#video conference court hearing

[cottonlemonade]

hello can i get a medium dragon fruit with coconut water for ushijima please. always with chubby reader. thank you!

Long Distance Relationship

word count: 744 || avg. reading time: 3 mins.

pairing: post-time skip husband!Ushijima x chubby!Reader

genre: fluff with some suggestiveness

warnings: spoilers, mdni

request: fluffy-spicy long distance relationship with husband Ushijima

Toshi was the last person to stand in the way of your dreams and if that meant he was going to become the far away trophy husband to a gorgeous media relations executive, he wouldn’t complain. About two months ago - 44 days, but the loneliness made him round up - you had taken the opportunity of a temporary management position in Sydney. Your husband was confident that he could handle your absence for a while, but when he stepped into the apartment the day you had left and his usual call of “I’m home, darling” only echoed through the dark empty hallway, he suddenly wasn’t so sure anymore.

The bouquet of your favorite flowers he had picked up automatically on his way home seemed to mock him now and so he simply handed it to the elderly couple next-door.

Upon hearing that the tall stoic man was going to be a grass widower for the time being they had promptly invited him over for dinner and you were happy to know that your husband, who was just about skilled enough to make ramen and pancakes, was taken care of. During your nightly calls, he would lean on the kitchen counter, hair still damp from the shower and absently nibble on whatever the kind neighbors had made for him. At least the time difference was no issue, he thought as he did the dishes - all alone, without you distracting him by hugging him from behind or playfully swatting at his butt with the dish towel.

It was the distance that drove him crazy. Not being able to play with your hair before falling asleep or pulling you on top of him on the couch as he watched a movie, letting his large warm hands roam over your indescribably soft skin, his fingers tracing the stretchmarks on your pudgy waist for comfort.

He had tried to distract himself by going out for drinks with his friends, but all he could think about was your mischievous little wink when your foot would “accidentally” brush his leg under the table.

Hoshiumi and Kageyama had looked alarmed when their usually blank-faced friend seemed close to tears after two glasses of wine.

He was at an open training with the national team about a week after your leave when it occurred to him that he wouldn‘t get to have sex with you for three months. Lucky for you, his fans kept you well-fed with thousands of snapshots of your sweat dripping husband from various angles, nourishing every thirsty thought you had about him ever since you boarded the plane. He returned to his phone during his breaks to find pictures, videos or voice messages of you touching yourself to the thought of him and Toshi would have to excuse himself to the locker rooms for three to five minutes before resuming his drills.

Whenever he was on the court, he now happily accepted the fine he had to pay for wearing his wedding ring on a chain around his neck. Post-game interviews were spent bringing you up unprompted, before the camera panned down to Hoshiumi who pushed him out of the way for a proper take on the match.

He only snapped out of his miserable wifeless stupor when Hinata excitedly announced one day that if they won this game they’d head out to play Australia next.

“Toss me all the balls.”, he said to Kageyama before they took their positions on the field. Hoshiumi huffed and protested - even louder when after momentary pondering the setter agreed.

The other team never had a chance.

All the way over in your Sydney office the staff crammed into the conference room. Having bragged practically nonstop about your husband since your arrival, your coworkers crowded around you, watching with bated breath how Ushijima Wakatoshi demolished the opposing defenses, breaking through with every spike like he was possessed. And after what was probably the shortest game you had ever seen, Japan’s fans (and the office) erupted into cheers.

Toshi ignored the reporters who all wanted a piece of the MVP and headed straight from the locker rooms to the airport, booking a last minute ticket from the back of the taxi. He’d buy clothes and toiletries once he got there. It was about 6:30 am when your doorbell rang. Holding up a bouquet of your favorite flowers you were met with your slightly out of breath husband.

“Toshi!”, you called, surprised.

“I’m home, darling.”

a/n: you definitely called in sick that day. And then next day showed him off to eeeeeveryone in the office. Thank you so much for requesting Ushijima! I always love writing for him. I hope you enjoyed it! 🌟

[beardedmrbean]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed three bills Tuesday to crack down on the use of artificial intelligence to create false images or videos in political ads ahead of the 2024 election.

A new law, set to take effect immediately, makes it illegal to create and publish deepfakes related to elections 120 days before Election Day and 60 days thereafter. It also allows courts to stop distribution of the materials and impose civil penalties.

“Safeguarding the integrity of elections is essential to democracy, and it’s critical that we ensure AI is not deployed to undermine the public’s trust through disinformation -– especially in today’s fraught political climate,” Newsom said in a statement. “These measures will help to combat the harmful use of deepfakes in political ads and other content, one of several areas in which the state is being proactive to foster transparent and trustworthy AI.”

Large social media platforms are also required to remove the deceptive material under a first-in-the-nation law set to be enacted next year. Newsom also signed a bill requiring political campaigns to publicly disclose if they are running ads with materials altered by AI.

The governor signed the bills to loud applause during a conversation with Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff at an event hosted the major software company during its annual conference in San Francisco.

The new laws reaffirm California’s position as a leader in regulating AI in the U.S., especially in combating election deepfakes. The state was the first in the U.S. to ban manipulated videos and pictures related to elections in 2019. Measures in technology and AI proposed by California lawmakers have been used as blueprints for legislators across the country, industry experts said.

With AI supercharging the threat of election disinformation worldwide, lawmakers across the country have raced to address the issue over concerns the manipulated materials could erode the public’s trust in what they see and hear.

“With fewer than 50 days until the general election, there is an urgent need to protect against misleading, digitally-altered content that can interfere with the election,” Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, author of the law banning election deepfakes, said in a statement. “California is taking a stand against the manipulative use of deepfake technology to deceive voters.”

