Mediaboss Marketing

Following the 1960s riots and curfews in cities across America, variations of this question remained a refrain on TV for decades. This simple yet ominous message evoked dread among parents concerned for their childrens welfare. Decades later, its a question parents across Maryland should ask themselves every day.

Imagine its a regular school day. Its 11 a.m., and your fourth-grader should be sitting in his math class. Instead of solving addition and subtraction problems, your fourth-grader is plucked out of class and questioned by police all without your knowledge. Hours later, police call to tell you that your son was questioned by police but, dont worry, it was determined that he had not committed a crime because he did not attempt to spend the money.

During the Maryland 2018-2019 school year,69 elementary schoolers, 1,029 middle schoolers and 1,912 high schoolers were arrested numbers that do not reflect the number of youth questioned but not arrested by police. Under Maryland law, police can detain and interrogate a child without a parents presence or knowledge that their child is being questioned or arrested.

Further, Maryland police are not required to ensure children understand their Miranda rights before being interrogated, nor what it means to waive their rights, increasing the likelihood of self-incrimination. These are a few reasons why Marylands juvenile justice system is ranked by Human Rights for Kids as one of the worst protectors of childrens human rights (our cohort includes Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee and Wyoming).

Maryland has the opportunity to take the first step toward protecting childrens inherent rights this year by passing the Juvenile Interrogation Protection Act. JIPA would put an end to child interrogation without a parents knowledge and without an attorney present. The bill protects against false confessions by giving juveniles access to counsel prior to any custodial interrogation.

At a minimum, it sets up a procedure for law enforcement to actually notify, not just make reasonable efforts to contact, a parent or guardian prior to an interrogation. These two requirements address the pitfalls that historically and wrongfully incarcerated our youth and ensure their constitutional rights are protected.

In the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the confrontational nature of custodial interrogations requires police to inform suspects including juveniles of their Fifth Amendment rights before interrogation. Those rights include the right to an attorney and to remain silent.

Compared with adults, juveniles are far less likely to assert or even understand their rights. As the Supreme Court determined in Miller v. Alabama, youthful offenders possess a diminished capacity and are unable to fully appreciate the risks and consequences of their actions.

In addition, research has found that minors are uniquely susceptible to coercive questioning techniques and interrogation tactics employed by police. In fact, a study of exonerations by the University of Michigan Law School found that 42 percent of exonerated juveniles had falsely confessed, compared with 13 percent of adults. Over the years, science, courts and doctors have researched and documented the inherent differences between children and adults in decision-making capacities, reflecting the rationale for separate justice systems for minors and adults.

Yet, current Maryland law treats our youth as though they have the same decision-making capacity as adults. JIPA acknowledges that a minors brain development and life experience are vastly different from that of adults.

This bill, requiring juveniles to have the assistance of counsel to understand their rights, is in line with what the courts have recognized, science has proven and most states have already implemented.

Some opponents of JIPA may argue that it hampers the prosecution of crimes against juveniles, claiming that some juvenile offenders may get away because their attorney may advise them of their rights and they may choose not to confess.

Weve heard this argument before;it was raised by dissenting justices in Miranda, fearing that requiring affirmative warnings (a hazardous experiment) would inflict untold harm on law enforcement in their ability to do their jobs.

Today, we expect nothing less than complete Mirandizing prior to interrogation. Others may argue that the JIPA parent notification requirement will delay a speedy interrogation during a critical situation. The reality is that the current practice of interrogating children without counsel or guardian notification only heightens the chance of a false confession, enabling the actual perpetrators to wander the streets. In any event, the likelihood of a false confession is too high to forgo procedural safeguards.

If we wish for Maryland to have a fair and equitable justice system, we must ensure that youth are not coerced and incarcerated simply because they are children and do not understand their constitutional rights.

Use your voice to urge the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Del. Luke Clippinger, to bring the Juvenile Interrogation Protection Act to a vote and to ask your legislators to vote in favor of passing this legislation.

No matter the hour of the day, how we treat and care for our youth is a reflection of the soul of our state.

CHRIS JENNISON, EBBY STOUTMILES, TRACEY FRIEDLANDER, KIM ALFRIEND AND FRANCHA DAVIS

Jennison is an attorney and chair of the Montgomery County Commission on Juvenile Justice. Stoutmiles is vice chair of the Montgomery County Commission on Juvenile Justice and is state policy advocate at the Juvenile Law Center. Friedlander is a youth and family advocate and commissioner on the Montgomery County Commission on Juvenile Justice. Alfriend is an attorney and commissioner on the Montgomery County Commission on Juvenile Justice. Davis is a juvenile advocate and commissioner on the Montgomery County Commission on Juvenile Justice.

