Mediaboss Marketing

A Minneapolis-area family is suing U.S. officials for civil rights violations after what they describe as an abusive detention in early 2015 at the Canada border.

Abdisalam Wilwal, who was allegedly held for more than 10 hours with his wife and four children at the Portal, N.D., station of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, was detained because of his placement on a terrorist watch list used by agencies of the federal government. A lawsuit filed Thursday in district court on the Wilwal familys behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union and private litigation firm Robin Kaplan LLP states Wilwal does not know why he is on such a list and does not believe there is cause.

Wilwal and his wife, Sagal Abdigani, are originally from Somalia and immigrated to the U.S. in 2000. They were both U.S. citizens when they were crossing the border to re-enter the country from Canada, where they said they had been visiting Abdiganis sister in Saskatchewan.

The complaint filed by the ACLU and Robin Kaplan asserts the detention at the border violated the Wilwal familys protection under the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as constitutional rights namely their Fourth Amendment right to be be free from unreasonable search and seizure as well as due process rights contained in the Fifth Amendment. The lawsuit names as defendants a host of high-ranking U.S. officials, including U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Homeland Security head John Kelly and FBI chief Andrew McCabe.

The complaint seeks a declaration from the court that the defendants violated the Wilwal familys rights. It also seeks an injunction preventing the defendants from arresting, seizing, searching, or interrogating (Wilwal) because of his placement on a terrorism-related watch list, as well as subjecting Wilwals family to similar treatment due to their association with him.

The lawsuit also asks the court to require the defendants to provide Wilwal with the rationale leading to his placement on a watch list and allow him an opportunity to contest that listing and be removed from it. Finally, the injunction asks the court to require the defendants to destroy information illegally gathered on the family.

Hugh Handeyside, an ACLU attorney listed on the complaint, described the watch list system in a press release as a due process disaster that accuses people while providing them with no legal recourse to deny claims of terrorist activity.

Wilwal also spoke against the system in the release.

I came to this country seeking safety and freedom, and Im proud to be an American, he said. But our own government just shouldnt be treating my family and me or anyone else this way. Its wrong.

View post:
Minnesota Somali family sues over detention upon return from Canada - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

WisBar

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law WisBar We also determined that the enactment of Indiana's law did not effect a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, wrote Judge Joel Flaum, referring to the court's decision in Sweeney v. Pence, 767 F.3d 654, 676 (7th Cir. 2014). Although the NLRA ... US appeals court upholds Wisconsin's 'right to work' lawSuperior Telegram Wisconsin's Anti-Union 'Right-to-Work' Law UpheldCourthouse News Service all 7 news articles »

Read more:
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law - WisBar

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

'Takings' Meant Something Different at First Wall Street Journal (subscription) Regulatory takings weren't part of the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause of the Constitution. Quoting a footnote from the Supreme Court's 1992 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council opinion: early constitutional theorists did ... and more »

Read the original here:
'Takings' Meant Something Different at First - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL?

A man who pleaded guilty to state charges (and served his time) in connection with aSeptember 2011 robbery of a McDonalds fast food restaurant will likely be forced to plead guilty to the same crime in federal court this week.

Otherwise, he could wind up spending the rest of his life behind bars.

Wait isnt it unconstitutional to charge someone a second time for the same crime?

Yes, it is. In addition to its famous prohibition against compelling an individual to testify against themselves, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution holds that no one shall for the same offence be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.

In other words once an individual has been either convicted or acquitted of a charge thats it. At least from a criminal standpoint.

In the case ofTimothy DaShaun Taylor, though, this protection apparently doesnt apply.

Why not? Because federal prosecutors believe the 26-year-old has not been forthcoming about his alleged knowledge of a famous 2009 kidnapping case one that remains at the heart of an ongoing unsolved mystery.

OnApril 25, 2009, 17-year-oldBrittanee Drexelof Rochester, New York vanished without a trace en route to meet friends at the Blue Water resort in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Drexel who was on spring break at the time she disappeared hasnt been seen nor heard from since.

(Click to view)

(Via: YouTube)

Last August,Taquan Brown an inmate currently serving a 25-year sentence in a state prison told federal authoritiesDrexel was dead. In fact, the former confidential informant claims to have witnessed her death (or at least heard the gunshots that allegedly killed her).

According to Brown, Drexel was forcibly abducted by a group of black men in Myrtle Beach, S.C. that fateful April night eight years ago. These men allegedly beat her up, sexually assaulted her and transportedher to a stash house (or trap house) near McClellanville a small fishing village located on Highway 17 roughly halfway betweenMyrtle Beach and Charleston, S.C.

There, the story goes, Drexel was allegedly chained to a wall while the men who abducted her took money from other black males eager to f*ck the white girl aprocess known asbunnying.

At some point, according to Brown, Drexel somehow managed to free herself from her chains but was pistol-whipped, shot and killed before she could escape fromthe house. Drexels body was then allegedly taken to an alligator pit in the Santee region of the state where it was said to have been disposed of on May 2, 2009.