Newsom’s decision followed his vow in July to crack down on election deepfakes in response to a video posted by X-owner Elon Musk featuring altered images of Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

The new California laws come the same day as members of Congress unveiled federal legislation aiming to stop election deepfakes. The bill would give the Federal Election Commission the power to regulate the use of AI in elections in the same way it has regulated other political misrepresentation for decades. The FEC has started to consider such regulations after outlawing AI-generated robocalls aimed to discourage voters in February.

Newsom has touted California as an early adopter as well as regulator of AI, saying the state could soon deploy generative AI tools to address highway congestion and provide tax guidance, even as his administration considers new rules against AI discrimination in hiring practices.

He also signed two other bills Tuesday to protect Hollywood performers from unauthorized AI use without their consent.

[sarahivi]

So MER is coming out as a federal deputy candidate..........

So, everything we have said for months is true

What do you think @talokanda-forever @love-too-believe @cantstayawaycani @oakzap425 @soledadmiranda @luzsp9-1981 @observers-journal @cutelatinagirl @scoobydooisadetective

MEXICO CITY.- In a conference called by Senator César Cravioto to address the legal issue of the María Elena Ríos trial, and after a series of rumors that the activist herself admitted, the saxophonist accepted the possibility of being nominated by Morena for a candidacy for a federal deputy, for which he expressed his willingness to participate through the survey process.

“If the Mexican people wanted me to represent them, it would be through a survey and it would be through principles, not Western principles, principles from this India,” he highlighted.

For his part, Senator César Cravioto admitted that the activist has every right to seek a candidacy in her party: “In Morena, candidacies do not occur. In Morena, all candidates go through surveys and, as a citizen, if she wants to compete in a survey she has every right, because she has also gained a lot of social recognition.”

However, Senator Cravioto said that the conference had not been held “for any candidacy,” while the activist clarified: “I clarify, it is not my interest. “I am a student, I am a proud saxophonist from UNAM.”

For her part, the activist's lawyer, Diana Cristal Gonzalez Obregón, justified the removal of Judge Teódulo Pacheco from her client's hearings, despite what was established in the resolution of the Collegiate Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Oaxaca, which determined: “As can be seen from the audio and video of the hearing to review the precautionary measure, chaired by the Control Judge Teódulo Pacheco Pacheco, it is noted that the direct victim referred insults and accusations to him, a situation that implies violence against authority, transgressing the right conferred by Article 5.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights.”

Finally, Senator Cravioto asked the media not to victimize the Judiciary of Oaxaca and the activist reiterated the request to appoint a collegiate court for the development of her process, in addition to requesting a new removal, now of Judge María Teresa Quevedo Sánchez.

[eretzyisrael]

by Dion J. Pierre

Ackerman brought the issue before the Rutgers Student Bar Association (SBA), a student government body of which Ackerman was a member. However, he was accused of racism and subjected on Oct. 26 to what the lawsuit describes as a three-hour “struggle session” in which his SBA law school colleagues pelted him with insults.

“During this meeting, several students whom Mr. Ackerman had never interacted with before testified against him,” said the complaint, filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Essex County. “For example, law student JM, targeted, discriminated, bullied, harassed, and retaliated against Mr. Ackerman. She falsely accused Mr. Ackerman of threatening to dox her and other students — without any evidence. JM moved to impeach Ackerman from the SBA, and to intimidate Mr. Ackerman and other Jewish students.”

“The Rutgers SBA and JM were seeking to chill the speech of Ackerman — as a Jewish person,” the complaint continues. “The content and tone of the SBA hearing were designed or allowed to air antisemitic bias with the intent of discriminating, threatening, harassing, and bullying Jewish law students, including Mr. Ackerman.”

The complaint summarizes in detail Ackerman’s attempts to file formal complaints about the video and the treatment he received, focusing on the conduct of Katherine Perez, an assistant dean in the law school whom the suit names as a defendant. It charges that Perez never watched the video about which Ackerman complained and, in retaliation, charged him with defamation and disorderly conduct. Later, Perez told Ackerman that a complaint he had filed lacked merit and would not be investigated.

Ackerman’s attorneys said in a press release that he will on Thursday attend a final disciplinary hearing that will determine whether he is expelled from school.

“In sum, Rutgers plans to hold this ‘kangaroo court’ in which they refuse to permit Ackerman to be represented by counsel (who cannot speak or otherwise advocate on Mr. Ackerman’s behalf), and have failed to advise him of the witnesses who will testify against him, and which ostensibly will be presided over by the very person who initiated and brought the charges, against him,” the suit says.

The Algemeiner has reached out to Rutgers to confirm the details concerning the hearing on Thursday.

Ackerman additionally alleges the ordeal he experienced has caused medical complications, and he is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

“It is time to speak out,” Ackerman said on Tuesday during a press conference. “Just five days after the largest attack and attempt at genocide against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, one of my peers shared a video that was highly offensive and in my opinion antisemitic … What has resulted since is nothing more than an attempt by Rutgers and other students to silence my right to speak out against antisemitism. I will not be silent in the face of hatred towards Jews.

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

This sack of garbage needs to be removed from the American political scene.

[kunigunda]

Help the family of Sinzae Reed

Sin'Zae Reed, 13, was fatally shot Oct. 12 at the Wedgewood Apartments complex in #Columbus Hilltop neighborhood. His sister, 20-year-old Makayla Nichols, and other family members said Sinzae was a good kid and want justice for him from authorities. 36-year-old Krieg Butler, a resident of the complex, fatally shot Reed.

Megan Reed, Sin'Zae's mother, said her son will now always be a 13-year-old teenage boy that she can longer hold or hear him speak. In his obituary, family members remembered Reed, who went by 'Zay,' as a boy who loved music, video games and spending time with his friends. Reed attended KIPP Columbus, a charter school on the Northeast Side.

According to court records, an eyewitness saw Butler exit a red truck and fire multiple times at Reed. Butler then got back in the truck and fled the scene. Butler was initially charged with Reed's homicide and ordered held on $1 million bond, but prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss the case after Butler's arrest; Homicide charges were dropped pending further police investigation into Butler's claim of self-defense in the shooting.

