Mediaboss Marketing

Newport residents expressed fears at a public hearing on Nov. 5 that the proposed North End Urban Plan will lead to unaffordable housing and will drive them out of the city.

Several dozen people, either speaking on Zoom or in signed letters, cited fears of displacement during a three-hour Newport Planning Board session.

This plan scares me, said resident Jennifer Jackson. It worries me that we are going in a direction that doesnt benefit the community.

Lauren DeSantis who has lived on Halsey Street for 33 years, talked about disturbing trends of violence from too much foot traffic, and begged the City Council and Planning Board to create a different cut-through street.

Resident Natalie Harris said, We want the best for our neighborhood. We dont want to be displaced.

The Planning Board is preparing a set of amendments for the North End plan, including addressing affordable housing, that will be finalized at a third and final public hearing on Nov. 18.

The North End Urban Plan is an innovative zoning initiative that has been studied for at least two years with the goal of creating a Newport Gateway, with state-of-the-art development, open space, better roads, and many planned amenities spurred by developer interest in nearly 50 acres of land, including the former Newport Grand Casino and acreage opened up by the Pell Bridge ramp realignment, among other undeveloped parcels.

After Nov. 18, the Planning Board will forward its recommendations to the City Council, with the hope that any recommended zoning changes can take place in the citys Comprehensive Plan before they are officially adopted in an urban plan.

Colin Scarff, founding partner of Code Studio, a national firm hired by consultants NBBJ, opened the meeting by providing a site plan that split the area into a village district and a non-village district.

When a developer comes in to redevelop these sites, they have to think about providing new blocks and new streets as part of their site plans, which is unlikely to happen in the non-village districts [due their smaller sizes generally], he said.

This includes the 23 acres of the former Newport Grand Casino property and, possibly, parcels among the estimated 25 acres that will be developed after the Pell Bridge ramp realignment.

The former Navy Hospital site may also be part of this equation. In this design, Scarff said, a large block cannot be more than 1,600 feet on the perimeter and a maximum length of 600 feet, with core streets provided every 1,000 feet.

The real distinction here between these districts is some of its form building height and width and the kind of uses that are allowed, he said.

Emphasis was placed on driveways and pedestrian walkways. We really need to be aware of how vehicles access these sites to make them as pedestrian-friendly as possible, said Scarff. Getting people out of cars and on bicycles with the kind of infrastructure [in place], maybe it makes sense to make sure there are bike racks there.

He also pointed out open space that must be part of any planned development, with tree islands and open landscaping.

Planning Board Chair Kim Salerno addressed form-based zoning codes used nationally that Newport may adopt in this mixed-use industrial/business/residential zone.

There are certain street types, and some really focus on pedestrian activity, continuity and transparency, so that you can encourage retail and other kinds of commerce, she said. And those kinds of uses may be discouraged by the shape of streets that are, say, state roads that are designed for traffic.

Patricia Reynolds, Planning and Economic Development director, said, The city is very old and our zoning is based more on a modern version of zoning, something thats basically developed for a suburban community. As a result, most of the parcels throughout the city are non-conforming, which makes any type of change to a building difficult.

Most changes involve a trip to the Zoning Board of Review, she said.

In the future, a form-based code, also called a character code because it supports the character of the area, would be applicable to other areas that are made non-conforming by inappropriate zoning. Such areas are historic districts or along Ocean Drive that have a defined character, and would do better with a code that better suits their specific needs and their current patterns of development, according to Salerno.

Planning Board member Steve Berlucchi asked about drive-through services, charging stations for hybrid or electric cars, traffic access from the bridge ramps, and other issues that were not addressed by the general zoning site plan.

When I see your rendition of what the new main roads are going to look like, they look like New York City, he said. They dont look like Newport. Sorry to say, but from what I see, your adaptations are not pleasing to me.

Alan Mountjoy of NBBJ said the additional bike lanes give the design a wider, big city feel. People are sick of the traffic. If they dont have a decent alternative, they will have to get into their cars, and we want to give them options, he said.

Salerno joined Berlucchi in this concern, asking why the streets would be so wide. She was told that the plan is to accommodate as much vehicular traffic as possible along with bikes.

