Appeals court overrules affirmative action judge. Affirmative action judge Steve Jones denied Mark Meadows to move his trial to Federal Court. He also denied granting a stay until an appeal is filed. So, Meadows went to a real judge. We have this from ABC News.
An appeals court on Wednesday granted former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’ request for an expedited review of his emergency motion seeking to block a lower court’s ruling that kept his Georgia election interference case in state court.
Meadows filed the request for an emergency stay with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals after Judge Steve Jones last week rejected Meadows’ bid to have his case moved, based on a federal law that calls for the removal of criminal proceedings brought in state court to the federal court system when someone is charged for actions they allegedly took as a federal official acting “under color” of their office.
FILE - California Attorney General Rob Bonta fields questions during a press conference, Aug. 28, 2023, in Los Angeles. Marcio Jose Sanchez / AP Photo
Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina and Texas had bills introduced in 2023 that would require districts to disclose a trans student’s gender identity to parents.
And why shouldn’t a parent have a right to know if a teacher or a school is hiding from parents this personal information? California requires a school to contact a parent if they want to give a child an aspirin, but you have an AG who wants to sue school districts that notify parents on what goes on in reference to schools who want parent notification.
“It’s disgusting that we now have union-controlled politicians fighting to keep sexual secrets from other people’s children,” said Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow at the American Federation for Children, in an email to The Center Square. “These radicals believe children are the property of the State, and many of them won’t reverse course any time soon because it’s part of their deeply held socialist views. The far left has infiltrated the government school system and they are using it for ideological indoctrination as opposed to education. These extremists see the school system as a means of raising other people’s children with their own worldview, and they won’t stop without accountability.”
Rehire them now. Viacheslav Lopatin/Shutterstock.com
NYC must reinstate 10 Dept. of Education employees fired for refusing COVID vaccine, judge rules.
(The Center Square) — A New York state judge has ruled that 10 New York City teachers who were fired for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine were wrongfully dismissed.
In the ruling, state Supreme Court Judge Ralph J. Porzio said the city’s denial of religious accommodations from getting vaccinated employees was “unlawful, arbitrary and capricious” and ordered the teachers to be reinstated with back pay.
“This court sees no rational basis for not allowing unvaccinated classroom teachers in amongst an admitted population of primarily unvaccinated students,” he wrote in the 22-page ruling.
During the pandemic, New York City imposed some of the strictest COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the country, enforcing rules for public and private sector workers.
More than 1,750 city workers were fired for refusing to get vaccinated, including 36 members of the New York City Police Department and more than 950 public school employees.
Several unions sued the city over the mandate, and last October, Porzio ruled that the city’s policy was enacted “illegally” and workers who were fired for refusing to comply must be “immediately reinstated” with back pay. The city appealed the judge’s ruling.
California having issues with the First Amendment.
Why do Progressives have issues with the First Amendment? Musk sues California. If it’s not California, it’s New York, If it’s not Illinois it’s Massachusetts, and it goes on and on.
But all have the same thing in common. Violating people’s first Amendment rights. If it’s not parents it’s other politicians, lawyers, or people from the business world like Musk.
In Musk’s case, they’re not going after him in court, California is passing laws that take away free speech. What’s next with these loons?
1st amendment wins again. President Biden getting his COVID-19 shot. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/File)
Winning. Biden weaponizing DOJ and Social Media ruled a violation of the 1st Amendment. It does my heart to see these rulings. What a way to end the week.
The Biden administration “ran afoul” of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.
In its 75-page ruling, the appeals court, said that President Biden, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and the surgeon general cannot “coerce” social media platforms to remove content it deems problematic.
Fifth Circuit just unanimously affirmed Judge Doughty’s injunction against White House, CDC, FBI and others — giving Americans and #FreedomOfSpeech a major win against censorship, totalitarianism, and Biden. #FirstAmendment
An election worker verifies a ballot on a screen inside the Maricopa County Recorders Office, Thursday, Nov. 10, 2022, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Matt York)
A practice used by some, if not all, Arizona counties to verify signatures on early ballots may be illegal.
And that could result in election officials across the state have to change their procedures – and potentially result in more signatures on ballot envelopes being questioned.
Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper, said state law is “clear and unambiguous” that election officials must compare the signatures on the envelopes with the voter’s actual registration record. And that, he said, consists only of the document signed when a person first registered along with subsequent changes for things like altering party affiliation.
And what that means, the judge said, is it is illegal for county election officials to instead use other documents to determine if the signature on that ballot envelope is correct and should be accepted.
John Napper
Napper’s conclusion is not the last word.
Strictly speaking, he only rejected efforts by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to have the lawsuit by two groups challenging the process thrown out. Napper has not issued a final order.
“We look forward to the issue being litigated,” said Paul Smith-Leonard, spokesman for Fontes.
But the judge, in his ruling, made it clear that he is not buying arguments by the secretary of state that the rules in the Elections Procedures Manual allowing the comparison of signatures against other documents – the practice now widely in use – complies with what state law clearly requires.
And Kory Langhofer, who represents those challenging the practice, said Napper’s refusal to dismiss the case means “there’s nothing left to fight about.”