"All I'm asking for is justice for my baby — is that too much to give?" Reed said. "I will never stop until Sin'Zae gets justice, I will forever be his voice."

Reed and others at the press conference called for the immediate re-arrest of Butler. Ramon Obey II, president of JUST 614 and event organizer, said he was calling on members of the community to pressure the Franklin County Prosecutor's office to take action.

Obey called Sunday for four points of action from criminal justice officials: that Butler be immediately re-arrested and charged with murder, that Franklin County Prosecutor Gary Tyack resign from his position, an apology from the city of Columbus to Reed's family and a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the shooting.

Dejuan Sharp, a member of the Columbus Downtownerz who has been advocating for Reed's family, said the criminal justice system was incapable of delivering justice to the family.

Obey said that community activists planned several events to continue to try and pressure the justice system into action against Butler. On Thursday, they plan to travel to Tyack's office and deliver a letter saying they want the removal of the member of his office responsible for dismissing the criminal charges against Butler. Next Saturday, a protest at noon at the Ohio Statehouse, where they plan to march for not just Reed, but also Donovan Lewis and Casey Goodson, who were both shot and killed by police officers in Franklin County.

On Jan. 9, Obey said he and others plan to attend Columbus City Council's next regular meeting and ask every member of council to sign a letter saying they support the immediate arrest of Butler and removal of Franklin County prosecutor personnel.

Full text article via dispatch (this post is a paraphrasing/shortening)

[tieflingkisser]

Israeli ministers attend 'Return to Gaza Conference', speak in support of resettlement

A video of ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich dancing at the conference could be used as evidence in future ICJ hearings, rights lawyer says

Thousands, including ministers from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's party, gathered in Jerusalem on Sunday for a conference calling to resettle the Gaza Strip. At least 12 Israeli ministers participated in the conference about rebuilding Israeli settlements in Gaza and encouraging displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, Israeli journalist Barak Ravid reported. Ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich and several others from Netanyahu's Likud party gave "supportive speeches", he said. Itay Epshtain, a special advisor for the Norwegian Refugee Council, shared a video in which national security minister Ben-Gvir and  minister of finance Smotrich stood arm-over-shoulder, dancing at the conference.  The human rights lawyer said that the image "would form part of the compelling evidence of noncompliance" with the International Court of Justice's recent order to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide and to punish acts of incitement.

[mariacallous]

A dark, satiric sensibility is a basic qualification for anyone in the Russian opposition. Those leaders I knew in Moscow, before I left Russia in 2022, liked to crack jokes during interviews with journalists and to judges at court hearings.

Boris Nemtsov, though he had been arrested many times and knew he should worry for his life, would laugh at President Vladimir Putin’s Russia as the “gangster state of absurdity.” He told the story of the time pro-Putin activists had sent a prostitute to his vacation hotel in a bungled attempt to fabricate kompromat.

In 2015, Nemtsov was shot in his back as he strolled across a bridge near the Kremlin. Some of his associates thought that it was, in the end, his mockery of Putin that had marked him out as a target for assassination. (Nemtsov and I shared a name, but we were not related.)

When I learned of Alexei Navalny’s death in prison on Friday, I posted on social media a picture of him with Nemtsov: both with big, radiant smiles, standing shoulder to shoulder in front of a banner that advertised an opposition rally in that spring of 2015. “How beautiful these men are, unlike that miserable little greedy coward,” one Russian follower commented.

Beautiful, perhaps. Brave, certainly. When I think of the two of them, I will always remember the words written on a piece of paper that Navalny held at one of his court hearings: “I am not afraid and you should not be afraid.” Navalny was still smiling and laughing on the eve of his death, as a video of his appearance at a court hearing on Thursday attests. The next day, he reportedly fell ill and collapsed after a walk in the compound of the former Soviet Gulag prison in the Arctic Circle where he was sent last year.

“Make no mistake: Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death,” President Joe Biden said at a White House news conference on Friday. Human-rights defenders who know Russia’s prison system agree. “Of course, he was murdered by a chain of actions ordered by Putin or by his men,” Sergei Davidis, the head of the political prisoners support program at the Memorial Human Rights Center, told me. “They were killing Navalny for a long time: First they poisoned him with Novichok, then arrested him illegally, then put him in solitary confinement for 300 days.”

Navalny was always angry at the corrupt and stupid public officials who, as he saw it, were robbing the Russian people. In one of several interviews I recorded with him, he referred to the Kremlin elite as an “idiotic regime.” But he was also critical of the “Western enablers,” the bankers, lawyers, and accountants who launder the oligarchs’ money abroad through real-estate deals in London, New York, and elsewhere.

Russia holds more than 500 political prisoners, according to the most recent tallies by Davidis’s group and U.S. officials. Deaths in prison are common. “Our group is monitoring the health of political prisoners; we are worried about at least four people who are in a critical condition,” he told me. Many wonder why Navalny returned to Russia from Germany, in 2021, after already suffering so much and in such open defiance of the opponent he called “Putin the thief.” “Navalny’s sacrifice will always be remembered,” Davidis said.

“I understand why Navalny returned to Russia, why Nemtsov came back,” Boris Vishnevsky, a member of the St. Petersburg city council, told me on Friday. He was mourning Navalny’s death, despite political differences they had had in the past. Vishnevsky’s opposition party, Yabloko, had previously criticized Navalny for participating in ultranationalist rallies. But Vishnevsky had since taken Navalny’s side. “As soon as Alexei returned to Russia and ended up behind bars, I immediately spoke against his arrest,” he said.

He understood the actions of Nemtsov and Navalny as very deliberate. “If you are a politician or an independent journalist in Russia today, you have to overcome fear,” he told me. “They made a decision to become martyrs.”

