Mediaboss Marketing

PEORIA (WEEK) --The town of Normal and several Normal Police Department officers, including its chief, are being sued in relation to an officer being accused of stealing $12,000 when responding to a residence for a drug overdose.

The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. Central District court in Peoria by the attorneys representing Lindsey Holzhauer, alleging officer Brian Williams did not have a valid search warrant or consent to search the residence, and "violated her Fourth Amendment right... to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures."

The lawsuit stems from the November 25 incident, when Williams was tasked with checking the well-being of a person who had potentially overdosed. The victim died, but a relative later reported to the NPD that $12,000 was missing from the residence.

Williams allegedly called Holzhauer anonymously to tell her to stop contacting police after learning she had contacted the NPD to report the missing $12,000.

The lawsuit also states NPD officers "conspired and acted together to cover up their misconduct."

The lawsuit alleges a detective with the NPD contacted Holzhauer and told her "it would be in her best interest to keep the complaint within the Normal Police Department and to not involve the ISP."

The case was turned over to the Illinois State Police, which conducted the sting, resulting in Williams arrest.

Chief Rick Bleichner, Tim Edmiaston and Jim Ferguson of the NPD are listed as defendants in the lawsuit.

Holzhauer is also suing for emotional distress in the incident.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

Williams pleaded not guilty to all the charges in December.

He is currently on administrative leave and facing charges of official misconduct and theft over $10,000 in McLean County Court after he was arrested in an Illinois State Police sting operation. His bond was set at $30,000 but a judge released Williams on personal recognizance.

A call to the Normal Police Department was not immediately returned Monday morning.

Continued here:
Town of Normal, police officers being sued in connection to officer allegedly stealing $12K - WEEK - week.com

Frank Thorp V and Kyle Stewart

6d ago / 4:32 AM UTC

If that short break was used to try to reach a deal to move the proceedings along, it appears it didn't work.

McConnell resumed the trial, and then Schumer immediately introduced his fifth amendment, which seeks to subpoena certain Defense Departmentdocuments and records.

They will go into up to two hours of debate on the amendment. Several senators looked tired an hour ago, as Jeffries made the case for why Mulvaney should be called as a witness.

As Jeffries spoke, some senators appeared to be eating snacks. A few chatted quietly. Most watched the screens as the videos were played, although a few looked around the room and up at the galleries.

As the clock approached 9 p.m., a few senators rested their heads against their hands as they sat listening, and Senate pages walked through the room refilling water glasses.

Frank Thorp V and Liz Johnstone

6d ago / 4:38 AM UTC

The fourth Schumer amendment, to call Mulvaney as a witness, was defeated along party lines, 53-47 just like the previous three.

McConnell, after remarking that he had observed a "certain similarity of all of these amendments," asked Schumer whether he would be willing to stack the votes on the remaining Democratic amendments into one to speed the evening along. Schumer did not agree and told him he would be willing to hold amendment votes Wednesday if senators wanted to go home now.

"The bottom line is verysimple," Schumer said. "As has been clear toevery senator in the country: Webelieve witnesses anddocuments are extremelyimportant and a compelling casehas been made for them.We will have votes on all ofthose.We will also the leader, without consulting us made changes, a number of significant changes thatsignificantly deviated from the1999 Clinton resolution.We want to change those.So there will be a good numberof votes."

McConnell put the trial into a quorum call, or a break but moments later, the trial resumed with the reading of Schumer amendment No. 5 into the record.

Rebecca Shabad

6d ago / 2:25 AM UTC

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., one of the seven House managers and the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, argued in favor of the Democratic amendment that calls for a subpoena of acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Mulvaney, who also leads the Office of Management and Budget, played a key role in the president's efforts to freeze nearly $400 million in U.S. security assistance to Ukraine and withhold a White House meeting.

"Based on the extensive evidence that the House did obtain, it is clear that Mulvaney was crucial in planning the scheme, executing its implementation and carrying out the cover-up," said Jeffries.

"Emails and witness testimony show that Mr. Mulvaney was 'in the loop' on the president's decision to explicitly condition a White House meeting on Ukraine's announcement of investigations beneficial to the president's re-election prospects," he added. "He was closely involved in implementing the president's hold on a security assistance, and subsequently admitted that the funds were being withheld to put pressure on Ukraine."

Mulvaney is one of four witnesses that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., would like the Senate to subpoena. The House issued a subpoena compelling Mulvaney's testimony during the impeachment inquiry last year but he defied it at the direction of the White House.

Jonathan Allen

6d ago / 2:10 AM UTC

President Donald Trump's defense failed him at the opening of hisSenate impeachment trial Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had one job. He just had to collect 51 votes forthe trial rules he had written, in close consultation with White House officials, to deliver Trump an acquittal quickly, quietly and with as few surprises as possible.

