#defenses to unlawful detainer florida

[lawofficeofryansshipp]

Unlawful Detainer: Resolving Property Occupancy Disputes in Florida

Unlawful Detainer: Resolving Property Occupancy Disputes in Florida

Florida Unlawful Detainer In the realm of property disputes in Florida, an Unlawful Detainer lawsuit serves as a legal recourse for property owners seeking the removal of an unauthorized occupant.  This legal action is commonly initiated in scenarios involving break-ups between couples, overstaying family members, and instances of squatting. Distinguishing itself from the eviction process, an…

[96thdayofrage]

It was 2009 when PINAC News first broke the story of a mother named Tasha Ford who was arrested on felony “eavesdropping” charges for recording police detaining her teenage son in the parking lot of a South Florida movie theater after accusing him of trying to sneak inside without a ticket.

Ford’s arrest by Boynton Beach police was one of several high-profile arrests at the time on charges of eavesdropping or “wiretapping”; an unconstitutional trend in which cops across the country were using outdated felony laws to keep citizens from recording them in public.

Several landmark court cases since then have affirmed that citizens have a First Amendment right to record police in public which is one reason why we have been seeing so many police abuse videos in recent years. Turns out, they had a lot to hide during those early years.

But on May 5, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Florida ruled the Boynton Beach cops who arrested Ford had a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had probable cause to arrest her, once again denying her the right to sue for damages. Ford first filed the lawsuit in 2010 but has since faced a string of judges who claim that cops have an expectation of privacy in public despite existing case law stating otherwise.

Ford’s video from that night should have ended the expectation of privacy debate because it shows the cops were standing in front of a bustling movie theater on a Saturday night as dozens of people stood or walked by. Some of the bystanders exchanged comments with the officers. One man even walked up and introduced his date to an officer while the cop tried to obtain Ford’s home address. The officer shook both their hands before resuming the conversation with Ford as if it were just another meet-and-greet community event.

But it does not appear as if Judges Edward L. Artau and Melanie G. May even watched the video, much less researched case law because they did not elaborate on their decision other than recite what was already stated in summary judgment from the lower court judge.

In his summary judgment under the heading “Undisputed Material Facts,”, Judge G. Joseph Curley described Ford as “confrontational” because she would not stop recording when ordered to do so. He also stated that she had “admitted” to recording the cops without consent as if confessing to a crime when the whole point of the lawsuit was that she was not committing a crime and had nothing to admit to because she never made it a secret that she was recording.

The summary judgment also claims that the cop’s friend who walked up and introduced his female companion also had an expectation of privacy, never mind the fact he was the one intruding into a conversation that had nothing to do with him.

The 2-1 ruling is already being challenged in an amicus brief filed Thursday by the ACLU, the National Press Photographers Association, the Society of Professional Journalists and several other First Amendment groups who predict cops in Florida will begin using the ruling to arrest anybody recording them in public as they’ve done in the past.

Below is an excerpt from the amicus brief which you can read here:

If allowed to stand, the panel majority’s opinion will license law enforcement officers to order citizens to stop recording the officers’ public discharge of their duties and to arrest all who refuse to comply for obstruction without violence. Like Ms. Ford, those individuals can hope and expect that sensible prosecutors will decline to charge, and sensible judges and juries will decline to convict, but they will nevertheless suffer the considerable consequences of an unlawful arrest, ranging from humiliation, degrading confinement, the cost of bail and defense counsel to the potential loss of employment and disruption to familial bonds, all captured by the popular culture saying, “you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.”

This Court should put an end to the practice by:

1. Granting rehearing or rehearing en banc;

2. Ruling that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest Ms. Ford;

3. Holding that recording police officers in the public discharge of their duties cannot create probable cause to arrest for wiretapping or for resisting without violence irrespective of whether ordered to stop recording; and

4. Holding that arguably rude speech unaccompanied by threats, incitement, or physical interference cannot give rise to probable cause to arrest for resisting or obstructing without violence.

The dissenting judge

It appears that the only judge who watched the video was dissenting Judge Martha Warner who has been on the bench since 1989 when she was appointed by then-Governor Bob Martinez. Artau was appointed to the bench last year by Governor Ron Desantis and May was appointed to the bench by Governor Jeb Bush in 2002.

Judge Warner not only watched the video and did her research, she explained her dissent in detail, citing a couple of the landmark cases that were made since Ford’s arrest. She also highlighted the viral George Floyd video from last year and the importance of being able to record police in public as you can read in the excerpt below.

I would hold that a law enforcement officer has no reasonable subjective expectation of privacy in conversations he has with the public or the arrestee in the performance of the officer’s duties in public places. They are performing a public duty at the time, and the public has a right to hear their words. This is as true today as it was in 2009.

A rule otherwise would mean that everyone who pulls out a cell phone to record an interaction with police, whether as a bystander, a witness, or a suspect, is committing a crime. Given how important cell phone videos have been for police accountability across the nation, I do not believe that society is ready to recognize that the recording of those interactions, which include audio recordings, are somehow subject to the officer’s right of privacy. If that were the case, then had the individual who recorded George Floyd saying to the officers “I can’t breathe” been in Florida, he would have been guilty of a crime.

The facts of this case seem to be only too similar to so many police encounters caught on video or cell phones. The officers had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversations while performing their public duties, particularly in public spaces. Given the prevalence of small video cameras and cell phones in public spaces, society has definitively come down on the side of approving the videoing of officers in the performance of their duties as a method of accountability. Because I conclude that the court erred in finding that the officers had probable cause to arrest the appellant for violation of the wiretap statute or for obstruction of the justice statute, I would reverse the final summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

The Arrest

The arrest took place on February 28, 2009, a time when most people did not have video cameras on their phones. Not even the iPhone had a video camera at the time.

Ford, who had recently moved to South Florida from Washington DC, was at her mother’s house when she received a call from Boynton Beach police telling her to come pick up her son whom they said tried to sneak into a movie theater without purchasing a ticket.

Ford drove to the theater and began recording with her Canon Powershot as soon as she stepped out of the car. The cops immediately accused her of being “aggressive.” She responded by saying she was “passionate” about her son, especially after learning one of the cops slammed him against the car when he would not remove his headphones.

At no point did the cops whose names are Robert Kellman, Ricky Lauture and Russell Faine  ever make an attempt to keep people from walking through the area where they had the teen detained while talking to his mother, which is a routine step when they want to keep their conversations private.

They just did not appreciate Ford questioning their authority as she recorded them which was not as common back then as it is today where there are now dozens of YouTube channels dedicated to doing just that. That is what made her aggressive in their eyes.

And that is what made her “confrontational” in the eyes of Judge Curley, a word that was also by the attorney of the cops in describing the incident to the judge, according to court documents.

Curley decided to weigh the evidence in summary judgment rather than let the undisputed facts speak for themselves as he is supposed to do.

Clueless judges

Judge Curley’s misunderstanding of the eavesdropping law probably comes from federal judge William Zloch who dismissed Ford’s federal lawsuit in May 2011 by claiming the cops had probable cause to arrest her because she had recorded them without consent.

Judge Zloch was probably in for a shock when less than three months later in August 2011, the landmark Glik vs. Cunniffe decision from the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts affirmed that citizens had the right to record cops in public, contradicting his opinion on the issue.

The following year, ACLU vs. Alvarez out of the Seventh Circuit in Illinois was what finally put a stop to Chicago police arresting people on felony wiretapping charges for recording them in public.

But even before those landmark cases, the right to record police in public was already established in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Florida, with the case, Smith vs the City of Cummnig in 2000 which states citizens have a “First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct,” including a “right to record matters of public interest.”

The following is an excerpt from our original article on the arrest published on March 6, 2009 after we interviewed Ford by phone, less than a week after she was released from jail. It was a time when the mainstream media would ignore such arrests until they became impossible to ignore which is what happened here.

After pulling into the parking lot, she started filming as soon as she stepped out of her car.

“I saw my son surrounded by five officers and I started filming them, then I filmed the officer walking up to me,” she said.

Rather than stop to talk to the officer, she walked up to her son and asked him what happened. He told her that he had been tackled from behind by an officer and handcuffed after having been thrown out of the theater by a security guard.

“I kept asking the officers, ‘Was he aggressive? Did he pose a threat? I cannot perceive why you would want to put a child in handcuffs’,” she said.

But the officers seemed mainly concerned about the camera.

“They said ‘you can’t record people without letting them know’,” she said.

“So I said, ‘Ok, Tasha Ford is recording you’ and I continued filming them.

“I was filming them for my own protection,” said the mother of two who recently moved to South Florida from Washington DC. “I’ve seen the way cops interact with civilians down here.”

She said one of the officers, Robert Kellman, was extremely antagonistic towards her and told her son, “since your mother is such a fucking asshole, I’m going to arrest you for trespassing’.”

And then a supervisor arrived and when he noticed that she had a Maryland driver license, he allegedly told her, “you fucking northerners think you can come down here and mess with cops. You are about to get a lesson 101 on how to deal with Florida cops.”

The supervisor ordered her arrested under Florida’s electronic surveillance law, which is mostly applied to recording phone conversations without the other party’s consent.

In other words, it doesn’t apply to people who do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

But here we are 11 years later and the judges still don’t understand basic Constitutional law. Or perhaps they just don’t care.

After dismissing the federal claims over the eavesdropping charges, Judge Zlock kicked the case back down to the lower court to resolve the claim over the obstructing justice/resisting arrest charge which is really nothing more than a contempt-of-cop charge.

After her arrest, prosecutors wasted little time in dismissing both charges against Ford which should have bolstered her chances of suing police for damages but she had the misfortune of going before clueless or corrupt judges who ignore actual case law.

The amicus brief filed last week is requesting an en banc review which would bring the case up before the entire bench of 12 judges in the Fourth District Court of Appeals rather than just a panel of three. And the next step after that would be the Florida supreme court.

The case has never gone before a jury who would likely have a much different interpretation of the eavesdropping law than the bulk of judges mentioned in this article.

Ford vowed more than a decade ago that she would continue fighting this until she obtains justice so it is unlikely she is about to give up. Especially now that she has found an honest judge.

[the-powerhouse-of-the-cell]

Listen up cowards

Please sign this.

This is a petition for the Trayvon Martin Law.

If you’ve forgotten who he was, then let me jog your memory a little.

Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old boy visiting his father’s fiancée at the time of his murder.He was coming back from a gas station with skittles that he bought for his soon-to-be stepbrother when George Zimmerman, who was on neighborhood watch that night, had started following him in his car because he had labeled him as 'suspicious'.

Trayvon saw that he was being followed and began to run; Zimmerman reported this to an operator and got out of his car.A grown man was following an unarmed 17-year-old boy with a loaded, concealed weapon.

The ordeal ended with Trayvon's life being cut short.Zimmerman wasn't arrested the night of the murder because Florida Statute 776.032 States that a police officer cannot detain you or arrest you for shooting someone unless they have probable cause to believe the force you used was unlawful or if you shoot a police officer while they're in the act of performing their duties. Law Enforcement didn't arrest Zimmerman the night of the murder because they claimed they didn't have probable cause. (copied from the description of a petition because I feel that they explained it better than I could)

When he was finally interrogated, Zimmerman confessed to profiling Trayvon and following him. He couldn't even keep his story straight throughout police interrogations. The detective admitted that Zimmerman was an "overzealous vigilante who took the law into his own hands" and exaggerated his injuries.George Zimmerman was let go and claimed self-defense.