I remember a call I made to Nemtsov in September 2014, a few months before his death. I was reporting from a village in Dagestan with a sad name: Vremenny, or “temporary.” Russian security forces were demolishing houses there to punish the families of people accused of terrorism. I remember seeing the remains of children’s toys sticking up from the ground after the bulldozers had been through.

This was the year of Putin’s military intervention in the Donbas region of Ukraine, and of his annexation of Crimea. Nobody was paying much attention to human rights in a remote part of the North Caucasus. When I told Nemtsov something about my assignment in one of “the ’stans,” he laughed. When I explained where, he commented, “Dagestan will be always hot.” And then he said, “Listen, if I don’t joke, I will go nuts in our reality.” I spoke with him again, some weeks later, at his house in central Moscow. He told me that some of his friends were advising him to get out. “Why should I run?” he said. “Let Putin and his thugs run.”

That was my last interview with Nemtsov. When someone dies, you try to remember the last conversation you had with them. In 2020, I interviewed Navalny on camera for a documentary. I recall that he expressed a firm belief that, in 10 years’ time, we would speak again—and he would explain exactly how he’d won the war against corruption and for political freedom in Russia.

He was smiling. But this time, perhaps, he wasn’t joking.

[kp777]

By Jake Johnson

Common Dreams

Aug. 4, 2023

"Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings."

Dozens of House Democrats on Thursday urged the policy-setting body of the federal judiciary to authorize live broadcasts of former President Donald Trump's upcoming court proceedings as he faces charges stemming from his effort to overturn the 2020 election.

Cameras are usually barred from federal courtrooms, but 38 House Democrats argued in a letter to the Judicial Conference that "given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings."

"It is imperative the conference ensures timely access to accurate and reliable information surrounding these cases and all of their proceedings, given the extraordinary national importance to our democratic institutions and the need for transparency," reads the letter, which was led by Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).

"If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced, and the credibility of witnesses," the letter continues. "We urge the conference to take additional steps, including live broadcasting, to ensure the facts of this case are brought forward, unfiltered, to the public."

The lawmakers released their letter shortly after Trump appeared in federal court in Washington, D.C. and pleaded not guilty to four felony counts laid out in a 45-page indictment filed earlier this week by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed in November to lead investigations into Trump's election subversion efforts and the January 6 attack.

The charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States and " conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted."

The first pretrial hearing is set to take place on August 28.

The severity of the charges against Trump—who is seeking the presidency again in 2024—and the trial's massive implications have led legal experts to make the case for allowing video cameras into the courtroom.

Andrew Weissmann, a former top prosecutor at the Justice Department, toldVanity Fair on Thursday that the decision rests with the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, who is the chair of the Judicial Conference.

"It's going to be incumbent on the chief justice of the United States to make this trial public," said Weissmann. "He has the power to do that."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

[ausetkmt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/qualified-immunity-police-lobbying-state-legislatures/2021/10/06/60e546bc-0cdf-11ec-aea1-42a8138f132a_story.html

Dozens of states have tried to end qualified immunity. Police officers and unions helped beat nearly every bill.

Stephanie Maez, a former state legislator in New Mexico, pushed to end qualified immunity for police officers in the state after her son was falsely accused of murder and spent months in custody. (Adria Malcolm for The Washington Post)

In the months after George Floyd’s murder, state legislators across the country tried to undo a legal doctrine that makes it virtually impossible to sue police officers for violating a person’s civil rights.

Fueled by outrage over the actions of former Minnesota officer Derek Chauvin, the efforts to eliminate “qualified immunity” seemed poised to usher in a new era empowering citizens who felt wronged by police.

But then, in state after state, the bills withered, were withdrawn, or were altered beyond recognition. At least 35 state qualified-immunity bills have died in the past 18 months, according to an analysis by The Washington Post of legislative records and data from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The efforts failed amid multifaceted lobbying campaigns by police officers and their unions targeting legislators, many of whom feared public backlash if the dire predictions by police came true. Officers said they would go bankrupt and lose their homes. They said their colleagues would leave the profession in droves.

While advocates of overturning the doctrine argued that qualified immunity allows rogue officers to brutalize citizens without paying a personal price, law enforcement officials countered that it protects police from being financially destroyed for the rapid life-or-death decisions they must make on the job.

So far, police are winning the argument nearly everywhere.

Ending qualified immunity for police officers is one demand lawmakers and activists are asking for to change how police are held accountable. (Video: Joshua Carroll, Sarah Hashemi/The Washington Post, Photo: Etienne Laurent EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock/The Washington Post)

Among at least four bills that are still alive, three initially called for a complete ban on qualified immunity. One of these, in Michigan, has since been amended to allow use of the legal defense in many instances. And among the seven qualified-immunity bills that have become law since last year, only Colorado has completely barred the legal defense for officers. Iowa actually strengthened qualified-immunity rights of its officers, and Arkansas did so for its college and university police officers.

In New Mexico, changes were made so quietly that many advocates didn’t know that the ability to sue individual officers had been taken out as they testified for the bill.

Stephanie Maez, a former state legislator, tearfully told lawmakers earlier this year in an online hearing how a court granted qualified immunity to an Albuquerque homicide detective she accuses of framing her 18-year-old son for murder.

“He was released and vindicated, and the real murderers were caught and are serving time,” the 41-year-old said of her son, “[but] there has been no accountability.”

But Maez didn’t know at the time that the bill she was supporting, the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, had been fundamentally altered days before to drop a provision allowing people to sue officers in state court. And new language was inserted that explicitly prohibited an accuser from naming an officer in a state civil rights lawsuit.

Now, she has little doubt why the Democratic-controlled legislature — facing heavy pressure from police unions — assented to changing the bill, which was signed into law by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) in April.

“If a lawmaker is concerned about police coming out and endorsing their opponent in the next election cycle, they will think twice before they do the right thing,” Maez said. “With crime being such a huge issue here, lawmakers don’t want to look soft on crime.”

