Archive for the ‘Fifth Amendment’ Category

Jekyll Island Authority board names new director | Local News … – Brunswick News

The commissioner of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources will be the new executive director of the JIA.

The board of the Jekyll Island Authority approved passing the title to Mark Williams at its meeting Tuesday.

Williams, who was not present at the meeting, serves on the JIA board.

The board took the vote after spending about 45 minutes in executive session following its monthly meeting.

We are looking forward to having Commissioner Williams join us as JIA executive director, said Dale Atkins, JIA board chairman, in a press release sent Tuesday. I know I speak for the full board in saying how confident we feel in the experience Mark brings from his tenure with DNR and his years of service on the JIA board, and we believe he will continue to steward the island in this new role.

Williams will begin in the new role July 1, replacing current executive director Jones Hooks. Hooks, who has served in the position since 2008, announced his retirement in February.

Base compensation will be set at $250,000 with a performance incentive of up to $25,000, said board member Buster Evans, chair of the human resources committee.

Williams will also receive a vehicle allowance of up to $10,000 annually.

The board voted to approve a three-year employment agreement.

Williams has served as commissioner of Georgia DNR since 2010 with duties that include serving on the JIA board. He also served in the state House of Representatives for District 178 from 2005 to 2010.

The board, in an interview process done in coordination with the JIA Human Resources Department, received 17 applications for the executive director position. The selection committee chose four of the applicants to receive an interview.

Marty, the girls and I congratulate Commissioner Mark Williams on this great opportunity and want to thank him for his many years of dedicated service to the people of our state, said Gov. Brian Kemp in a statement sent Tuesday. Under his leadership, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources has made great strides in conserving the beautiful assets of our state and our shared natural heritage.

With a record of service stretching back to his time in the Georgia House of Representatives and through his contributions on many boards and authorities, he has impacted our state in a significant and lasting way. We are thankful for all Mark has done and wish him and Pam well as they continue to promote our natural wonders through his new role.

Hooks, who has played a fundamental role in the revitalization of Jekyll Island in the past 15 years, received several compliments during the authority meeting.

State Rep. Rick Townsend, R-St. Simons Island, recounted the passage of House Resolution 690, for which he was the chief sponsor during the most recent legislative session. The resolution recognized Hooks for his service and for successful conservation efforts of Jekyll Island State Park.

You owe it to your team, Jones, I know you do, Townsend said. Youve got to thank them first. But it takes a vision, and you had that vision to make it happen The Golden Isles and Glynn County are in a better position because of you. And of course the state. Jekyll Island is for the state of Georgia, not just Glynn County.

Ben Carswell, former director of conservation on Jekyll and the first to hold the position, which was created under Hooks tenure, also commended Hooks for his pivotal role in the islands conservation.

As Jekyll Island turns the page and looks to Jones successor to take on new challenges while maintaining the value of past accomplishments, I encourage the board to likewise elevate Jones environmental legacy and the authoritys stewardship mission, Carswell said.

In other business, the board approved a funding request for up to $285,790 for the Mercer medical clinic that is set to open on the island in partnership with Mercer University.

The clinic will offer primary and emergency care services seven days a week during peak travel months, and services will be offered no less than five days a week from September to April. JIA has been responsible for funding renovations of the facility to house the clinic, and Mercer will cover its operations.

If you were to go to the Mercer clinic today, you would be very impressed at the amount of construction that has been done in building out that facility, Hooks said. We are on schedule to turn over the keys to Mercer by next month.

A funding challenge that arose in recent months is the delayed approval of a grant request from the Department of Community Affairs that would help Jekyll cover costs of furniture, fixtures and equipment.

The original request was for $450,000, but Mercer has since been able to secure an x-ray machine for the clinic, which brings the cost down to the requested $285,790 that Jekyll will cover.

The good news is back in January I had requested through (DCA) that if we sent money and then later the grant was approved, would we be eligible for reimbursement, and we have approval from them for reimbursement, Hooks said.

Approved the assignment and assumption of the Hampton Inn & Suites ground lease from Peachtree Hotel Group to Innisfree Hotels. The property will continue as Hampton Inn & Suites, a Hilton franchise, and Innisfree Hotels will operate and manage the hotel at 200 South Beachview Drive.

Approved the fifth amendment to the Convention Center Qualified Management Agreement with SMG, operating subsidiary of ASM Global, through June 30, 2024. The agreement includes an automatic five-year term renewal.

Approved the Dispatching Services renewal contract with the Joint Public Safety Communications Department. The agreement allows the Glynn Brunswick 911 Center to directly dispatch the Jekyll Island Fire Department (JIFD) units. Pending approval from the Brunswick Commission and the Glynn County Commission, the agreement will renew on July 1, 2023 for one year.

Approved the first amendment to the Management Services Agreement with SCS Resort Management, LLC, which is responsible for the daily management of Summer Waves water park. The amendment raises the base management fee to $7,834 per month and adds an automatic renewal period of one year following the expiration of the regular term.

Approved the first amendment to the lease agreement with Tortuga Jacks, LLC at 201 North Beachview Drive.

Approved the MOA with The Cottages for the construction of the Tallu Fish crossover with shared public access. The agreement includes an allocation of $16,100 from the FY23 capital budget to complete the project.

Approved several employment policy updates within the Jekyll Island Authority Policy Manual, including updates to the Pay Plan Policy, Performance Management Policy and Conduct Policy.

