Mediaboss Marketing

Three fox babies were humanely euthanized, after a female fox bit several people on Capitol Hill and tested positive for the rabies virus after she was euthanized.

WASHINGTON The three kits of a female fox that bit several people on Capitol Hill earlier this week were "humanely euthanized," D.C. Health officials say.

"Since the mother tested positive for the rabies virus and the kits could have been exposed during grooming or other means, they were no longer able to be safely rehabilitated," a DC Health statement said.

The three kits were captured from the den site of the female fox who was reported for nine biting incidents on Capitol Hill. Among those who were bitten was U.S. Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.).

He received rabies shots at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda. The congressman confirmed he was bitten by a fox on Monday.

"What does the fox say? Last night, I found out[,]" he tweeted. "Joking aside, animal bites are extremely serious. In the case of an encounter, please speak with a physician immediately."

The female fox was captured on Capitol Hill grounds Tuesday and euthanized on Wednesday. The fate of her kits was unclear until she tested positive for rabies.

Bera tweeted after the news broke that the fox was euthanized Wednesday saying he was back working and feeling healthy. He also tagged Capitol Fox on Twitter, a parody account poking fun at the incident.

"Despite the dustup, I hold no grudge or ill will against @thecapitolfox. Hoping the and its family are safely relocated and wishing it a happy and prosperous future," Bera tweeted.

The parody Capitol Fox responded to Bera, tweeting, "On the advice of counsel I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege."

The World Health Organization says that rabies is a vaccine-preventable disease, but once symptomsappear the virus is deadly.

Anyone who encounters a potentially sick, injured or aggressive fox should call animal control at 202-723-3730. People who come in physical contact with a fox should call DC Health at 202-442-9143.

Read more here:
DC Health: 3 kits of euthanized fox with rabies 'no longer able to be safely rehabilitated' - WUSA9.com

click to enlarge

Will Congress finally act on legalization?

Congress is once again making progress, however futile, toward decriminalization of cannabis in the United States. Why is Congress having to deal with cannabis policy in 2022, and how did we get here?

At the federal level, cannabis prohibition has been the official policy of the government for more than 80 years. In 1937, Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act, which effectively began prohibition of the plant. The law was spurred on in part by industrial magnates whose products were competing with products made from hemp, as well as the racism of the day "marihuana" is the Spanish spelling of the word, and it was used intentionally to allow the public at large to associate the plant with Hispanic communities.

The Marihuana Tax Act was enforced until 1969. Famed psychedelic researcher and activist Timothy Leary was charged with violating the act in 1965, and with the help of the ACLU, appealed his way to the Supreme Court, which overturned the law in Leary v. United States. The court found it unconstitutionally violated the Fifth Amendment.

That wasn't the end of prohibition, though, obviously. Cannabis remained illegal federally under the Narcotic Control Act of 1956.

In 1970, the Controlled Substances Act was introduced in Congress. Less than two months after first being introduced, President Richard Nixon had signed it into law. As a result, cannabis was placed onto Schedule I, where it remains to this day alongside drugs like heroin, LSD and ecstacy.

In the five decades since, the federal government has softened considerably on cannabis. Last Friday, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act passed the House of Representatives by a 220-204 vote. If that sounds familiar, it's because the same thing happened in the previous Congress. In December 2020, the MORE Act passed the House before running out of time in the Senate that Senate version was sponsored by then-Sen. and now-Vice President Kamala Harris.

As was the case two years ago, the MORE Act made it through the House largely along party lines. Unlike in 2020, however, the Democrats now control the Senate. Albeit barely. To avoid a filibuster, the Senate version would need support of all 50 Democrats as well as 10 Republicans. That's unlikely.

It is safe to say that in the 85-year dance between Congress and cannabis, there will be more to come.

View post:
The U.S. House seems ready to legalize cannabis, but prospects aren't great in the Senate - Inlander

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A Washington Post column called for gender, including male and female labels, to be removed from U.S. passports in an effort to advance inclusion for transgender travelers.

In the Sunday column, transgender artist and writer Abeni Jones said that transitioning from male to female has made travel "more difficult" and claimed that transgender individuals are frequently subjected to additional airport screenings.

The U.S. State Department, in conjunction with the Biden administration, announced in June 2021 that passport applicants would soon have the option of marking X as their gender, a third gender marker as an alternative to male (M) or female (F). The change went into effect on April 11 and the department announcement claimed the change was enacted in an effort to "advance inclusion."

STATE DEPARTMENT ISSUES FIRST GENDER X US PASSPORT

Diffterent forms of identification. pictured are three social security cards on top of a birth certificate covered by two american passports. (iStock)

However, Jones said that despite being a "nice symbol of support," the change will likely "invite danger" for transgender people, opening them up to "extra scrutiny" and added "persecution" wherein travelers would have to "out themselves." Instead of a third gender option, Jones proposed another idea.