He couldn't do it.

The other half of Trump's squad,his legal team, chose not to defend his actions with a cogent explanation for them. Rather than rebutting hours of evidence presented by House Democratic impeachment managers, White House lawyers opted to repeat Trump's attacks on the process and the disjointed set of rejoinders he's delivered to Democrats in public.

Read more of the analysis here.

Hallie Jackson and Hans Nichols

6d ago / 2:22 AM UTC

SO WHAT DID PRESIDENT TRUMP THINK OF TODAY? He was absolutely engaged in the impeachment proceedings today, getting "minute-by-minute" updates on the process, according to Rep. Mark Meadows, one of the presidents closest allies and an impeachment team member. Legislative Affairs head Eric Ueland backed that up, telling reporters that the president is "very impressed" with whats been happening on the Hill. But take all that with a grain of salt: the president likes to see impressive TV performances, and we have reason to believe that he may have more mixed feelings than what aides are letting on. And the president is also someone who likes to gauge the reviews so his opinion may end up shaped by the tone from his preferred cable news shows. (An early guide: Sean Hannity, in his opener, is adopting a bored affect and introducing the networks Congressional correspondent as someone whos been "suffering through a lot of this tediousness.")

WILL THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE TEAM FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS BY 9AM WEDNESDAY?Its possible, but the chances seem less-than-likely. Ueland didnt shut the door on it tonight, but Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas sounded more definitive, telling reporters he believes a motion to dismiss is unlikely: its "not nearly as good an outcome for the president and for the country as will be a final judgment on the merits." Again, its kind of a moot point regardless since Senate Republicans dont think there are the votes to support such a motion.

IS THE DEFENSE GOING TO PUSH BACK ON THE APPARENT SATURDAY START FOR THEIR OPENING? Seems doubtful. Two sources familiar with the thinking suggest its not likely the White House team will put up much of a fight on the expected Saturday start to opening arguments (thats if House managers take up their allotted three days.) Thats subject to change, as always. But weekend arguments would, in theory, let the presidents defenders get in their first word before the Sunday political talk shows, and then have a weekday audience for the rest of their arguments Monday and, if needed, Tuesday.

Haley Talbot

6d ago / 1:32 AM UTC

As Rep. Adam Schiff spoke on the floor, Sen. Chuck Schumer smiled and laughed while talking to the aides seated next to him a strikingly different demeanor from Majority Leader Mitch McConnells stoic posture across the aisle.

In a brief moment of bipartisanship, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., walked over to the Republican side behind the last row of senators. As he was passing by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., he crouched down and the two chatted and laughed briefly. A packet of gum was being passed around that back row between Sasse, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and others.

While the table on the prosecution side with the managers was full of open binders, notebooks and laptops the Trump defense team's table looked neat. Their binders were not open while Schiff and Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., spoke, and their laptops also remained closed.

During the arguments, Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren took notes on occasion, andRepublican Sens. Amy Murkowski and Susan Collins watched Schiff intently for the duration of his remarks. In the final few minutes of Schiff's comments, Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, tapped on his watch to indicate the California Democrat was nearing the end of his time. Schiff seemed to look in his direction but did not pause or stop.

When Crow was speaking, the other House managers watched him intently, turning in their chairs to face him. Rep Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was the one exception; he took notes throughout and referred back to binders and notes.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., read during most of the proceedings, while Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., yawned several times. Cruz slumped back in his chair, scowling, while Schiff and Crow spoke. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., had a similar posture and didnt take notes or read.

Frank Thorp V

6d ago / 12:42 AM UTC

McConnell moved to table the third Democratic amendment, which would have subpoenaed OMB documents related to the charges against the president and regarding the suspension of assistance to Ukraine.

Schumer introduced a fourth amendment to subpoena acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Senators will now take a 30-minute recess to eat dinner. It'll be pizza for both sides, Republicans will eat Ledo's in the Mansfield room, where they usually hold their policy luncheons, and Democrats will eat Ledo's in the cloakroom.

During dinner, they will discuss what happens next. When they return from this recess they will debate, for up to two hours, the Mulvaney amendment. Then there will be another vote to kill the amendment.

On Tuesdaysbonus episode of Article II, host Steve Kornacki explains the last-minute changes that Mitch McConnell made to the impeachment trial rules in response to pressure from moderate Republican senators.

Download the podcast.

Julie Tsirkin

6d ago / 12:26 AM UTC

Some senators appear to be losing steam as the trial headed into the night.

