Mediaboss Marketing

Ghislaine Maxwell, who faces federal criminal charges of enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts, transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy, and perjury, is accusing the Miami Herald of trashing her reputation and, in essence, of attempting to destroy her right to receive a fair trial. The Herald and its investigative reporter, Julie K. Brown, have been widely praised and awarded (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4) for their aggressive coverage of the now-dead and infamous pedophile sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and, concomitantly, of Maxwell, his longtime associate.

Maxwell levied the complaints against the Herald in a lawsuit to determine whether a second cache of documents in a defamation case between Maxwell and her accuser Virginia Giuffre Roberts will be unsealed by Monday. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday issued a stay on the documents release pending an appeal; in essence, the court pumped the brakes on the release of the highly anticipated materials.

The following words appear in a document filed by Maxwells lawyers on Friday before the Second Circuit. Maxwells lawyers are arguing in favor of keeping the documents secret:

As Ms. Maxwell said in her Motion to Stay, [t]he media has all but convicted her. In hindsight, this appears to have been an understatement.

If the Miami Herald is to be believed, The documents at issue have been improperly sealed for yearsin a way that allowed . . . Ms. Maxwell[s] . . . abuse of young girls to go on unchallenged and unpunished, and allowed a legal system that protected perpetrators over victims to go unquestioned. This unqualified statement of Ms. Maxwells alleged guilt is precisely the type of unfair and unconstitutional pretrial publicity that will result should the district courts unsealing order go into effect.

[ . . . ]

[I]f the Herald is willing to announce its conclusion that Ms. Maxwell abused young girls even before having access to the sealed deposition materials, that is only a harbinger of what media coverage will result should the material be unsealed, coverage that will prejudice Ms. Maxwells constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

The Maxwell argument further trashes the Heralds assertion that the documents have been improperly sealed for years by blaming you guessed it the Herald.

[T]he Herald entirely ignores its own conduct, Maxwells attorneys argue. [T]he Herald did not move to unseal anything in this case until 2018, one year after the case was closed.

Said another way, Maxwells attorneys are blaming the Herald for not acting fast enough to unseal documents which Maxwells attorneys say should not be unsealed.

Self-styled journalist Michael Cernovich he is also sometimes referred to in other ways rubbished Maxwells argument that the Herald was late to enter the proceeding by telling the Second Circuit that he had long been after the same documents himself:

While the Court should not give any credence to Ms. Maxwells argument in her motion that the First Amendment interests at issue are not harmed because the Herald did not seek to intervene until after the May 2017 settlement, Mr. Cernovich had been seeking to learn what atrocities by Maxwell and Epstein were wrongly concealed on the docket prior to that settlement. Three and a half years is too long to suppress the First Amendment right of access. No stay is warranted.

If the documents are not kept under wraps, Maxwell says her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and in favor of a fair trial with an impartial jury will be irreparably harmed.

Such fears by Maxwell could arguably and easily be seized upon by her critics to imply that Maxwell said something in the still-sealed documents which could come back to haunt her.

That inference, obviously, was not fully developed by Maxwells attorneys. Instead, attention was turned again to the Herald, which is among the independent parties seeking to pry the documents into the light of day. Maxwells attorneys said the Heralds proffered notion that the public interest would be best served by the release of the documents was actually quite backwards:

The Herald trivializes the publics right to see that its justice system provide fair trials, the Maxwell argument concludes. With Ms. Maxwell facing an imminent and very public trial, the justice system should endeavor to do all it can to vindicate the theory of our [trial] system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.'

Read several of the relevant court papers below, including an earlier argument by the Herald in favor of releasing the cache of Maxwell/Epstein documents.

Ghislaine Maxwell Docket #19 2nd Circuit by Law&Crime on Scribd

Ghislaine Maxwell Docket #25 2nd Circuit by Law&Crime on Scribd

Ghislaine Maxwell Second Circuit Stay by Law&Crime on Scribd

[image via Laura Cavanaugh/Getty Images]

[Editors note: internal punctuation and citations within legal quotes have been omitted.]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Continued here:
Ghislaine Maxwell Bashes the Miami Herald in Document Dispute - Law & Crime

The June 11 offer by Dan Braswell for a reasonable review of his writings is typical of the party-affiliated vortex of distraction from the issue Thats what I said but I didnt say that which is echoed from Washington too often.