Brown accused Taylor and his father Timothy S. Taylor of participating in the bunnying of Drexel and possibly being involved in her murder. However according to attorneys for the younger Taylor, no evidence has been offered to support Browns claims.

Furthermore, after conducting searches at nearly forty possible alligator pit locations in and around Santee nothing has been uncovered.

In order to squeeze information out of Mr. Taylor, the feds sought and received permission from Washington, D.C. to indict him in federal court for the same charges hed already pleaded guilty to and served his sentence on in state court, the younger Taylors attorney, Mark Peper, told us.

Over the last year, we have proved that Mr. Taylor was in his third period class at Lincoln High School at the time he was alleged to have been with Drexel, and the Feds have realized that the inmates story has little to no merit, Peper added.

Case closed, right?

No

Federal prosecutors are still threatening to take Taylor to trial on the armed robbery charge. If convicted of this crime (which, again, he already pleaded guilty to at the state level), he could face life in prison.

Apparently, double jeopardy means nothing in the federal system, Peper told us. That said, we have no choice but to accept a plea offer wherein Mr. Taylor will be pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit armed robbery for a negotiated sentence of between ten to twenty years in prison; for a crime that hes already done his time on.

(Click to view)

(Via: Charleston County)

Taylors hearing before U.S. district court judge David C. Norton is scheduled for this week. Assuming he enters a guilty plea on the robbery charge (again), sentencing will be scheduled for later this summer.

Is this fair? Obviously there are multiple sides to every story, but based on everything weve seen up to this point in the case the answer is no.

According to Taylors attorneys, hes being punished for what he doesnt know.

This website has previously addressed such jurisdictional nebulousness as it relates to the high-profile mass murder case of Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who gunned down seven black parishioners at the Mother Emanuel A.M.E. church two years ago in the Holy City Massacre.

Roof confessed to his crime and confessed to his motive in committing it. And the evidence against him was incontrovertible. Accordingly, we believethe death sentence handed down in his case was entirely appropriate. Still, we believe the federal government usurped the states authority in his case filing a host of charges against Roof that needlessly duplicated the state charges previously filed against him (which, incidentally, moved forward despite the conclusion of the federal case against him).

This strikes us as wrong to say nothing of wasteful.

Unlike the open and shut Roof case, we have no idea what really happened to Brittanee Drexel. It could be her demise transpired precisely as the governments confidential informant has claimed. Or perhaps it happened in some other way. Or perhaps Drexel is still alive.

Again we dont know.

What we do know is that Taylors case appears to be yet another example of duplicative charges compromising the constitutional rights of an American citizen something we thought was addressed by the Fifth Amendment.

If the federal government has evidence to support the allegations made against Taylor by its confidential informant, then it should charge him in connection with Drexels 2009 kidnapping and murder. Absent that, we believe the federal government should drop its robbery charge against him seeing as he has already pleaded guilty and served his punishment at the state level.

Got something youd like to say in response to one of our stories? In addition to our always lively comments section (below), please feel free to submit your own guest column or letter to the editor via-email HERE or via our tip-line HERE

Banner viaUSCourts.gov

Read the original:
Double Jeopardy Case: Plea Likely | FITSNews - FITSNews

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday upheld Wisconsin's so-called right-to-work law, which bars mandatory union membership and prohibits unions and employers from requiring non-members to pay dues.

The plaintiffs did not provide "any compelling reason" for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago to revisit an earlier ruling upholding a right-to-work law in a similar case in Indiana, Judge Joel Flaum wrote.

Flaum was joined by Judge Michael Kanne and Judge Frank Easterbrook in the unanimous decision.

Two local affiliates of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) had argued that Wisconsin's law violates U.S. labor laws and a portion of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by preventing unions from collecting payment for services they are legally required to provide to non-members.

In September, U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller, citing a 2014 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld Indiana's similar right-to-work law, dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed to the 7th Circuit Court.

Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel welcomed Wednesday's ruling, saying in a statement, "The decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms what we have argued since this law was enacted in 2015, that right-to-work is constitutional.

"The Constitution does not protect a union's right to take money from non-union members and I'm proud to have defended the rule of law in Wisconsin."

The IUOE expected the ruling, said union attorney Scott Kronland, but maintains the decision was incorrect.

"It is fundamentally unfair for the unions to be required to provide services for free and the unions expect that their position will eventually be vindicated," he said in a statement.

The union is still considering its next step, Kronland said.

Wednesday's decision comes as an increasing number of U.S. states, particularly those with Republican-controlled legislatures, are enacting right-to-work laws.

In February, Missouri became the 28th state to pass right-to-work legislation, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker, who emerged as a leading union antagonist during a 2011 fight over legislation to roll back public employee collective bargaining rights, had championed the state's right-to-work law.

When it was enacted in 2015 it drew thousands of protesters to Madison, the state capitol.

Editing by Patrick Enright and Bill Trott

Go here to read the rest:
US appeals court upholds Wisconsin 'right-to-work' law - Reuters