Mediaboss Marketing

Are you getting tired of all the political TV ads? There is one reason these ads are on TV, the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. This decision has created a legal form of bribery and corruption. Citizens United gave corporations and political action committees the right to give millions to political candidates.

The U.S. Constitution gives the right to vote to citizens; corporations and PACs cannot vote. The Supreme Court has in the past denied corporations and PACs rights reserved for citizens. People are taxed and regulated differently than corporations. People enjoy the right in the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination in criminal investigations, while corporations do not.

Personally I do not like the idea of an out-of-state corporation or PAC trying to influence the votes of Iowans. I do not like the idea these organizations giving large amounts of cash to candidates who are supposed to represent Iowans and thereby trying to corrupt or bribe an Iowa candidate. Even citizens should not be able to donate to a candidate they cannot actually vote for or against, and the amount of a donation should be limited. Just because a person has millions, it does not make their vote worth more than any other persons vote.

I would love to see a political campaign based on a candidates record, what they plan to do or their goals for the people they represent. Here is a unique idea: How about a campaign based on honesty and the truth, rather than lies and deception?

If candidates were required to give their opponents the same amount they spend on a negative ad so the opponents can respond, there would be far fewer negative ads.

During this election cycle, Republicans are using Citizens United money to prevent people voting by challenging absentee voting, eliminating polling locations and making people travel extended distances and stand in line during a pandemic to cast their vote. Following the election, Republicans undoubtedly will spend millions of Citizens United dollars to challenge the results of the election. This is just another method of taking your vote away.

Read the rest here:
Searl Letter to the Editor 10/23/20 | Opinion | carrollspaper.com - Carroll Daily Times Herald

Published: 10/23/2020 10:10:19 PM

Modified: 10/23/2020 10:10:09 PM

She lost me at sexual preference. I refer to Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, whose qualifications fall far short of supreme.

During her hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee she may as well have invoked the Fifth Amendment, given the number of reasonable questions she dodged.

As to sexual preference, she used that phrase as naturally as a Proud Boy might drop the n word. Among the factors I find disqualifying, this semantic slip is glaringly revealing. Sexual preference is laden with homophobic bigotry and legal peril. It not merely implies that gay and lesbian citizens choose their sexuality, but it denies the biological realities of sexual and gender identity.

Particularly at the time Barrett was coming of age, choosing to be gay would be a mighty masochistic choice unless one enjoyed humiliation from peers, scorn from family members, secrecy, risk of physical harm and, too often, terrible loneliness. Now, despite magnificent legal progress and a more accepting society, gay students and teachers are denied enrollment and employment at schools Barretts religion supports. Gays and lesbians are beaten by marauding gangs of thugs in areas of major cities and benighted rural towns.

Society and the law more easily shortchange gay and lesbian citizens when they claim (inaccurately) the infallibility of scripture and the notion that homosexuality is a choice too often accompanied by haughty language about conversion or psychiatric intervention.

Too many people are intimidated by religion and fail to speak up. The National Association of Independent Schools has a diversity standard requiring no discrimination on the basis of sexual identity yet accredits religious schools that exclude gay students and teachers. Hypocritical much? I confronted the association, but the board and president wiggled uncomfortably and sided with explicit bigotry, inaccurately citing the so-called ministerial exception accompanied by some convoluted babbling about a big tent. I dont want homophobes in my tent even especially in splendid ecclesiastic garb.

More as to Barrett: She was unwilling to affirm that climate change is at least partially due to human behavior. She couldnt go out on a limb and say tobacco causes cancer. She merely acknowledged that cigarette packages have warning labels. She wouldnt deny the president the power to unilaterally delay an election. She couldnt state whether voter intimidation was illegal. Fortunately no one asked her about up or down, black or white.

Although it may have been strategically wise, it was absurd that no Democrat examined her religious views. The idea that there can be no religious test for public office is a joke. As an enthusiastic atheist, Ive long recognized that I am unelectable. We will have a gay or Muslim president long before we inaugurate a non-believer, and I wouldnt bet the ranch on gay or Muslim.

Even among those claiming a more popular religious affiliation, oughtnt there be some inquiry about how far a candidates or nominees beliefs stray from the rational and empirical bases of our laws and secular social contract? Barretts written record, life choices, and confirmation hearing stonewalling suggest a woman who will be unable to divorce her lifelong indoctrination from her judicial contemplation.

This is not meant as an insult. Many things about her and her life are admirable, but she is ill-suited to sit on the nations highest secular court.

Finally, a word or two about Barretts (and others) originalism or textualism.

Originalism is the judicial approach that limits constitutional consideration to the text of the Constitution as written by the founders and by interpreting what they meant in the 18th century. It is cited as a judicial philosophy. It is not. It is a political philosophy masquerading as a judicial philosophy. It is no coincidence that the conservative justices march in lockstep. They are conservative. By limiting the scope of argument to the bare text, they may reject arguments of petitioners and respondents because the original text makes no mention of the redress they seek. Any legal scholar will tell you that this is done selectively, nearly always in support of a conservative political position. Pure originalism would have precluded nearly every social advance in American history womens rights, reproductive rights, voting rights, civil rights, gay rights, union rights, to name a few.

