Courts

Gov Attempting To Criminalize J20 Protest Group As A Whole

December 18, 2017 By Sam Adler-Bell Educate! Courts, Protests, Repression, Resist J20

IT’S BEEN A BLEAK year for the 194 protesters, medics, and journalists facing multiple felony charges stemming from their arrest surrounding Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration on January 20, 2017. Vilified by much of the mainstream press and largely ignored by the liberal “Resistance” movement, the J20 defendants — as they’re collectively known — have huddled around each other and their tight network of supporters. On Friday, a jury began deliberations in the first J20 trial, of six defendants, on a raft of counts; a verdict could come as soon as Monday. Last Wednesday, however, there was a rare glimmer of hope: Before closing arguments, Judge Lynn Leibovitz of the D.C. Superior Court threw out the “inciting a riot” charge, a felony with a maximum ten year sentence.

Pipeline Opposition Set To Pack Room For TransCanada Permit Hearing

December 15, 2017 Anne Meador, dcmediagroup.us Resist! Canada, Courts, Pipelines, TransCanada

The Maryland Department of the Environment will hold a hearing on December 19 in Hancock, Md. on TransCanada’s proposed Eastern Panhandle Expansion (also known as the Potomac Pipeline). The 3.4-mile gas pipeline requires a Section 401 water quality certification from the state to complete the federal licensing process under the Clean Water Act. Members of the public can testify at the hearing, which begins at 7pm at Hancock High School. The pipeline route would traverse a short slice of western Maryland, originating from Fulton County, Pa. and connecting with the proposed Mountaineer Gas distribution line in Morgan County, W.Va. MDE will consider issues related to wetlands and waterways along the pipeline route.

Judge In J20 Case Drops Inciting Riot Charge

December 15, 2017 Baynard Woods, therealnews.com Educate! Courts, Journalism, Protests, Resist J20

The judge in the trial of six of the 193 people to face decades in prison under the federal Riot Act for protesting on Inauguration Day, dismissed one of the most serious charges Wednesday. Judge Lynn Leibovitz noted that “personal enthusiasm” for destruction is different than incitement. She refused to throw out the remaining charges, however, leaving the jury to decide whether those who were present at a protest should be held responsible for any destruction of property that happens there. Alexei Wood, a journalist, is among the six people whose fate will not be determined by a jury. The government has been using a livestream video taken by Wood as part of its evidence against protesters.

Climate Activists Delay U.S. Gas Pipeline Approvals: Regulator

December 4, 2017 Timothy Gardner, reuters.com Resist! Activists, Climate Change, Courts, Pipelines

By Timothy Gardner for Reuters - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - National environmental groups waging legal battles against energy projects are delaying approval of U.S. natural gas pipelines, a top federal energy regulator said on Thursday. The groups have lawyers who “understand how to use all of the levers of federal and state law to frustrate pipeline development,” Neil Chatterjee, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), told a meeting of natural gas industry officials. Some recent approvals of natural gas pipelines, such as the Atlantic Coast Pipeline from West Virginia to North Carolina, have taken two years or more. Chatterjee said he hoped a timeline of two-plus years would not become the new industry norm. While industry officials have often complained about climate activists, Chatterjee’s comments, which he said reflected his opinion, are rare for a regulator. He did not identify any specific green groups, but the Sierra Club and 350.org both have campaigns to reject pipelines filled with gas from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, projects. The groups are fighting development of fossil fuels including oil, coal and fracked natural gas, because they say the production slows the transition to cleaner sources, like wind and solar power, and the conservation and storage of energy. The Trump administration is trying to boost output of the fuels to increase jobs in the industry and sell energy exports to allies.

A Privacy Case Before Supreme Court Is About Press Freedom, Too

November 25, 2017 Selina MacLaren, aclu.org Educate! Courts, Freedom of Press, Privacy

By Selina MacLaren for ACLU - For today’s journalists, cellphones are mobile newsrooms that go where a reporter goes. They’re used to contact sources, record interviews, write notes and articles, take photos and videos, share work on social media, follow breaking news, and more. So when the government can access — without a warrant — cellphone location records that could be used to reconstruct a person’s movements over time, it not only infringes upon the public’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy, but also threatens reporters’ ability to maintain the confidentiality of their sources and gather the news without being surveilled. That’s why the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 19 other media organizations are urging the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn an appeals court ruling in Carpenter v. United Statesand require the government to obtain a warrant to acquire cellphone location data. On the surface, Carpenter, which the Supreme Court will hear next week, is a Fourth Amendment privacy case about whether law enforcement should be granted warrantless access to records showing where a cellphone has traveled. But when the records sought are those of a journalist, this practice threatens First Amendment freedoms, too. If the court accepts the government’s argument in Carpenter, this would make it easier for the government to obtain cellphone location records and track where reporters have traveled.