Read the original here:
Jekyll Island Authority board names new director | Local News ... - Brunswick News

They held down a Black teen who tried to shoplift. He died from … – Wisconsin Examiner

When the clerk at VJs Food Mart confronted Corey Stingley, the 16-year-old handed over his backpack. Inside were six hidden bottles of Smirnoff Ice, worth $12, and the clerk began pulling them out one by one.

Stingley watched, then pivoted and quickly moved toward the door, empty-handed. But there would be no escape for the unarmed teen in the light blue hoodie.

Three customers, together weighing 550 pounds, wrestled the 135-pound teen to the floor of the West Allis, Wisconsin, store. They pinned him in a seated position, his body compressed downward, according to a police account. One of the men put Stingley in a chokehold, witnesses would later tell investigators.

Get up, you punk! that man, a former Marine, reportedly told Stingley when an officer from the police department finally arrived. But the teen didnt move. He was foaming at the mouth, and his pants and shoes were soaked in urine.

Hed suffered a traumatic brain injury from a loss of oxygen and never regained consciousness. His parents took him off life support two weeks later. The medical examiner ruled Stingleys death a homicide following his restraint in a violent struggle with multiple individuals.

That was more than 10 years ago.

None of the men, all of whom were white, were criminally charged in the incident that killed Stingley, a Black youth. Police arrested Mario Laumann, the man seen holding Stingley in an apparent chokehold, shortly after the incident in December 2012. But the local district attorney declined to prosecute him or the other two men, arguing they were unaware of the harm they were causing.

When a second police review led to a reexamination of the case in 2017, another prosecutor sat on it for more than three years, until a judge demanded a decision. Again, there were no charges.

Prosecutors move on, but fathers dont. Refusing to accept that the case had been handled justly, Corey Stingleys dad, Craig, last year convinced a judge to assign a third district attorney to look at what had happened to his son.

That prosecutor, Ismael Ozanne of Dane County, was scheduled to report back to the court on Friday, but the hearing was postponed.

The case has parallels to a recent deadly subway incident in New York City. Both involve chokeholds administered by former Marines on Black males who had not initiated any violence. But unlike in Wisconsin, New York authorities acted within two weeks to file a second-degree manslaughter charge in the case.

While the New York subway incident grabbed national headlines, Corey Stingleys death which happened the same day as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut did not gain much notice outside of southeast Wisconsin.

Years later, Craig Stingley tapped an obscure statute dating back to Wisconsins frontier days to convince the system to take a fresh look at his sons death. The law states that if a district attorney refuses to issue a criminal complaint or is unavailable to do so, a private citizen can petition a judge to take up the matter. Today, its loosely referred to as a John Doe petition, though in this instance there was no doubt who restrained Stingleys son: Laumann, who has since died, along with two other store patrons named Jesse R. Cole and Robert W. Beringer.

No one is alleging that the men set out to kill Corey Stingley. His father is asking the prosecutor to consider a charge of reckless homicide or even a lesser offense for using extreme force to detain his son.

He wasnt trying to harm anyone. He was trying to leave that store, said Craig Stingley, who thought his son made a youthful mistake. I believe he was scared.

VJs Food Mart is a typical small convenience store, packed with chips, candy, soda, beer, cigarettes and liquor. On Sunday mornings it offers a special deal on hot ham and rolls, a local tradition for an after-church meal. To combat theft, the store is equipped with security cameras.

On Dec. 14, 2012, Thomas Ripley and Anthony Orcholski stopped by the store for beer and snacks. Only a few steps in, they saw that three men had someone firmly pinned on the ground.

Security video shows Ripley and Orcholski pausing next to the pile of people and watching intently. In statements to police they both said they saw Laumann lying on the ground with his arms around Stingleys neck in a chokehold. Beringer had grabbed Stingleys hair, they said; the third man, Cole, had his hands on Stingleys back.

Ripley told police the teen was not moving and appeared to be limp.

I dont think he could breathe, Ripley would later testify during a special review of the case to determine if there should be charges.

Orcholski told a detective that he was concerned about the teen on the ground and may even have instructed the men to let Stingley go.

A decade later, Orcholski is still bothered by what he saw. Im upset, he told ProPublica. Three men thought they were going to be heroes that day because a 16-year-old boy was shoplifting. There could have been numerous different ways to restrain him other than choking him to death.

He added, Its common sense: When you squeeze somebody that hard for that long, theyre not going to be alive after it.

The security video is grainy, and much of the confrontation took place out of view of the cameras.

Authorities had a third witness, though. Troubled by what hed seen, store customer Michael Farrell felt compelled to go to the West Allis police station that evening and give a statement.

I felt bad. Im a dad, he explained, court records show.

Farrell told police he could see through the stores glass door that a man with a crazed look on his face had someone in a chokehold, very near the entrance. The guy was squeezing the hell out of this kid and never let up, he said. Farrell picked Laumann out of a photo lineup. (Farrell and another witness, Ripley, couldnt be reached for comment for this story.)

Corey Stingley and his dad lived just a couple of blocks from the store, making them one of the few Black families in a predominantly white neighborhood and city on the border of Milwaukee. Comments from the three men who held Stingley down imply that they saw him as an outsider.

Ripley told police that Beringer, 54, held Stingley by the hair and shook the teens head a couple of times. You dont do that, he said Beringer scolded Stingley. Were all friends and neighbors around here.

With Stingley subdued, the store clerk held a phone to Beringers head so he could talk to a police dispatcher. We have the perp, three of us have the perp on the ground holding him for you, Beringer said, according to a transcript of the 911 call.

Police estimated that the men held Stingley down for six to 10 minutes. When Stingley stopped struggling, Cole later told police, I thought he was faking it.