People worldwide marched and created petitions, and Zimmerman was arrested and convicted with 2nd-degree murder. But this battle for justice isn't over yet. A year after his conviction, a jury found him not guilty of 2nd-degree murder or manslaughter. Now, he's a free man.

Long story short: Trayvon Martin was profiled, followed and murdered by George Zimmerman and has yet to be served justice.

<<<<<<>>>>>>

This petition is so that this never happens again.

(this next part is copied directly from the petition)

This Petition calls for Florida Statute 776.041 (2) (A) to be redacted or revised.

776.041 (2) (A) allows an aggressor to use deadly force even though they started the aggressive act, confrontation or altercation.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Also, this Petition calls for the Neighborhood Watch Handbooks to be revised. The current handbooks aren't detailed enough and leave too much room for misinterpretation. The revised handbooks should include specific do's and don'ts for its members, and local or state laws that they must abide by while they're performing their duties. The revised handbook should also include rules that the Coordinator must follow. Not specifying these rules can lead a regular citizen to believe that they have the power to make Law enforcement decisions.

Most importantly, it calls for a new law to be made in Trayvon's name. A law that will prevent someone from claiming self-defense after they've done the following:

TRAYVON MARTIN LAW

1. Unless you are a member of Law enforcement, you are not allowed to chase an unknown person while you are carrying a concealed weapon. Unless that person has harmed you or they are attempting to cause bodily harm to you or someone else. Following, chasing or confronting an unknown person, who is in an authorized area or public area while you have a weapon waives your right to claim self-defense should said person end up dead. An aggressor carrying a deadly or concealed weapon can't claim self-defense if they follow, chase, or confront an unknown person who isn't in the act of committing a violent crime towards them or anyone else, and that person ends up dead. If you think said person is suspicious, contact law enforcement instead of taking the law into your own hands.

2. Unless you're a member of Law Enforcement;  following, chasing or confronting someone who has not caused you bodily harm or attempted to cause you or someone else bodily harm, while you are carrying a deadly weapon will be considered an aggressive act in itself; because that act alone automatically puts said person in fear of their life.  An aggressor carrying a deadly weapon enters the situation with more force than their victim has. Therefore they have an advantage over their victim who doesn't have access to the amount of force needed to stand their ground or protect themselves from the aggressor.

3. Following, chasing or confronting an unknown person while carrying a deadly weapon, should be seen as an aggressive or threatening act because you are putting that person in fear of their life. Also, you shouldn't be allowed to claim self-defense should that person end up dead as a result of the escalation of that act. Should that act lead to their death, you should be charged with the highest degree of murder applicable to you or manslaughter.

4. An adult carrying a deadly weapon waives their right to claim self-defense if they follow, chase, or confront an unknown minor, and that minor ends up dead or injured. Unless that minor has caused bodily harm to them or someone else or is attempting to cause bodily harm to them or someone else.

https://www.change.org/p/the-trayvon-martin-law-stop-this-from-happening-again-trayvonmartinlaw-blacklivesmatter?original_footer_petition_id=4496600&algorithm=promoted&source_location=petition_footer&grid_position=6&pt=AVBldGl0aW9uADuwEgAAAAAAXtqg9DzRhDsyNjg0NmRlOQ%3D%3D

(If you haven’t signed the petition for justice for Trayvon Martin you can do that here https://www.change.org/p/jeff-triplett-justice-for-trayvon-martin)

[jobsforfelons]

Former MPD officer in court for felony charges of misconduct

Aden, who alludes to the law as a "survey charge," accentuates that allies of this bill know that "Individuals of color are excessively poor in this nation or have abundance abberations when contrasted with White individuals," and they're mindful that "individuals with lawful offense feelings have an extremely difficult time landing positions." Therefore, she says it's almost incomprehensible for some previous criminals to pay the entirety of their fines and expenses so as to cast a ballot jobs that hire felons.

Among January and March of 2019, over 44% of previously detained Floridians who enlisted to cast a ballot were Black, as indicated by the Brennan Center for Justice. The normal pay of these earlier detained inhabitants who enrolled to cast a ballot during this time was almost $15,000 underneath that of the normal citizen in Florida. In 2018, Florida's middle family salary remained at $55,462, as indicated by the Census Bureau.

Despite the fact that the fines and expenses related with a crime allegation fluctuate, it's assessed that a few criminals in Florida pay as much as $10,000 in fines. In certain states, similar to Alaska, fines for a lawful offense can be as much as $500,000. This expense is notwithstanding court and jury charges, with numerous states likewise including interest overcharges for criminals installment plans. In excess of 40 states, as indicated by The Atlantic, previous prisoners can be re-imprisoned on the off chance that they neglect to pay their charges.

Because of the death of the new Florida charge, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida and the Brennan Center for Justice recorded a claim in 2019 against the state, contending that the new law abuses the 24th Amendment, which restricts Congress or any state from forcing a "survey charge" on people who are qualified to cast a ballot.

On Friday, Sept. 11, 2020, six adjudicators from the eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the bill was not unlawful and that previous criminals in Florida will at present be legitimately expected to pay all fines and expenses before casting a ballot.

Electors line up to project their political race voting form at a Cobb County surveying station in Marietta, Georgia, October 13, 2020.

Elijah Nouvelage | Reuters

The historical backdrop of elector concealment and how it's being played out today

Florida's "survey charge" on previous criminals focuses to a bigger influx of new laws and approaches that target Black electors and different networks of shading, says Aden, who has affirmed before Congress about progressing demonstrations of citizen concealment.

"This is essential for our set of experiences, obviously," she says. "On the off chance that anybody comprehends our nation, it is established on this vision that solitary certain individuals ought to have a voice."

Before the thirteenth Amendment was passed in 1865, which nullified bondage and automatic subjugation, Black slaves were considered only three-fifths of an individual for tax assessment and portrayal purposes. After five years in 1870, Black men were conceded the option to cast a ballot when the fifteenth Amendment was sanctioned. Fifty years from that point forward, Black ladies were conceded the option to cast a ballot with the nineteenth amendment in 1920 creation it unlawful to disappoint somebody dependent on their sex. In any case, even with these laws set up, Black people were as yet hindered from casting a ballot because of Jim Crow laws that implemented befuddling proficiency tests and high survey charges on Black residents.

A long time later, on March 17, 1965, administrators presented the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which completely allowed Black individuals the option to cast a ballot. The demonstration came only 10 days after "Ridiculous Sunday" happened on March 7, 1965, where several individuals walked from Selma, Alabama to the state's capital of Montgomery to request casting a ballot rights for every single Black American, with a significant number of them being beaten and attacked by state troopers along the course.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is "one of the best bits of enactment in our set of experiences," says Aden, however the battle to maintain its securities proceed with today, particularly following the 2013 Shelby versus Holder Supreme Court choice.

"The Shelby choice immobilized the core of the Voting Rights Act, which we allude to as Section 5," she says. "This was the arrangement of the Voting Rights Act that said certain states and purviews, or locales inside them, needed to get pre-endorsed for each casting a ballot change before they could actualize it. Furthermore, every democratic change implies each surveying place change, any change to competitor capabilities, any change to qualification prerequisites, or whether you have to give an I.D."

The purpose of the law was to guarantee that minorities were not having their political force restricted, Aden clarifies. In 2006, Congress gathered a record enveloping in excess of 15,000 pages demonstrating that citizen concealment actually exists in numerous pieces of the nation.

Since the Shelby versus Holder choice in 2013, a few types of elector concealment have been on the ascent, including citizen cleanses — an imperfect cycle that should tidy up elector moves by erasing names from the elector enrollment arrangements of individuals who have kicked the bucket, moved or got ineligible to cast a ballot. In any case, in numerous states specialists accept that elector cleanses have frequently included erasing the names of qualified citizens.

[creepingsharia]

A Month of Islam in America: June 2019

Another month, and another step forward for sharia in America as more censorship was exposed. A whistleblower leak confirmed that @Pinterest protects Muslims and censors any reference to “creeping sharia,” and many other non-liberal topics.

Click any link below for more details and link to original source.

Jihad in America in June

Brooklyn: Muslim Immigrant Sentenced to 20 Years for Attempting to Join Islamic State (ISIS) Mohamed Rafik Naji was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment by United States District Judge Frederic Block for attempting to provide material support or resources to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a foreign terrorist organization.  Naji pleaded guilty to the charge in February 2018.

Brooklyn: Muslim Woman Who Helped ISIS Gets 4 Years, But Will Be Out in 18 Months

With credit for time served, Sinmyah Amera Caesar will end up only serving about 18 months in prison after pleading guilty to charges accusing her of using social media to help recruit IS fighters under the nom de guerre “Umm Nutella.” She had also admitted violating a cooperation agreement with the government a — betrayal that infuriated prosecutors.

Illinois: Bosnian Muslim refugee and mother of 4  jailed for sending money, supplies to ISIS

Mediha Medy Salkicevic, a/k/a Medy Ummuluna, a/k/a Bosna Mexico, 39, was sentenced to 78 months in prison for conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Salkicevic, aka Medy Ummuluna and Bosna Mexico, espoused the ISIS philosophy that infidels should be killed and once said that unbelievers should be buried alive.

At the time of her arrest, she was working for an air cargo company at Chicago O'Hare Airport...

Illinois: Two Muslim converts convicted of aiding Islamic State (ISIS)

Joseph D. Jones and Edward Schimenti proudly waved a terrorist flag during a photo at a Lake Michigan park in Zion, had plotted to attack the Navy’s main U.S. training center near North Chicago and once had their eyes on planting an ISIS flag atop the White House.

Now Jones and Schimenti, both 37, have been found guilty of providing material support to ISIS.

Indiana: Yemeni Muslim who tried to join Islamic State terrorists gets 8 years in prison

U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker handed down the 100-month sentence Friday afternoon in the case against 21-year-old Akram Musleh, U.S. Attorney Josh Minkler announced.

He admitted in the plea agreement that from about April 2016 through June 21, 2016, he offered himself to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, also known as IS, knowing it was a “designated foreign terrorist organization.”

Pittsburgh: Syrian Muslim Refugee Arrested for Planning Jihad Attack on Christian Church

Mustafa Mousab Alowemer, 21, a resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was arrested today based on a federal complaint charging him with one count of attempting to provide material support and resources to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization, and two counts of distributing information relating to an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction in relation to his plan to attack a church in Pittsburgh.

“Court documents show Mustafa Alowemer planned to attack a church in the name of ISIS, which could have killed or injured many people...”

Ohio: Jordanian Muslim Immigrant Sentenced to 15 Years for Trying to Join Islamic State (ISIS)

A Dayton, Ohio man was sentenced today in U.S. District Court to 180 months in prison and 25 years of supervised release for attempting, and conspiring, to join the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). 

Laith Waleed Alebbini, 28, was convicted following a bench trial in November and December 2018 before U.S. District Judge Walter H. Rice.

Alebbini attempted, and conspired, to provide material support and resources to ISIS in the form of personnel, namely himself.

Alebbini, a citizen of Jordan and a U.S. legal permanent resident, was arrested by the FBI on April 26, 2017, at the Cincinnati/Kentucky International Airport, as he approached the TSA security checkpoint.

South Carolina: Muslim - twice convicted for attempts to join ISIS and kill Americans - gets 20-year prison sentence

A federal judge has sentenced a South Carolina man who tried to join ISIS to 20 years in prison.