Central to the fight is a section of law which requires the county recorder, on receiving early ballots, to “compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record.”
Langhofer, in his court filing, acknowledged that there is nothing in state law that explicitly defines what is a “registration record.”
But he argued that “most naturally” means the state or federal documents by which someone signs up to vote and provides certain other information. And what it also includes, Langhofer said, are updated state or federal forms.
Only thing is, he said, is the most recent version of the Elections Procedures Manual, prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office, says county recorders “should also consult additional known signatures from other official election documents in the voter’s registration record, such as signature rosters or early ballot request forms.”
In some cases, Langhofer said, counties are using signatures on early ballot envelopes from prior elections for their comparisons.
Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly doesn’t go that far. But she said her office relies on much more than the voter registration record.
It starts, she said, with the fact that some people register to vote when they get a driver’s license. But those licenses, she noted, can be good for up to 45 years.
“As everybody should know, signatures vary by time and place and how much time you have,” Cazares-Kelly said. “You will change your signature a number of times throughout your life, going from adolescent to full adulthood.”
And she said even her own signature changes given having to sign “a hundred documents a day.”
So other documents can be helpful.
“We receive other notifications from the voters,” Cazares-Kelly said.
“Every single time we receive something in writing, it goes into their voter file,” she continued. “So every single thing that has a signature on it, it is another indication, another touch point, another opportunity to update what those signatures look like.
Cochise County Recorder David Stevens said his office also relies on signatures on other correspondence it has received from a voter. He also said that ballot signatures can be compared with those on file with the Motor Vehicle Division.
Fontes, in asking Napper to dismiss the lawsuit, argued that other documents listed as acceptable in the Elections Procedures Manual are within the definition of a “registration record.” And if the judge wasn’t buying that, Fontes said that phrase is ambiguous, meaning that the manual can interpret it as part of his duties.
Napper was having none of that.
“The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous,” the judge wrote. “The common meaning of ‘registration’ in the English language is to sign up to participate in an activity.”
And Napper derided the idea that other documents submitted by a voter fit that definition.
“No English speaker would linguistically confuse the acting of signing up to participate in an event with the act of participating in the event,” the judge wrote.
“Registering to attend law school is not the same as attending class,” he continued. “Registering to vote is not the same as voting.”
Nor was Napper impressed by the claim that the phrase “registration record” is ambiguous, allowing the secretary of state some latitude to interpret it.
“Pursuant to the statute, the recorder is to compare the signature on the envelope with the voter’s prior registration,” he said, quoting from the law. “If they match, then the vote is counted.”
The judge also noted there is a procedure in state law that allows county election officials, if they question whether a signature on a ballot matches the official record, to contact the voter. That allows the voter to verify that it is his or her signature and offer an explanation that could be related to age, illness or injury.
Langhofer represents the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. It has backed various measures to impose new identification requirements on voters while opposing efforts to restore the state’s permanent early voting list.
Also suing is an organization called Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. It bills itself as opposing laws changes in election laws that seek to give one group a partisan advantage and enforcing “constitutional standards against voting laws and procedures that threaten or dilute the right of qualified citizens to vote.”
Reuters says that that founders of RITE, formed last year, include former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, Karl Rove who was a top adviser to former President George W. Bush, and hotelier Steve Wynn.
The legal debate about whether or not former President Donald Trump should be allowed to appear on the 2024 ballot has made its way before the Supreme Court.
The court distributed John Castro v. Donald Trump to the justices for conference on Wednesday ahead of the upcoming term, which will begin on October 2. Conference is to take place on September 26 and the case is expected to be decided on or before October 9.
Castro, a tax attorney running for the Republican nomination next year, sent his petition to the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to answer whether political candidates can challenge the eligibility of another candidate of the same party running for the same nomination “based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes.”
The lawsuit is seeking to argue that Trump should not be allowed to run for the White House based on section three of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding public office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. While Trump has not been charged with insurrection, Castro is pointing to Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol riot.
The former president, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges in four criminal indictments this year, blasted attempts to remove his name from his ballot using the constitutional clause on Monday, remarking that most in the legal field have already called those efforts a long shot and warned that they could prove to be tricky water to navigate.
“Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“Like Election Interference, it is just another ‘trick’ being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
Newsweek reached out to Trump’s attorney, Jesse Binnall via email for comment.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani previously told Newsweek that it’s unlikely for the justices to side with Castro since Trump has yet to be charged or convicted of insurrection and rebellion.
“A conviction is not required under the plain language of the Constitution, but it’s telling that even those prosecuting Trump don’t believe that there is enough evidence to convict him or insurrection or sedition,” Rahmani said.
Other efforts to challenge Trump’s candidacy using the 14th Amendment have been unsuccessful. The case brought by tax attorney Lawrence Caplan in Florida was dismissed after the judge ruled that the lawsuit lacked standing and noted that the “injuries alleged” were not “particular” to the plaintiffs.
“An individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual’s qualified to hold public office,” Judge Robin Rosenberg wrote.
Castro, however, argues that his case would have enough standing because he is directly impacted by Trump’s name being on the ballot since he is also running for the Republican nomination.