He added: I didnt know if he was just, you know, playing limp to try and get real strong and pull a quick one, you know.

When an officer arrived, she handcuffed Stingley with Beringers assistance but then realized that he wasnt breathing and called for help.

Beringer walked outside the market, according to Farrell, only to be confronted by another bystander who said, You guys killed that kid.

We didnt kill anyone, Beringer responded.

At nearby Froedtert Hospital, doctors concluded Stingleys airway had been blocked while he was restrained.

He had petechial hemorrhages tiny red dots that appear as the result of broken blood vessels to his eyes, cheeks and mouth. A deputy medical examiner attributed this pattern to pressure applied to the neck. There also was a bruise at the front of Stingleys neck, she testified.

She noted that his asphyxia also could be linked to compression of the chest.

Doctors put Stingley in a medically induced coma, attached him to a ventilator and inserted a feeding tube. As the situation became increasingly hopeless, his family spent Christmas at his bedside. Four days later, his parents made the agonizing decision to take him off life support.

In the New York subway case earlier this month, it took less than two weeks for the Manhattan district attorney to charge Daniel Penny, a former Marine, with second-degree manslaughter for the choking death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man who had yelled at other subway passengers. A prosecutor emphasized that Penny continued to choke Neely even after he stopped moving.

Pennys lawyers have defended his actions by saying he was protecting himself and other passengers. Laumann, in contrast, never claimed Corey Stingley was a danger. But he did dispute that he put his arm around the teens throat.

Interviewed by police that night, Laumann, then 56, recalled just leaning on him.

Pressed by a detective, Laumann appeared less confident, saying, A headlock is when you got your arms locked, right? And I didnt have him locked. He added: I had my arm around like this, yeah, but I didnt have him in a headlock. Unless maybe I did, maybe I I dont, no, I, I dont remember that, no.

His account conflicted with that of witnesses. And Laumanns older sibling Michael, also a former Marine, isnt so sure, either. Chokeholds are a part of basic combat skills, he said, used to restrain a person and take them down.

Thats the first thing they teach you, not only in boot camp but also in subsequent infantry training. It becomes an automatic restraint, to save your own life, Michael said. Im not saying that Mario did that. Because I dont know the situation. But all Im saying is that when youre in the Marine Corps youre taught how to save your own life. And to save the lives of your brotherhood. Sometimes it becomes, say, an automatic response.

Michael Laumann said he and Mario who died last year at age 65 seldom talked, and when they did, the store incident never came up.

Mario Laumann, who worked in construction after leaving the Marines, lived about two miles from the store. His family had been dealing with a variety of crises. His wife was battling cancer. She had been arrested four years earlier for driving under influence of prescription medications. She died in 2013.

And, by the time of the encounter with Stingley, Laumanns youngest son, Nickolas, was serving time in prison for sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl, intimidation of a victim and theft.

Writing online while in prison, Nickolas said his father would scream at me for drug use and whoop my ass. The police report about Stingleys death notes that Laumann had been arrested twice for battery, but charges in both cases had been dismissed.

Mario did have a temper, another brother, Mennas Laumann, said recently.

The three men who held Stingley down didnt know each other. Beringer, who lived next door to the food mart, told police he only recognized Laumann as a neighborhood guy.

Like Laumann, Beringer had had previous encounters with police. In 1996, Beringer pulled a gun on a Pakistani-born man and told him he hated fucking Iranians, according to a police sergeants sworn criminal complaint. Beringer pleaded guilty to misdemeanor gun charges and was jailed briefly then put on probation. A judge ordered him to complete a course in violence counseling or anger management and continue with mental health treatment, court records show.

Beringer, who no longer lives in West Allis, declined to talk to ProPublica. He came to the door of his apartment building and when asked to discuss Stingleys death said, No, no, see you later, and closed the door.

The third man to wrestle Stingley to the ground, Cole, was a 25-year-old electrician who lived about a mile from the store. Hed gone there to get cigarettes. The prior year he had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, for carrying a Glock handgun in the center console of his car and a magazine with 11 hollow-point bullets in the glove box. Cole didnt respond to ProPublicas attempts for comment.

In the immediate aftermath of the incident, all three men cooperated with police.

Cole said that as he and the others tried to halt Stingleys attempt to flee, the teen took a swing at him and landed a punch. He ended up with a black eye.

Asked by police why he restrained the teen, Laumann replied: Because hes a thief.

Several days after the struggle, West Allis police arrested Laumann and processed him for second-degree reckless injury. It was up to Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm to decide whether to prosecute him and the other men.

Chisholm eventually arranged for a judicial proceeding where sworn testimony could be heard. There, the three men invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in declining to answer questions. The original witnesses recounted seeing Stingley grabbed around the throat.

Though Farrell said he couldnt recall telling police that Laumann was squeezing the hell out of Stingley, he didnt back away from his original description of a chokehold.

Months went by with no word on charges. But Craig Stingley, a facilities engineer, couldnt just sit and wait. He rallied support from politicians in the community and tried to keep the pressure on Chisholm.

Stingley brought state Sen. Lena Taylor to meetings with the prosecutor to discuss the case. They came away discouraged. Taylor got the impression that the case was challenging for prosecutors on many levels. The video was not sharp, for one thing. Taylor also believed that race relations in Milwaukee County fed Chisholms concern that a jury might not convict anyone in the case.

At one meeting, Taylor said, she questioned what would have happened if the people involved had been of different races. They wouldnt let a group of Black guys do that to a young white guy, without any consequences, she said.