The issue is citizens right to free speech. Braswell and Del. John McGuire need to review two things: The First Amendment right to free speech and the Supreme Courts decision about public officials blocking citizens from posting to their social media accounts.

The First Amendment provides the public with a venue to petition the government for redress of grievances. Since McGuire is the peoples government representative, his blocking access to and deleting comments on his Facebook account is unconstitutional and prevents us from voicing our concerns.

So where should we go if McGuire is emotionally incapable of dealing with opposition? He ignores the concerns of constituents, which is the point. We have the right to express our views to him regardless of his immature attitude. All citizens of the 56th district should be concerned about delegates who are unwilling to communicate with the public they serve.

This should be disturbing to everyone, even Braswell who actively and passively advocates McGuires abuse of First Amendment rights instead of performing an intervention to overcome those feelings of inadequacy.

More important is McGuires intimidation and bullying to prevent the publics right of access to his office. Supposedly, he took another oath to uphold the Constitution when he became delegate, but probably had his fingers crossed. If he cant perform his service to the public, why is he in office?

Why shouldnt he answer questions? Why shouldnt he be held accountable? Whenever the people of the 56th district want answers, his approach seems to be to bunker down. He cant even set up a venue where everyone is comfortable the cause for that discomfort shows itself with his Facebook rants. All his ranting seems to be the overall political strategy of his party. If we could get a coherent post from McGuire, it would help.

Right now, with all his campaigning and overall lack of communication skills, he only displays limited ability to grasp complex and comprehensive issues that are necessary for public safety. His narrow scope belies the broader perspective he cant cope with.

The United States Supreme Court decided that Trumps attempts to block citizens from his Twitter account because they didnt praise him enough, or at all, are unconstitutional. It decided that a public officials social media account cannot be used as a propaganda tool and only allow access to the party faithful for comments. This decision also applies to McGuires Facebook page.

It must be that McGuire has that same sensitivity to criticism as too many of his colleagues.

For all the glorification of military service as justification for public service, Braswell made me think of a military phrase that can be applied to McGuire. As paraphrased: Cowardice in the face of constituents!

Read more:
Read the First Amendment | Letters To The Editor - The Central Virginian

At the coronavirus task force briefing Friday, Vice President Mike Pence was asked a question about why the Trump campaign held a rally in Tulsa, Okla., against the advice of local health officials. He responded by citing the First Amendment.

- On the campaign, it really does sound though like you're saying do as we say, not as we do. You're telling people to listen to local officials, but in Tulsa you defied local health officials to have an event that even though you say it didn't result in a spike, dozens of Secret Service agents, dozens of campaign staffers are now quarantined after positive tests. And then in Arizona, one of the hardest-hit states, you packed a church with young people who weren't wearing masks. So how can you say that the campaign is not part of the problem that Dr. Fauci laid out?

MIKE PENCE: Well, I want to remind you again that the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. And even in a health crisis, the American people don't forfeit our constitutional rights. And working with state officials, as we did in Oklahoma and as we did in Arizona, we're creating settings where people can choose to participate in the political process, and we'll continue to do that.

I think it's I think it's really important that we recognize how important-- how important freedom and personal responsibility are to this entire equation but allowing younger Americans--

- [INAUDIBLE] freedom [INAUDIBLE].

MIKE PENCE: --allowing younger Americans to understand, particularly in the counties that are most impacted. The unique challenges that we're facing in their age group we think is important.

Here is the original post:
Pence says First Amendment is why Trump campaign held Tulsa rally despite local health officials' warnings - Yahoo News

Words matter. Reporting matters. But sometimes, it's a video that matters most.