Zakaryia Abdin, 20, pleaded guilty in September 2018. The Ladson man was arrested in March 2017.

New York: Bangladeshi Muslim immigrant arrested in Times Square terror plot

Ashiqul Alam was arrested Thursday after arranging through an undercover agent to buy a pair of semiautomatic pistols with obliterated serial numbers, prosecutors said. Police Commissioner James O’Neill said that development was “a clear indicator of (Alam’s) intent to move his plot forward.”

The defendant, a legal resident born in Bangladesh, moved to the U.S. as a child about 12 years ago...

He talked about wanting to “shoot down” gays, referring to them with a slur; using a “rocket launcher, like a huge one,” to cause havoc at the World Trade Center; and obtaining an enhanced driver’s license so he could walk onto a military base and “blow it up,” the documents said.

Illinois: Muslim Arrested for Threatening to Bomb Aurora Casino for Allah

A recently released affidavit and search warrant claimed that 30-year-old Musatdin M. Muadinov,  while detained by police on Feb. 12, vowed to “pray to Allah” to “destroy the casino.” He further demanded to meet with President Donald Trump, saying that if his demands were not met, “we would all meet Allah,” according to the affidavit obtained by the Daily Herald.

Muadinov — who was dressed in what police described as “Muslim attire” when arrested — waived his right to remain silent.

More Jihad in America in June

Florida: Suspect sent bomb threats to judges ‘for cause of Islamic State’

Nebraska: Heavily armed Marine arrested trying to enter Air Force Base

Arizona: Muslim shared terror propaganda before attacking police officer

Brooklyn: Muslim in Jail for ISIS Support Pleads Guilty to Slashing Correctional Officer

South Carolina: Man who pledged allegiance to ISIS hid explosive device in teddy bear

Arizona: Witness in probe of 2015 Islamic jihad attack on free speech event convicted of lying to FBI

Libyan National Found Guilty of Terrorism Charges in 2012 Attack on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi

Iraqi Muslim who orchestrated jihad attack that killed 5 U.S. troops gets 26 years prison, then release to Canada

Immigration Jihad in America

Minnesota’s first Somali Muslim cop gets 12 years for murdering Australian woman

Minnesota: St. Paul’s first Somali Muslim city council member says criticizing his homophobic comments is… Islamophobic

New York: Brooklyn Mosque Blasts Islamic Call to Prayer to 20 Block Radius (VIDEO)

Somalis have Changed Minneapolis

New York: Thousands of Muslims take over two city blocks in Brooklyn to pray in the streets

Four Muslim ISIS suspects arrested in Nicaragua, likely headed for US

Islamization of America

Pennsylvania: 167-year-old Catasauqua church will become Islamic mosque

Pennsylvania: Former Easton church is now a Sunni mosque

Pennsylvania: Former daycare in residential Salisbury to become Muslim “community center”

Virginia: Residential home in Annandale to become a Muslim funeral home

Education Jihad in America

New Jersey Public School District to Students: “May Allah Continue to Shower You Love and Wisdom”

Maryland school fails Christian student for refusing Islamic prayer

New York: Cornell Univ. Muslim Students Demand More “Prayer Rooms”

Stanford administrators say advertising for conservative event threatens Muslim students

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim Students Association: What Americans Need to Know

DOE Investigating Elite Colleges For Hiding Saudi, Qatari Cash from Regulators

Islamic Slavery & Sexual Jihad in America

Virginia: Three Muslim family members arrested for conspiracy, forced labor, and document servitude 

Detroit Imam: Wife-Beating Serves to Remind Her That She Misbehaved (VIDEO)

Dhimmitude in Elected Office

Trump Admin Sues Greyhound for Banning Muslim Driver from Wearing Full Length Islamic Robe 

Democrat majority passes defense authorization bill that funds transfer of remaining Gitmo jihadis to U.S.

Minnesota: City of Bloomington allows terror mosque to flout local laws (VIDEO)

Minnesota city council votes 5-0 to ditch Pledge of Allegiance (to avoid offending Muslims)

Diversity is our Strength Alert

Minnesota’s first Somali Muslim cop gets 12 years for murdering Australian woman

Minnesota: St. Paul’s first Somali Muslim city council member says criticizing his homophobic comments is… Islamophobic

Boston Police Dept’s First Muslim Captain Put On Administrative Leave Amid ‘Anti-Corruption’ Investigation

Minnesota: First Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar fined by state for unlawful use of campaign funds

Minnesota Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar filed joint tax returns before she married husband

Fraud for Jihad

Connecticut: Muslim Grocery Store Worker Pleads Guilty in $3.2M Federal Food Stamp Fraud

Massachusetts: Muslim Restaurant Owner Pleads Guilty to Tax Fraud Conspiracy

That’s just what we had time to compile for just the month of June.

Far too many steps forward for the sharia, and only a few pushbacks, but worth noting:

New Jersey: School District Scraps Posters Calling upon “Allah” to “Shower” Students with Blessings After Threat of Lawsuit 

Rather Than Go to Trial, Terror-linked CAIR Settles with the Victims They Defrauded 

Tunisian Muslim who swore allegiance to ISIS removed from U.S.

New York: Albany mosque imam convicted of terrorism is deported back to Iraq It’s almost midnight and Americans are losing their first amendment rights to sharia supremacists and the big technology, media and politicians who support them.

Please share this report before it’s too late.

[dipulb3]

Florida prosecutor's office stops pursuing most resisting arrest cases, causing concerns for local police

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/florida-prosecutors-office-stops-pursuing-most-resisting-arrest-cases-causing-concerns-for-local-police/

Florida prosecutor's office stops pursuing most resisting arrest cases, causing concerns for local police

Police have used resisting arrest charges to stifle protests and free speech, said State Attorney Aramis Ayala, whose jurisdiction covers almost 1.8 million people in Orange and Osceola counties.

“I would not be surprised if there was an attempt for some type of political gratification, but I’m just defining alternative methods of prosecution,” she told Appradab.

Officers undermine public safety when they bring “the force of our criminal justice system to bear against nonviolent citizens who are simply promoting the change our society so desperately needs,” her policy, announced Tuesday, says.

Abuse of power is another factor, she said. Especially when dealing with African Americans, police too often charge people with resisting arrest as a retaliatory measure or to cover up their own misdeeds, she said.

Under the policy, most people charged with nonviolently resisting will be ordered to watch a 30-minute video on the importance of obeying police. Offenders who have been arrested in the previous six months for resisting arrest will be prosecuted normally, the policy says.

Data shows that between September 2019 and September 2020 police charged Black residents with resisting arrest almost twice as often as other demographics combined, despite African Americans making up less than 21% of the counties’ populations. The contrast could be starker for people of color in general, Ayala said, but her arrest data doesn’t differentiate between White and Hispanic.

Prosecuting the cases encourages disproportionate policing, saps needed resources, creates trauma and long-term economic hardships and fosters distrust in the legal system, the policy says.

While research shows correlations between public trust and public safety, Ayala said, there’s nothing that indicates prosecuting nonviolent resisting arrest charges leads to less crime.

“There is absolutely no research that supports the nexus,” she said, “between a person who is arrested for resisting an officer without violence and future criminality.”

Other cities, including Chicago, New York and San Diego, reportedly have had similar racial disparities in resisting arrest charges, and some prosecutors have taken steps similar to Ayala’s. But Ayala believes hers is the nation’s most sweeping, she said.

‘It’s a bad decision’

Ayala’s team will still pursue cases involving violence or other aggravating factors, but the resisting arrest announcement isn’t sitting well with some of the 21 police agencies in her sprawling Ninth Circuit.

Heads of her circuit’s two largest police agencies say they worry Ayala’s policy was hastily conceived and will create problems if people are emboldened to defy lawful orders, they told Appradab.

“That could start the chain of events that leads to us using more force, where we were just detaining you and had reasons to stop you and just wanted you to get out of the car or come and sit down,” Orange County Sheriff John Mina said. “We just think this is going to confuse our residents.”

It will also encourage drug dealers carrying narcotics to flee, the sheriff said.

“We already have an issue with people, when being stopped by law enforcement, pulling out their phone and refusing to get out of the car,” Mina said. “Police give a lawful command, you need to follow instructions.”

He and Orlando Police Chief Orlando Rolón were not consulted before Ayala’s Tuesday announcement. Rolón and Ayala briefly discussed the matter at an event this month, he said.

Ayala provided Appradab a letter she sent to police chiefs and sheriffs the day before the announcement, but Mina didn’t receive it, he said. Only Windermere Police Chief David Ogden responded, Ayala said, asking to see the video.

“It caught many people off guard … In the end, it’s about communication,” Rolón said. “We all want a nation where people feel that they are being policed (justly), and everyone is treated the same with dignity and respect and there is no question about the way law enforcement is performing their duties.”

Without singling out Rolón or Mina, Ayala said some police leaders have declined to support her reforms or issued statements contradicting her vision, she said.

“Seeking the counsel of people who don’t have same vision as me is counterproductive,” she said.

Rolón believes Ayala has good intentions, but he would have liked to share his insights. Ayala previously sought police guidance on her plan to publicly list officers who committed ethical or criminal violations, Rolón said, and he felt police input made officers more amenable to her policy.

He worries Ayala’s office is sending a message that protesters can take over an interstate or block an intersection, and it’s no big deal if they disobey police because they’ll just watch a video and do it again in six months, he said.

“It’s a bad decision,” he said. “When the only consequence of their actions is going to be a 30-minute video, then that is concerning.”

Mina was dismayed he could fast forward through the video, provide a fake name and receive a certificate of completion, he said. Appradab was able to do the same.

The video made good points, the sheriff said, but there “needs to be more deterrence.”

In Orlando, located in Orange County, officers responded to 500,000 calls and made 12,000 arrests last year, Rolón said. Only in about 2% of arrests did officers employ a takedown, pepper spray, Taser, baton, gun or other force, and the numbers are declining annually, the chief said. In Orange County, only 1.7% of arrests list nonviolent resistance as the lone charge, Mina said.

As for Ayala’s assertion that 63% of resisting charges target African Americans, Mina and Rolón did not refute the number but pointed out most reports originate with residents. In Orlando, Rolón said, most of those calls come from communities of color.

‘It tends to be widely abused’

Ayala also based her decision on her decade as a public defender, when she routinely saw trumped-up resisting arrest charges.

Her ex-boss, Ninth Circuit pubic defender Robert Wesley, concurs. He says he has seen clients charged with resisting arrest for “more innocuous” behavior such as walking away, refusing to give a name or recording police during a stop.

Once, a client who was hospitalized on Christmas Eve stepped outside in his gown for a cigarette. When a police officer told him to put it out, Wesley said, he took one more drag before complying and was charged with resisting arrest. The client spent Christmas morning in jail, he said.

“It tends to be widely abused,” the defense lawyer of 36 years said. “It can be used for less serious reasons.”

Wesley declined to say if Ayala’s policy would lighten workloads for his more than 150 staffers. But he said it would allow prosecutors to focus on “violence and other abuses” that injure people and their livelihoods.

The video nonviolent arrestees must watch informs them of their rights and when to comply with an officer’s demand.

“The police are important and so are you,” it says.

It reminds viewers that officers face risks on their jobs and may be apprehensive. The officer also may not have received treatment after a previous violent encounter, it says.

“Defusing the situation might save your life,” the video warns. “Live to tell what happened. You can fight it out in court later if you need to.”