View post:
Opinion: It's 11 O'Clock. Do You Know Where Your Children Are? Maryland Matters - Josh Kurtz

Key Points:

Background

On September 22, 2020, the Trump administration issued EO 13950 prohibiting federal agencies, federal grant recipients, and federal contractors from endorsing divisive race and gender concepts as we discussed in our commentary on October 6, 2020. EO 13950 forbids diversity and inclusion training that promotes or endorses divisive concepts as defined in EO 13950. On December 22, 2020, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California grantedPlaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in part and issued an Order in Santa Cruz Lesbian and Gay Community Center, et al, v Donald J. Trump, et al., imposing a nationwide preliminary injunction that enjoins the federal agencies named as Defendants (federal government) from enforcing EO 13950s provisions under 4, directed at federal contractors, and 5, directed at federal grant recipients. The Order is effective immediately and directs the federal government to provide notice to all federal contractors and grant recipients as well as sub-contractors and sub-grantees covered by EO 13950 of the injunction imposed by the Courts Order.

Basis of the Courts Order

The Plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit are non-profit organizations and a subcontractor that provide health care and critical services to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and people living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Plaintiffs claim that EO 13950 violates their rights under the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment because it impermissibly chills the exercise of constitutionally protected speech based on the content and viewpoint of their speech and violates their rights under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment because EO 13950 infringes on their protected right to free speech and fails to provide adequate notice of the conduct it purports to prohibit.

The Court agreed that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that EO 13950 violates their First Amendment rights because:

Regarding Plaintiffs claims of due process violations under the Fifth Amendment, the Court agreed that the vagueness of the prohibited conduct inhibits the exercise of Plaintiffs freedom of expression and that the federal governments own interpretation of the scope of the prohibited conduct creates even more uncertainty. It concluded that the Plaintiffs established a significant adverse impact on their organizations and clients as a result of the loss of opportunities and income based on Plaintiffs and their clients understanding of the effect of EO 13950. The Court noted that the federal governments dislike of the speech at issue, while irrelevant to the analysis, permeated its briefs.

EO 13950 Provisions Enjoined by Court's Order

The Order explicitly bars the federal government from taking any action intended to effectuate or enforce 4 and 5 of EO 13950, including but not limited to the specific actions enumerated in the Courts Order. The Courts Order specifically prohibits the federal government from taking the following actions:

Workplace training: The federal government is prohibited from requiring the inclusion of express provisions in government contracts that prohibit the discussion of concepts defined as divisive race and gender concepts in workplace training programs, and from enforcing such express provisions that have been included in government contracts since the issuance of EO 13950.

Notice requirements to labor representatives and unions: All notice requirements imposed on federal contractors to labor unions or employee representatives are enjoined.

Penalties and enforcement procedures based on non-compliance: The federal government is prohibited from imposing sanctions, including but not limited to canceling, terminating or suspending a contractors or subcontractors federal contract in whole or in part, or declaring a contractor or subcontractor ineligible for federal contract awards.

Mandatory flow-down contract clauses: The federal government is prohibited from requiring contractors to include a contract clause prohibiting divisive race and gender concepts in subcontracts and supply agreements with subcontractors and vendors that provide services and supplies under the contract. Contractors also cannot be required to enforce such contract clauses against subcontractors and vendors.

Collecting information and investigating non-compliance: The federal government is precluded from initiating investigations, taking other agency action to implement EO 13950, and taking enforcement actions under EO 13950 and is barred from using itshotline to collect information regarding non-compliance with the provisions ofEO 13950.

Requests for Information: The federal government is enjoined from seeking all information from any entity regarding training, workshops or programming provided to employees of government contractors and subcontractors with respect to the provisions of EO 13950 and related regulations issued by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

Requirements applicable to federal grant recipients: The federal government is proscribed from:

What this means to you

The Courts nationwide injunction has delayed the investigative and compliance actions and enforcement actions authorized under EO 13950. The election of Joe Biden will likely result in President-elect Biden overturning EO 13950 shortly after taking office on January 20, 2021. As a result, the prohibitions, compliance actions, requests for information and enforcement actions imposed on federal contractors and federal grantees under EO 13950 and by the OFFCP are in abeyance until either the injunction is made permanent or lifted, or the executive order is overturned. The federal governments hotline established to receive complaints regarding violations of EO 13950, states that it is no longer accepting complaints in accordance with the Courts December 22, 2020 Order. It does allow callers to continue to leave messages and refers callers who desire to file complaints of discrimination to another phone number or to a page on their website.