More than a year after the incident, in January 2014, Chisholm announced he would not bring charges, on the grounds that the men did not intend to injure or kill Stingley and didnt realize there was a risk to his life or health. It is clear that the purpose of restraining Corey Stingley was to hold him for police, Chisholm wrote in a five-page summary of his investigation.

None of the actors were trained in the proper application of restraint, he added

Coreys mother, Alicia Stingley, was stunned. Its just mind-boggling to me, just the decision that was made that it was more so because he didnt think he could win a case or didnt think what they did was on purpose, she said. There were no repercussions for a grown man taking a young childs life by choking him.

For Craig Stingley, its inconceivable the men did not know his son was in distress during the prolonged time they held him down. Applied properly, a chokehold can render an aggressor unconscious in as little as eight to thirteen seconds, according to a 2015 Marine Corps instructor guide.

Chisholm is still the district attorney. Through an assistant, he declined comment, citing the new review. Among the questions sent by ProPublica to Chisholm was whether he investigated Laumanns training in restraints as a Marine.

Chisholms decision sparked media coverage and community protests. To Craig Stingley, Corey was more than a symbol, he was a cherished son.

He was my buddy, Stingley said, describing how he and Corey would watch sports together. A skilled athlete, Corey Stingley was a running back on his high school football team and a member of the diving team. He took advanced placement classes in school and made the National Honor Society at school, his father said. He also worked part-time at an Arbys.

His social media accounts include references to girls and partying. It also catalogs his love of Batman, the Green Bay Packers and Christmas and shows him gently mocking his friends and family.

My dad just got texting and hes experimenting with winky faces, he wrote in 2012, ending with #ohlord.

Craig Stingley and his ex-wife filed a wrongful death suit in 2015 against the three men and the convenience store, which led to a settlement. Records show that Laumanns homeowners insurance paid $300,000, as did Coles. (Beringer didnt have homeowners insurance.) There was no admission of wrongdoing by the defendants. In court filings the three men said their actions were legal and justified, citing self-defense and their need to respond to an emergency.

A good portion of the proceeds from the suit went to pay for hospital and funeral costs and lawyer fees, Stingley said.

In the civil suit, an expert forensic pathologist hired by the Stingley familys lawyer concluded the teen died because his chest was compressed and he was strangled.

Once his airway became completely obstructed, Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen of the University of Michigan wrote, Corey would have experienced severe air hunger, conscious fear, suffering and panic with an impending sense of his own death for a period of 30 seconds to approximately one minute until he was rendered into a fully unconscious state.

Craig Stingley still obsessed about what had happened and how to revive a criminal case. He relived his sons death over and over, watching the surveillance video of his last moments frame by frame, looking for something new.

Using a movie maker app on his computer, he slowed the video down and grabbed individual frames. He concluded that Cole initially had his son in a headlock, but that Laumann too had an arm around his neck before bringing him to the ground. That conflicted with Laumanns statement to police.

Stingley took his findings to the West Allis police, where a detective agreed theyd missed this detail. The department wrote a supplemental report for Chisholm, who asked a judge to appoint a special prosecutor for another look.

Racine District Attorney Patricia Hanson got the case in October 2017. But what followed was more waiting.

Stingley said he called Hansons office routinely in the years that followed, but she never met with him. Reached via email recently, Hanson declined to comment.

The case has not even been assigned a referral or case number after three years in that office, state Rep. Evan Goyke complained in a December 2020 letter to Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Mary Triggiano. This is unacceptable, he wrote.

In later correspondence, Triggiano noted Hanson had refused to say when her decision would be forthcoming because in the midst of the pandemic, she had a lot of cases needing attention.

In March 2021, Hanson told the court in a one-page memo that she had reviewed Chisholms file and agreed with his earlier decision: I do not find that criminal charges are appropriate at this time.

John Doe proceedings allowing citizens to directly ask a court to consider criminal charges date back to 1839, when Wisconsin was still a territory, according to an account in state supreme court records. The law is used infrequently, legal experts said, and rarely successfully.

Petitions have been filed by prisoners, by activists alleging animal cruelty in research experiments and by citizens claiming police misconduct. The efforts typically fail, ProPublica found in reviewing court dockets, news accounts and appellate rulings. In Milwaukee County, Wisconsins most populous, there were only 19 such cases in 2020, dockets show, including Stingleys. None succeeded.

Other states have similar methods of giving citizens a voice, but none are exactly like Wisconsins. According to the National Crime Victim Law Institute, six states Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota and Oklahoma allow private citizens to gather signatures to petition a judge to convene a grand jury to investigate an alleged crime. In Pennsylvania, individuals can file a criminal complaint with the district attorney; if rejected, they can appeal to the court to ask it to order the district attorney to prosecute.

Milwaukee attorney Scott W. Hansen, who has served as special prosecutor in a John Doe case, is critical of the Wisconsin process. He said it allows citizens to present a one-sided, skewed version of facts to a judge, without benefit of cross-examination or adverse witnesses.

The law, however, does state that the citizens petition must present facts that raise a reasonable belief a crime was committed.

Former state Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske described the John Doe petition as a check and balance on prosecutors by citizens. If people believe a crime has been committed, and youve got prosecutors not living up to their responsibilities, and you think somebody ought to be held accountable, its a way to have some judicial review, she said.

Stingley has known all along that the odds were against him, so turning to a longshot petition didnt daunt him. Writing to Chief Judge Triggiano in late 2020, he alleged dereliction and breach of legal duty by the Milwaukee and Racine county district attorneys to conduct thorough criminal investigations into his sons death.