It adds, “While citizens who have been stopped by police should not shoulder the burden of deescalation, the fact is the law does not require police to do it, and the failure to deescalate is dangerous and could even be deadly.”

From Ferguson to San Diego

Ayala’s policy notes racial disparities in resisting arrest charges are not unique to her jurisdiction.

In February, a San Diego television station reported similar differences in resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer over a seven-year period. In 2019 alone, the station reported, African Americans and Latinos accounted for 159 such arrests, compared to 54 for Whites, in a city where two out of three people are White.

The news outlet Slate last year, using data from the police watchdog Invisible Institute, reported that in 60,000 instances between 2004 and 2016 Chicago authorities more frequently used force on Black people, despite Whites being more prone to resist.

New York police were highlighted in a 2014 WNYC report that found in minor drug possession cases, Black residents were arrested for resisting at more than twice the rate of Whites in four of the five boroughs.

A 2015 article in The New York Times showed police in Greensboro, North Carolina — which was 48% white — charged Black and White offenders with resisting, delaying or obstructing at a four-to-one clip (836 Black, 209 White). The Citizen-Times in Asheville cited a University of North Carolina study showing disparities across the state.

And in Ferguson, Missouri — where Justice Department investigators converged after a police officer fatally shot Michael Brown — the agency found African Americans accounted for 92% of resisting arrest charges.

“They are inclined to interpret the exercise of free-speech rights as unlawful disobedience, innocent movements as physical threats, indications of mental or physical illness as belligerence,” the department said of Ferguson police.

Brooklyn, San Francisco also target resisting

Several agencies have strived to level Lady Justice’s scales. In Fayetteville, North Carolina, then-Police Chief Harold Medlock instructed officers to avoid resisting arrest charges unless there was a more serious crime, The New York Times reported in the Greensboro story.

More recently, the Brooklyn district attorney opted not to pursue resisting charges unless they were accompanied by body camera footage, while also declining to charge protesters unless they were violent or damaged property, spokesman Oren Yaniv said.

As part of an effort “to protect the public — especially Black communities — from police violence,” San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin this summer instituted similar policies, he wrote in an op-ed.

The policy was driven by the George Floyd protests but also by a local case in which a resisting arrest charge was dismissed after a bodycam showed an officer pinning down a suspect’s head with her knee, spokeswoman Rachel Marshall told Appradab.

“This policy was created to ensure that officers are not manufacturing false charges to cover up excessive force,” she said. “Police body camera footage may reveal a very different picture than police reports depict — especially when police officers are worried about protecting themselves from allegations of excessive force or illegal conduct.”

Boudin is pleased with the results, she said, as it “ensures the integrity of filed charges.”

Sheriff Mina in Florida likes the idea of the body camera policy, he said, adding he might have suggested something similar to Ayala had he been consulted.

“I think that’s smart,” he said. “That would be my preference: Let’s watch the video and see if this is a case that needs to move forward.”

Ayala knows she’s a lame duck — voters will decide her successor next month — but she hopes she can convince the next state attorney to maintain her reforms, such as the resisting arrest policy, publicizing the names of bad police officers and her conviction integrity unit.

“I wanted to recognize history, and change in this country comes from people on the ground moving the people in power,” she said. “I was moved by the protests and wanted to protect rights.”

[jenniferbrunner]

Justice is Not a Game

“Justice is not a game. It is an important and dead serious cornerstone of the American way of life. Law is a calling, a profession, not a job. Our work is about justice, about truth.”

I particularly like this quote from eDiscovery attorney Ralph C. Losey in Florida. He stresses the quality of the search for discoverable information to get to the truth of a matter in litigation.  In making his case for using technology to overcome the problems of technology, he stresses the core role of lawyers and judges in helping society to find and learn the truth.  

I would extend this truth finding function to fellow citizens who perform their patriotic duty to serve as jurors in judgment of their fellow citizens.  Whether it be a civil case or criminal case, I have never known jurors to see their calling as anything but a solemn duty to their fellow citizens, their community and to the litigants.

Because of this, a judge when conducting a jury trial becomes a partner with the jury while at the same time becoming a facilitator in helping to determine the truth--what are the facts, what are the rules for determining them, what can be considered in determining the facts and how will the law apply to those facts?  I have seen numerous jurors in tears at the end of an emotionally wrenching or even horrifying trial.  They took their charge with the utmost seriousness and drove the meaning of the word “conscientious” to heights nearly unimaginable.

As a judge I’ve had to provide comforting words to a jury after a trial.  Jurors often need affirming words for the role they have just played in supporting  our community and in doing so, demonstrating respect for the rule of law.  I have never seen a juror treat his or her pivotal democratic role as a game, nor would I label the process a game.  

Justice is serious and it revolves around truth.  Whether the truth concerns the taking of a life, self-defense, the lawful or unlawful detainment of another by arrest or incarceration, or damage or pain or loss of life, limb, money, property or even companionship, the truth is deadly serious. And to those charged with guiding the justice system to find that truth, justice must never be a game.

[hl-herewegoagain]

A court-appointed interpreter’s account of the May 12, 2008 Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid on Agriprocessors, Inc., the largest kosher slaughterhouse in the United States. 900 agents were involved in the raid. He says, “nothing could have prepared me for the prospect of helping our government put hundreds of innocent people in jail.”

Then began the saddest procession I have ever witnessed, which the public would never see, because cameras were not allowed past the perimeter of the compound (only a few journalists came to court the following days, notepad in hand). Driven single-file in groups of 10, shackled at the wrists, waist and ankles, chains dragging as they shuffled through, the slaughterhouse workers were brought in for arraignment, sat and listened through headsets to the interpreted initial appearance, before marching out again to be bused to different county jails, only to make room for the next row of 10. They appeared to be uniformly no more than 5 ft. tall, mostly illiterate Guatemalan peasants with Mayan last names, some being relatives (various Tajtaj, Xicay, Sajché, Sologüí...), some in tears; others with faces of worry, fear, and embarrassment. They all spoke Spanish, a few rather laboriously. It dawned on me that, aside from their Guatemalan or Mexican nationality, which was imposed on their people after Independence, they too were Native Americans, in shackles. They stood out in stark racial contrast with the rest of us as they started their slow penguin march across the makeshift court. “Sad spectacle” I heard a colleague say, reading my mind. They had all waived their right to be indicted by a grand jury and accepted instead an information or simple charging document by the U.S. Attorney, hoping to be quickly deported since they had families to support back home. But it was not to be. They were criminally charged with “aggravated identity theft” and “Social Security fraud”—charges they did not understand... and, frankly, neither could I.

The offense clearly refers to harmful, felonious acts, such as obtaining credit under another person’s identity. Obtaining work, however, is not an “unlawful activity.” No way would a grand jury find probable cause of identity theft here. But with the promise of faster deportation, their ignorance of the legal system, and the limited opportunity to consult with counsel before arraignment, all the workers, without exception, were led to waive their 5th Amendment right to grand jury indictment on felony charges. Waiting for a grand jury meant months in jail on an immigration detainer, without the possibility of bail. So the attorneys could not recommend it as a defense strategy. Similarly, defendants have the right to a status hearing before a judge, to determine probable cause, within ten days of arraignment, but their Plea Agreement offer from the government was only good for... seven days. Passing it up, meant risking 2 years in jail. As a result, the frivolous charge of identity theft was assured never to undergo the judicial test of probable cause. Not only were defendants and judges bound to accept the Plea Agreement, there was also absolutely no defense strategy available to counsel. Once the inflated charge was handed down, all the pieces fell into place like a row of dominoes. Even the court was banking on it when it agreed to participate, because if a good number of defendants asked for a grand jury or trial, the system would be overwhelmed. In short,“fast-tracking”had worked like a dream.

Of Agriprocessors’ 968 current employees, about 75% were illegal immigrants. There were 697 arrest warrants, but late-shift workers had not arrived, so “only” 390 were arrested: 314 men and 76 women; 290 Guatemalans, 93 Mexicans, four Ukrainians, and three Israelis who were not seen in court. Some were released on humanitarian grounds: 56 mostly mothers with unattended children, a few with medical reasons, and 12 juveniles were temporarily released with ankle monitors or directly turned over for deportation. In all, 306 were held for prosecution. Only five of the 390 originally arrested had any kind of prior criminal record. There remained 307 outstanding warrants.

This was the immediate collateral damage. Postville, Iowa (pop. 2,273), where nearly half the people worked at Agriprocessors, had lost 1/3 of its population by Tuesday morning. Businesses were empty, amid looming concerns that if the plant closed it would become a ghost town.

Some American parents complained that their children were traumatized by the sudden disappearance of so many of their school friends. The principal reported the same reaction in the classrooms, saying that for the children it was as if ten of their classmates had suddenly died. Counselors were brought in. American children were having nightmares that their parents too were being taken away. The superintendant said the school district’s future was unclear: “This literally blew our town away.” In some cases both parents were picked up and small children were left behind for up to 72 hours. Typically, the mother would be released “on humanitarian grounds” with an ankle GPS monitor, pending prosecution and deportation, while the husband took first turn in serving his prison sentence. Meanwhile the mother would have no income and could not work to provide for her children. Some of the children were born in the U.S. and are American citizens. Sometimes one parent was a deportable alien while the other was not. “Hundreds of families were torn apart by this raid,” said a Catholic nun. “The humanitarian impact of this raid is obvious to anyone in Postville. The economic impact will soon be evident.”

His case and that of a million others could simply be solved by a temporary work permit as part of our much overdue immigration reform. “The Good Lord knows I was just working and not doing anyone any harm.” This man, like many others, was in fact not guilty. “Knowingly” and “intent” are necessary elements of the charges, but most of the clients we interviewed did not even know what a Social Security number was or what purpose it served. This worker simply had the papers filled out for him at the plant, since he could not read or write Spanish, let alone English. But the lawyer still had to advise him that pleading guilty was in his best interest. … To him we were part of the system keeping him from being deported back to his country, where his children, wife, mother, and sister depended on him. He was their sole support and did not know how they were going to make it with him in jail for 5 months. … Before he signed with a scribble, he said: “God knows you are just doing your job to support your families, and that job is to keep me from supporting mine.” There was my conflict of interest, well put by a weeping, illiterate man.

We will never know how many of the 290 Guatemalans had legitimate asylum claims for fear of persecution, back in a country stigmatized by the worst human rights situation in the hemisphere, a by-product of the US-backed Contra wars in Central America under the old domino theory of the 1980s. For three decades, anti-insurgent government death squads have ravaged the countryside, killing tens of thousands and displacing almost two million peasants. Even as we proceeded with the hearings during those two weeks in May, news coming out of Guatemala reported farm workers being assassinated for complaining publicly about their working conditions. Not only have we ignored the many root causes of illegal immigration, we also will never know which of these deportations will turn out to be a death sentence, or how many of these displaced workers are last survivors with no family or village to return to.

I remember reading that immigration lawyers were alarmed that the detainees were being rushed into a plea without adequate consultation on the immigration consequences. Even the criminal defense attorneys had limited opportunity to meet with clients: in jail there were limited visiting hours and days; at the compound there was little time before and after hearings, and little privacy due to the constant presence of agents.There were 17 cases for each attorney, and the Plea offer was only good for 7 days. In addition, criminal attorneys are not familiar with immigration work and vice versa, but had to make do since immigration lawyers were denied access to these “criminal” proceedings.