When a Minneapolis police officer knelt on George Floyd's neck for more than eight minutes while he died, gasping for breath, a cellphone video shot by a teenage girl on her way to get a snack made the horror undeniable.

"The world needed to see what I was seeing," Darnella Frazier told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Days later, when Buffalo police knocked down 75-year-old protester Martin Gugino and a pool of blood spread under on the sidewalk under his head, a cellphone video enraged people all over the world.

"It just so happens I was in the right place at the right time with exactly the right angle," Mike Desmond of the local public radio station WBFO explained to the Buffalo News.

Video can change the world or at least a few million opinions. But what about the potentially explosive video that can't be shot or never gets seen because law enforcement has confiscated cameras or arrested the people using them?

Video can change the world or at least a few million opinions.

This week, New York University's First Amendment Watch released "A Citizen's Guide to Recording the Police" a primer for amateur videographers on the rights they are entitled to in these encounters. The guide explains why, under most circumstances, the police can neither seize nor demand to view such recordings though some may try and it provides case-law examples to back up its assertions.

It comes along at a crucial time.

"In this new era, we have armies of citizens out on the streets capable of producing evidence that checks the conduct of public officials," said Stephen Solomon, the organization's founding editor. The First Amendment right to record public officials, such as the police performing their official duties in public, is central to our democracy, he said.

Who can forget the bizarre and disturbing arrest of Omar Jimenez and a CNN crew while on live television in Minneapolis on May 29? That incident was roundly denounced by press freedom groups and resulted in an apology from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz: "There is absolutely no reason something like this should have happened."

But less heralded and far less visible offenses have happened throughout the United States, as the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker makes clear.

Sue Brisk, a freelance photographer, told the Tracker that she was photographing demonstrations at 42nd Street in Times Square that same day with her NYPD-issued press pass clearly displayed. "I watched the police beat people with billy clubs and then they threw a woman up against a pole right in front of me," Brisk said. "After that it's a blur."

Brisk said that, before she knew what was happening, her head was slammed to the ground and she found herself pinned under at least three New York City police officers. Weeks later, she was still trying to retrieve her camera.

By the Tracker's count, well over 400 "aggressions against the press" - including dozens of examples of equipment being damaged - have marred recent Black Lives Matter protests.

The NYU guide cites a 2012 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decision that drew a direct connection between the creation of a recording and something that's better understood to be constitutionally protected: the publication or dissemination of a recording.

"The right to publish or broadcast an audio or audiovisual recording would be insecure, or largely ineffective," the decision in ACLU v. Alvarez stated, if making the recording were unprotected. "Restricting the use of [a recording] device suppresses speech just as effectively as restricting the dissemination of the resulting recording."

However, the right to record police isn't, well, bulletproof, at this moment.

About three-fifths of the U.S. population lives in states where federal appeals courts have recognized a First Amendment right to record the police in public, the guide says. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled directly on the issue.

That means legal protections aren't nailed down everywhere. Yet the outlook is good: "Given the resounding support so far for this First Amendment protection, it seems highly likely that the remaining federal appeals courts would reach the same conclusion if the issue appears on their docket."

Of course, the legal right to record is no guarantee of respectful treatment when events are unfolding. And they are small comfort to journalists or members of the public who have been injured or had their equipment seized as they tried to document protests.

Still, Solomon told me, it's helpful to know your rights to confidently assert them when it matters most. After all - like 17-year-old Darnella Frazier who started a movement by pointing her cellphone - almost anyone can capture evidence of what "the world needed to see."

Should that happen, it's good to know the First Amendment has your back.

Read this article:
Check your First Amendment rights in the event police stop you from taking photos - The Guam Daily Post

Caroline Hunter, a member of the Federal Election Commission who regularly clashed with her fellow commissioners, resigned on Friday, according to a letter obtained by ABC News.

Hunter, a Republican, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2008, regularly butted heads with FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat also nominated by former President Bush.

She will stay on with the FEC until July 3. The White House has already nominated Allen Dickerson, the legal director of the Institute for Free Speech, to take her place.