Triggiano assigned the case to Judge Milton Childs. He formally appointed Ozanne, the first Black district attorney in Wisconsin, as special prosecutor last July. Ozannes inquiry has included reviews of court transcripts and interviews with West Allis police and others.

Craig Stingley was pleased that Ozanne and his staff met with him for several hours to listen to his concerns and to hear about his son.

When I left that meeting, Stingley said, my son got his humanity back.

This story was updated Friday, 5/26/2023, 11 a.m., to report that a scheduled hearing was postponed.

See the original post:
They held down a Black teen who tried to shoplift. He died from ... - Wisconsin Examiner

Police officer charged with obstruction for allegedly leaking information to Proud Boys leader – WAPT Jackson

A police officer was arrested Friday on charges he lied about leaking confidential information to a leader of the far-right Proud Boys extremist group and obstructed an investigation after group members destroyed a Black Lives Matter banner in the nation's capital.An indictment alleges that Metropolitan Police Department Lt. Shane Lamond, 47, of Stafford, Virginia, warned former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio that law enforcement had an arrest warrant for Tarrio related to the banner's destruction.Tarrio was arrested in Washington two days before Proud Boys members joined a mob in storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Earlier this month, Tarrio and three other group members were convicted of seditious conspiracy charges for what prosecutors said was a plot to keep then-President Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the 2020 election.A federal grand jury in Washington indicted Lamond on one count of obstruction of justice and three counts of making false statements. He is scheduled to make his initial court appearance on Friday.Mark Schamel, an attorney for Lamond, didnt immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment. Schamel has previously said that Lamond's job was to communicate with a variety of groups protesting in Washington, and his conduct with Tarrio was never inappropriate.Lamond, who supervised the intelligence branch of the police department's Homeland Security Bureau, often contacted Tarrio about Proud Boys' planned activities in Washington. Prosecutors say the two men communicated at least 500 times across several platforms over a period nearly a year and a half. Lamond began using the Telegram messaging platform to give Tarrio information about law enforcement activity around July 2020, about a year after they started talking, according to prosecutors. By November of that year, he was talking about meeting Tarrio during a night out. In December 2020, Lamond told Tarrio about where competing antifascist activists were expected to be. Lamond, whose job entailed sharing what he learned with others in the department, asked Tarrio whether he should share the information Tarrio gave him about Proud Boys activities, prosecutors said.Jurors who convicted Tarrio heard testimony that Lamond frequently provided the Proud Boys leader with internal information about law enforcement operations in the weeks before other members of his group stormed the Capitol.Less than three weeks before the Jan. 6 riot, Lamond warned Tarrio that the FBI and U.S. Secret Service were all spun up over talk on an Infowars internet show that the Proud Boys planned to dress up as supporters of President Joe Biden on the day of the inauguration.In a message to Tarrio on Dec. 25, 2020, Lamond said police investigators had asked him to identify Tarrio from a photograph. Lamond warned Tarrio that police may be seeking a warrant for his arrest.Later, on the day of his arrest, Tarrio posted a message to other Proud Boys leaders that said, The warrant was just signed.Text messages introduced at Tarrios trial appeared to show a close rapport between the two men, with Lamond frequently greeting the extremist group leader with the words hey brother.For the trial, Tarrios attorneys wanted to call Lamond to testify to support claims the Proud Boys leader wanted to avoid violence, but were stymied by his lawyer's contention that Lamond would claim Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

A police officer was arrested Friday on charges he lied about leaking confidential information to a leader of the far-right Proud Boys extremist group and obstructed an investigation after group members destroyed a Black Lives Matter banner in the nation's capital.

An indictment alleges that Metropolitan Police Department Lt. Shane Lamond, 47, of Stafford, Virginia, warned former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio that law enforcement had an arrest warrant for Tarrio related to the banner's destruction.

Tarrio was arrested in Washington two days before Proud Boys members joined a mob in storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Earlier this month, Tarrio and three other group members were convicted of seditious conspiracy charges for what prosecutors said was a plot to keep then-President Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the 2020 election.

A federal grand jury in Washington indicted Lamond on one count of obstruction of justice and three counts of making false statements. He is scheduled to make his initial court appearance on Friday.

Mark Schamel, an attorney for Lamond, didnt immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment. Schamel has previously said that Lamond's job was to communicate with a variety of groups protesting in Washington, and his conduct with Tarrio was never inappropriate.

Lamond, who supervised the intelligence branch of the police department's Homeland Security Bureau, often contacted Tarrio about Proud Boys' planned activities in Washington. Prosecutors say the two men communicated at least 500 times across several platforms over a period nearly a year and a half.

Lamond began using the Telegram messaging platform to give Tarrio information about law enforcement activity around July 2020, about a year after they started talking, according to prosecutors. By November of that year, he was talking about meeting Tarrio during a night out.

In December 2020, Lamond told Tarrio about where competing antifascist activists were expected to be. Lamond, whose job entailed sharing what he learned with others in the department, asked Tarrio whether he should share the information Tarrio gave him about Proud Boys activities, prosecutors said.

Jurors who convicted Tarrio heard testimony that Lamond frequently provided the Proud Boys leader with internal information about law enforcement operations in the weeks before other members of his group stormed the Capitol.

Less than three weeks before the Jan. 6 riot, Lamond warned Tarrio that the FBI and U.S. Secret Service were all spun up over talk on an Infowars internet show that the Proud Boys planned to dress up as supporters of President Joe Biden on the day of the inauguration.