One of my colleagues began the day by saying “I feel a tremendous solidarity with these people.” Had we lost our impartiality? Not at all: that was our impartial and probably unanimous judgment. We had seen attorneys hold back tears and weep alongside their clients. We would see judges, prosecutors, clerks, and marshals do their duty, sometimes with a heavy heart, sometimes at least with mixed feelings, but always with a particular solemnity not accorded to the common criminals we all are used to encountering in the judicial system.

The interpreter is the only one who gets to see both sides of the coin up close, precisely because he is the only participant who is not a decision maker, and is even precluded, by his oath of impartiality and neutrality, from ever influencing the decisions of others. That is why judges in particular appreciate the interpreter’s perspective as an impartial and informed layperson, for it provides a rare glimpse at how the innards of the legal system look from the outside. I was no longer sorry to have participated in my capacity as an interpreter. I realized that I had been privileged to bear witness to historic events from such a unique vantage point and that because of its uniqueness I now had a civic duty to make it known. Such is the spirit that inspired this essay.

The essay points out that the criminalization of “illegal immigration” arose with the creation of ICE as a part of the Office of Homeland Security. ICE was created “as a law enforcement agency for the post-9/11 era, to integrate enforcement authorities against criminal and terrorist activities, including the fights against human trafficking and smuggling, violent transnational gangs and sexual predators who prey on children.” This charge does not provide enough work for an agency that employed 16,500 in 2007 or justify its $5 billion 2007 budget.

The real numbers are in immigration: “In FY07, ICE removed 276,912 illegal aliens.” ICE is under enormous pressure to turn out statistical figures that might justify a fair utilization of its capabilities, resources, and ballooning budget.

[itsfinancethings]

Back in March, as the novel coronavirus started to spread across the U.S., many Americans went shopping for home freezers to help cut down on trips to the grocery store. They quickly discovered there were none to be had. Some might be available by September, major nationwide retailers and smaller appliance dealers told customers, but no one could be sure until a truck full of freezers backed into to the loading dock.

The sudden surge in demand was one problem. But another, appliance retailers say, was that most household freezers, like hundreds of other appliances and household goods like air conditioners, are made in China, where factories were hampered by COVID-19. Even those home appliances still made in America use Chinese-manufactured control panels, circuit boards, and wiring harnesses.

Four months later, while think tanks and government officials debate the possibility of the Trump Administration instigating “a complete decoupling from China,” as the president suggested in June, many American consumers have already deduced that their homes could be casualties of the escalating tensions between the U.S. and China.

Decoupling from the Chinese economy is one in an increasingly long list of threats, sanctions and admonitions that the Trump Administration has directed at Beijing in recent weeks. The worsening confrontation between the two outsized economic powers has come to resemble a wrestling match, the opponents locked together and trying to throw one another off their feet or out of the global ring. For Trump, reining in China is a talking point that has rare bipartisan support during the final stretch of a beleaguered re-election campaign. But as the hard talk from both Democrats and Republicans gets harder, it is increasingly difficult to see where the U.S. will find an off-ramp after both parties have constantly accused one another of being soft on China.

Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the daily D.C. Brief newsletter.

So far, China has largely confined its responses to rhetoric and symbolic actions, such as barring Republican lawmakers from visiting. Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Russian counterpart in a July 17 phone call that the U.S. government has “lost its mind, morals, and credibility,” according to the South China Morning Post. Earlier this month, FBI Director Christopher Wray called China “the greatest long-term threat to our nation’s information and intellectual property and to our economic vitality,” and on July 14 Assistant Secretary of State David R. Stilwell said “only the gullible or the co-opted can still credit Beijing’s pretense of good global citizenship.”

Following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in China, the imposition of a harsh new security law in Hong Kong, and escalating military jousting in the South China Sea, the Trump Administration has pivoted from its early stance of seeking an extensive trade agreement with China to exploring ways to punish Beijing’s actions.

On June 18, Trump signed legislation imposing sanctions on Chinese officials the U.S. charges have oppressed the country’s Muslim Uighur minority. On July 14, he reversed his position on pursuing a larger trade deal with China, something that had been a major element of his re-election pitch. “I’m not interested right now in talking to China,” Trump said in an interview with CBS News. “We made a great trade deal. But as soon as the deal was done, the ink wasn’t even dry, and they hit us with the plague.”

Observers say that stance has broad support among American voters ahead of the elections. “President Trump’s rhetoric on China continues to become tougher, and I expect that trend will continue until at least November,” says Zack Cooper of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank. “The only foreign policy issue on which Republicans and Democrats largely agree is China. There is little political space between now and the election for going easier on the Communist Party.”

If the rhetoric on both sides is tough, the reality is tougher. The two nations’ economies have become so closely wired that the complete decoupling Trump threatened is impossible, experts agree, in part because its effects would be felt far beyond the search for freezers and air conditioners. “No sane policy official would push for a full decoupling,” says Yukon Huang, a senior fellow in the Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. But, he adds, “there are degrees” of decoupling that could take place if things continue to head in the current direction and could still have a negative impact in both nations.

Most experts agree that the likeliest target for some degree of decoupling may be the most important to both nations’ economies: technology. The U.S. already is having some success convincing allies such as the U.K. and Australia to bar using Huawei 5G infrastructure, which U.S. officials allege poses security threats, and contemplating similar actions against TikTok and other Chinese internet applications. U.S. law enforcement agencies have not publicly presented evidence that Huawei’s systems have been used for spying.

Despite its rapid progress on many fronts, China still suffers from some major technological handicaps, including manufacturing the increasingly compact, complex, and powerful semiconductors that are essential to advanced electronic architecture, says Michael Brown, the Director of the Defense Department’s Defense Innovations Unit. China also lags the U.S. and many of its allies in making the machinery to fashion advanced microchips and must import them, Aaron Klein, a Brookings Institution Fellow in Economic Studies, told a recent Brookings seminar.

More worrisome, the escalating tensions have now extended to military maneuvers in the South China Sea and near Taiwan, the self-governing island over which Beijing claims sovereignty, that could become dangerous if there is an accident or miscalculation.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s declaration on July 13 that China’s activities in the South China Sea, most of which China claims as sovereign territory, are “unlawful” opened the door to further U.S. moves to penalize Chinese behavior, particularly its interference with fishing and oil and gas exploration by the other regional claimants, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia, says one U.S. China expert, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

While the Chinese announce plans to deploy their first new amphibious assault ship, the U.S. has sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to the area “to support a free and open Indo-Pacific,” the Navy said in a statement on July 17. The Navy denied that the exercise had any political overtones. “The presence of the carriers was not in response to any specific political or world events,” the statement read.

Such jousting is unlikely to trigger an outright military conflict, several U.S. officials and outside experts say. Beijing, they argue, does not want to challenge the U.S. directly, so it tends to back down when confronted by the U.S. military at sea or in the air.

But others disagree. Rep. Ted Yoho, a Republican from Florida and member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, predicted “a clash within the next three to six months” with China in a recent interview with the Washington Examiner. “Knowing China, I think what they would do is ram one of our ships and say it was a mistake,” he told the paper. (While the Chinese navy has no record of targeting U.S. ships in this way, it has been accused by Vietnam of such attacks against its fishing vessels in disputed waters.)

The greatest danger is that an accident or such a miscalculation could rapidly escalate out of control, said three current and former officials. Shortly after George W. Bush took office in 2001, a Chinese J-8 jet fighter collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3E reconnaissance plane. The Chinese plane crashed and its pilot was later declared dead. The U.S. plane made an emergency landing on China’s Hainan Island, where its 24 crew members were detained and questioned. They were released 10 days later, after the Bush Administration issued a letter saying it was “very sorry” for the incident.

“The question as things get nastier is whether a more muscular China and the current American administration would be ready, willing, or able to defuse a similar situation today,” says one former official who served in several Republican administrations. “If they aren’t, or if hardliners like Pompeo take the opposite tack to what (former Secretary of State Colin) Powell did then, we could get a war nobody wants.”

[criminalattorneyorlando-blog]

Take Into Service the Best Orlando Criminal Defense Attorney

The entire world is filled with various sorts of individuals. Whenever someone is seen included in certain illegal activities afterward authorities have the right to detain them but it really is everybody else's right to shield them and that why calling the knowledgeable criminal defense lawyer Orlando will provide them the chance to prove their innocence and also eradicate those charges. However, you'll find lots of unlawful lawyer Orlando adverts appear each single day therefore that it might be tough for someone to come across the most suitable one. This really is the way they could get the ideal one at the period of need.

Choosing the Finest Orlando Criminal-Lawyer

If it involves criminal-defense it's very important to see the simple fact that every circumstance differs and so are the strategies to protection and present. In regards to discovering the very finest Orlando criminal attorney that you'll want to be certain that you confirm the area of this criminal lawyer that is chosen. Some lawyers offer being a complete that might perhaps not be a very good thought to be the unlawful attorney Orlando have expertise in addressing the situations of legal law that you want the many therefore that it wiser to search to his or her field of expertise whilst choosing the most unlawful lawyer. Every lawyer has its strategy to evaluate the case as well as signs. They've another perspective to know the situation nevertheless attorneys who've the wider outlook to test that the case gets more opportunities to secure the case because he knows just how to take care of the problem and also bring the case into your Criminal lawyer Orlando favor.

References and Standing of Lawyer

While opting to your appointment you may request a reference in their prior instances. A respected and professional Orlando criminal defense lawyer will remain pleased with their winnings and won't be hesitated to demonstrate their winning instance, their prior customers mention with similar cases can allow one understand whether the selected attorney is worthiness of hiring or maybe not and that shows their connection with tackling such cases too well because merely the exact full time at the field does not depend as experience although their winnings at this duration too. On the lookout to find the Orlando criminal defense lawyer which may manage the case by itself should be the primary consideration. You need to be certain that a lawyer has trustworthiness to be open for your customers to take care of the case rather than sending their juniors therefore you're able to speak in your claim and the whole situation anytime you would like. Simply contact with the skilled and seasoned criminal attorney for example as for example Leppard Law at Orlando, Florida in the event that you'll need greater aid.

[lawofficeofryansshipp]

How Do I legally Remove Someone From My House In Florida

Florida Unlawful Detainer Lawyers Florida Unlawful Detainer Lawyers Have you found yourself in a situation where you need to remove someone from your Florida home, but don’t know where to start? Whether it’s an ex-girlfriend or boyfriend, a grown child, or an unwanted guest, the legal process can seem overwhelming. First, it’s important to understand that the process for removing someone from…

[ufcw]

Protecting your constitutional rights during a workplace raid

In the United States, every person — whether documented or undocumented — has the constitutional right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions of the police, FBI, or ICE, whether on the street, in a car, or at home.

Under the law, ICE must have proof you are not from the United States to deport you. They can use the following information against you:

If you run and ICE catches you

If you tell ICE where you were born or that you don’t have papers

If you carry false documents

If you carry papers from your country

If you are questioned by ICE, you are NOT required to reveal any information, such as your name, address, or home country. If you are questioned or detained, however, it usually is a good idea to give your name so that friends, family, or your attorney can locate you.

What you can do now

The targets of the mass raids are individuals who have been ordered deported.  Any individuals that were issued deportation orders because of failure to appear in court, should contact a reputable immigration lawyer, nonprofit, or immigrant rights organization to help them file a motion to reopen their order of deportation.

Gather and keep important documents in a safe place, make copies, and make them accessible to a trusted person.

