Mediaboss Marketing

With a closely watched trial set to begin next month, a federal judge on Wednesday struck a blow to left-leaning groups seeking to expand Floridas vote-by-mail procedures.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle denied most portions of the groups requests for preliminary injunctions in the case, which is a consolidation of three lawsuits, saying the plaintiffs lack a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the vast majority of the issues.

In one of the lawsuits, the group Priorities USA and other plaintiffs want the judge to extend a deadline for mail-in ballots to be returned and require free postage for the ballots. Theyre also challenging a provision in Florida law restricting paid workers from collecting mail-in ballots.

But Hinkle rejected the plaintiffs argument that requiring voters to pick up the tab for stamps amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax.

Postage charged by the United States Postal Service like the fee charged by any other courier or the bus fare for getting to the polls to vote in person is not a tax prohibited by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. And the requirement to pay postage also does not violate any other federal provision, Hinkle wrote in Wednesdays five-page order, referring to the U.S constitutional amendment that bars poll taxes.

The judge also swatted down plaintiffs attempt at extending the deadline for supervisors of elections to receive mail-in ballots. Under current law, the ballots must be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day. The plaintiffs want ballots postmarked by 7 p.m. on Election Day to be valid, as some states allow.

But Hinkle noted that the deadline is discretionary.

States can reasonably decide to require ballots to be received on or before the day of the election, he wrote.

This eliminates the problem of missing, unclear, or even altered postmarks, eliminates delay that can have adverse consequences, and eliminates the remote possibility that in an extremely close election Florida has had some a person who did not vote on or before Election Day can fill out and submit a ballot later, he said.

Hinkle also rejected most of the numerous claims in a lawsuit filed by the group Dream Defenders and individual plaintiffs. Some claims in the lawsuit are unlikely to succeed on the merits because they are based on existing declarations of the COVID-19 emergency, and the possibility of a different emergency declaration is too speculative to constitute an injury in fact, he wrote.

The plaintiffs also have failed to show that they will suffer irreparable harm before he issues a ruling after a trial set to begin on July 20, Hinkle said.

Part of the explanation is that no elections will occur during that period with the possible exception of one local election the plaintiffs have not even mentioned and the plaintiffs can work around the alleged registration deficiencies, he added, referring to a request for changes to the states online voter-registration system.

However, Hinkle said a claim regarding blind voters was worthy of attention.

The Dream Defenders are asking the judge to order supervisors of elections to provide electronic ballots so blind voters can cast their ballots in secret, without assistance from other people.

It will take at least 45 days for the state to order and set up a system the plaintiffs say is necessary to address the electronic ballots, according to the plaintiffs. Since Secretary of State Laurel Lee and county supervisors of elections havent responded to the issue yet, Hinkle allowed the issue to remain pending.

Although the federal judge signaled where he stands on some of the issues, he cautioned against reading too much into Wednesdays order.

The parties should draw no inference one way or the other about likely success on items not addressed in this section of this order. The ruling does not limit the evidence that may be presented or foreclose a contrary ruling at the forthcoming trial on the merits, Hinkle noted.

The case in Florida, a battleground state considered critical for a White House win in November by President Donald Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, has drawn national attention. Hinkle allowed the Republican National Committee and other state and national GOP groups to intervene in the case.

The state late last month asked Hinkle to dismiss the challenges, arguing that they are based on speculative fears about what might occur later in the year.

Attorneys for the DeSantis administration and the Republican organizations argued that the plaintiffs are asking Hinkle to rewrite Floridas elections laws.

The governor is working with county supervisors and others to address challenges posed by the novel coronavirus, which causes the respiratory disease COVID-19, DeSantis lawyers said.

But the plaintiffs accused Florida officials of ignoring the harsh reality of the pandemic.

The scrutiny of the states vote-by-mail processes comes as supervisors of elections are encouraging voters to cast their ballots by mail, following widespread issues during the March presidential primary. In April, the supervisors asked DeSantis for emergency measures they said would help them cope with an anticipated significant statewide shortage of poll workers because of the coronavirus.