Judge Orders Removal Of Gas Pipeline From Native American Property

November 25, 2017 Staff, nativefire.blogspot.com Resist! Courts, Indigenous Peoples, Pipelines

By Staff of Native Americans News - In a decisive victory for Native American rights, a federal judge just ordered an energy company to completely remove a natural gas pipeline. The Free Thought Project Seventeen years after the expiration of an easement, a federal judge has ordered an energy company to completely remove its pipeline from the properties of 38 Native American landowners — none of whom have been compensated for the company’s use of their land since the year 2000. Now, the pipeline company will have just six months to dismantle and completely remove the structure. “Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, and in light of the facts and circumstances in this case,” Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange wrote in the 10-page decision for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, “the court finds that a permanent injunction should be entered in this case. Specifically, it is plaintiffs’ interests in the exclusive possession of their land which has been invaded by the presence of the pipeline and defendants’ continued use of the pipeline. “Further, Defendants have continued to use the pipeline and although they were advised by the [Bureau of Indian Affairs] on March 23, 2010, more than five and a half years before the instant action was filed, that ‘[i]f valid approval of a right of way for this tract is not timely secured, Enogex should be directed to move the pipeline off the subject property’ …”

Case Hinges On Amount Of Damage Caused By Corvallis Activist

November 23, 2017 Bennett Hall, gazettetimes.com Resist! Courts, Montana, Pipelines

By Bennett Hall for Corvallis Gazette-Times - FORT BENTON, Mont. — Leonard Higgins admits he broke into a remote Montana control facility in October 2016 and turned an emergency shutoff valve on the Spectra Express pipeline. But exactly how much harm did he do? That was the central question during the opening day of his trial on trespassing and criminal mischief charges, which began Tuesday in Chouteau County District Court in Fort Benton, Montana. The 65-year-old former Corvallis resident was one of five “valve turners” who took part in a coordinated action last year to close down oil pipelines in four states to dramatize what they call a climate change emergency. If Higgins is convicted of trespassing — which he admits to doing — he could face up to a year in jail. The criminal mischief charge, however, is a felony count that could earn him a much longer sentence — up to a decade in the Montana State Prison. But under Montana law, the state must prove Higgins caused more than $1,500 in damage to get a felony conviction. Chouteau County Attorney Steven Gannon says he did. In his opening statement on Tuesday, Gannon noted that Higgins used bolt cutters to cut through four steel chains and a padlock to enter the fenced enclosure and free the wheel that operates the emergency shutoff valve, damaging an actuator cover in the process.

Petition To Seattle’s Federal Court – Unseal Surveillance Orders

November 20, 2017 Steven Hsieh, thestranger.com Resist! Courts, Petitions, Surveillance

By Steven Hsieh for The Stranger - It’s now easier than ever for cops to snoop on Americans without their knowledge. Using technology known as pen registers and trap and trace devices, law enforcement can collect a wealth of data on internet and cell phone users, including who they call and email and what websites they visit. Through a federal law called the Stored Communications Act, police agencies can also force tech companies to hand over online communications records telling them all kinds of personal information. All it takes to conduct electronic surveillance is a court order. Notably, pen register and trap and trace requests require a lower burden of proof than wiretaps, for which cops need a warrant. Rather than showing probable cause, police only need to demonstrate that the personal data they’re requesting is somehow relevant to a criminal investigation. On top of that, under current court practices, it’s impossible to know how often judges grant electronic surveillance requests—much less how cops justify their surveillance, the forms of electronic surveillance permitted, and the companies compelled to assist with that surveillance. Federal court records related to electronic surveillance requests are filed under seal, and in many instances, they’re kept that way indefinitely. Even after police wrap up whatever criminal investigation they cited as a basis for their snooping. Law enforcement conducts Internet and cell phone surveillance under complete secrecy, free from public scrutiny that could prevent them from abusing this power.