In a message to Tarrio on Dec. 25, 2020, Lamond said police investigators had asked him to identify Tarrio from a photograph. Lamond warned Tarrio that police may be seeking a warrant for his arrest.

Later, on the day of his arrest, Tarrio posted a message to other Proud Boys leaders that said, The warrant was just signed.

Text messages introduced at Tarrios trial appeared to show a close rapport between the two men, with Lamond frequently greeting the extremist group leader with the words hey brother.

For the trial, Tarrios attorneys wanted to call Lamond to testify to support claims the Proud Boys leader wanted to avoid violence, but were stymied by his lawyer's contention that Lamond would claim Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

See original here:
Police officer charged with obstruction for allegedly leaking information to Proud Boys leader - WAPT Jackson

The 1950s Hollywood Blacklist Was an Assault on Free Expression – Jacobin magazine

Screenwriters have always been the sharpest thorn in the side of movie executives, the motion picture labor union with the greatest propensity to strike. The current walkout is their eighth, not including a threatened strike in 1941 that secured their first collective bargaining agreement with the studios.

The Screen Writers Guild (SWG), founded in the early 1930s, was by far the most activist labor union in Hollywood; constituted the bulk of the membership of the Hollywood Communist Party; stood in the forefront of what was called progressive politics in the 30s and 40s; and represented the majority of those blacklisted during the 40s and 50s.

The current writers guild, Writers Guild of America, though not politically radical, is fierce in defending its financial rights. And its ongoing strike provides a perfect occasion to look back on the blacklist era, which torpedoed the careers of countless workers in Hollywood and indelibly shaped the output of movie studios.

Blacklisting is a venerable weapon in Hollywood. In the 1930s, executives wielded it to weaken the SWG. In the 1920s and 1930s, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) used it to punish competing unions during brutal jurisdictional contests.

But the most famous motion picture blacklist began in November 1947, when movie executives fired five of the unfriendly witnesses under contract and pledged not to rehire them or the other five until they had purged themselves of their Communist taint. This blacklist grew from the famed Hollywood Ten to nearly three hundred following the early 1950s hearings.

There was no list, per se. The studio bosses derived their information about whom to exclude from three sources: the indices of the hearings transcripts of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); a list of over three hundred names collected by the American Legion and distributed to the major studios; and Red Channels, a compilation of 151 names collected by American Business Consultants, the brainchild of three former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and one of the leading smear-and-clear organizations that mushroomed during the late 1940s. The only way to get off the blacklist was to appear before the HUAC, apologize for joining the Communist Party, laud the committee, and name names.

During the 1950s, one found oneself blacklisted if fingered by an informer (who was coached to name as many names as possible). If the named person did not appear before the committee, or they did appear but invoked the Fifth Amendment, they would be fired or blacklisted in the future. That is, one had to be publicly alleged as a Communist Party member.

Yet the dragnet affected not just Communists or even radicals, but left-leaning figures of all stripes. Liberals feared retribution should their scripts be read as too progressive. One said he was always looking over his shoulder as he sat at his typewriter. Liberals who had been politically active, like Edward G. Robinson, had to turn cartwheels to absolve themselves of their past deeds.

The blacklist was created and policed by executives. Red-hunting government institutions the FBI, HUAC, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (Joseph McCarthys subcommittee), and Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security could only expose and intimidate. (The blacklist should not be conflated with McCarthyism. It preceded and outlasted McCarthy, and he did not concern himself with the media.)

The executives were not ideologically anti-communist; they sought to avoid censorship by the government and boycotts by such organizations as the American Legion and Catholic Church. But the blacklist only ended when the producers became convinced that open hiring of blacklisted people did not negatively impact box office receipts.

The foundation for the Hollywood blacklist was laid on May 9, 1947, the day when two members of HUAC opened executive sessions at the Biltmore hotel in Los Angeles. The committee had actively participated in Hollywood red-hunting since the late 1930s, with little to show for it. The Cold War, however, reinvigorated the domestic red scare (there had been two previously, 191721 and 193941).

The committee interviewed fourteen friendly witnesses and studio head Jack Warner, who supplied the congressmen a list of suspected Communists employed by his studio, many of whom were liberals. Though Eric Johnston, the president of the producers associations, had pledged the full cooperation of the industry, committee chairman J. Parnell Thomas (R-NJ) publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with the movie executives. In July, Thomas sent two of his investigators to Hollywood to intimidate the producers into complying. When that did not work, Thomas authorized the serving of subpoenas.

On September 22, 1947, the Hollywood Reporter divulged the names of forty-two motion picture personnel who had received subpoenas from HUAC. Nineteen were labeled unfriendly (unlikely to cooperate) by a few publications. Those nineteen and their lawyers met regularly for the next month to plan a strategy. They decided to challenge the right of the committee to subpoena them or ask them questions about their union and political affiliations. They also decided that each would write a statement to be read when they were called to the stand.

Finally, they made what turned out to be a disastrous decision: they would not refuse to answer any questions, but would use the occasion to attack the committee that is, they would answer those questions in their own way. This tactic obfuscated their core position the committee was violating their First Amendment rights and provoked the kind of behavior from some witnesses that gave ammunition to movie executives who wanted to make a show of collaboration.

The solid wall of opposition that the unfriendly witnesses had been told to expect from industry leaders crumbled immediately when the first witness, Warner, the president of Warner Brothers, testified on October 24, the initial day of the hearings. He crawled before his questioners, telling them: It is a privilege to appear again before the committee to help as much as I can in facilitating its work.