County elections officials encountered significant challenges during the March presidential primary elections, such as polling places becoming unavailable, difficulty in acquiring hand sanitizer and other supplies and substantial numbers of poll workers deciding not to work, Levy County Supervisor of Elections Tammy Jones, a former president of the Florida Supervisor of Elections organization, wrote to DeSantis on April 6.

More than two months later, DeSantis has not agreed to the supervisors requests.

Faced with the virtual certainty that Florida voters will flood the vote-by-mail system and potentially stretch it beyond its limits, Floridas elected officials stand idly by and disclaim responsibility for ensuring that voters can effectively cast their ballots, lawyers for the Priorities USA plaintiffs wrote in a brief filed on June 15.

Continued here:
Judge Rejects Injunction Requests In Vote-By-Mail Fight - WUFT

Jarrett Tonn, a veteran Vallejo police officer identified by multiple law enforcement sources as the officer who shot and killed Sean Monterrosa earlier this month, was recently named in a federal excessive force lawsuit, court records show.

Filed June 17, the first amended complaint alleges Tonn, corporal Jerome Bautista, and officer Kevin Barreto forcibly detained Jose Villalobos in a case of mistaken identity during a Nov. 4, 2018 incident.

The lawsuit alleges that Villalobos, who traveled to St. Catherine of Siena Catholic Church with his family for religious services, was stopped by the officers as he opened the door to the churchs bathroom. The officers, not in uniform, snatched Villalobos arm and twisted it behind his back, the lawsuit alleges.

Villalobos, who is blind in one eye, said he cried out that he didnt have any money, thinking he was the victim of a robbery. The lawsuit alleges he was struck in the face and then wrestled to the floor.

The city previously said members of the Vallejo Police Departments Crime Reduction Team were conducting an uncover investigation in connection with a sexual predator who had been soliciting minors at the church.

They also denied the officers mistook Villalobos for another person, and they also denied he was hit in the cheek, according to Vallejos April response to the lawsuit which was filed in December 2019. The initial lawsuit didnt list the officers names.

Also in April, a federal judge denied the city of Vallejos attempt to squash the lawsuit when he ruled that he couldnt infer during the early stages of the lawsuit that Villalobos resisted arrest and the force applied by the officers was reasonable as claimed by the city.

At this stage, the court must make all inferences in favor of plaintiff, U.S. District Judge William Shubb wrote in his four-page ruling on April 1. Because officers continued to exert that force after plaintiff allegedly saw uninformed men, cried that he had no money, and informed the officers of his injured shoulder, the allegations in the complaint plausibly allege the officers intended to exert that unreasonable force or at least acted with a reckless disregard for plaintiffs fourth amendment right to be free from excessive force.

The complaint therefore plausibly states a claim under the Tom Bane Act and the court will not dismiss this claim, Shubb wrote.

Vallejo police have not confirmed that Tonn is the officer who shot Monterrosa, of San Francisco, outside a Vallejo Walgreens during the early morning hours of June 2. Tonn, along with several witness officers, were placed on administrative leave follwoing the shooting.

The officer mistook a hammer near Monterrosas waist for a gun, and fearing for his safety, fired five shots through his patrol cars windshield, striking and killing Monterrosa.

Last week, the Vallejo Police Officers Association filed a temporary restraining order in Solano Superior Court to prevent the city from releasing the name of any officer involved in the fatal shooting.

The rest is here:
Vallejo cop who shot and killed Sean Monterrosa is named in excessive force case alleging mistaken identity - The Mercury News

This book explains what policies led to the militarization of Americas policeit provokes genuine outrage at the misuse of state power in its most brutal and unaccountable form: heavily armed police raiding the homes of unarmed, non-violent suspects on the flimsiest of pretexts, and behaving more like an occupying army in hostile territory than guardians of public safety.

This months BookClub pick, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of Americas Police Forces by Bradley Balko, is a historic look at the causes and effects of the radical militarization of the United States police force. It is well researched, well-argued, and makes the problem of police brutality relevant to the average citizen.

NationofChange highly recommends this timely and authoritative look at the problem that has ignited a nation and outraged the world.

You can get your paperback copy of Rise of the Warrior Cop free with your one-time or recurring donation to NationofChange.

You can donate using the form below.