Tracey Oakes OBrien, Legal Content and Knowledge Manager is a co-author of this content.

[View source.]

Read the original post:
Federal Judge Bars Enforcement Of EO Related To Diversity Training - JD Supra

Editor: There should be no compassionate release or home confinement for poor kids-for-cash judge Mark Ciavarella (Dec. 29). His release date is June 18, 2035.

He claims he served a substantial portion of his sentence 112 out of 386 months. He wants a compassionate release due to health concerns and claims he suffers from chronic kidney disease, bronchitis, hypertension, chest pains, hip and shoulders aches and rapid heartbeats. All that list sounds like what hard-working citizens have by working honestly and doing without things just to support their families.

Where was his compassion when he sent juveniles to the detention center that he and former judge Michael Conahan profited from? The judges received $2.8 million and ruined many young lives. What did the judges say to them? You did the crime, now do the time?

He probably lives in a hotel room, not a regular prison cell. And he should not have home confinement. Hed only suffer from boredom but have friends over to play cards, drink, eat good food, sleep in silk pajamas and in his bed.

On judgment day, we will all stand facing God as he opens our book of life as we face judgement. We cant use our Fifth Amendment, we cant recoil or have someone cover for us. Hes the only perfect judge, not Ciavarella, who tried to play God. Pride goeth before a fall. He should stay in prison till 2035.

My heart cries for all the kids who suffered and may still be suffering because of his no-compassion sentences. God said vengeance is mine, I will repay.

Lizza Lamoreaux

Edwardsville

See the article here:
No early release for Ciavarella | Letters to the Editor | citizensvoice.com - Wilkes-Barre Citizens Voice

Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On January 19, 2021, Teledyne Technologies Incorporated ("Teledyne") enteredinto the following agreements:

First Amendment to Amended and Restated Term Loan Credit Agreement

On January 19, 2021, Teledyne and its subsidiary, Teledyne Netherlands B.V., asborrowers, and certain other subsidiaries of Teledyne, as guarantors, enteredinto an amendment (the "Term Loan Amendment") to Teledyne's Amended and RestatedTerm Loan Credit Agreement dated as of October 30, 2019 (as so amended, the"Term Loan Credit Agreement"). Among other things, the Term Loan Amendment(i) amends the definition of Permitted Acquisition to include the FireworkAcquisition (each as defined therein), which is the acquisition to beconsummated pursuant to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as ofJanuary 4, 2021, among Teledyne, FLIR Systems, Inc., Firework Merger Sub II,LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Teledyne and Firework Merger Sub I, Inc., awholly owned subsidiary of Firework Merger Sub II, LLC, (ii) amends theConsolidated Net Debt to EBITDA Ratio (as defined therein) for periods followingthe Firework Acquisition, (iii) modifies the "bail-in" acknowledgments of theparties therein, and (iv) modifies certain of the negative operating covenantstherein in certain respects.

Sixth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement

On January 19, 2021, Teledyne, as borrower, certain of its foreign subsidiaries,as designated borrowers, and certain of its other subsidiaries, as guarantors,entered into an amendment (the "Sixth Amendment") to Teledyne's Amended andRestated Credit Agreement dated as of March 1, 2013, as amended by that certainFirst Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of December 4,2015, that certain Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreementdated as of January 17, 2017, that certain Third Amendment to Amended andRestated Credit Agreement dated as of March 17, 2017, that certain FourthAmendment to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of March 15,2019, and that certain Fifth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreementdated as of October 30, 2019 (as so amended, the "Credit Agreement"). Amongother things, the Sixth Amendment (i) amends the definition of PermittedAcquisition to include the Firework Acquisition (each as defined therein), (ii)amends the Consolidated Net Debt to EBITDA Ratio (as defined therein) forperiods following the Firework Acquisition, (iii) modifies the "bail-in"acknowledgments of the parties therein, and (iv) modifies certain of thenegative operating covenants therein in certain respects.

