource center.

The asylum-seekers, most of them Venezuelan, were then taken to the posh Massachusetts island for little more than a photo op or a video op, and they were unceremoniously stranded in Marthas Vineyard, Salazar said.

Salazar said his office's organized crime investigators would handle the investigation.

Maybe the feds should get involved, as well?

Speaking of the DeSantis stunt, read Linda Chavez in todays Bulwark: The Cruelty and Dishonesty of the DeSantis Immigration Stunt.

Also: Make sure you check out Judd Legums expos, which JVL summarized yesterday:

None of the migrants were in the U.S. illegally. They were claiming asylum from the regime in Venezuela that DeSantis himself says is responsible for countless atrocities.

DeSantis and his agents lied to the asylum seekers in order to get them aboard the planes. They told the Venezuelan refugees that they were going to Boston in order to get expedited work papers.

DeSantis and officials in his administration then lied to the public, insisting that they did not mislead the refugees.

Legum has a copy of the brochure that the refugees were given:

Popular Information, however, has obtained a brochure that was provided to the migrants who ultimately agreed to the flights. It was provided to Popular Information by Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR), a Boston-based legal organization that represents 30 of the migrants.

The brochure says that migrants who arrive in Massachusetts will be eligible for numerous benefits, including "8 months cash assistance," "assistance with housing," "food," "clothing," "transportation to job interviews," "job training," "job placement," "registering children for school," "assistance applying for Social Security cards," and many other benefits.

None of this, however, is true.

**

Over at the Dispatch, Nick Catoggio (the pundit formerly known as Allahpundit) takes a deep-dive into the complicated Trump-DeSantis dynamic.

At some point an impatient narcissist will no longer be able to ignore his rivals effrontery, especially if its cutting into his camera time. Its one thing for DeSantis to steal Trumps hand gestures, its another for him to steal the policy issue on which Trump has made his bones as a fighter. The day Trump loses his distinction as King of the Jerks to DeSantis is the day we have a bona fide fight on our hands for the 2024 nomination.

Which is one reason I think his patience with DeSantishis willingness to hold his tongue about the younger manis about to run out.

**

Must-read from Tom Nichols in the Atlantic:

Saturday nights Ohio rally was not a typical Trump carnival, and it was not just ridiculousit was dangerous. His embrace of the QAnon conspiracy theorists represents a new expansion not only of Trumps cult of personality, but of his threats to sow violence.

Despite his seeming inability to remember anything from one thought to the next, Trump has a kind of lizard-brain awareness of dangeronly to himself, of coursethat guides him when hes faced with threats. His reflex in such situations is to do whatever it takes to survive, including bullying, lying, threatening, and allegedly breaking the law.

He is in political and legal jeopardy now, and he has decided to escalate his war against the rule of law, the American system of government, and the American people by embracing and potentially weaponizing QAnon.

Get 14 day free trial

Grim, but important, read from Major Garrett and David Becker, excerpted from their new book, The Big Truth: Upholding Democracy in the Age of The Big Lie which is out today.

Americas second civil war could start with a bang or with a whimper. It could begin with a skirmish or sneak up on us through a series of small compromises and acts of political cowardice. Civil war could announce itself loudly and bloodily, leaving no doubt as to its awful entrance. Or it could creep in through the back door, only to be recognized in hindsight as a series of seemingly disconnected events that could have and should have been stopped. We may be midstream in such a flow of events already. We now examine this possible future as if we have just emerged from its aftermath.

Republicans had a strategy for downplaying the issue through the midterms, writes Will Saletan. So much for that.

If youre devoutly pro-life, it can be exhilarating to watch a politician flaunt his resolve to prohibit all abortions in every state. But if youre pro-choice, its alarming. And if youre McConnell, its a headache. McConnell just wants to make things easy on Republican senators and Senate candidates. He doesnt want Ron Johnson, Mehmet Oz, Adam Laxalt, and other purple-state GOP nominees to be put on the spot about a federal ban.

Apparently, Graham does. In the interview, he exhorted pro-lifers to hold Republican lawmakers feet to the fire. Without using McConnells name, he called for a direct assault on McConnells position. Heres the question for the pro-life movement: Are you going to accept the Republican party who tells you Washington is out of business? Graham asked. I dont think you will. I dont think you should.