The North End Urban Plan supports the citys Comprehensive Plan, said City Planner Peter Friedrichs, which addresses the housing loss. Limiting short-term rentals is another city goal, along with adding more housing units and more workforce housing.

The Planning Board received four emails with 23 written questions from members of the community. They asked NBBJ to provide more of a road map or action plan for potential growth, a possible public safety facility, better open space and affordable housing, to name just a few.

One resident asked about contamination left behind at the former Newport Grand Casino site and Pell Bridge ramp realignment. Friedrichs said that the city received a $250,000 grant from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management in 2019 to address contamination.

Other questions centered on developers contributing to a community benefits agreement or fund to better the North End, and asked about job opportunities. The so-called Blue Economy (oceans) and Green Economy (environmental) were mentioned often as to the businesses and job opportunities ideally created in the proposed Innovative Zone.

The Greater Newport Chamber [of Commerce] states the Blue Economy is identified as the greatest opportunity to create new quality jobs, Reynolds said. It already employs over 36,000 people statewide, with an impact of over $5.6 billion for the state.

Christian Belden, executive director of Church Community Housing Corp., sent in a letter stating the plan is not equitable, would drive out existing residents, and does not represent the communitys full voice.

I dont think the problem is so much with what the plan proposes, with as much as it is what the plan doesnt propose, he said in the public forum. They are expressing their concerns about being forced out of Newport.

Many of these concerns are being addressed with the plan, Friedrichs said.

Reynolds then read four amendments that will be added. The first, on equity, addresses concerns about creating community benefits. The second deals with the importance of the North End Urban Plan and its relation to economic development. The third centers on traffic issues on Admiral Kalbfus Road. The fourth amendment discusses the establishment of a design review body for our projects within the North End.

Its important to understand that this is a road map for development, Salerno said, but development will all have to undergo a review process.

Will you help Newport This Week continue coverage on the local election, COVID-19 updates and municipal news during these unprecedented times with a monetary donation? Any amount helps!

Visit link:
North End Residents Fear Being Driven Out - Newport This Week

Tear gas creeps up the street May 30 in Indianapolis. Police enforcement used tear gas to break up the protest in response to the police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky, and Dreasjon Reed in Indianapolis. Alex Deryn

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department agreed on Oct. 29 to end the use of riot control agents against peaceful, law-abiding protesters and passive resistors. Passive resistors are defined as those who are nonviolent but may be breaking the law. Riot control agents include chemical agents such as tear gas and pepper balls.

The agreement settled a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in June on behalf of Indy10 Black Lives Matter and individual protesters who were exposed to chemical riot control agents deployed at protests in late May. The complaint claimed the deployment of tear gas violated First and Fourth Amendment rights of those protesters.

Similar scenes, and similar lawsuits, played out across the country during protests after the killing of George Floyd. IMPD was one of about 100 law enforcement agencies across the U.S. and one of three in Indiana that deployed tear gas and other riot control agents against protesters this summer. According to the New York Times, this summer marked the most widespread use of tear gas in the U.S. since the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The IMPD settlement states that riot control agents will not be used against future protesters unless there is an imminent threat of serious injury or death or other exigent circumstances.

The department also agreed not to use riot control agents to deter protesters from relocating or because there are unlawful activities occurring elsewhere in the city, both of which they did this summer. It also limits the circumstances in which IMPD can use impact weapons, such as rubber bullets, against protesters.

Demonstrators in mourning deserve safe and secure places to gather without the threat of state-sanctioned violence, especially prematurely and without provocation, Indy10 Black Lives Matter said in a statement responding to the settlement.

The ACLU of Indiana also filed a lawsuit on behalf of Balin Brake, a 21-year-old Fort Wayne, Indiana, protester who lost his right eye to a tear gas canister on May 30. That complaint, filed on Oct. 2, also argues Brakes First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

A former IU student was among those tear gassed at a protest in Indianapolis this summer. She said she went to protest police brutality and mourn the loss of George Floyd. She said the crowd was peaceful when the police deployed tear gas.

It just seemed like it came out of nowhere, she said.

She said the feeling of not being able to breathe was the most notable affect the gas had on her.

She observed that I cant breathe became a common political refrain this year.