He claimed that he had been aware for over a decade of Communist working in the industry and that he had fired many of them. Warner then reeled off a list of those he had heard or read were Communists. (Of the fourteen he cited, three were not party members.) Louis B. Mayer, who testified a few days later, insisted that the producers could handle the Communist problem. The last studio boss to testify, Walt Disney, complained about Communist efforts to organize his cartoonists and agreed that there was a Communist threat in Hollywood.

The behavior of some of the unfriendly witnesses, which would provide the producers with grounds for instituting a blacklist, was demonstrated on October 29, 1947, by John Howard Lawson, the first one called to the stand. Set off by Thomass interjections and refusal to allow him to read his prepared statement, Lawson grew incensed and argumentative. Thomas ordered the sergeant at arms to remove Lawson from the witness chair.

Though only two of the other ten unfriendly witnesses screenwriters Dalton Trumbo and Lester Cole expressed anger, and only Trumbo was ordered to leave the stand, the die had been cast. Johnston followed Lawson to the stand, stating that he welcomed the investigation and hoped that it would expose Communists in the industry.

At first, industry leaders masked their concern when the Hollywood Ten were cited for contempt of Congress. Producer Samuel Goldwyn announced: I believe that the entire hearing is a flop; I think the whole thing is a disgraceful performance. Paul V. McNutt, an industry counsel, said: The truth is there are no pictures of ours which carry Communist propaganda and we do not care how many so-called experts the Committee employs to try to find out. The search will be fruitless.

Eric Johnston, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, told the Ten, as long as I live, I will never be a party to anything as un-American as a blacklist. But some producers, like MGMs Eddie Mannix, had decided that the Ten had to go not because they might be Communists, but because they had become of great disservice to the industry.

One month after the hearings ended, while the members of the House were voting to hold the Ten in contempt of Congress, movie company executives and studio bosses met at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel to decide how to deal with them. Two of the major studios, RKO and Fox, had already opted to fire the three witnesses under contract: Edward Dmytryk, Adrian Scott, and Ring Lardner Jr. MGM was close to doing the same with Trumbo and Cole.

For executives, the big question was how to handle the overall issue of communism in the industry. No transcript of the meeting has come to light, but anecdotal evidence indicates that the majority of those present did not want to inaugurate a blacklist. However, Johnston and the two special counsels, McNutt and James Byrnes, insisted that the only realistic course of action was to publicly announce the firing of the five under contract and to state that none of the ten would be employed until they had purged themselves of their Communist taint. Only Goldwyn, Dore Schary, and Walter Wanger objected to terminating those under contract. Those in favor agreed that they would draw the line at the Ten and institute a policy of self-regulation.

The so-called Waldorf Declaration announced that the Ten, by their actions have been a disservice to their employers and have impaired their usefulness to the industry. Therefore, We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ and we will not re-employ any of the ten until such time as he is acquitted [of contempt] or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a Communist. Furthermore, We will not knowingly employ a Communist or a member of any party or group which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force of by illegal or unconstitutional methods. Finally, the executives promised to invite the Hollywood talent guilds to work with us to eliminate any subversives, to protect the innocent, and to safeguard free speech and a free screen wherever threatened.

Despite the fact that seven of the Ten were screenwriters, SWG joined the other talent guilds in cooperating with the executives. A Motion Picture Industry Council (MPIC), consisting of representatives of the producers, guilds, and trade unions, was created to bring the Communist problem to the attention of all studios, publicize the industrys efforts to purge itself of subversives, clear repentant Communists for reemployment, and criticize HUAC witnesses who refused to play ball with Congress.

The blacklist was now in full effect.

There matters stood for three years. Two of the Ten, Lawson and Trumbo, were tried for contempt of Congress. The other eight, to save the expense of multiple trials, agreed to accept whatever verdict was rendered. When Lawson and Trumbo were convicted, they appealed and launched a national campaign to rally support to their cause.

On April 10, 1950, the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari, and the Ten began turning themselves in to federal authorities to start serving their one-year sentences. (Herbert Biberman and Dmytryk were given six-month terms.)

When HUAC formally announced it was reopening the hearings in March 1951, the producers promised their full cooperation and stated that those witnesses who did not deny their Communist affiliation would find it difficult to get work in the studios. One other thing had changed, to the detriment of those who refused to cooperate: they had no support network.

There was no Committee for the First Amendment (and no support from liberals); the most democratic union in Hollywood, the Conference of Studio Unions (an industrial union that represented several crafts in the industry), had suffered a massive defeat at the hands of IATSE and executives; Congress had passed the virulently anti-union Taft-Hartley Act; the Communist Party in Hollywood had been severely reduced in size; and national party leaders were in jail, on trial, or in hiding.

This time around the committee modified its approach, focusing on Communists rather than communism in the industry. And subpoenaed witnesses, having learned their lesson from the October 1947 hearings, recognized they had only two options if they wanted to avoid a prison sentence: invoke the Fifth Amendment and be fired; or cooperate fully with the committee, admitting to membership in the Communist Party, apologizing for this membership, providing the names of other members, and praising the committee.

Larry Parks, the leadoff witness, who had not been adequately coached, initially refused to supply names; by the time he did so, he had effectively ended his career. The friendly witnesses who followed rattled off hundreds of names. (One screenwriter, Martin Berkeley, provided over 150.) When Dmytryk decided to follow the formula of the Waldorf Declaration and recant, he met with members of the MPIC, who prescribed the path to his return to work: coauthoring a lengthy apology in the Saturday Evening Post, testifying anew before the House committee, naming names.