Identify reputable immigration, family, and defense lawyers for rapid response. Speak to a family law attorney about the need to sign a power of attorney for the caretaking of children and handling finances.

Obtain travel documentation for all family relatives.

Carry a Know Your Rights card with contact information of reliable attorney and other emergency contacts. Memorize important phone numbers.

If you are stopped by ICE or if ICE comes to your home

DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR if an immigration agent is knocking on the door.

DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS from an immigration agent if they try to talk to you. You have the right to remain silent.

DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING without first speaking to a lawyer. You have the right to speak with a lawyer.

If you are outside of your home, ask the agent if you are free to leave and if they say yes, leave calmly.

GIVE THIS CARD TO THE AGENT. If you are inside of your home, show the card through the window or slide it under the door. The cards read:

“I do not wish to speak with you, answer your questions, or sign or hand you any documents based on my 5th Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. I do not give you permission to enter my home based on my 4th Amendment rights under the United States Constitution unless you have a warrant to enter, signed by a judge or magistrate with my name on it that you slide under the door. I do not give you permission to search any of my belongings based on my 4th Amendment rights. I choose to exercise my constitutional rights.”

These cards are available to citizens and noncitizens alike.

During a workplace raid

To report a raid use United We Dream National Raid Hotline 1-854-363-1423 or send a text message to 877877.

ICE must have a judicial warrant (a warrant SIGNED BY A JUDGE) or the employer’s permission to enter the workplace.

ICE can enter a public place without a warrant.

Workers should stay calm.

Workers should not run. Union representatives should not warn workers that immigration has arrived or urge them to run.

A union observer should document (write, not film) events taking place during a raid.

Workers have the right to remain silent.

Workers have the right to an attorney.

Workers have the right to refuse to sign anything without talking to an attorney.

ICE is not supposed to take someone’s fingerprints unless ICE already has a reason to arrest them. Workers should NOT consent to being fingerprinted, and if they are, they should say out loud that they do not agree with being fingerprinted.

If ICE arrests you, you have the right:

To remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Anything you say may be used against you.

To understand the charges against you. If you need an interpreter, ICE must provide one.

To be represented by an attorney (at your own expense) and to receive a list of agencies offering free legal services before answering questions.

To refuse to sign documents, such as for voluntary departure. It is particularly important to consult with an attorney before signing if:

You are afraid to return to your home country

You have lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years

Your family members have amnesty or other papers

You already have a pending ICE case

You are accused of using false documents

To make a telephone call to an attorney, family member, consulate of your home nation, friend, or the union (memorize their phone numbers).

To be released on bond and to have a hearing to reduce your bond if you cannot afford it.

To have a hearing before an immigration judge and to appeal any adverse decision by the judge. You have the right to stay in the U.S. while you appeal.

How can the UFCW help workers during workplace raids?

The union should enforce employer obligations on issues that affect immigrant members. The union could be liable for failing to represent members if it fails to challenge employer abuse. The union has no reason to determine the immigration status of a worker; unions must represent all workers regardless of status. However, a union representative must not assist a worker in presenting documents that the representative knows are false.

The union may request information about and bargain over employer I-9 audits.

Request information about the reason for and the scope of the audit, and request copies of any documents the employer received from any government agency.

The union may represent workers in reverification of work authorization documents.

Employers are only allowed to reverify identity and work authorization documents for expired documents, such as an expired work permit or visa, but not for a lawful permanent resident card with an expiration date. If the reverification is based on the expiration of the employee’s work permit, bargain for an unpaid leave of absence. Object to unlawful reverification of current workers such as non-citizen nationals, lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees, or individuals with temporary protected status. Weingarten allows a union representative or steward to be present if an employer seeks to meet with a worker regarding employment authorization or other immigration issues. Grieve any adverse actions against workers based on unlawful reverification attempts.

If an employer gets a SSN “no-match” letter, the union can remind them that:

A “no-match” letter does not provide authority for an employer to terminate, suspend, lay off, or impose other discipline on an employee, and an employer who does may violate federal labor law.

The purpose of a “no-match” letter is to notify an employer when a reported employee’s name or social security number does not match Social Security’s records. The SSA has no authority to enforce the immigration laws, and the employer should give employees an opportunity to update their documents and information.

Ensure that contracts have provisions that state: “The Company will not discipline, discharge or otherwise act against any worker who is absent from work for up to [NUMBER] days because of arrest, detention or incarceration, and those days will not count against the worker’s time and attendance record.”

Engage with employers about immigration enforcement to establish protocols for their interaction with ICE in the workplace. (E.g. confirm that ICE may not enter private property without a warrant signed by a judge.)

Train members, stewards, and staff on the basic rights of individuals during an immigration enforcement action, the union’s rapid response plan, and family safety plans.

Establish relationships with local community leaders, allies, non-profits, immigrant rights groups, and legal service providers to be in communication during raids and mobilize the community to support workers and families.

Additional Resources

United Latinos of the UFCW Know Your Rights Resources

United Latinos App Available in the App Store and Play Store

Additional Know Your Rights Resources from CLINIC are available here:

Rapid Response Toolkit

Emergency Planning for Families

Know Your Rights 

Additional Know Your Rights materials in various languages from the ILRC are available here

A Know Your Rights video is available here.

Here is a list of local organizations that can support you and your community if you are impacted by a raid or other immigration enforcement activity:

Baltimore, MD

CASA Hotline 1-855-678-2272

Chicago, IL     

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights: 1-855-435-7693 (1-855-help-my-family)The Southwest Organizing Project (SWOP): 773-471-8208 ext 120 The Resurrection Project: 312–666-3062 National Immigrant Justice Center: 1-855-435-7693 (1-855-help-my-family) West Suburban Action Project (Proyecto de Acción de los Suburbios del Oeste): 708-410-2000

Houston, TX

For Families and Their Education (FIEL Houston): 1-713-364-3435

Miami, FL

Americans for Immigrant Justice: (305) 573-1106 Florida Immigrant Coalition (FLIC): (305) 571-7254

New York, NY

New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC): 212-627-2227 Make the Road NY: Brooklyn: 718-418-7690

Queens: 718-565-8500 Staten Island: 718-727-1222 Long Island: 631-231-2200 Westchester: 914-948-8466

BAJI New York, NY — Telephone: (347) 410-5312 New Sanctuary NYC https://www.newsanctuarynyc.org/

Newark, NJ Make the Road NJ: 908-368-1196

San Francisco, CA SIREN: Text this number for rapid response: 201-468-6088 SF Rapid Response Network: 415-200-1548 Alameda County Rapid Response: 510-241-4011 San Mateo County Rapid Response: 203-666-4472 (203-NOMIGRA) Santa Clara Rapid Response: 408-290-1144 Marin County Rapid Response: 415-991-4545

Southern California: CHIRLA: 888-6CHIRLA (888-624-4752)

Atlanta, GA Los Vecinos de Buford Highway: 770-715-7200 Asian Americans Advancing Justice: 404-890-5655 Coalicion De Lideres Latinos (CLILA): 706 529 9216 GA Latino Alliance for Human Rights: 770-457-5232

Denver, CO Colorado Rapid Response Network: 1-844-864-8341 Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition: 303-922-3344

New Orleans, LA New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice: Message them on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NOWCRJ/

Washington, DC DMV Immigration Crisis Hotline 202-335-1183 CASA: 1-855-678-2272

  from Protecting your constitutional rights during a workplace raid

[thoughtsoflawc]

What is the Difference Between State & Federal Criminal Law?

Prosecution occurs at both the federal and the state levels and so a federal offense is one which is prosecuted under national criminal law rather than under state criminal law under which most of the offenses committed in the United States are prosecuted. Federal offenses normally involve national government agencies such as the United States DEA, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Department of Homeland Security, the IRS, Border Patrol, Secret Service, or even possibly the USA Postal Service. There is a group of 12 circuits in the Federal court system, distributed throughout the United States. Each circuit has a headquarters along with a number of smaller district courts located around their area. U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (Washington, DC) U.S. District Court, D.C.- Washington, DC U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit (Boston, MA) Example: U.S. District Court, District of Maine- Portland, ME U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (New York, New York) Example: U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York- Syracuse, NY U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) Example: U.S. District Court, District of the Virgin Islands- Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (Richmond, VA) Example: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina- Raleigh, NC U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (New Orleans, Louisiana) Example: U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas- San Antonio, TX U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit (Cincinnati, OH) Example: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio- Columbus, OH U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit (Chicago, IL) Example: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, WI U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit (St. Louis, Missouri) More Information Example: U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota- Sioux Falls, SD U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (San Francisco, California) Example: U.S. District Court, District of Idaho- Boise, ID U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (Denver, CO) Example: U.S. District Court, District of Colorado- Denver, CO U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit (Atlanta, Georgia) Example: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida- Tallahassee, FL Usual Federal offenses can contain: Narcotics trafficking Crimes accompanying immigration to the U.S. Crimes that incorporate weapons charges Gang crimes White-collar illegal activity Electronic crime and fraud Why Procure a Federal Criminal Defense Attorney The federal criminal justice process is not intended for people to reflect themselves. When you are detained, you want an attorney to stand up for your rights, fight back against overzealous police officers, and also obtain the best result possible. Get in touch with a criminal attorney for more information. This is one reason for an attorney. You do not wish to wander aimlessly at any stage through the legal system without a manual. Getting lost in a jumble of legislation and questionable conviction is not just frightening but can put the rest of your life in peril. The prospect of your own life shouldn't be a bargaining tool when you are facing time in court. The state court and federal court have been two completely distinct strategies -- with unique courthouses and judges. Federal judges may preside over national criminal cases, while elected state court judges preside over state criminal cases. Assistant U.S. Attorneys litigate federal scenarios, whilst state district attorneys and city attorneys insure country offenses. Criminal defense lawyers are the best investment to make regarding case investigation. Not merely do they know the ins and outs of their legal system, but they can look over your situation using fresh and unbiased eyes. They spend their lives working to shield you and your nearest and dearest from regulations that are unnecessary. It is their passion to keep others from an outcome overly harsh for the crime. A high-quality lawyer is not merely able to assist you with your case, but also uses their trained intellect to discover difficulties with the prosecution. Just because someone was detained on suspicion for a crime doesn't mean that the presumed victims are not responsible in some manner as well. Every case is different, and smaller details can function to sufficiently swerve a court ruling. No one would like to have given more of a prison punishment than they deserve. Typically, discipline is greeted with a personal sense of pity and guilt, rather than having an enthusiastic and greedy mindset. So then, the question would be why do so many people put off finding a criminal defense lawyer? With no lawyer that understands a scenario, how then can anybody keep from unnecessary fees? With a large number of people arrested yearly for an entire slew of criminal crimes, it will become simple to lump them into a single group: guilty. This isn't true a sizable amount of the moment. The media and common society like to consider from the striking, and so it will become difficult to slough off the word when in court. A defense attorney understands the problem society induces and thinks in your innocence. Folks commonly misinterpret the notion that they should employ a lawyer only after they've been arrested or charged with a violation. This, however, is totally a farce. Without an attorney present during police interrogations, then there is not any counselor there to help you from admitting to a crime you didn't commit or from saying anything which could function as a detriment for your defense. No matter what crime you've been charged with, it is crucial to procure legal representation that's experienced and knowledgeable in navigating the criminal justice system. That is of special importance if you've already been charged with a federal offense since the paragraphs for national charges are so stringent. Court Cases Litigated by a Federal Criminal Defense Law Firms might be: Battery Attempted Killing and Conspiracy to Commit Homicide Financial Fraud Bankruptcy Fraud Bribery A Conspiracy Embezzlements Blackmailing Extortionate Extensions and Collections of Credit Federal Bank Stealing Firearms Charges Use or Carrying Guns Relation to a Crime of Violence or Drug Dealing Crime Confiscation Proceedings Forgeries Harboring a Fugitive Health Care Fraud Hobbs Act Extortion, Theft and Public Corruption Kidnapping Loansharking Postal Fraud and Digital Making Fictious Statements Misprision of a Felony Real Estate Fraud Capital Laundering Narcotics Charges Obstruction of Justice Lying Under Oath Public Corruption RICO Financial Fraud Sexual Abuse of Minors Stalking Tax Cheating Theft of Government Property Unlawful Usage of Aliens List of the Punishments for federal offenses? Another major difference between national crimes vs. country crimes is the essential sentence. Federal judges have been guided by the federally adopted sentencing regulations when supplying a conviction penalty. Mandatory minimum prison penalties mean that national sentences are inclined to be considerably more lengthy than nation paragraphs. Even if their crimes are alike, someone being stranded for a national crime will generally face a much more unpleasant punishment than someone who has been convicted of a state offense. There is a large system of federal prisons throughout the United States of America. You may reside at any of them depending on a number of factors. If you have psychological or physical health issues, you will probably go to a Federal Medical Center like MCFP. MCFP is a common name for the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners. The facilities where paragraphs are completed disagree, as well. Individuals sentenced to take some time for a national offense will be delivered to federal prison, although people who serve time for a state crime is going to probably be mailed to state prison. Federal prisons tend to house more non-violent offenders (for instance, people convicted of white-collar crimes), while local prisons house large populations of individuals convicted of violent crimes.