The last days of colonialism taught Americas revolutionaries that soldiers in the streets bring conflict and tyranny. As a result, our country has generally worked to keep the military out of law enforcement. But as weve seen over the last several decades and particularly in recent years, from Ferguson to Minneapolis, Americas cops have increasingly come to resemble ground troops. The consequences have been dire: the home is no longer a place of sanctuary, the Fourth Amendment has been gutted, and police today have been conditioned to see the citizens they serve as an other-an enemy.

Todays armored-up policemen are a far cry from the constables of early America. The unrest of the 1960s brought about the invention of the SWAT unit-which in turn led to the debut of military tactics in the ranks of police officers. Nixons War on Drugs, Reagans War on Poverty, Clintons COPS program, the post-9/11 security state under Bush and Obama: by degrees, each of these innovations expanded and empowered police forces, always at the expense of civil liberties. And these are just four among a slew of reckless programs.

In Rise of the Warrior Cop, Balko shows how politicians ill-considered policies and relentless declarations of war against vague enemies like crime, drugs, and terror have blurred the distinction between cop and soldier. His fascinating, frightening narrative shows how over a generation, a creeping battlefield mentality has put Americas police on a collision course with the values of a free society.

Get a free copy of Rise of the Warrior Cop with your one-time donation of $30 or your $15 monthly recurring donation.

You can also donate via ActBlue by clicking here.

FALL FUNDRAISER

If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.

See more here:
Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces (Book) - NationofChange

r/The_Donald, the largest group on Reddit devoted to discussing Donald Trump, has been banned from the site for violating three of the sites' rules, namely, rules 1, 2, and 8:

Rule 1Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

Rule 2Abide by community rules. Post authentic content into communities where you have a personal interest, and do not cheat or engage in content manipulation (including spamming, vote manipulation, ban evasion, or subscriber fraud) or otherwise interfere with or disrupt Reddit communities.

Rule 8Dont break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of Reddit.

"All communities on Reddit must abide by our content policy in good faith," a spokesperson for Reddit said. "We banned r/The_Donald because it has not done so, despite every opportunity. The community has consistently hosted and upvoted more rule-breaking content than average (Rule 1), antagonized us and other communities (Rules 2 and 8), and its mods have refused to meet our most basic expectations. Until now, weve worked in good faith to help them preserve the community as a space for its usersthrough warnings, mod changes, quarantining, and more."

The virtual "quarantine" had been in place for just over a year, and required viewers to opt-in before being able to see the site. Reddit had previously hidden popular r/The_Donald posts from the site's front page.

r/The_Donald has often become embroiled in the discussion of conspiracy theories, including Pizzagate and the alleged involvement of the Clintons in the 2017 murder of Seth Rich. It was also a hotbed of racism, Islamphobia, and misogyny. While Trump wasn't officially affiliated with the subreddit, he did an AMA there in 2016. Other AMAs hosted on the subreddit included Ann Coulter, Alex Jones, Roger Stone, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Tucker Carlson.

Along with r/The_Donald, around 2000 other subreddits, including one for discussing podcast Chapo Trap House, were banned.

Meanwhile, streaming site Twitch temporarily suspended Trump's own account today. A spokesperson for the site told TechCrunch, "Hateful conduct is not allowed on Twitch. In line with our policies, President Trumps channel has been issued a temporary suspension from Twitch for comments made on stream, and the offending content has been removed."

The comments that led to the suspension were from two of Trump's campaign rallies, the first from his 2015 campaign kickoff:

When Mexico sends its people, theyre not sending their best. Theyre not sending you. Theyre not sending you. Theyre sending people that have lots of problems, and theyre bringing those problems with us. Theyre bringing drugs. Theyre bringing crime. Theyre rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what were getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. Theyre sending us not the right people.

The second comment was much more recent, coming from his Tulsa, Oklahoma rally earlier this month:

Hey, its 1:00 oclock in the morning and a very tough, Ive used the word on occasion, hombre, a very tough hombre is breaking into the window of a young woman whose husband is away as a traveling salesman or whatever he may do. And you call 911 and they say, Im sorry, this numbers no longer working. By the way, you have many cases like that, many, many, many. Whether its a young woman, an old woman, a young man or an old man and youre sleeping.