“Castro and Trump are not only competing for the same political position within the same political party but are also appealing to the same voter base,” the Supreme Court petition reads. “In fact, throughout his campaigning efforts to date, Castro has spoken to thousands of voters who have expressed that they would vote for Castro only if Trump is not a presidential candidate as they maintain political loyalty to Trump.”
“Castro will further suffer irreparable competitive injuries if Trump, who is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, is able to attempt to secure votes in primary elections and raise funds. Trump’s constitutionally unauthorized undertaking will put Castro at both a voter and donor disadvantage,” it said.
Castro, whose social media bios read “2024 Republican Presidential Candidate Suing Trump to Disqualify Him for January 6,” was a supporter of Trump until the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, at which point he became a fierce critic of the former president. Castro had donated to Trump’s campaign after his 2016 victory.
Wife of Trump Ally Indicted in Georgia Receives Letter in Mail: ‘This Is Not Going to End Well’
The individual who mailed this to my wife almost certainly has “Be Kind” in their Twitter profile and “Coexist” on their car bumper. pic.twitter.com/uxmWKRueWo
One of the Georgia residents indicted along with former President Donald Trump last week says his wife received a troubling letter by mail.
In a social media post, David Shafer, a former chair of the Georgia Republican Party, showed an image of a letter that contained a photo of Phillips State Prison in Buford, Georgia.
The letter bears the hand-written legend, “David’s Retirement Home.”
Underneath the photo is written, “Lee, Get Out Now And RunAs Fast As You Can. This Is Not Going To End Well for David.”
This from an acolyte of the “tolerant” “inclusive” Diversity Championing Leftist Democrats — TPR (Disclosure. I was a registered Democrat — like my parents and grandparents — for 30+ years. I didn’t leave the party; the party left me. It has leaned more and more toward totalitarian elitism, demanding that everyone think their way ONLY and allow Big Brother to take care of them. The days of JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you…” attitude are long gone.)
“Grateful to everyone who has reached out to encourage me. I have never once felt alone,” he posted in response to a posting that said a fundraising account had been set up to help him.
Many on social media supported Shafer, who made his mug shot after his arrest into his profile photo on X. “Democrats are out of control,” one poster wrote.
Shafer faces eight counts against him, including impersonating a public officer, forgery, false statements, and attempting to file false documents.
He was accused of helping organize a meeting at which he and 15 other people signed documents saying they were the true electors who should represent the state.
“Mr. Shafer and the other Republican Electors in the 2020 election acted at the direction of the incumbent President and other federal officials,” the filing said.
Other X/Twitter posters had various comments, including: “Democrats out of control” and “This is disgusting. Prayers my friend.”
A Federal appeals court Friday revived a lawsuit by three doctors who say the Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority in a campaign against treating COVID-19 with the anti-parasite drug ivermectin.
Ivermectin is commonly used to treat parasites in livestock. It can also be prescribed for humans, and it has been championed by some as a treatment for COVID-19. The FDA has not approved ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment because certain studies have not proven it is effective. The agency did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Friday’s ruling from a panel of three judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal in New Orleans focused on various aspects of an FDA campaign against ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.
The ruling acknowledged FDA’s receiving reports of some people requiring hospitalization after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock. But the ruling said the campaign — which at times featured the slogan “You are not a horse!” — too often left out that the drug is sometimes prescribed for humans.
The doctors can proceed with their lawsuit contending that the FDA’s campaign exceeded the agency’s authority under federal law, the ruling said.
“FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise — but not to endorse, denounce, or advise,” Judge Don Willett wrote for a panel that also included Jennifer Walker Elrod and Edith Brown Clement. “The doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to.”
Drs. Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden, and Paul E. Marik filed the lawsuit last year. All three said their reputations were harmed by the FDA campaign. Bowden lost admitting privileges at a Texas hospital, the ruling noted. Marik alleged he lost his positions at a medical school and at a hospital for promoting the use of ivermectin.
The lawsuit was dismissed in December by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown, who ruled that the complaints didn’t overcome the FDA’s “sovereign immunity,” a concept that protects government entities from many civil lawsuits regarding their responsibilities. The appellate panel said the FDA’s alleged overstepping of its authority opened the door for the lawsuit.
Willett was nominated to the 5th Circuit by former President Donald Trump; Clement and Elrod, by former President George W. Bush. Brown was nominated to the district court bench by Trump.
Fani ignoring the Constitution. New Civil Rights Movement website photo.
How crazy is this? Fani says defendants have no Constitutional rights. Fani Willis stated that based on Georgia law, asking for a speedy trial or separation from the other defendants causes this.
“Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to the State’s discovery responses ten (10) days in advance of trial.”
“Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to notice of the State’s similar transaction evidence ten (10) days in advance of trial.”
“Defendants cannot now complain that they received less than seven (7) days notice of the trial date in this case.”
Lmfao! This isn’t true! It’s not how the law works.
But this really is a mask off moment.
Fulton County DA threatens to violate the rights of the defendants because she’s not prepared for trial. https://t.co/xTYtgcykHR