"If the State Department really wanted to take a step forward, theres an easier, cheaper and more powerful option: remove gender from passports altogether," Jones said.

Jones later added that "pointless gendering" is a "well-documented phenomenon" embedded within consumerism, and asked why people even have to mark gender at all.

"Is there a legitimate reason anyone other than my doctor needs to know my gender? Does my dentist need to know? My credit-card issuer? The library? The veterinary clinic? The airline or TSA?" Jones asked.

PASSPORT BACKLOG SURGES TO NEARLY 2.2M AS APPLICANTS WAIT UP TO 24 WEEKS

Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks after viewing the "Burma's Path To Genocide" exhibit at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, Monday, March 21, 2022. (Kevin Lamarque, Pool via AP) (AP)

The State Department's decision to include a third gender marker comes more than two years after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit urged it to reconsider its decision two deny intersex and nonbinary U.S. Navy veteran Dana Zzyym a passport that reflects the individual's gender.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

ZZyym, a Lambda Legal plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the State Department in 2015, claiming it violated the due process and equal protection subsections of the Fifth Amendment by not providing a passport that reflects the passport holders preferred gender label.

See the rest here:
Washington Post column calls for gender to be removed from U.S. passports - Fox News

A portrait of the actor, singer and civil rights activist Paul Robeson painted in 1930 by the British artist Glyn Philpot has been rediscovered through painstaking research, after it was sold nearly 80 years ago under the title Head of a Negro.

The painting, one of a number of Philpots portrayals of people of colour, will go on public display in Chichester, West Sussex, from 14 May, in the first exhibition of the artists work for almost 40 years.

Philpots portrait depicts Robeson playing Othello at the Savoy in London in 1930, the first time in a century that a black actor had been cast in the title role of Shakespeares tragedy, and a milestone in theatre history. In 1833, Ira Aldridge had been racially abused while appearing in London as the Moor of Venice.

Robesons co-star, Peggy Ashcroft, who played Desdemona, was repeatedly asked by interviewers whether she minded being kissed by a coloured man. Her response was robust. Of course I do not mind. I see no difference in being kissed by Paul Robeson and being kissed by any other man, she told the Daily Sketch in May 1930.

Although the production received mixed reviews, Robesons performance was acclaimed, with the audience demanding repeated curtain calls. Philpot took his niece to see the play and then invited Robeson and his wife to dinner.

The biography of Philpot, a successful society portrait painter who was elected to the Royal Academy at the age of 38, notes that Robeson sat for him but the painting was long thought to be lost. Simon Martin, director of Chichesters Pallant House Gallery, which is holding the exhibition of Philpots work, set about tracking it down.

Trawling through images in archives and auction databases, he matched a portrait with a photograph of Robeson in costume as Othello. Philpots family had sold the painting in 1944, several years after the artists death, under the anachronistic title Head of a Negro. Subsequently sold again and now in a private collection, the painting was tracked down with the help of Christies auction house.

It was an exciting discovery, said Martin. I had a hunch this painting was Robeson, but I had to match it with press photographs of him playing Othello, and then trace the work.

The portrait has a nobility about it, he added. Othello was the defining role of Robesons career a seminal performance in theatre history. Philpot obviously recognised that it needed to be recorded.

As well as acting, Robeson the son of a runaway slave, who was born 124 years ago on 9 April was an athlete, lawyer, singer and political activist. He starred on Broadway and stages around the world, and his bass-baritone voice made him a recording star.

He spoke out against fascism, colonialism and racism. During the McCarthy era of the 1950s, his US passport was revoked and 85 planned concerts cancelled. Robeson was brought before the House Un-American Activities Committee and asked to identify members of the Communist party and to admit to his own membership. Invoking the fifth amendment, Robeson told the committee: You are the non-patriots, and you are the un-Americans, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Philpots subjects included the poet Siegfried Sassoon and prime minister Stanley Baldwin, along with ballet dancers, opera singers and actors. Unusually in the first few decades of the 20th century, he also created sensitive portrayals of people of colour. They included a Jamaican man, Henry Thomas, who was the subject of a number of portraits in the 1930s; the African-American tenor Roland Hayes; a Martinican cabaret performer known as Tom Whiskey, and an African American boxer named Joe.

Glyn Philpot: Flesh and Spirit opens at the Pallant House Gallery in Chichester on 14 May

Read the original post:
Lost portrait of black actor and rights campaigner Paul Robeson to go on show - The Guardian

The Fifth Amendment is one of the most widely known aspects of civil cases. This is a privilege bestowed upon the civil rights of civilians. It is incorporated in the criminal procedures and other aspects of the constitution of the United States.