There were many yawns, including from Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala. Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, was most definitely sound asleep for the majority of Rep. Val Demings' presentation. When Jay Sekulow took the stand, speaking audibly louder, Risch was jolted awake.

GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike Lee of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa took copious notes throughout Demings presentation. Grassley and Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., were noting each piece of evidence presented on the screens. New Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., also took notes throughout.

When Lev Parnas' interview with Rachel Maddow was shown, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., began laughing and writing something down. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was smiling from ear to ear, sitting up in his chair and looking at Republicans. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., remained still and serious throughout. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., passed a note to Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and the two laughed and nodded.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., passed breath mints from his desk to senators sitting nearby, including Republican Sens. Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah. Sen. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., sat with a blanket over her lap. Schumer appeared to be quite thirsty, with pages refilling his water glass every 10 minutes. Grassley had a sheet of paper on his desk with photo identifiers.

Continued here:
Trump impeachment: Live coverage of the trial - NBCNews.com

Sen. Steve Daines

U.S. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) on Jan. 23 said he plans to introduce bipartisan legislation to help protect the privacy of his home-state constituents and all Americans.

Montanans want their privacy protected, Sen. Daines said. Thats why Im fighting to protect our civil liberties and stop the federal government from interfering in our lives.

Sen. Daines intends to introduce the Safeguarding Americans Private Records Act of 2020 with U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). In the U.S. House, U.S. Reps. Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced legislation, H.R. 5675, on Jan. 24 to reform Section 215 of the sweeping anti-terrorism law, the USA PATRIOT Act, officially the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, which was signed into law in 2001.

According to Sen. Daines office, the National Security Agency has used the law to create a secret mass surveillance program that also has swept up millions of Americans phone calls.

If enacted, the bipartisan, bicameral measure would permanently end the phone surveillance program by closing loopholes and prohibiting secret interpretation of the law, according to a bill summary provided by Sen. Daines office.

The bill also would prohibit the collection of geolocation information by intelligence agencies.

This is one of the most American pieces of legislation that the Senate could deliver. First off, it is an important bipartisan solution that proves our legislators can put the United States first. Second, it provides sunshine and clarifies our nations domestic surveillance programs. Third, it ensures Americans fourth amendment rights are clearly protected. And last, it updates and clarifies extremely outdated technology laws, said Daniel Zolnikov, a Republican member of the Montana Legislature and chairman of the Montana House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations Committee. I applaud both Senator Daines and Senator Wyden for taking their job and their oath to the constitution serious.

Read the original:
Daines intends to introduce bill to reform PATRIOT Act - Ripon Advance

Newark Advocate Published 12:35 p.m. ET Jan. 25, 2020

A government agency can use eminent domain to take private property for a valid public cause while compensating the property owner. A government agency can through its actions devalue a piece of property by restricting access to or the use of that property.

This is called legallytaking land. This can happenwhen a road is changed or widened. When Thornwood Crossing east of Granville was built, access to Cherry Valley Road from Route 16 was cut off. This restricted access to businesses along Cherry Valley Road.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided, by a 4 to 3 vote, that Wendys was entitled to compensation by ODOT for the business loss. The court stated that losing access constituted taking.Wendys lawyer stated that his client had a constitutional right to theaccess point of Cherry Valley at Route 16, and ODOT closed that access point.

So is a business entitled to be compensated for the loss of profit under the legal taking clause, paid for by a public entity using public money? Should businesses then not pay for profit for access to a publicly-funded road? No business is going to locate in an inaccessible area. That mean it is fully aware of thepotential profit by having access provided by the public. In order to get compensated for the loss of profit, a business should pay into a fund for profiting by getting access paid for by thepublic. The public should not pay for building a road and then again for private business losses. It should be either both or neither.

Jurgen Pape

Granville

During the Novembervoting day Zone 2 & 4 voted at the American Legion Lodge on 6th Street.There were numerous times that you had to look for a place to park.Come March it will be the same and November has the potential of severe over crowding, making many voters not voting or illegally parking.The election boardneeds to take a serious look at separating these twozones to there own area immediately.I see everywhere on social media of bad blood between Democrats and Republicans and I see a problem especially in November.I would hope everyone would act like adults and vote with heart.Thank you for listening there is a problem that needs fixed NOW!

Mike Miner

Newark

On Monday we witnessed a gathering of Virginia citizens protesting gun confiscation by their "Democratic" government. All the proposed laws are unconstitutional because they are an infringement on their constitutional rights. Not just the Second Amendment, but also the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. All of these government officials have taken the oath of office swearing to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. By voting to steal lawfully owned firearms they've violated their oath of office. By sending officers out to steal lawfully owned firearms they are committing the act of treason and forcing the officers also to commit an act of treason.