Donald Ayer writes that no one should think Barr is having second thoughts about the awful things he did in office.

Credit for moving the public discussion closer to reality is one thing, but no one should think that Barr is having second thoughts about the awful things he did in office. To the contrary, Barrs recent trashing of Trump in a manner likely to greatly impair his presidential prospects makes perfect sense when one understands the driving convictions and objectives that have guided him throughout his adult life.

In todays Bulwark, Cathy Young writes about a recent PEN symposium:

Obviously, most writers working in liberal democracies in 2022 are not in danger of being sentenced to death in absentia for their writings, or of being confronted by a fanatical and armed would-be enforcer of that sentence. (A Twitter death threat is not quite the same thing.) And yet the theme of free expression in jeopardy, not just in dictatorships but here in the United States, dominated the discussion. In her introductory remarks, Nossel noted that PEN America was committed to resisting encroachments on speech from both right and left, be they attempts to remove unwelcome books (particularly ones with LGBT themes) from school libraries or pressure to restrict free speech on college campuses.

This political evenhandedness was evident through the evening. The so-called library wars, which sometimes include actual and disturbing harassment from the right as well as illiberal legislative action, were repeatedly and duly noted; Ayad Akhtar even asserted that we are in the midst of the most significant repression of free speech by American legislatures in his lifetime. And yet all in all, perhaps more attention was paidat an unquestionably left-of-center gathering before a liberal New York audienceto the dangers of zealotry on the social justice- and identity-focused left.

Sounds reasonable and not at all batshit crazy.

Meanwhile, in Georgia:

Read the rest here:
Did DeSantis Really Think This Through? - by Charlie Sykes - The Bulwark

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement

As previously disclosed, on August 25, 2021, Ranor, Inc. ("Ranor"), a whollyowned subsidiary of TechPrecision Corporation (the "Company"), along withcertain affiliates of the Company, entered into that certain Amended andRestated Loan Agreement (the "Amended and Restated Loan Agreement") withBerkshire Bank under which, among other things, Berkshire Bank continued a termloan made to Ranor in the original principal amount of $2,850,000 (the "RanorTerm Loan"). Under the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement and related loandocuments, the Ranor Term Loan had a maturity date of December 20, 2021. Aspreviously disclosed on December 20, 2021, March 21, 2022 and June 23, 2022,Ranor and certain affiliates of the Company entered into successive amendmentsto the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement extending the maturity date of theRanor Term Loan, ultimately to September 16 2022. On September 15, 2022, Ranorand certain affiliates of the Company entered into a Fourth Amendment to Amendedand Restated Loan Agreement and Fourth Amendment to Promissory Note (the"Amendment") to further extend the maturity date of the Ranor Term Loan toDecember 15, 2022.

Other than in respect of the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, the promissorynotes made thereunder, the related security and guaranty documents and thepreviously disclosed past borrowing relationship, there is no materialrelationship between Ranor, the Company and the other affiliates of the Companyparty thereto, on the one hand, and Berkshire Bank, on the other hand. Thedescription of the Amendment is qualified in its entirety by reference to thefull text of the Amendment, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.1and is incorporated by reference herein.

Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors;

On September 15, 2022, the Board of Directors (the "Board") of the Companyapproved an increase in the size of the Board from four directors to fivedirectors and appointed Alexander Shen to fill the newly-created directorship,effective on the same date. Mr. Shen is expected to be nominated for reelectionby the stockholders at the Company's 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Mr.Shen has not been appointed to any committees of the Board.

Mr. Shen has served in his current role as the Chief Executive Officer of theCompany since 2014. Mr. Shen will not receive any additional compensation forservice as a member of the Board.