"Like anyone else," Twitch told TechCrunch, "politicians on Twitch must adhere to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. We do not make exceptions for political or newsworthy content, and will take action on content reported to us that violates our rules."

See the rest here:
r/The_Donald banned from Reddit as Trump suspended from Twitch - Brooklyn Vegan

President Trump is racing to fulfill immigration-related campaign promises as he enters a tough reelection fight against Democratic challenger Joe Biden.

Trumps most memorable promise from the 2016 race was his pledge to build a wall along the United Statess border with Mexico. The administration is touting 200 miles of recently completed border security fencing, on track to reach about 450 miles by the end of the year.

Well have 500 miles just a little bit after the end of the year, Trump said during his Fox News town hall meeting in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on Thursday night.

Trump also extended his executive order temporarily suspending most immigration during a period of high unemployment following the coronavirus lockdowns, expanding it to include many of the guest-worker programs immigration hawks were disappointed to see exempted when the first version of the edict was handed down back in April.

It seems to me that curtailing the issuance of work visas at a time of massive unemployment is a matter of common sense, said Jerry Kammer, author of the new book Losing Control: How A Left-Right Coalition Blocked Immigration Reform and Provoked the Backlash That Elected Trump. But, of course, the immigration lobby's hunger for foreign workers is insatiable. At times like this, it's unconscionable.

President Trump has repeatedly promised that he would put American workers first, and to his credit, he did just that, said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, in a statement. Stein had been critical of the order before it covered more nonimmigrant temporary workers, but the FAIR told the Washington Examiner it was now mostly satisfied" with it.

Trump won the 2016 Republican presidential nomination and then the general election in part because he vowed to break with the last two presidents of both parties, who were in favor of offering legal status to most illegal immigrants in the U.S. and expanding immigration more generally. He was advised on the issue by restrictionists such as Jeff Sessions, Steve Bannon, and Stephen Miller and later endorsed legislation sponsored by Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia that would reduce legal immigration levels.

The president has been under fire from Democrats and immigrant rights activists for his record on this issue the entire time he has been in office. But the Trump White House is not uniformly populated by immigration hardliners, and he hasnt always satisfied immigration hawks either.

Syndicated conservative columnist Ann Coulter famously backed Trump over his tough immigration stance but has spent most of the last four years criticizing him for not completing the border wall or overhauling the system and for breaking with Sessions. The In Trump We Trust author has said she is undecided on whether to vote for Trump this November.

Kammer, a senior research fellow at the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies, noted that Trump, who campaigned on a pledge to make E-Verify mandatory, has now backed away from that commitment. Sen. Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican and Trump nemesis, this week touted the system for preventing employers from hiring illegal immigrants.

The Trump campaign is highlighting the presidents immigration record under the banner of Promises Made, Promises Kept, citing an 84% reduction in apprehensions along the southern border. Arrests tend to track the number of people trying to enter. While Joe Biden campaigns on open borders, President Trump is keeping his promise to protect the safety and health of Americans by securing our Southern Borders, said Trump campaign spokeswoman Abigail Marone in a statement.

The Biden people and he's controlled totally by the radical left, as you understand. Hes not controlling it; they're controlling him, Trump said at a border security roundtable discussion in Yuma, Arizona, on Tuesday. They want open borders. They want criminal sanctuaries. They want everything that doesn't work.

Trump has fallen behind Biden in his race for a second term. He trails the former vice president by 9.6 points in the RealClearPolitics national polling average and is also down in both the Fox News and New York Times/Siena College battleground state polls. Returning to the immigration issue is potentially one way to fire up his base and win back wavering supporters.

If my speeches ever get a little off, Trump said during his first campaign, I just go: We will build a wall! You know, if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of maybe thinking about leaving I can sort of tell the audience I just say, We will build the wall, and they go nuts.

Trump has held steady among Hispanic voters but has lost ground with white people. While college-educated suburbanites tend to be turned off by his immigration rhetoric, showing he has kept his promises could attract more of the working class.

Visit link:
Trump moving fast to shore up immigration campaign promises - Washington Examiner