UK Panel To Rule On FOIA Requests In Assange Case

November 16, 2017 Staff, couragefound.org Educate! Courts, Europe, Julian Assange, Repression

By Staff of Courage Found - Seven years since the issue of an European Arrest Warrant against Julian Assange, and five since Ecuador granted him political asylum, a freedom of information case in the UK is shedding light on what was happening behind the scenes during that period. Assange has spent more than five years isolated in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, in what a UN Advisory Group ruled was arbitrary detention that contravened international law. Ecuador recognised the political persecution of Assange and granted him the status of political refugee, judging his life to be at grave risk. Despite the UN group’s determination, British police maintain their threat to arrest Assange if he leaves the embassy. Following years of debate over where Assange should be interviewed, Swedish prosecutors finally questioned the detained publisher in the Ecuadorian Embassy at the end of 2016, after which Sweden ultimately dropped its investigation. Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who has worked on WikiLeaks releases as a media partner since 2009, has made a series of FOI requests in the different countries involved in the Assange case. In 2015 she managed to get 44 pages released on from Sweden’s prosecutorial authority.

Prosecutors Drop Charges Against Laughing Protest Against Sessions

November 8, 2017 Ronn Blitzer, lawnewz.com Resist! Activists, Courts, Jeff Sessions, Protests

By Ronn Blitzer for Law Newz - Desiree Ali-Fairooz (also known as Desiree Fairooz) was convicted of misdemeanor charges in May after she laughed during Attorney General Jeff Sessions‘ confirmation hearing. The conviction was overturned by a D.C. judge in July, with a new trial scheduled for later in the year. Now, prosecutors declare that they will no longer be pursuing the case against Ali-Fairooz. On Monday, federal prosecutors filed a motion of nolle prosequi, which is a formal notice that they are abandoning the charges against Ali-Fairooz. This comes after the U.S. Attorney’s office offered her a plea deal, which she rejected in September, according to D.C. Superior Court records viewed by LawNewz.com. The trial was set to take place on November 13, but that will no longer be necessary, as the case was dismissed after the court received the prosecution’s motion. Jurors who initially convicted Ali-Fairooz didn’t necessarily like their decision, but felt they had to with the way the law was worded. One juror told HuffPost at the time, “There’s almost no way that you can find them not guilty.” The jury foreperson said that the conviction was for her behavior while being escorted out of the room, not for the laughing, but the prosecution had argued that laughter itself was enough. Judge Robert Morin took issue with that approach and vacated the conviction.

When Race Tips The Scales In Plea Bargaining

October 28, 2017 Jenn Rolnick Borchetta And Alice Fontier, www.themarshallproject.org Educate! Courts, Law, Racism

By Jenn Rolnick Borchetta And Alice Fontier for The Marshall Project - TWO OFFICERS ESCORTED a young black man into the courtroom, bringing him in handcuffs from a holding cell in the back called “the pen.” They placed him beside his public defender and stepped away. So far, things were routine. The prosecutor had offered the man a plea deal of probation and he indicated that he would accept. In a scene that plays out dozens of times a day in the Bronx criminal court, the judge ran through a constitutionally required script. She explained what it means to accept a prosecutor’s plea offer: that he was giving up his right to a trial; he was admitting guilt; he could not change his mind. The judge asked, as she must: “Is anyone forcing you to accept this plea today?” At this point, most people quietly say "no." But the man responded “yes,” he was being forced to accept the plea. Refusing to accept meant facing the strong arm of prosecution and potentially going to prison for years. He protested that he had no real choice.Three court officers surrounded him. The judge repeated the question: “Is anyone forcing you to accept this plea today?” This time, flanked by officers, he said no. A few minutes later, he walked out a free man, but he now had a criminal conviction and the oversight and constraints that come with probation.

Logging Company’s Attack On Environmental Activist Groups Dismissed

October 20, 2017 Kevin Gosztola, www.shadowproof.com Resist! Activists, Courts, Environment

By Kevin Gosztola for Shadow Proof - A lawsuit by Resolute Forest Products, a logging company, to suppress environmental activism against its forestry operations was dismissed by a federal court. It targeted Greenpeace and Stand.earth’s freedom of speech and right to dissent, alleging the organizations engaged in racketeering and defamation against the company. Annie Leonard, the executive director of Greenpeace USA, reacted, “Resolute Forest Products sued Greenpeace for $276 million trying to paint us as part of a criminal enterprise — simply because we spoke out to defend the Boreal forest. If it had won, Greenpeace USA would likely have been forced to close its doors.” “The decision sets a precedent that activities conducted by the defendants to draw attention to Resolute’s unsustainable clear-cutting in the Canadian boreal forest are legitimate advocacy protected by the First Amendment. The judge’s decision sends a clear message that unfettered corporate attacks on free speech will not stand up in court,” Stand.earth declared. Resolute filed a $7 million defamation case against Greenpeace Canada in 2013 that remains pending. What Resolute filed is known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuit. They are, as PR Watch has previously documented, employed by corporations to shut people up and burden them with the cost of legal defenses.