"It's been such a strong theme lately with COVID, with police brutality now with this, like with this tear gas," she said. "This theme of not being able to breathe. I can't breathe. It's just, I mean, we're being suffocated."

She said the gas also made her eyes burn and tear up. She wears contacts, which she had to remove because they made the effects of tear gas worse. She was separated from her friends and unable to see. She said the pain was intense for about 15 minutes.

Its an acceptable first step, she said of the IMPD settlement. But I dont think theyre great at having a good grip on what a peaceful protest is. And I think tear gas should be illegal all the time.

Tear gas and other riot control agents are used because they are thought to have short-lived but debilitating effects, making them effective for quelling protests. The sensation of not being able to breathe and a burning sensation in the eyes are the most common short-term effects of tear gas.

There is no legal obligation on state or federal governments to monitor or report the deployment or effects of tear gas, which is banned under the Geneva Protocol for use in warfare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges those who have been exposed to riot control agents to seek medical attention immediately.

This summer, there were concerns that tear gassing protesters might contribute to the spread of the coronavirus by causing people to cough, rub their eyes and nose and remove their masks. A U.S. Army study showed soldiers exposed to tear gas had a higher risk of contracting respiratory infections such as the flu and the common cold, heightening experts' concerns about tear gas exacerbating COVID-19. Experts say its difficult to determine whether spikes were related to tear gas use because it was used around the same time states began to allow businesses to reopen.

While there are no exact counts of tear-gas related casualties available, it is clear the effects of tear gas arent always short-lived. Tear gas has caused at least hundreds of miscarriages and menstrual irregularities, lost eyes and limbs, respiratory failure, other permanent injuries and deaths.

Editors note: The author of this piece wrote opinion columns for the Indiana Daily Student this summer opposing the use of tear gas by police, specifically including one about this lawsuit.

Like what you're reading? Support independent, award-winning college journalism on this site. Donate here.

The state has set three new single-day records in the last four days.

There is no clear cause, according to the Duke Energy website.

The board had to reject 94 out of 110 provisional ballots.

The rest is here:
IMPD agrees to end use of tear gas, other riot control tactics against peaceful protesters - Indiana Daily Student