No one who has ever taken an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution can support any law that violates that oath. If you have ever taken such an oath, you are bound to not support an unconstitutional law. Thank God that most of the sheriff's in Virginia understand that and are standing up in support of the Constitution.

It's understandable the fear that an unarmed citizen has for their safety and the safety of their family. Progressives have used anti-concealed carry stickers to keep law-abiding citizens from bearing arms in posted buildings. These are the buildings madmen come to murder innocent people, because they know they're safe. If you want to keep the people safe, take down the stickers and train all that wish to carry when and how to shoot in defense of their lives and others.

John Bell

Newark

Read or Share this story: https://www.newarkadvocate.com/story/news/local/2020/01/25/letters-newark-readers-speak-out-subsidies-guns-and-polling-places/4555955002/

Read more from the original source:
Letters: Newark Advocate readers speak out on subsidies, guns and polling places - The Newark Advocate

Though Whitehall City Council members say they will take the time to find a solution to make everyone happy concerning a balance between person-property rights and property-maintenance standards, they appear poised to broaden existing city code to include a parking prohibition on unimproved surfaces in the backyards of residents.

After listening to two residents at their Jan. 21 meeting who are opposed to the proposal, council members advanced the legislation, without any discussion among themselves, to a second reading at 7 p.m. Feb. 4 at Whitehall City Hall, 360 S. Yearling Road.

Current city code prohibits parking an automobile, motorcycle or other motor vehicle, boat or trailer on any non-impervious surface, non-parking or non-driveway portion of the front yard or side yard.

The proposed amendment would strike front yard or side from the language of the ordinance, effectively prohibiting parking on unimproved areas, such as grass, of a residential yard.

Not addressed Jan. 21 was another provision in the current legislation: a requirement that all vehicles parked in the parking areas of driveways shall bear the current registration or license plates required by Ohio Revised Code.

After the meeting, Whitehall Ward 1 councilman Chris Rodriguez said the proposed legislation is "pretty fair.

Were just asking people to not park on grass," he said.

Ward 4 councilwoman Lori Elmore said residents need to be good neighbors, but additional meetings remain to further discuss the proposal.

At-large councilman and President Pro-Tempore Robert Bailey said council members will continue to review the proposal and work together to figure out a way to make everyone happy.

At-large councilwoman Karen Conison said she wanted to research the policies of other cities before opining on the legislation.

Two residents shared their opinions Jan. 21; one of them was Gerald Dixon, a Doney Street resident who lost a bid for a City Council seat in 2019 in his third attempt at elected office.

Dixon said the legislation equates to my government granting themselves the right to stick their nose in the liberties of citizens' backyards.

The proposal was unethically born from photographs taken of citizens' backyards that flouted the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, said Dixon, referring to photos that service director Zach Woodruff provided to council when introducing the legislation.

The photos included aerial images from the Franklin County Auditors Office and some taken by Whitehalls zoning officer.

You are a guarantor of the citizens' rights and not their grantor, said Dixon, who appealed to council to not give credence to those things which undermine citizens' rights but instead to that which ensures the citizens of Whitehall that their rights are being properly respected and served.

Don Minor, a Westphal Avenue resident, compared the proposal, which he called parking crap, to entering the home of elected officials and criticizing the furniture.

Whats happened to my freedoms? Its not fair to a lot of us, said Minor, who told council members he restores vehicles at his residence and admonished council for not addressing problems such as out-of-control kids.

But city officials maintain the proposal is necessary.

Mayor Kim Maggard said the initiative is meant to raise the quality of life in Whitehall.

Unfortunately, we have had a proliferation of backyard junkyards, and it affects the quality of life of residents living next to one, Maggard said.

Woodruff agreed, saying the problem has become worse since he first suggested a backyard parking ban two years ago.

The proposed legislation also considers the possibility a homeowner might simply pave over grass.

Any lot 7,500 square feet or smaller is limited to 50% impervious surface; lots greater than 7,500 square feet are limited to 4,500 square feet of impervious surface, Woodruff said.

Jim Graham, who stepped down as council president at the end of last year, addressed council as a resident to support the proposal.

It will make our city more attractive, he said.

At-large councilman Wes Kantor, who said he opposed a backyard parking ban two years ago when the legislation did not gain traction, hopes a different solution is found.

Kantor said he considers the current proposal an overreaction to a minuscule number of residents with too many cars in their backyards, but does not yet know how to address that problem without infringing on the personal property rights of residents.

kcorvo@thisweeknews.com@ThisWeekCorvo

See the rest here:
In mulling backyard-parking ban, Whitehall seeks balance between property rights, quality of life - ThisWeek Community News