The descriptions set forth above are qualified in their entirety by the TermLoan Amendment and the Sixth Amendment, copies of which are filed as exhibits tothis report and are incorporated by reference herein.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

The information set forth above in Item 1.01 is hereby incorporated into thisitem 2.03 by reference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Original post:
TELEDYNE TECHNOLOGIES INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an...

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR SECTION 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): January 19, 2021

Teledyne Technologies Incorporated

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

1-15295

25-1843385

(State or other jurisdiction

(Commission

(I.R.S. Employer

of incorporation)

File Number)

Identification No.)

1049 Camino Dos Rios

Thousand Oaks, California

91360-2362

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (805) 373-4545

Not Applicable

(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

Title of each class

Trading

Name of each exchange on

Symbol(s)

which registered

Common Stock, par value $.01 per share

TDY

New York Stock Exchange

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (17 CFR 230.405) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR 240.12b-2).

Emerging growth company

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.

Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On January 19, 2021, Teledyne Technologies Incorporated ("Teledyne") entered into the following agreements:

First Amendment to Amended and Restated Term Loan Credit Agreement

On January 19, 2021, Teledyne and its subsidiary, Teledyne Netherlands B.V., as borrowers, and certain other subsidiaries of Teledyne, as guarantors, entered into an amendment (the "Term Loan Amendment") to Teledyne's Amended and Restated Term Loan Credit Agreement dated as of October 30, 2019 (as so amended, the "Term Loan Credit Agreement"). Among other things, the Term Loan Amendment (i) amends the definition of Permitted Acquisition to include the Firework Acquisition (each as defined therein), which is the acquisition to be consummated pursuant to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of January 4, 2021, among Teledyne, FLIR Systems, Inc., Firework Merger Sub II, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Teledyne and Firework Merger Sub I, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Firework Merger Sub II, LLC, (ii) amends the Consolidated Net Debt to EBITDA Ratio (as defined therein) for periods following the Firework Acquisition, (iii) modifies the "bail-in" acknowledgments of the parties therein, and (iv) modifies certain of the negative operating covenants therein in certain respects.

Sixth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement

On January 19, 2021, Teledyne, as borrower, certain of its foreign subsidiaries, as designated borrowers, and certain of its other subsidiaries, as guarantors, entered into an amendment (the "Sixth Amendment") to Teledyne's Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of March 1, 2013, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of December 4, 2015, that certain Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of January 17, 2017, that certain Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of March 17, 2017, that certain Fourth Amendment to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of March 15, 2019, and that certain Fifth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of October 30, 2019 (as so amended, the "Credit Agreement"). Among other things, the Sixth Amendment (i) amends the definition of Permitted Acquisition to include the Firework Acquisition (each as defined therein), (ii) amends the Consolidated Net Debt to EBITDA Ratio (as defined therein) for periods following the Firework Acquisition, (iii) modifies the "bail-in" acknowledgments of the parties therein, and (iv) modifies certain of the negative operating covenants therein in certain respects.

The descriptions set forth above are qualified in their entirety by the Term Loan Amendment and the Sixth Amendment, copies of which are filed as exhibits to this report and are incorporated by reference herein.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

The information set forth above in Item 1.01 is hereby incorporated into this item 2.03 by reference.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits

(d) Exhibits

EXHIBIT INDEX

Description

Exhibit 10.1 First Amendment to Amended and Restated Term Loan Credit Agreement dated as of January 19, 2021, by and among Teledyne Technologies Incorporated and Teledyne Netherlands BV, as borrowers, the guarantors party thereto, the several banks and other financial institutions from time to time parties thereto as lenders and Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent

Exhibit 10.2 Sixth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of January 19, 2021, by and among Teledyne Technologies Incorporated, the designated borrowers party thereto, the guarantors party thereto, the lenders party thereto and Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent, swing line lender and L/C issuer

Exhibit 104 Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded within the Inline XBRL Document)

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

TELEDYNE TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED

By: /s/ Melanie S. Cibik

Melanie S. Cibik

Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Chief

Compliance Officer and Secretary

Dated: January 21, 2021

This is an excerpt of the original content. To continue reading it, access the original document here.

Disclaimer

FLIR Systems Inc. published this content on 21 January 2021 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 21 January 2021 19:49:00 UTC

See original here:
FLIR : Filing of certain prospectuses and communications in connection with business combination transactions - Marketscreener.com