In her resignation letter, Hunter has some strong criticism for Weintraub, though she is not mentioned by name.

"The FEC would benefit greatly from new faces and fresh perspectives. It needs Commissioners who will respect the First Amendment, understand the limits of the FEC's jurisdiction, and remember that Congress established the FEC to prevent single-party control, with every significant decision requiring bipartisan approval," Hunter wrote.

"One Commissioner -- who has served for more than a decade past the expiration of her term -- routinely mischaracterizes disagreements among Commissioners about the law as 'dysfunction,' rather than a natural consequence of the FEC's unique structure, misrepresents the jurisdiction of the agency and deliberately enables outside groups to usurp the Commission's role in litigation and chill protected speech," she added. "The American people deserve better."

Federal Election Commission (FEC) Commissioner Ellen Weintraub testifies during a hearing before the Elections Subcommittee of House Committee on House Administration, Nov. 3, 2011 on Capitol Hill.

With Hunter's resignation, the FEC is again left with just three out of six commissioners, meaning that it is one vote short of the minimum four votes needed to act on any substantive matters.

The FEC was left in the same place with no enforcement power for nearly a year, after former Vice Chairman Matthew Petersen resigned from his position last August, until recently.

In May, the Senate finally confirmed President Donald Trump's appointee, Trey Trainor, a Texas election attorney, to fill one of the vacancies on the commission, restoring the quorum.

"It's keenly disappointing for the FEC to lose its quorum just a blink of an eye after we regained it," said Weintraub. "But of course I wish Caroline well in this and all her future endeavors."

The remaining members of the commission are Republican Chair Trainor, Democratic Commissioner Weintraub, and Independent Vice Chair Steven Walther.

Without the four-person quorum, it will not be able to initiate audits, engage in rulemaking, vote on enforcement matters or even issue an advisory opinion or hold meetings.

The commission will continue to perform its important day-to-day duties of making details of 2020 campaign contributions and expenditures available, and its enforcement arm will still review complaints and make recommendations to the commission on those matters.

Scenes from the Federal Election Commission headquarters.

Trevor Potter, president of Washington-based nonpartisan ethics group Campaign Legal Center and a former Republican chair of the FEC, called for a prompt replacement of Hunter to restore the quorum, saying her resignation has left "democratic elections with significantly less government oversight."

"A huge majority of voters are concerned about the enforcement of our campaign finance laws, and Hunter's resignation leaves their democratic elections with significantly less government oversight," Potter said in a statement. "Elections in 2016 and 2018 saw campaign finance violations including: illegal foreign spending, a lack of transparency around the sources of millions in election spending, and candidates working illegally with super PACs."

"Americans understand that the campaign finance system correlates directly to their families' quality of life," he continued. "The corruption of our democracy by unprecedented amounts of money in our elections from wealthy special interests diminishes the voices of average citizens. A strong and functional FEC is vital to protecting our democracy, fighting corruption, and holding politicians accountable for the campaign money they receive."

A source familiar with Hunter's thinking told ABC News that Weintraub's decision to let outside groups file lawsuits directly in federal court against other groups and individuals is something on which Hunter strongly disagreed with Weintraub.

"Fire alarms are sometimes housed in boxes labeled 'Break glass in case of emergency.' The Federal Election Campaign Act has such a box; it's the provision that allows complainants to sue respondents directly when the Federal Election Commission fails to enforce the law itself. In the 44-year history of the FEC, this provision has never been fully utilized. Today, I'm breaking the glass," Weintraub said in 2018.

This incident "took the dysfunction to a new level," the source explained.

Hunter served on the FEC for 12 years and as the commission chair three times and plans to join "the legal team of Stand Together, a philanthropic organization dedicated to tackling some of the biggest challenges of our times, including reforming the nation's criminal justice system, strengthening K-12 education, helping neighbors beat poverty and addiction, empowering everyone to find fulfilling work, and more," according to a press release.

Read more from the original source:
FEC Commissioner Caroline Hunter resigns from post, says commission 'needs to respect the First Amendment' - ABC News