The clause of the Fifth Amendment civil case ensures that a defendant can evoke certain benefits. The Fifth Amendment is applicable to all levels of the government. This includes the federal, state, and local levels of the government.

As a civilian, what kind of Fifth Amendment privilege in civil cases can you enjoy? In this article, we will look into the fifth overall amendment of the constitution.

The fifth amendment provides specific privileges to civilians in civil cases. Defendants of a case can invoke the fifth amendment in civil cases that can be useful for them in the case. So, what does the fifth amendment say?

According to the US constitution, the Fifth Amendment provides privileges where a person cannot be upheld to answer for a capital or a criminal act. A person can be held to answer for those acts only with the presence or indictment of a jury. However, there are certain cases that it will not work. For instance, the case involving military or naval forces will not have the scope to invoke the fifth amendment. In addition, if you are involved in the same subject matter twice, you will not be able to enjoy the privilege of the Fifth Amendment.

Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment allows a defendant to never witness against oneself. The defendant of a criminal act cannot be denied from their liberty, due process, property, or life-related issues. The Fifth Amendment has a clause limiting the police procedure. The right to a grand jury investigation has not been added, but the rights to double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and immunity from unlawful taking of private property without remuneration have already been implemented to the states.

The Fifth Amendment rights involve protecting both a defendant and the witness from testifying against themselves. For instance, when a witness is asked to disclose a shred of evidence, the witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment to not testify the evidence. How can the witness do that? The witness must have fear and logic in his or her head that the disclosure can be used against him or her. This can incriminate the person. Therefore, a witness invokes the fifth amendment to save himself or herself.

Just like this, a defendant of a criminal act can also invoke the Fifth Amendment. While others may think that it just proves the defendant is guilty of the crime by not answering the court trial, the Fifth Amendment provides human rights to the defendant. As a result, even a person charged with a criminal case can invoke the Fifth Amendment and enjoy its privilege.

The Fifth Amendment is mostly connected to criminal cases. However, there are some exceptions. If you want to invoke the 5th Amendment to a civil case, there must be certain conditions fulfilled.

The Fifth Amendment privileges can only be enjoyed in a civil case when the person disclosing the evidence fears criminal charges against him or her. To invoke the Fifth Amendment in a civil case, you must have legitimate cause and fear of incriminating yourself that can result in criminal case trials. You must have a logical fear that the testimony can be used to instigate a criminal case against your name. Only then can you use the Fifth Amendment privileges in a civil case.

If you invoke the Fifth Amendment, you get the right not to testify against something as a witness to the crime. Generally, the amendment is invoked to same oneself from disclosing evidence that can be used against that same person. The privilege can be invoked in several scenarios.

In most cases, the Fifth Amendment is invoked in criminal trials. Originally, the Fifth Amendment provides the defendant a privilege to not testify against himself or herself. However, people also invoke it when they are called as a witness to a criminal case of someone else. A criminal case defendant can invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever the person feels that the evidence may be used against him or her. Moreover, the witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever they feel that their testimony can be used to incriminate them. Such a privilege is applicable to any form of a criminal act.

You can assert the Fifth Amendment right in civil cases as well. Even though civil cases do not have criminal penalties, a person can invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever he or she thinks that the evidence can take the case to the criminal court. If there is no substantial fear, the Fifth Amendment cannot be invoked in a civil case.

Apart from trials, you can plead the Fifth Amendment in other proceedings. If you are asked to be a witness in an administrative law proceeding, you can invoke this right. In addition, you can invoke this right during a grand jury investigation proceeding. Moreover, the right of the Fifth Amendment can be invoked if you are arrested and in police questioning. In both state and federal cases, a witness can also invoke this right in the situation of a deposition.

There are other scenarios where a person can invoke this right. For instance, you may be going through both civil and criminal cases. If you are asked to testify in front of a government body while being investigated for a criminal case, you can invoke the Fifth Amendment in the civil case that can incriminate you for the criminal case.

You cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment in any statement. There must be a legitimate reason behind your fear. On the one hand, the Fifth Amendment protects someone from using their answer for criminal prosecution. On the other hand, your answer or the testimony may not be protected by the Fifth Amendment if it does not aid in criminal prosecution in the first place.

If any court wants your fingerprint, blood test, or urine test, you cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment. The right is only applicable to communicable pieces of evidence. The other things are considered non-testimonial. Therefore, preventing the collection of such samples through the Fifth Amendment is not possible.

The Fifth Amendment provides certain human rights to the person standing on a trial or witnessing a trial. Although the right is mostly invoked in criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment privilege in civil cases ensures that no person is wrongfully accused of criminal charges for their own testimony. This is applicable for both the defendant and the witness of a case.

Visit link:
Fifth Amendment Privilege in Civil Cases - Tony Merchant ...