There are no arrangements or understandings between Mr. Shen and any otherpersons pursuant to which he was elected as a director of the Company. There areno family relationships between Mr. Shen and any other director or executiveofficer of the Company and the Company is not aware of any transaction, orproposed transaction, required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 404(a) ofRegulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Item 5.07 Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

On September 14, 2022, the Company held its 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders(the "Annual Meeting"). A total of 34,307,450 shares of the Company's commonstock were entitled to vote as of July 22, 2022, the record date for the AnnualMeeting, of which 26,146,497 were present in person or by proxy at the AnnualMeeting. The final results for each of the matters submitted to a vote ofstockholders at the Annual Meeting are as follows:

Proposal No. 1: All of the nominees for director listed below were elected toserve for a one-year term expiring on the date of the Company's 2023 AnnualMeeting of Stockholders (and until their successors are duly elected andqualified) by the votes set forth in the table below:

Proposal No. 2: The selection of Marcum LLP as the Company's independentregistered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2023was ratified by the Company's stockholders by the votes set forth in the tablebelow:

Proposal No. 3: The Company's stockholders voted upon and approved an amendmentto the Company's certificate of incorporation to (i) effect a reverse stocksplit of the Company's common stock at an exchange ratio between 1-for-2 and1-for-5, such ratio to be determined by the Company's board of directors, at anytime prior to March 31, 2023, the implementation and timing of which shall besubject to the discretion of the Company's board of directors and (ii) if andwhen the reverse stock split is effected, reduce the number of authorized sharesof the Company's common stock from 90,000,000 to 50,000,000:

Proposal No. 4: The compensation of the Company's Named Executive Officers asdisclosed in the Company's Proxy Statement dated August 12, 2022 was approved bythe Company's stockholders on an advisory, non-binding basis by the votes setforth in the table below:

Proposal No. 5. The frequency of holding future advisory votes on thecompensation of the Company's Named Executive Officers was approved by theCompany's stockholders on an advisory, non-binding basis by the votes set forthin the table below:

The board of directors of the Company, has determined, in light of andconsistent with the advisory vote of the Company's stockholders as to thepreferred frequency of stockholder advisory votes on the compensation of theCompany's Named Executive Officers, to include a stockholder advisory vote onthe compensation of the Company's Named Executive Officers in its annual meetingproxy materials every year until the next advisory vote on the frequency ofstockholder votes on the compensation of the Company's Named Executive Officers.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read more from the original source:
TECHPRECISION CORP : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Change in Directors or Principal Officers, Submission of Matters to a Vote of...

Okay, sometimes we don't think before we do and this is one of those circumstances. Flipping anyone off is an insult and I don't think in any culture it is a term of endearment. But many people do it because they are unable to use their words.

In my opinion, these occurrences mostly take place when you're driving. If someone cuts you off, sometimes the fingers just fold in, leaving the middle straight up on its own.

But what if the person you are flipping off is a police officer? My mind automatically goes to hand cuffs and a striped jumpsuit if you flip off a cop, however, you are protected.

According to Car and Driver,a woman that was given a citation flipped off a cop while he was driving away.

The article says,

he pulled her over a second time before she could even make it 100 yards away, according to her original complaint filed in Detroit's U.S. District Court in April 2018. Minard upgraded the ticket to a moving violation and Cruise-Gulyas drove away again, this time without flipping off Minard. She later sued Minard, alleging violations of her First Amendment right to free speech and her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The cop should not of pulled her over a second time for giving him a finger or upgrading her ticket. The lady that was pulled over did not dispute the facts and stood by her freedom of speech.

The article goes on to say,

In essence, it was illegal for Minard to pull her over the second time because "fits of rudeness" aren't illegal or "grounds for a seizure," according to the opinion by circuit judge Jeffrey Sutton. A middle finger, no matter how obscene, qualifies as free speech.

There wasn't any other reason Minard pulled her over, as court documents confirm, which implies it was illegal to make the second traffic stop and detain her on the roadside. Hooray, fingers and freedom!

We have learned today ladies and gentle-dudes that it is in fact, legal to flip off a police officer due to our First Amendment rights.

But I would suggest not doing so, because we should live in a kind world.

As I am searching for unique items for my new house, I found these outrageous and peculiar items for sale on Craigslist in New England and had to share them with you!

When you're having a craving for chicken tenders you don't want to upset your stomach, so I am here to help you feed that need with the best chicken tender spots in Maine!

Go here to read the rest:
Is It Illegal To Flip Off A Cop in Maine? - 92moose.fm