October 17, 2020, the 22nd Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Thirteenth National People's Congress adopted the decision on amending the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (PRC). This is the fourth amendment of PRC Patent Law. The PRC Patent Law was first entered into force in 1985, and was amended three times in 1992, 2000 and 2008. The fourth amendment was drafted in 2015 and adopted after several years of discussion and many rounds of solicitation of different opinions. The amended Patent Law will come into effect on June 1, 2021. The substantive amendments include the following: I. Design patent regulations This amendment made the following changes to the design patent regulations: (1) Broadening the eligible subject matter of the design patent According to the current Patent Law, partial designs are not eligible subject matter of the design patent. In other words, the current Patent Law in China protects only the design of an overall product, and applicants are not allowed to claim a partial design of a product. Accordingly, in practice, it is not allowed to include broken lines in six-dimensional views and perspective view(s) of a design patent application (Note: It is allowable to include broken lines in the reference view(s)). In contrast, Article 2 of the amended Patent Law stipulates that, "a design means any new design of the shape, the pattern, or their combination, or the combination of the color with shape or pattern, of the whole or part of a product, which creates an aesthetic feeling and is fit for industrial application," which makes partial design become eligible subject matter of a design patent. After the new law comes into force, applicants may apply for design patent protection for partial innovative designs of the product. In practice, the applicant may show the unclaimed parts by broken lines (or other ways) and the claimed parts by solid lines in the drawings of a design patent application. (2) Extending the term of a design patent According to the current Patent Law, the protection period of a design patent is 10 years. Pursuant to Article 42 of the amended Patent Law, "the duration of the design patent right is 15 years." This amendment was made to keep pace with international standards and prepare for China's future participation in the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Design. (3) Adding domestic priority right regulations Pursuant to Article 29 of the current Patent Law, applicants may claim both foreign priority and domestic priority rights for inventions and utility models according to the law, and may only claim foreign priority right for designs. This amendment introduced domestic priority right regulations for design patent applications. II. Addition of novelty grace period Pursuant to Article 24 of the current Patent Law, any invention-creation for which a patent is 2 applied shall not lose its novelty if, within six months before the filing date of the application, one of the following events has occurred: (1) it was exhibited for the first time at an international exhibition sponsored or recognized by the Chinese Government; (2) it was made public for the first time at a prescribed academic or technical conference; or (3) it was disclosed by any person without the consent of the applicant. Regarding state-of-the-art technology put to use in response to emergencies, to allow such technology to be patentable subject matter, the amended Patent Law stipulates that: any invention-creation which is first disclosed for the purpose of the public interest when a national emergency or extraordinary state of affairs occurs shall not lose its novelty within six months before the date of filing. III. Addition of unpatentable subject matter According to Article 25 of the amended Patent Law, nuclear transformation methods are subject matter that cannot be granted a patent right. IV. Extension of time for submitting copies of priority documents for inventions and utility models According to Article 30 of the current Patent Law, an applicant who requests a right of priority shall submit copies of priority documents within three months. Article 30 of the amended Patent Law is as follows: (1) Any applicant who requests the right of priority of a patent for invention and utility model shall submit a written declaration at the time of application, and submit, within sixteen months, a copy of the patent application documents filed for the first time. (2) Any applicant who requests the right of priority for a patent for design shall submit a written declaration at the time of application, and submit, within three months, a copy of the patent application documents filed for the first time. According to the above amendments, the time for submitting a copy of the priority document for inventions and utility models is extended from three months to sixteen months, and for designs, the time remains unchanged, i.e., three months. V. Encouraging entities to dispose of their rights for service inventions and motivated inventors According to Article 6 of the amended Patent Law, an entity may dispose of its right to apply for a patent of a service invention-creation and the patent right thereof in accordance with the law, to promote the exploitation and utilization of the invention-creation concerned. The foregoing regulations can ensure that entities have the right to dispose of its right for service inventions. In addition, in accordance with Article 15 of the amended Patent Law, the state encourages entities that have been granted patent rights to implement property right incentives by using equity, share options, dividends, etc., so that inventors or designers can share the benefits of innovation in a reasonable way. The foregoing regulations clearly encourage entities to use equity, share options, and dividends to motivate inventors to be more innovative. VI. Introduction of regulations on extension of the duration of patent protection Duration of patent protection (for example: The duration of a patent right for an invention is 3 20 years) is counted from the date of filing. In the current patent examination practice, some inventions are granted patent rights several years (or even more than 10 years) after the filling date. This excessively long examination period will undoubtedly shorten the protection term of patent rights. This amendment introduced regulations on extension of the patent protection term for the first time. According to Article 42.2 in the amended Patent Law: "where the patent right for an invention was granted after four years from the date of its application and