[trentonrseb823-blog]

The Main Contrast Between In-Person DUI Classes vs Online DUI Classes

Exactly how to Locate as well as select DUI Classes

Penalties that are connected with Driving under the Influence (DUI) cases can be serious. A culprit might even deal with a court trial and be sentenced in a rehab phase in addition to the mandatory research study of DUI classes in an accredited and genuine organization.

Driving under the Influence is approved when a chauffeur is caught due to the fact that of a driving infraction, plus the reality that he or she made the violation under the results of dangerous drugs or alcohol. The transgressor would not simply pay for his very first offense but for the branch offenses as well. DUI now relies on his primary offense; depending upon the state the motorist is captured.

A culprit's license will be confiscated and she or he will be escorted to a local authorities precinct where he or she will be charged officially. He would then need to call a legal representative that would hear his case and serve as his counsel until the case is officially attempted or acquitted. Usually, the attorney will supply the location of a reliable DUI class and see to it that the offender will go to all the variety of classes that the court has provided.

If You Are Billed, DUI Course And What You Will certainly Experience!

Going to DUI classes is not a simple thing to accept and fit in to one's busy schedule. But, this is very crucial to ensure that an offender's driving is fit and acceptable on the road. Safety procedures will be discovered thus, avoiding undesirable mishaps and conserving innocent lives. Various DUI class attendees provided their positive remarks concerning their classes - particularly their DUI alcohol class which provided insights about alcohol and its damaging effects on the health and judgment, not only on the road but on other phases of life too. The experience will deserve it.

In the case that you have been charged with a first time DWI test failure or test refusal, and are 21 years of age or older, there is a method to shorten the duration of your chauffeur's license revocation by pleading guilty to the DWI. Before you consider this option, it is very important to first look for the recommendations of your lawyer concerning the strength of the state's case versus you. Your lawyer may recommend you, for example, that the police stop of your car was unlawful and that a defense motion should be submitted to dismiss the criminal charge and that a petition must be submitted to restore driving opportunities. Your attorney may also notify you to other grounds that can be used to seek the dismissal of the criminal charge and the reinstatement of your driving privileges such as when the law enforcement officer does not have likely cause to detain you for DWI or when your rejection to send to chemical testing was sensible.

If you are charged with a first time 3rd Degree test refusal, a gross misdemeanor, and you are 21 years of age or older, you may want to consider going into a guilty plea to the Third Degree DWI. This method will permit you to shorten the duration of your chauffeur's license cancellation from one year to 90 days. The better result would be to get the district attorney to allow you to plead guilty to the modified charge of misdemeanor Fourth Degree DWI. This tactic would decrease the period of your driver's license cancellation even further; from one year to thirty days.

Are You Dealing With a Feasible Permit Abrogation?

Perhaps among the reasons Driving While Impaired (DWI) is handled so seriously in United States of America is due to the fact that thousands of individuals a year die from alcohol associated accidents. U.S.A. is at the leading edge in the country for alcohol associated accidents and deaths.

The moment a motorist is pulled over and suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, the motorist has rights and might refuse a breath test which tests their blood alcohol content (BAC). Nevertheless, upon rejection of the breath test the chauffeurs' license will probably be immediately suspended for 6 months in addition to the consequences of a conviction.

What Takes place to an Out of State Permit With a Arizona DWI?

In case a person is of the legal drinking age (21 years of age or older) and has a BAC of.08% or lower than they are within the legal limits. However, if it is any greater than.08% the chauffeur might be founded guilty. Otherwise, anybody under the legal legal age with a BAC of.01% or more will immediately be founded guilty of a criminal offense and have penalties to handle.

Different spans of suspension depend on how many times you have been convicted and how old you are. If an individual is 21 years of age or older and founded guilty of a DWI their license can be suspended for anywhere in between 90 days to two years depending on whether it is their first, 2nd, or 3rd offense. If anybody under the age of 21 is captured driving with any measurable amount of alcohol in their system they are required to stick to a series of consequences in accordance with the Texas' "absolutely no tolerance" policy of minor drinking. A sixty day license suspension belongs to these consequences.

The Alcoholic Screening process course is a 15-30 minute one on one dialogue with an alcohol therapist who will ask you questions about your drinking practices and after that suggest a treatment strategy which you are not obligated to follow unless you are convicted of DUI. Typical treatment plan suggestions are 16 hours for very first time offenders and 36-72 hours for multiple, extreme, extremely extreme or exacerbated DUIs.

What is The DUI Alcohol Screening Class as well as Exactly How Do I Complete It?

It surely will be a great idea to complete/schedule your MVD needed alcohol screening as quickly as possible. This is because the cost is reasonably low ($20-50), and if you will be serving a basic DUI 90 day license suspension it will lower the suspension to 1 month of no driving and 60 days limited driving. Once completed your supplier must electronically publish a certificate of completion to the MVD.

The other benefit of completing the Alcohol Screening early is that if you are eventually founded guilty of DUI the Court will probably sentence you to Alcohol Screening in exchange for less jail time. If you currently finished the screening and/or any follow up classes you will get credit for doing so.

What to Anticipate When It Comes To DUI Lawyer Charges

Driving under the influence (DUI), as we know, is an act of driving while an individual is intoxicated either by alcohol or drugs. The driving under the influence data have actually been quite worrying in the recent past. In 2008-09, there were almost 38,000 DUI cases in the United States alone, with states like California, Georgia, Florida, and Texas tape-recording the highest variety of DUI cases. Considered to be a criminal offense in the US and a number of other parts of the world, this phenomenon has actually triggered legislators to punish DUI culprits, purchasing severe charges for the convicted motorists. Currently, all states in the US have enacted per se laws that limit motorists having specific blood alcohol material (BAC) level from operating an automobile. Usually, the specific DUI laws differ from one area to the other and from nation to country.

DUI records can be dreadful for your future. What should you do if you are founded guilty? You have an option. The most important step is to speak with a qualified dui attorney. There are criminal law office that have actually specialized lawyers who handle DUI-specific cases. You need to try to find a experienced and experienced DUI lawyer, who understands the DUI laws and ensure that you avoid the extreme penalties following a drunk-driving conviction. Try to find the number of DUI cases he has managed before and how those trials were solved.

Do You Have a Fundamental Recognizing of DWI Rules? Zero Tolerance Policy for Minor DWI License Suspension

Experienced and skilled DWI attorneys can be recognized from the members of the National Association of Bad Guy Defense and the National College of Driving While Impaired (DWI) defense. It is necessary that you pick attorneys who have a devoted practice in DWI cases, as they will be upgraded in the Driving Laws and DWI effects. An ideal option will conserve your license and decrease the charge. Family members and friends likewise play significant function in the choice of a professional. The benefit of finding a DWI legal representative through the web is that you get the details relating to the attorney's experience in DWI laws.

Drunk Driving DUI First Violation

There certainly are rigorous penalties for a First Offense DUI conviction. Here are some of the charges you are facing upon conviction if you are apprehended for a Very first Offense DUI in Michigan.

- Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) $100 to $500 fine:

- As much as 360 hours of social work.

- Up to 93 days in jail.

- Possible vehicle immobilization.

- Chauffeur license suspension for 30 days, followed by limitations for 150 days.

- Six points contributed to chauffeur record.

- Possible ignition interlock.

- $1,000 Driver Obligation Fee for two successive years for OWI.

- $500 Driver Obligation Fee for two successive years for OWPD.

Drunken Driving Facts on Alcohol DUI

The seriousness of the crimes differ kind state to state. A DUI is considered to be a serious criminal offense in lots of states in US, whereas it is dealt with as a less serious criminal offense in some portions of USA. Due to the fact that of simply under the impact and really being intoxicated, the main factor behind thinking about the DUI as less serious and sever crime is. Based on the above reasons DUI and DWI charges will be imposed on the intoxicated drivers depending on the level of impairment.

If you are adjured under DUI or DUI, then finding a good DUI Lawyer helps you in minimizing the charges. A great DUI Attorney assists you in discovering the best possible outcome for the DUI charges. DUI charges can be levied based upon your previous dui convictions likewise. The effects can be prison time or community service for operating an automobile while intoxicated.

What is the Total Expense of DUI Charges? Just how Much Does an Initial Offense DUI Expense? Learn About The Fines For DUI Charges

This question depends on a few different factors. Let's state you were pulled over right after leaving a bar after having a couple of a lot of beers. After you're done paying attorney fees, court costs, license charges, probation charges and raised insurance rates, you can anticipate to shell out about $10,000. Ten thousand dollars for one night of fun, barely worth that extra beer. And you might likewise lose your task, have trouble discovering new work and a lot more that can put you in a monetary pressure.

What if you are less fortunate, choose to drive drunk and you get into a cars and truck mishap? Even worse, what if you eliminate somebody while you're driving intoxicated? Can you put a price on another person's life? Sadly yes. Every DUI death costs $3.6 million dollars. $1.1 million in monetary expenses and $2.5 million in quality of life losses. Colorado lost $2 billion dollars in the year 2000 due to these expenses.

A myriad of expenditures generally associated with a DUI conviction consist of bail, car towing or take expenses, court expenses, legal fees, DUI education programs, greater insurance costs, apprenticeship charges, drug and alcohol evaluation and therapy, license reinstatement fees, and loss of work income. Which's the short list.

The expense of a DUI conviction varies by state, however in every state the expense ranges into the lots of dollars. In New York, for example, the approximated minimum cost for a very first DUI conviction is $9,500. A study by the Texas Department of Transportation discovered that the typical expense for a DWI arrest and conviction varieties from $9,000 to $24,000.