Barrett will almost certainly be confirmed and, in many ways, our rights and social contract will be rolled back to an era when Barrett and her conservative colleagues will be more comfortable, exclusive religious beliefs included.

Steve Nelson lives in Boulder, Colo., and Sharon. He can be reached at stevehutnelson@gmail.com.

Go here to see the original:
Column: Barrett confirmation will roll back social progress - Valley News

A North Adams man was convicted on multiple counts of domestic assault stemming from incidents that occurred in March and July.

The Berkshire District Attorneys Office secured a conviction in a serious domestic violence case on Monday despite the unavailability of the victim to testify.

Judge Laurie Macleod found Michael Lavigne, 49, of North Adams guilty on two counts of assault and battery on a household member after a bench trial in Northern Berkshire District Court. The Commonwealth proved that Lavigne assaulted the victim on March 7 and again on July 11.

Judge Macleod sentenced him to 18 months at the House of Correction.

It is our responsibility to hold violent offenders accountable for their actions. Mr. Lavigne demonstrated his willingness to use mental and physical abuse to control the victim. This sentence will prevent him from continuing that behavior, District Attorney Andrea Harrington said.

We do not turn a blind eye to domestic violence and this outcome is a reflection of the priority our office and our partners in law enforcement place on these crimes. I thank the North Adams Police Department and the Sheriffs Office for their dedicated investigation.

The Berkshire District Attorneys Office utilized evidence-based prosecution to secure the conviction after the victim asserted the Fifth Amendment. The Commonwealth successfully argued that Mr. Lavigne coerced the victim not to testify through a series of phone calls from the House of Correction.

The Berkshire District Attorneys Office prosecuted the cased based on previous statements, the recorded phone calls, and other evidence Police gathered to prove Mr. Lavigne committed the assaults.

Read the rest here:
Berkshire County Man Convicted on Counts of Domestic Assault - Live 95.9

A Brooklyn teacher invoked the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination when asked by city school investigators about his relationship with a female student, records show.

David Lado, who taught physics at Medgar Evers Preparatory School in Crown Heights, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a female student, the Special Commissioner of Investigation for city schools alleges.

The SCI began a probe after a school official reported receiving an anonymous complaint in an email on June 23, 2019, that Lado, 29, was engaged in sexual activities with a student.

In the presence of her father, the girl denied having a sexual relationship with Lado, saying she spoke with him only during school hours.

The girl also claimed her younger sister, who was mentioned in the anonymous email, denied telling anyone about the allegation. But the father would not let investigators question the sister, the report says.

SCI subpoenaed Google to determine who sent the anonymous email. The records show the account was opened on June 23, the date of the anonymous message. Possibly for the sole purpose of sending the email, the report stated. The person who opened the account did not provide a name or address.

SCI subpoenaed phone records showing that Lado and the girl were in phone contact 129 times. Lado placed 38 calls to her, she called him 88 times, and three text messages were exchanged. The calls were between May 1 and July 1 in 2019, continuing amid the investigation.

Through his lawyer, Lado declined to be interviewed by SCI,invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the SCI states.

The SCI sent Chancellor Richard Carranza its findings on July 9 eight days after the Department of Education fired Lado for letting his state teaching license expire.

Because Lado was already terminated, the DOE could not file misconduct charges against him, a DOE spokeswoman said.

But Lado, who had taught at Medgar Evers since September 2015, is ineligible to work for city schools again, officials said.

This extremely disturbing alleged conduct has absolutely no place in our schools, said DOE spokeswoman Danielle Filson.

According to his LinkedIn page, Lado is currently an MBA candidate at the Zicklin School of Business at Baruch College. He could not be reached for comment.

Original post:
NYC teacher suspected of sexual relationship with student invokes Fifth Amendment - New York Post

Section 446 of the California Code of Civil Procedure concerns the verification of pleadings. Subdivision (a) provides that an answer to a complaint generally must be verified in either of two following circumstances:

The first exception does seemingly applies to any party, including a party that is not an a natural person. In a recent case, however, the state argued that the exception did not apply to corporations because corporations have no privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988).

The Court of Appeal, however, rejected the state's argument:

"Section 446, subdivision (a) does not refer to a 'person' being compelled to be a witness against themselves. Instead it refers to a 'party' who might be subjected to a criminal prosecution. How the word person has been interpreted in the context of the constitutional privilege is immaterial."

Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Auto Group v. Superior Court,Cal. Ct. App. Case No. A159623 (Oct. 20, 2020). The Court made it clear that it was not extending the privilege against self-incrimination to corporations and that corporations will likely have to provide responses under oath in discovery.

View post:
Court Holds That Corporation Need Not Verify Its Answer - JD Supra