Such statehouse battles have become even more important as qualified-immunity changes have stalled out in Congress. The House has passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would restrict the use of the legal doctrine nationwide. But bipartisan Senate talks broke down last month.

Police officials say they have a right to assert themselves to retool or defeat bills that they believe might weaken their ability to maintain a strong force.

“If we are going to improve the criminal justice system, it is not going to be by scaring away the best and brightest,” said Patrick Yoes, president of the National Fraternal Order of Police. “All of these attacks on law enforcement are not helping. Quality candidates can take a job anywhere.”

But these police victories are happening despite strong public sentiment in favor of changing the doctrine. A July study by the Pew Research Center found two-thirds of Americans are opposed to use of qualified immunity by police.

Experts say that new bills are likely to be introduced as most statehouses resume in January. However, because of police lobbying, any successful efforts are more likely to resemble the New Mexico law than the one enacted in Colorado.

“It would be better if officers had a little skin in the game, but that’s the nature of legislation,” said Barry Friedman, founding director of New York University School of Law’s Policing Project. “It’s too bad, but it’s not always truth and justice. It is often just what’s possible.”

Floyd's death reignites debate

In 2017, police in Texas responded to a suicidal man who had doused himself with gasoline. One officer later said in a written report that he warned his colleagues, “If we Tase him, he’s going to light on fire.” Two officers used a Taser on him anyway, and then the man burst into flames and died, according to court records.

Yet this summer, a federal court ruled that the man’s family couldn’t sue the officers. They had qualified immunity.

Activists who seek to end the doctrine can point to a litany of similarly shocking cases. There’s the 2019 federal court ruling granting immunity to a Georgia deputy who shot a 10-year-old boy lying face down on the ground while aiming at a nonthreatening family dog. Or the ruling that same year protecting California police who had been accused of stealing $101,380 in cash and $125,000 in rare coins in 2013 as they searched a local business and the owners’ homes. While the police may have been “morally wrong,” they were still protected from lawsuits by qualified immunity, the court found.

“People are holding up picket signs that say, ‘End qualified immunity’ because officers are doing things that we as a society agree are outrageous,” said Joanna Schwartz, a qualified immunity expert and researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles. “They are getting by with it on a legal technicality and that really has people upset.”

The debate over whether Americans can sue individual police officers began more than a century ago. An 1871 statue first provided a legal path to collect damages from officers and other government employees who violate constitutional rights. The law was commonly referred to as the Ku Klux Klan Act because it was designed, in part, to protect freed enslaved people from racist government workers.

However, a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a Freedom Riders bus desegregation case in Mississippi created qualified immunity, and the legal doctrine was strengthened in subsequent federal decisions, making it nearly impossible to challenge in court.

After Floyd’s death, an eclectic mix of organizations — from the American Civil Liberties Union and Sierra Club to several libertarian groups including the Cato Institute — came together to fight for a ban on qualified immunity.

Dozens of state legislatures took up the issue last year. Although states do not have the power to abolish the federal doctrine, they can ban its application in state civil lawsuits against officers, creating a new legal path for victims seeking monetary damages.

Police responded swiftly with public and private lobbying campaigns. Police unions bought ads in local newspapers warning that officers would hesitate to go after criminals for fear of lawsuits. In opinion pieces they claimed crime would run rampant. Individual officers flooded inboxes of state legislators, saying officers would go bankrupt. They repeated these arguments as they testified before panels and committees.

In New Mexico, a sheriff last fall testified to a civil rights commission that ending qualified immunity would mean officers could “lose everything they have, including potentially losing their homes and displacing their families.” A retired deputy sheriff wrote an opinion piece for an Albuquerque newspaper that said the bill would make “policing the most undesirable job in America.”

In a full-page ad last summer in the Boston Globe, a police union appealed to readers to call Massachusetts legislators in opposition to the bill. The Connecticut Police Chiefs Association wrote a letter to legislators last summer, threatening to withdraw support for a 65-page bill if a ban on qualified immunity wasn’t removed, saying it “will destroy our ability to recruit, hire, and retain qualified police officers.”

The lobbying efforts worked. The Massachusetts bill was soon altered to allow qualified immunity in most circumstances. The Connecticut bill was rewritten to say qualified immunity would be allowed as long as officers had an “objectively good faith belief that [their] conduct did not violate the law.”

“It’s one of the many loopholes that were inserted,” said Nick Sibilla, a legislative analyst with the Institute for Justice. “You basically have to get inside the mind of the officer to make your case.”

Similar amendments were made to a bill in California, which passed the Democratic-dominated legislature and was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). Although qualified immunity isn’t used in the state, court rulings interpreting a 1987 state civil rights law there have created a legal threshold for plaintiffs that is similarly onerous.

In July, a California Peace Officers’ Association official boasted about how the group’s year-long effort was “able to chip away” at efforts to make it easier to sue.

In the online post, Deputy Director Shaun Rundle said that “until recently, the bill lowered the threshold for peace officer ‘misconduct’ to such a level that would open the floodgates of litigation. . . .” That all changed, he wrote, thanks to “law enforcement’s pushback.”

In New Mexico, proponents of that state’s bill said it became clear it would fail if law enforcement officers and other government employees were not indemnified from lawsuits. Instead, a compromise bill created a path for victims to recover monetary damages from cities and counties, rather than individual officers.

“It was the hardest legislative effort I have been engaged in since I’ve been a speaker,” said New Mexico House Speaker Brian Egolf (D), a lead advocate for the bill. “I certainly understand why some members or advocates wanted individual officers to be defendants, but my objective was to get the best bill possible. We have made the road to justice much shorter.”

In public comments, Grisham, New Mexico’s governor, said she supported the bill because it would provide a path for victims to seek damages and make “our state agencies accountable for their actions . . . and create a fairer state for everyone.”