DUI Institution and also Alcohol Treatment Concerning DUI Courses

If you've been convicted of a DUI, even if it's the first time this has actually occurred, you'll be required to participate in DUI school as part of your sentence. The other parts of your sentence will probably be needing to pay some fines, be on probation, plus your license will be suspended for at least 4 months, and you might have other penalties if specific aggravating factors exist (such as a very high blood alcohol level, or triggering a mishap that hurts somebody or damages property).

DWI trainings are presented by state-certified instructors, involve a basic DUI curriculum, and require a certain number of direction hours. During the course, you can anticipate a mixture of lecture, discussion, instruction, and class involvement, all with an emphasis on education, evaluation, and empowerment.

[anchorarcade]

When did Congress authorize fighting in Niger? That’s an excellent question.

https://ryanguillory.com/when-did-congress-authorize-fighting-in-niger-thats-an-excellent-question/

When did Congress authorize fighting in Niger? That’s an excellent question.

In this file photo, Myeshia Johnson (2nd R) is escorted to her seat as a Military Honor Guard carries the casket of her husband U.S. Army Sgt. La David Johnson during his burial service at the Memorial Gardens East cemetery on October 21, 2017 in Hollywood, Florida. Sgt. Johnson and three other American soldiers were killed in an ambush in Niger on Oct. 4. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

It’s Veterans Day – not a bad time to give some thought to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The AUMF, which Congress passed in 2001 in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has been back in the news lately. After four U.S. soldiers were killed in Niger in October, members of Congress seemed to wake up, asking: Niger? When did we authorize fighting in Niger?

That’s an excellent question.

What is the AUMF?

The 2001 AUMF (Public Law 107-40) was adopted by huge margins – with only one dissenting vote in the House and none in the Senate — just three days after the Sept. 11 attacks. Since it was not yet clear who had carried out the attacks, the law gave the president broad power to know, and to do. He was to determine who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks,” and was then authorized to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons” or those that “harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

For good measure, the AUMF also stated that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States” – though this was in a list of “whereas” clauses early in the resolution rather than in the authorization itself.

[With fewer veterans in Congress, it’s less likely to rein in the president’s use of force]

The AUMF authorized – and still authorizes – U.S. military action against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In the 2004 case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court found that the AUMF also allowed for the detention of those captured as a result of such action. This included American citizens held as “unlawful enemy combatants,” though such detainees had to receive some measure of due process. (What that meant, for U.S. citizens and others, has been the subject of many other court cases.)

Why revisit the AUMF?

As the New York Times’ Charlie Savage puts it, “distance has grown between the text of the 2001 authorization and the combat waged in its name.” In the past fifteen years the war against al-Qaeda has spread far beyond Afghanistan, and to many groups that are not al-Qaeda.

In 2014 the Obama administration, seeking legal justification for what became Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, argued that even though ISIS formed after the 9/11 attacks – and had been repudiated by al-Qaeda – it was still that group’s “associated” or successor force. Therefore, the 2001 AUMF applied to OIR. And therefore, the requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution that Congress grant specific authorization for the long-term use of American force were met.

Many observers argued this stretched the AUMF too far. In 2001 those voting for the AUMF had sworn it was not a blank check. Still, Congress did not push back.

But presidential claims about the AUMF’s scope keep growing, as the Niger ambush brought home. U.S. troops are active in at least 19 countries. The blanket of the AUMF was spread even over the use of force against the Syrian government – which has perpetrated many evils, but not the 9/11 attacks. When an American jet shot down a Syrian bomber in June, the Trump administration argued that American forces would not be in Syria if not for the ISIS threat, and that therefore the use of a “necessary and appropriate measure in support of counter-ISIS operations” was warranted.

By this logic, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) suggested at a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the topic, the AUMF and the 2002 Iraq War authorization are “mere authorities of convenience for presidents to conduct military activities anywhere in the world.” And Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) — who in the past dismissed the need for new legislation — recently argued that though the 2001 law is technically sufficient, “we should update the AUMF to reflect the current conflict and reassert Congress’ constitutional role.”

What would a new AUMF look like?

That’s the problem. Some in Congress want to simply empower the president. Others want to limit his autonomy. Compare, for instance, two proposed replacement AUMFs, one sponsored by Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), and one by Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.). Young’s version highlights the “horrific acts of violence” committed by ISIS, and grants the president power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, and unspecified “successor organizations, and associated forces.” It also grants explicit authority to detain such combatants and those who support them. It has no expiration date.

By contrast, the Flake/Kaine version starts with more legalistic “whereas”-es that say things like “the United States should take action against non-state, transnational actors in a disciplined way that meets the current threat environment.” It authorizes the president to use force against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, and “associated persons or forces.” But in doing so, it specifies a handful of such forces (e.g., al-Shabab and the a-Nusra Front). The president has to report on any others he thinks are included, and must justify the use of force in countries other than Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, or Yemen. Those determinations can be reversed by congressional vote. And while this authorization can be renewed, it expires after five years.

Third Way has charted still other competing proposals, which differ on such things as how long what kind of force is authorized, and where and against which groups it applies.

Would a new version pass?

In September, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) forced a roll-call vote on repealing the AUMF within six months. It failed, 61-36. Still, some of the Senate “no” voters stressed that while they were against simple repeal, they would be happy to, er, repeal and replace. And over the summer a House subcommittee working on a defense bill surprised Capitol Hill by adopting an amendment sunsetting the AUMF after 240 days.

Even Defense Secretary James Mattis sympathizes. He testified in March that a new resolution would be “a statement of the American people’s resolve… [I] have not understood why the Congress hasn’t come forward with this, at least to debate.”

[Congress keeps quiet on U.S. drone policy — and that’s a big problem.]

Earlier this year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected civilian victims of drone strikes’ effort to win judicial oversight over such tactics, ruling (I think correctly) that “the foreign target of a military strike cannot challenge in court the wisdom of [that] military action taken by the United States.” Congress is where the U.S. should hold such debates, not the courtroom.

But the ruling also commented caustically that “congressional oversight is a joke — and a bad one at that.” I fear that’s correct, too. Passing a new AUMF might be a good punchline.

Source link

[awesomefelicitylewis-blog]

When did Congress authorize fighting in Niger? That’s an excellent question.

https://ryanguillory.com/when-did-congress-authorize-fighting-in-niger-thats-an-excellent-question/

When did Congress authorize fighting in Niger? That’s an excellent question.

In this file photo, Myeshia Johnson (2nd R) is escorted to her seat as a Military Honor Guard carries the casket of her husband U.S. Army Sgt. La David Johnson during his burial service at the Memorial Gardens East cemetery on October 21, 2017 in Hollywood, Florida. Sgt. Johnson and three other American soldiers were killed in an ambush in Niger on Oct. 4. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

It’s Veterans Day – not a bad time to give some thought to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The AUMF, which Congress passed in 2001 in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has been back in the news lately. After four U.S. soldiers were killed in Niger in October, members of Congress seemed to wake up, asking: Niger? When did we authorize fighting in Niger?

That’s an excellent question.

What is the AUMF?

The 2001 AUMF (Public Law 107-40) was adopted by huge margins – with only one dissenting vote in the House and none in the Senate — just three days after the Sept. 11 attacks. Since it was not yet clear who had carried out the attacks, the law gave the president broad power to know, and to do. He was to determine who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks,” and was then authorized to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons” or those that “harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

For good measure, the AUMF also stated that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States” – though this was in a list of “whereas” clauses early in the resolution rather than in the authorization itself.

[With fewer veterans in Congress, it’s less likely to rein in the president’s use of force]

The AUMF authorized – and still authorizes – U.S. military action against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In the 2004 case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court found that the AUMF also allowed for the detention of those captured as a result of such action. This included American citizens held as “unlawful enemy combatants,” though such detainees had to receive some measure of due process. (What that meant, for U.S. citizens and others, has been the subject of many other court cases.)

Why revisit the AUMF?

As the New York Times’ Charlie Savage puts it, “distance has grown between the text of the 2001 authorization and the combat waged in its name.” In the past fifteen years the war against al-Qaeda has spread far beyond Afghanistan, and to many groups that are not al-Qaeda.

In 2014 the Obama administration, seeking legal justification for what became Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, argued that even though ISIS formed after the 9/11 attacks – and had been repudiated by al-Qaeda – it was still that group’s “associated” or successor force. Therefore, the 2001 AUMF applied to OIR. And therefore, the requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution that Congress grant specific authorization for the long-term use of American force were met.

Many observers argued this stretched the AUMF too far. In 2001 those voting for the AUMF had sworn it was not a blank check. Still, Congress did not push back.

But presidential claims about the AUMF’s scope keep growing, as the Niger ambush brought home. U.S. troops are active in at least 19 countries. The blanket of the AUMF was spread even over the use of force against the Syrian government – which has perpetrated many evils, but not the 9/11 attacks. When an American jet shot down a Syrian bomber in June, the Trump administration argued that American forces would not be in Syria if not for the ISIS threat, and that therefore the use of a “necessary and appropriate measure in support of counter-ISIS operations” was warranted.

By this logic, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) suggested at a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the topic, the AUMF and the 2002 Iraq War authorization are “mere authorities of convenience for presidents to conduct military activities anywhere in the world.” And Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) — who in the past dismissed the need for new legislation — recently argued that though the 2001 law is technically sufficient, “we should update the AUMF to reflect the current conflict and reassert Congress’ constitutional role.”

What would a new AUMF look like?

That’s the problem. Some in Congress want to simply empower the president. Others want to limit his autonomy. Compare, for instance, two proposed replacement AUMFs, one sponsored by Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), and one by Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.). Young’s version highlights the “horrific acts of violence” committed by ISIS, and grants the president power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, and unspecified “successor organizations, and associated forces.” It also grants explicit authority to detain such combatants and those who support them. It has no expiration date.

By contrast, the Flake/Kaine version starts with more legalistic “whereas”-es that say things like “the United States should take action against non-state, transnational actors in a disciplined way that meets the current threat environment.” It authorizes the president to use force against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, and “associated persons or forces.” But in doing so, it specifies a handful of such forces (e.g., al-Shabab and the a-Nusra Front). The president has to report on any others he thinks are included, and must justify the use of force in countries other than Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, or Yemen. Those determinations can be reversed by congressional vote. And while this authorization can be renewed, it expires after five years.

Third Way has charted still other competing proposals, which differ on such things as how long what kind of force is authorized, and where and against which groups it applies.

Would a new version pass?

In September, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) forced a roll-call vote on repealing the AUMF within six months. It failed, 61-36. Still, some of the Senate “no” voters stressed that while they were against simple repeal, they would be happy to, er, repeal and replace. And over the summer a House subcommittee working on a defense bill surprised Capitol Hill by adopting an amendment sunsetting the AUMF after 240 days.

Even Defense Secretary James Mattis sympathizes. He testified in March that a new resolution would be “a statement of the American people’s resolve… [I] have not understood why the Congress hasn’t come forward with this, at least to debate.”

[Congress keeps quiet on U.S. drone policy — and that’s a big problem.]

Earlier this year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected civilian victims of drone strikes’ effort to win judicial oversight over such tactics, ruling (I think correctly) that “the foreign target of a military strike cannot challenge in court the wisdom of [that] military action taken by the United States.” Congress is where the U.S. should hold such debates, not the courtroom.

But the ruling also commented caustically that “congressional oversight is a joke — and a bad one at that.” I fear that’s correct, too. Passing a new AUMF might be a good punchline.

Source link