after three years from the date of substantive examination of the application, the patent administration department under the State Council shall, at the request of the patentee, grant a compensation period for the duration of a patent right with regard to the unreasonable delay during the granting process of the invention patent, except where the unreasonable delay was caused by the applicant. VII. Introduction of a compensation mechanism for duration of drug patent right Drug patents usually involve very high research and development costs, so all drug patentees wish to obtain more effective and longer-term protection for drug patents. However, due to the particularity of drug-related inventions, drugs need to be approved by the relevant authorities before going on the market, which delays the time to market for patented drugs. For this reason, this amendment introduced regulations on compensation for the duration of a drug patent right, to better protect drug-related patents. According to Article 42.2 in the amended Patent Law: "in order to compensate for the time occupied by the review and approval of new drugs before they go on sale, the patent administration department under the State Council shall, at the request of the patentee, grant a compensation period for the duration of patents of new drug inventions that have been approved for marketing in China. The compensation period shall not exceed five years, and the total effective duration of the patent right after the new drug goes public shall not exceed 14 years." VIII. Introduction of regulations on open licensing and annual fee reduction for patents In order to promote licensing and exploitation of patents, this amendment introduced open licensing regulations. The amended Patent Law is as follows: (1) Where a patentee voluntarily declares in writing to the patent administration department under the State Council that he/she is willing to license any entity or individual to exploit their patent, and specifies the payment method and standard for license fees, the patent administration department under the State Council shall make an announcement and implement open licensing. Where an open licensing statement is filed for a utility model or design patent, a patent right evaluation report shall be provided. Any patentee who withdraws his/her open license statement shall make a written request and the patent administration department under the State Council shall make an announcement. Where the open licensing statement is announced and withdrawn, the validity of the open licenses granted earlier will not be affected. (Article 50). (2) Any entity or individual who is willing to exploit an open-licensed patent shall notify the patentee in writing, and obtain a patent exploitation license after paying the license fee in accordance with the payment method and standard as indicated in the announcement. During implementation of open license, the annual patent fee paid by the patentee shall be reduced or exempted accordingly. Patentees who implement open license may grant an ordinary license after negotiating with the licensee on the license fee, but shall not grant an exclusive or sole license for the patent. (Article 51). (3) If any dispute arises from the exploitation of open license between the parties, it shall be 4 settled by the parties through consultation; if they are unwilling or fail to reach an agreement through consultation, they may request the patent administration department under the State Council for mediation or may directly file a suit in the people's court. (Article 52). IX. Introduction of a regulation that allows the alleged infringer to voluntarily submit a patent evaluation report Since utility model and design applications are not subject to substantive examination, in the process of enforcement after these patents are granted, courts or local intellectual property offices generally require patentees to submit a patent right evaluation report to prove the stability of their patent rights. According to the current Patent Law and patent examination guidelines, courts or local intellectual property offices may require the patentee or interested party (i.e., exclusive licensees) to submit a patent rights evaluation report issued by the State Intellectual Property Office of China. According to Article 66 of the amended Patent Law: "the patentee, interested party or alleged infringer may also submit a patent right evaluation report." This amendment includes the "alleged infringer" as a subject who can request the State Intellectual Property Office of China to issue a patent right evaluation report. This makes the regulation for the patent right evaluation report more complete and neutral in terms of procedures, and also provides a new way for the alleged infringer to confront the patentee. X. Introduction of principle of good faith This amendment of the Patent Law not only strengthens the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the patentee, but also provides regulations so as to prevent the abuse of the patent right by the right holders. According to Article 20 of the amended Patent Law, "the principle of good faith shall be followed in applying for and enforcing the patent right, and the patent right shall not be abused to damage the public interest or the legitimate rights and interests of others. Those who abuse the patent right to exclude or restrict competition and therefore constitute monopolistic behavior shall be dealt with according to the Anti-monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China." XI. Perfection of administrative protective mechanism against patent infringement Patent protection in China has been implemented through a two-track system, which means that a patentee may file a lawsuit with the people's court or apply for handling by the patent administration department in the case of patent infringement disputes. This amendment has improved the administrative protective mechanism against patent infringement, and the key points are as follows: (1) According to the current Patent Law, only a local intellectual property office may handle patent infringement disputes. In order to further improve the patent administrative protection, Article 70.1 of the amended Patent Law stipulates that "the administrative department for a patent under the State Council (i.e., the China National Intellectual Property Administration "CNIPA"; formerly known as the State Intellectual Property Office, "SIPO", of the P.R.C.) may, at the request of the patentee or interested party, handle patent infringement disputes that are of nationwide significance.