To observers, the compromise was a perfect illustration of how police shifted the narrative. While most bills began as efforts to directly punish and weed out “bad apples” in the force, pushback by police officers changed the debate.

“The rhetoric was all about individual responsibility, but that somehow got lost. It baffled me,” said Grace Philips, an attorney for the New Mexico Association of Counties who lobbied against the bill in her state, arguing that the law could bankrupt counties. “This is taxpayer accountability, not law enforcement or officer accountability.”

Colorado serves as test case

There’s one state where the qualified-immunity push has played out differently: Colorado.

The state is now serving as a litmus test for the alarming predictions by police nationwide that eliminating qualified immunity would severely hamper their profession.

So far, few negative effects on policing have been evident — and few lawsuits have actually been filed.

Colorado’s legislation started last year, when state Rep. Leslie Herod (D) introduced a bill in response to the police killing of Elijah McClain. The 23-year-old died in 2019 after Aurora police detained him without cause, put him in a chokehold and injected him with a powerful sedative. The bill went nowhere.

But then Floyd was murdered in May 2020. Protesters filled the steps of the Colorado Capitol, invoking the names of Floyd and McClain and holding signs that said, “End Qualified Immunity.”

Herod’s bill was pulled from the shelf and given new life. A provision was added that banned qualified immunity as a defense for officers named in state civil lawsuits.

With only 20 days left in the legislative session, the protests created a synergy inside the Capitol that helped Herod’s efforts, according to six people involved in the negotiations.

The bill’s final version called for officers to pay 5 percent of damages awarded by a court, but no more than $25,000. Their employers would pay the remainder.

Fifteen months after the Colorado bill was signed into law, there is so far little evidence to support any widespread negative effects on police retention or recruitment.

Data from Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training actually shows a slight decline in the number of officers who have retired, resigned or were fired from their jobs in the past two years. However, there is no way to know how many left the profession in response to the new law because the group does not collect information regarding why an officer retires or resigns.

The number of police cadets in Colorado the year the bill passed also did not significantly change, the records show, and data for this year is not yet available.

Nick Rogers, president of the Denver Police Protective Association, said his department has seen a slight uptick in retirements and a downturn in applications, but it is impossible to isolate the cause to a single factor. He said morale, in general, is down after political efforts to overhaul policing left officers feeling under attack.

“There is no way you can corollate what is going on based on one state law that passed,” said Rogers, a 30-year veteran of the city’s police department who is opposed to the qualified-immunity law. “That was just another form of degradation of this profession. It’s not just one thing.”

Rogers said most officers — at least for now — have little fear of the financial implications of the new law because Colorado law requires that state and local governments indemnify their employees in lawsuits.

Predictions by police of a deluge of lawsuits have not come true so far. But some victims of police violence are using the new law. After Brittney Gilliam was wrongly accused of driving a stolen vehicle in August 2020, Aurora officers held her 6-year-old daughter, 12-year-old sister and two teenage nieces at gunpoint as they lay face down on the hot pavement of a parking lot, records and video show.

Gilliam has sued the involved officers in state court in what’s believed to be the first case brought under the new law.

The city of Aurora declined to comment on the pending litigation. However, city spokesman Ryan Luby said police have received new training for high-risk traffic stops and noted that city officials have condemned the incident.

Gilliam, 30, said she wants the police to be held to account.

“I still remember the officers’ faces,” Gilliam said. “My little girl — all of us are still traumatized.”

Widespread changes unlikely

Although most police organizations are steadfast in fighting attempts to end qualified immunity, some national law enforcement organizations are campaigning in favor of the idea.

The Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a nonprofit group of police, prosecutors and correctional officers, asked Congress in a March 23 letter to pass a law that will ban the doctrine from being used as a legal defense,saying it had eroded faith in police.

Ronald L. Davis, an official with the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, also called for an end to qualified immunity when he testified before a congressional committee last year. Davis said the doctrine “prevents police from being held legally accountable when they break the law.”

And the Major Cities Chiefs Association in May modified its long-standing position in favor of qualified immunity to say there are circumstances in which it should not apply.

Still, widespread changes on qualified immunity are unlikely to happen anytime soon.

In Congress, even a proposal to take qualified immunity off the table wasn’t enough to bring Democrats and Republicans together last month on a package to overhaul policing.

The political climate also has changed since 2020. Violent crime rates have risen, causing many lawmakers to step back from legislative efforts that might allow them to be cast as soft on crime. The momentum that followed Floyd’s death also has waned. Proponents of the measures worry it might take another tragedy — as it did in Colorado — to give qualified-immunity bills a second political life.

“Legislation usually gets passed when things are salient,” said Friedman, the qualified-immunity expert. “Especially now with high homicide rates, there is a lot of worry that this moment will pass.”

Wisconsin state Rep. Jonathan Brostoff, a Democrat who has a qualified-immunity bill pending, said most civil rights laws have required multiyear efforts and he believes this will be no different. “I cannot promise it will happen this legislative session,” he said. “But I will see this through.”

But in other states, supporters of the movement are discouraged. Like many advocates, Maez began fighting to end qualified immunity after the doctrine touched her own life.

Her son, Donovan, was arrested on a murder charge months after a teenager was killed in a 2015 drive-by shooting at a house party. Donovan had threatened to shoot up the same home when he was kicked out of a party there weeks earlier, witnesses claimed.

But he was released 10 months later after three other men were charged instead. Several witnesses who had pointed to Maez’s son later recanted their statements and said they lied “out of fear and intimidation,” Maez’s family later said in a lawsuit. The lawsuit also alleged that video showed a detective “coercing witnesses” during interrogations.

The Albuquerque city attorney’s office, which represented the detective, declined to comment. It pointed toward portions of a ruling that said the court did not find sufficient evidence to show the detective coerced witnesses. The ruling also granted the detective qualified immunity.