Federal Court Dismisses Resolute SLAPP Suit Against Greenpeace

October 19, 2017 Staff, www.greenpeace.org Educate! Courts, Environment, Freedom of Speech, Greenpeace

By Staff of Greenpeace - SAN FRANCISCO, October 16, 2017 — Today, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed all claims in the controversial case that major logging company Resolute Forest Products [2] filed against Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund, and Greenpeace International, Stand.earth and individual defendants, including claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act. The court’s decision sends a clear message to corporations that attacks on core democratic values like freedom of speech and legitimate advocacy on issues of public interest will not be tolerated. District Judge Jon S. Tigar wrote in his order dismissing the case that “the defendants’ speech constituted the expression of opinion, or different viewpoints that [are] a vital part of our democracy.” Noting that “Greenpeace’s publications at issue rely on scientific research or fact”, the judge added that “[t]he academy, and not the courthouse, is the appropriate place to resolve scientific disagreements of this kind.” Resolute will be allowed to amend its filing as a formality, but Greenpeace is confident that any such attempt will meet a similar fate. Greenpeace USA General Counsel Tom Wetterer said in response to the decision:

Judge Allows Necessity Defense In “Valve-Turner” Trial

October 18, 2017 Stephen Kent, www.shutitdown.today Resist! Climate Change, Courts, Minnesota

By Stephen Kent for Shut It Down - While this is not the first time a court has approved presentation of the necessity defense in a criminal trial of a climate activist, the ruling is a milestone that will have far-reaching implications. "Only a few courts have allowed presentation of the climate necessity defense, and until Friday, no judge in a jury trial in the United States had recognized the defense in writing,” according to a statement from the Climate Defense Project, a legal nonprofit that provided pre-trial briefing and is part of the defendants’ legal team. The defendants are climate activists who sought to prevent climate damage by stopping the flow of carbon-intensive tar sands. “Valve-turners” Emily Johnston and Annette Klapstein closed safety block valves on Enbridge pipelines in Clearwater County, Minnesota, on October 11, 2016 as part of the coordinated “Shut It Down” climate direct action, which disrupted all five pipelines bringing carbon-intensive tar sands crude from Canada to the United States. Two other defendants face criminal charges for documenting Johnston and Klapstein’s action: videographer Steve Liptay and support person Ben Joldersma. They have also been granted permission to present a necessity defense, and will be tried separately from Johnston and Klapstein.

Colorado’s Alamosa Municipal Court Tramples On Rights Of Poor People

October 14, 2017 Becca Curry, www.aclu.org Educate! Colorado, Courts, Poor people

By Becca Curry for ACLU - Municipal judges have incredible power over the lives of the people who enter their courtrooms. When these judges refuse to follow the law and instead run their courtrooms like fiefdoms, they can ruin lives. This is starkly true for people already living in poverty who must appear in Colorado’s Alamosa Municipal Court. In our new investigative report, “Justice Derailed,” we examine Alamosa’s local court, which operates under the sole leadership of Judge Daniel Powell. This court stands out for the frequency and seriousness of its constitutional abuses, which most often affect low-income individuals. The striking inequity in treatment between defendants with means and those without reveals the unfairness of a system that is supposed to be just, but which is actually the opposite. While Alamosa is the focus of this report, it is not alone in its abuses. Colorado has more than 200 local city courts that deal mostly with low-level offenses, which are often tied to drug addiction and poverty. For six years, the ACLU of Colorado has been investigating injustices in municipal courts. We have challenged debtors’ prison practices through letters sent to several municipalities and settlements reached in Colorado Springs and Aurora. We also brought evidence to the state capitol resulting in legislation to address debtors’ prisons, the lack of counsel in municipal courts, and lengthy waits in jail to see a municipal judge when an individual cannot afford to post bond. While courts are meant to address violations of the law, many municipal judges violate the law themselves by abusing their power.

«1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »

assetto corsa mods

Daily movement news and resources