Read more:
China adopted the fourth amendment of the Patent Law - Lexology

Yahoo News Canada

Americans across the United States took to the streets in a joyous celebration, following the news that Democratic nominee Joe Biden has won the 2020 U.S. Election.In Los Angeles, a march is taking place to help enforce the results of the election, since Donald Trump is refusing to concede to Biden, and instead is looking to challenge the result in court.After polls originally closed on Nov. 3, Americans and people all over the world waited in anticipation for a nominee to secure 270 electoral votes. Biden has now accomplished that feat to become the 46th president of the United States, along Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, who is the first in the role to be either a woman, Black or Asian American.Following a historic U.S. election where more people voted than ever before Americans look ready to celebrate what could be a promising new chapter for their country.

View post:
Societe Generale: Availability of the fourth amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document - Yahoo Finance UK

In 2019, agents of the federal and state governments persuaded judges to issue 99% of all requested intercepts. An intercept is any type of government surveillance telephone, text message, email, even in-person. These are intercepts that theoretically are based on probable cause of crime, as is required by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

The 2019 numbers which the government released as we were all watching the end of the presidential election campaign are staggering. The feds, and local and state police in America engaged in 27,431,687 intercepts on 777,840 people. They arrested 17,101 people from among those intercepted and obtained convictions on the basis of evidence obtained via the intercepts on 5,304. That is a conviction rate of 4% of all people spied upon by law enforcement in the United States.

Readers of this column are familiar with the use by federal agents of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to obtain intercepts using a standard of proof considerably lesser than probable cause of crime. That came about because Congress basically has no respect for the Constitution and authorized the FISA Court to issue intercept warrants if federal agents can identify an American or a foreign person in America who has spoken to a foreign person in another country.

Call your cousin in Florence or a bookseller in Edinburgh or an art dealer in Brussels, and under FISA, the feds can get a warrant from the FISA Court to monitor your future calls and texts and emails.

This FISA system is profoundly unconstitutional; the Fourth Amendment expressly requires that the government state and federal can only lawfully engage in searches and seizures pursuant to warrants issued by a judge based upon a showing under oath of probable cause of crime. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that intercepts and surveillances constitute searches and seizures. The government searches a database of emails, texts or recorded phone calls and seizes the data it wants.

Thus, when the feds have targeted someone for prosecution and lack probable cause of crime about that person, they resort to FISA. This is not only unlawful and unconstitutional, but also it is corrupting, as it permits criminal investigators to cut constitutional corners by obtaining evidence of crimes outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment. The use of the Fourth Amendment is the only lawful means of engaging in surveillance sufficient to introduce the fruits of the surveillance at a criminal trial.

If the feds happen upon evidence of a crime from their FISA-authorized intercepts, they then need to engage in deceptive acts of parallel construction. That connotes the false creation of an ostensibly lawful intercept in order to claim that they obtained lawfully what they already have obtained unlawfully.

Law enforcement personnel then fake the true means they used to acquire evidence even duping the prosecutors for whom they work so the evidence will appear to have been obtained lawfully and thus can be used at trial. At its essence, parallel construction is a deception on the court. If the deception is perpetrated under oath, it is perjury a felony.

This corruption of the Constitution by those in whose hands we have reposed it for safekeeping happens every day in America.

The FISA-induced corruption has regrettably bled into the culture of non-FISA law enforcement, and even into the judiciary. The statistics I cited above are not from FISA those numbers are secret. Rather, the statistics reflect the governments voracious appetite for spying that now pervades non-FISA law enforcement. This is so because judges accept uncritically the applications made before them for intercept or surveillance warrants.

Thus, even though the Fourth Amendment permits judges to issue warrants only upon the probable likelihood of evidence of a crime in the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized, the attitude of what constitutes probable cause has been attenuated by both the law enforcement personnel who seek warrants and the judges who hear the applications. We know this because we have not seen a number like 99% of all warrant applications every one supposedly based on probable cause of crime granted. Nor have we seen only 4% of those intercepts resulting in convictions.

The rational conclusion is that the governments appetite for surveillance remains voracious, and judges whose affirmative duty it is to uphold the Constitution as against the other two branches of government have done very little to abate this.

So, what becomes of the remaining 96% of those on whom the government spied? That depends on whether the government charges anyone. If a person is charged and acquitted, and law enforcement unlawfully obtained evidence against that person, his remedy is either persuading the court to suppress the evidence thus resulting in the acquittal, or suing the law enforcement agents who unlawfully spied on him.

Yet, under current Supreme Court decisions about who can sue the government, if the government has spied on you and not charged you and not told you, you have no cause of action against the law enforcement agents who did this.

Stated differently, in 2019, at least 760,739 people in America were spied upon pursuant to judicial orders allegedly based upon probable cause of crime and were neither charged nor informed of the spying.

My Fox colleagues often deride my attacks on those who fail to safeguard our privacy because they argue, we have no privacy. Yet, as Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, the most comprehensive of rights is the right to be let alone. If we forget this, my colleagues will have the last laugh. If we expose its violation, we might know the joys of unmonitored personal fulfillment.

Continued here:
Napolitano: The government's lust to spy - Daily Herald