Although Maez can’t use New Mexico’s new law to file a second lawsuit in state courts — because the incident predates the law’s passage — she believed when she testified that the bill would help future victims by eliminating qualified immunity.

Now, she said she has little doubt that lawmakers caved to police opposition.

“It’s really disappointing and frustrating. For me it was less about the money and more about a means to hold individual officers accountable,” she said. “If there are no consequences for them, how can we expect change?”

[your-dietician]

Family seeks answers after Mississippi teen killed by police

New Post has been published on https://medianwire.com/family-seeks-answers-after-mississippi-teen-killed-by-police/

Family seeks answers after Mississippi teen killed by police

The shooting of a Black teenager by police in Gulfport, Mississippi, has led to outcry from family members and activists who say the teen was unarmed with his hands up when he was confronted by police. The teen died days later after being taken off life support.

Police say 15-year-old Jaheim McMillan was armed and refused to drop his weapon when officers fired at him following a foot chase.

The hashtag #JusticeForJaheim has been trending on social media, with some posting photos of the teen bleeding out while handcuffed on the ground.

During the Oct. 6 incident, officers responded to a 911 call about five teens waving firearms at passing cars and began chasing one of them, according to Gulfport police chief Adam Cooper, who held a press conference on the officer-involved shooting Wednesday.

Protesters rally outside the Police Department headquarters after the death of teen Jaheim McMillan who was shot by poice in Gulfport, Miss., Oct. 11, 2022.

WLOX

Cooper told reporters that one officer observed McMillan was armed and gave orders for him to stop and drop his weapon.

“McMillan did not comply,” Cooper said.

Cooper also claimed McMillan “turned his body and weapon towards the officer,” so the officer fired at him.

Debra Stout, a Long Beach, Mississippi, resident told ABC News she witnessed the encounter and said she saw McMillan with his hands up. She says she was waiting outside her home for a phone call when she heard the gunshots.

“I did hear gunshots, I ducked. I didn’t know where they were coming from,” Stout told ABC News in a zoom interview. “There were guys on the ground, then I noticed the boy who passed away at the front door, but before that I did see him with his hands up.”

Stout says she could not see if McMillan was armed. “I didn’t know if he was alive or dead,” she said.

She said she believes there was a lack of urgency in the medical response to McMillan, because the ambulance, she said, arrived on scene without a siren on.

Protesters rally outside the Police Department headquarters after the death of teen Jaheim McMillan who was shot by poice in Gulfport, Miss., Oct. 11, 2022.

WLOX

“I feel terrible. I probably have to get counseling,” Stout told ABC News. “I dream about it every night.”

Family members disagree with Cooper’s claims that Jaheim was armed.

“If Gulfport Police Department had footage of my little cousin holding a gun, best believe it would already have been released,” one family member, Court Elle Bolton, said in a Facebook post.

A spokesperson for the Gulfport Police Department declined to comment. Family members of McMillan did not immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.

The Mississippi Attorney General’s office has jurisdiction on cases where officers use deadly force, Cooper said during the press conference. He said the Gulfport Police Department is “cooperating fully” with the AG’s investigation and will conduct an internal investigation.

Family members of McMillan also claimed in a Facebook video they were initially barred from entering a hospital in Mobile, Alabama, where the teenager was airlifted to following the shooting. The hospital – USA Children & Women’s Hospital – did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

Read full article here

[ontariocoldcasesthepodcast]

What Happened to Jason Adam?

What Happened to Jason Adam?

Ontario Cold Cases - Canada’s True Crime Podcast

On October 21, 2007, Jason Adam was seen for the last time near the Shaw Conference Center in Edmonton, Alberta. Jason left a family member’s residence on foot to meet with an ex-girlfriend for coffee. On the previous day, Jason had traveled from Lac La Biche, Alberta to Edmonton to attend a guardianship court hearing on October 22, 2007, but he never showed up.

Thank you, and please consider subscribing to Ontario Cold Cases – The Podcast available wherever you listen to your favourite podcasts.

Ontario Cold Cases - Wordpress https://nicollinvestigations.wordpress.com/

For more videos subscribe to: https://www.youtube.com/@OntarioColdCases?sub_confirmation=1

@PlayMorePods

#OntarioColdCases, #NicollInvestigations , #canadiancrime , #ColdCasePodcast , #ontariocrime, #OntarioMysteries , #PodcastMystery , #truecrimepodcast , #unsolvedmysteries, #ontario, #TrueCrimeCanada, #TrueCrimeOntario, #CanadianMysteries, #canada,  #truecrime, #PodcastsOnAmazonMusic, #Missing , #Edmonton , #JasonAdam, #Alberta, #MissingPerson

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a bid by anti-abortion activists to throw out more than $2 million in damages they were ordered to pay Planned Parenthood after secretly recording video of abortion providers in a scheme to try to show the illicit sale of aborted fetal tissue for profit.

The justices turned away the appeal by David Daleiden and his group, the Center for Medical Progress, of a lower court's decision in 2022 upholding most of the damages in a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood, a women's healthcare and abortion provider, accusing the defendants of conspiracy, eavesdropping and other claims. The lower court rejected the argument made by the defendants that with the secret recording they were exercising their right to free speech under the U.S. Constitution.

The justices announced their action on the first day of their new nine-month term.

Planned Parenthood filed suit in 2016 against Daleiden and his California-based organization in federal court in San Francisco seeking monetary damages, accusing them of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and engaging in fraud, trespassing, breach of contract and illegal secret recording.

The case before the Supreme Court centered on whether Planned Parenthood, even though it did not sue for defamation, should have to overcome strict limits that the justices through past rulings have placed on damages that public figures may recover for alleged harms related to a publication.