The MPIC also had to contend with a different type of list the gray list made necessary by the publication, in 1950, of Red Channels: The Report of Communist Influence in Radio and Television. The book, a compendium of 151 names (mainly actors and actresses) and the subversive organizations to which they lent their prestige, was published by three former FBI agents who put out Counterattack, a magazine exposing Communist influence on movies.

Shortly after it appeared, Ronald Reagan, president of the Screen Actors Guild, received permission from the board of directors to enlist the MPIC to protect the actors and actresses named in Red Channels. The MPIC plan allowed any employee under suspicion of subversive activities to write a statement of facts to clarify their position against communism and explain their relationship to any allegedly communist-linked organization. The MPIC would then direct the letter to the producer or studio of the writers choice but would not evaluate its quality or credence.

In addition to the blacklist, the movie executives produced nearly fifty anti-Communist movies as a sop to HUAC members who lamented the paucity of such films. And finally, the studio heads stopped making social problem films in August 1948, Variety reported that studios are continuing to drop plans for message pictures like hot coals.

Blacklisted writers had it somewhat easier than actors or directors: they could write under pseudonyms or behind fronts. But even when screenwriters scripts won Academy Awards The Brave One (1956), Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), and The Defiant Ones (1958) the producers refused to bend. The blacklist continued through the 1950s, stifling the range of acceptable topics covered in movies and contributing to the conformity and conservatism of the 1950s.

One can count on two hands the movies that challenged United States society and McCarthyism during the 1950s (Bad Day at Black Rock [1955], Its Always Fair Weather [1955], High Noon [1952], Johnny Guitar [1954], Silver Lode [1954], Storm Center [1956]). Biblical epics, marriage comedies, upbeat musicals, and alien movies predominated. The television industry was even more repressed, featuring family sitcoms and banal Westerns.

The major crack in the ranks occurred in 1960, when, first, Otto Preminger and, subsequently, Universal Studios announced that Trumbo would receive screen credit for Exodus (1960) and Spartacus (1960). One by one, on their own merit, many of the blacklistees returned to work. A significant number, however, found it difficult to regain their footing in the industry.

The producers associations never stated that the blacklist had ended, because they consistently maintained that there had never been a blacklist in the first place. The producers position was voiced in a 1980 interview by Reagan, now the Republican candidate for president. He told journalist Robert Scheer that the industry had responded to Communist domination of several unions and Communist efforts to take over the industry. They had gotten into positions where they could destroy careers, and did destroy them. There was no blacklist in Hollywood. The blacklist in Hollywood, if there was one, was provided by the Communists. (This claim, that anti-communists were blacklisted by Communists during the 1930s and 1940s, is demonstrably false.)

In some ways, Hollywood has never recovered from the blacklist era. The writers guild, for example, essentially became a dues-collecting, welfare organization rather than a highly politicized union. The militant, democratic Conference of Studio Unions has not been replicated.

Fortunately, the media industries have changed so much that a new blacklist is unlikely. Still, one lesson everyone should have learned is the precariousness of the First and Fifth Amendments when the government announces a national security crisis. Another is the necessity of defending those who come under attack.

More here:
The 1950s Hollywood Blacklist Was an Assault on Free Expression - Jacobin magazine

Deputies ordered to answer questions about knowledge of gangs in LA County Sheriffs Department – Daily Breeze

A Loyola Law School report published on Jan. 13, 2021, traces a 50-year history of deputy gangs within the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. Many of those involved have tattoos that show their involvement. A new report from the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission released March 3, 2023 details deputy gang activity and makes several recommendations to new Sheriff Robert Luna for eliminated these groups from the Department. (Courtesy of Loyola Law School)

The Los Angeles County Office of Inspector General announced on Tuesday, May 16, it sent letters to multiple sheriffs deputies ordering them to submit to questioning about their knowledge of deputy gangs within the department.

The letters, dated Friday, warn that failure to cooperate with the OIGs investigation into deputy gangs is grounds for decertification of a peace officer.

Your cooperation is being sought because we believe you may have information regarding one of two groups that may be law enforcement gangs, commonly referred to as the Banditos and the Executioners, the letters state. The sheriffs department is in possession of evidence that the Banditos and Executioners are exclusive, secretive and may qualify as law enforcement gangs pursuant to Penal Code section 13670(b), including by discriminating in membership based upon race and gender in a manner prohibited by this section.

The letter warns that absent an assertion by you of your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, failure to answer may adversely affect your employment with Los Angeles County or your status as a certified peace officer.

It also instructs deputies to bring a photograph of any tattoos they may have on their legs, or any that resemble those that have been associated with the Banditos and Executioners.

The letter includes a list of questions likely to be asked, including a description of any tattoos they may have, and the names of other deputies they believe to be associated with internal gangs.

According to Spectrum News, which first reported on the letters, the missives were sent to 35 deputies. The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which is the union representing deputies, sent text messages to its members Monday instructing them to contact the union before responding, Spectrum News reported, adding that the union told members it was negotiating with the OIG on the issue.

The issue of alleged deputy gangs has long plagued the sheriffs department. Previous Sheriff Alex Villanueva insisted during his time in office that he immediately cracked down on such groups, and he denied they were actively operating within the agency.

For background, see: Former top aide to Villanueva says he belonged to alleged Grim Reaper deputy gang

New Sheriff Robert Luna, however, ran on a platform of transparency and vowed to fully cooperate in investigations into the alleged gangs.

Read more here:
Deputies ordered to answer questions about knowledge of gangs in LA County Sheriffs Department - Daily Breeze