Various activist groups on the left and right conduct undercover operations often involving secret recording. Daleiden and his team portray themselves as investigative journalists and have said that the judgment against them in the suit threatens undercover reporting, a technique that can help expose wrongdoing and corruption.

Planned Parenthood has said the defendants are "ideological activists" - not journalists - whose videos were heavily edited as part of a smear campaign aimed at destroying the organization.

Using a shell company and fake identification, the activists gained access to Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation conferences and other locations where they recorded staff using hidden cameras.

The Center for Medical Progress released videos in 2015 purporting to expose Planned Parenthood officials trafficking in aborted fetal parts, sparking controversy, congressional inquiries and investigations in various states.

Planned Parenthood denied profiting from fetal tissue donation for medical research. Lower courts concluded that the videos did not contain evidence of wrongdoing.

A jury sided with Planned Parenthood in the lawsuit, and a judge awarded $2.4 million in damages - including for security costs to prevent future infiltration and targeting of doctors and staff - as well as more than $13 million in attorneys' fees and costs that are the subject of a separate appeal.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the award last year, concluding that the First Amendment did not protect the defendants.

Noting that damages had been awarded for harms related to the infiltration, not to Planned Parenthood's reputation, the 9th Circuit said, "Invoking journalism and the First Amendment does not shield individuals from liability for violations of laws applicable to all members of society."

Daleiden and another activist also face an upcoming criminal trial in California in connection with the secret recordings.

[celebritynewsblogg]

KATIE PRICE UPDATE "KATIE PRICE Misses Court Date Again Over £40k Debt, Leaving Judge 'Concerned'"

latest celebrity news katie price latest news Katie price skirted one more trial over her insolvency fights as she missed the fresh insight about a further monetary blow.

The disturbed star has left an adjudicator feeling "worried" in the wake of neglecting to turn up for court and wasn't there face to face to find her pay from TikTok is to be suspended as a component of endeavors to take care of cash owed under her two liquidations. At a conference toward the beginning of today it arose that the previous charm model made nearly £95,000 on the virtual entertainment stage among Spring and May this year. A request was supposedly made by Judge Catherine Burton, where Katie would be expected to pay legal administrators 40% of those profit. Katie was as of late captured at Heathrow Air terminal in the wake of skirting a chapter 11 trial over her £760,000 neglected charge bill. The mum-of-five decided to stream off to Turkey for more superficial medical procedure, rather than going before the adjudicator.  She didn't seem earlier today during the remote hearing and was not addressed. The star has been at home recuperating from her activity and yesterday she flaunted the consequences of her boob work and facelift in another video shared on her web-based entertainment. Katie peeled off into a minuscule swimsuit as she whipped a paid versatile application on her Instagram Story. Presently she will have the money produced using the online entertainment stage kept, it has been chosen. The star acquires thousands consistently from the application, flaunting over 1.6million supporters yet she will not have the option to get her hands on the money, it has been chosen.

[head-post]

Italy failed to open controversial refugee camp in Albania

Italy and Albania on Thursday missed a deadline to open a controversial camp to hold migrants in the Balkan country before their asylum claims are processed.

The facility is the cornerstone of a highly controversial deal struck between Rome and Albania to sort migrants rescued at sea in Italian waters. Those deemed most vulnerable are to be taken to Italy, while the rest will be sent outside the EU to the Albanian port of Shengjin. There the migrants will be taken to another centre at the former military base in Gjader, where they will wait for their applications to be processed.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni promised during a visit to Albania in early June:

The complex of two centres will start operating from August 1.

Despite promises that they would be up and running by Thursday, the reality on the ground has turned out to be quite different. Visiting the Gjader camp this week, AFP found that only a handful of dwellings have been assembled and there is no sign that construction will be completed any time soon.

Italian authorities, who are responsible for building and running the camps, were reluctant to give a new date.

Asylum seekers sent to Gjader will live in small blocks surrounded by high walls until their requests are reviewed by Italian courts. Meloni, leader of the far-right Brothers of Italy party, said the facility would have an initial capacity of about 1,000 people and would gradually be expanded to 3,000.

According to Italian media, about 10 judges will hold hearings via video conference with asylum seekers in Albania. Human rights groups have condemned the project as “illegal” under international law. But the migrants’ imminent arrival is largely seen as a welcome development in this impoverished corner of northern Albania, which ironically has lost much of its population to migration.

Camp as an opportunity

Behind the high fences of the centre, the area around Gjader is largely abandoned and the population has fallen from 7,000 to 2,000 in recent years. Those who remain live mainly from farming and money sent home by Albanians working abroad.

Village head Alexander Preca, 65, sees the camp as an opportunity for Gjader. Preca, whose eldest child will drive the bus bringing migrants from Shengjin to Gjader, said:

The neighbourhood is growing, Albanian and Italian workers are buying goods in our shops, renting our houses.

Many new job adverts have popped up in the village, including vacancies for nurses, cleaners and psychologists. Salaries for high-level positions are around 1,000 euros a month ($1,082), well above the Albanian average.

The visiting Italian ambassador even promised to help solve problems with the local electricity grid, a perennial problem in Gjader. Preka also added:

Since 1973 we’ve had Chinese and Russians (sent as advisers during communist rule)….  I swear on my children’s heads that no one here is racist or against the arrival of these people.

However, the migrants will not mix with locals. Instead, they will be locked behind a fence and guarded by police.

Signing a controversial agreement

Italian and Albanian Prime Ministers Giorgia Meloni and Edi Rama announced the initiative last November. Italy’s parliamentary senate voted in February for an agreement to set up two centres on Albanian territory to receive immigrants seeking to enter Italy.

The measure was meant to help relieve overcrowded Italian migration centres, which now house hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants, mostly from Africa.

Meloni has long sought the help of European Union countries to tackle mass migration but has not received support from them. “Albania is not just a friend of Italy, Albania is a friend of the European Union,” she said, thanking Edi Rama for his help last year.

Read more HERE