Categories
19 Kids and Counting Court Intelwars Josh duggar Josh duggar arrest Josh duggar child pornography

Josh Duggar reportedly had more than 200 images of child pornography on his computer — including footage of babies as young as 18 months: ‘Top five of the worst of the worst’

Embattled former reality star Josh Duggar reportedly had more than 200 images of child pornography on his computer, according to federal authorities.

Authorities arrested Duggar last week and charged him with possession of child pornography.

He had pleaded not guilty.

What are the details?

People magazine on Wednesday reported that a Homeland Security agent accused Duggar of having more than 200 child pornography-related images on his computer dating back to 2019.

According to the report, Duggar downloaded the images on his computer between May 14 and May 16, 2019.

One file, according to authorities, reportedly contained pornographic images of children ranging in age from 18 months to 12 years old.

The agent said that the images were “in the top five of the worst of the worst that [he’d] ever had to examine.”

People reported that Duggar’s computer reportedly had a porn addiction software program that sent reports to his wife, Anna, but that he had somehow reportedly bypassed the filters.

Authorities released Duggar on bail following a Wednesday hearing. He was placed with a family close to the Duggars, according to Fox News, and is only permitted to contact his children if his wife is present.

Fox also reported that Duggar was also required to surrender his passport and submit to GPS monitoring at all all times as other conditions of his bail. He is not permitted to leave his guardians’ home except for “employment, court obligations, [and] church.”

Any other locations must be pre-approved by his probation officer, Fox added.

If convicted on the charges, Duggar faces up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000.

Duggar was previously accused of sexually abusing underage minors, including four of his sisters, when he was a teenager. The Duggar family’s hit reality show, “19 Kids and Counting,” was canceled following the bombshell’s emergence in 2015.

Share
Categories
Bruce Springsteen Court Drunk driving charge fine Intelwars New Jersey

Bruce Springsteen’s drunk driving, reckless driving charges dropped

Prosecutors dropped legendary singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen’s drunk driving and reckless driving charges Wednesday because his .02 blood-alcohol level was well below the .08 legal limit after his arrest at New Jersey’s Sandy Hook federal park late last year.

However, the 71-year-old pleaded guilty to drinking tequila shots and was fined $500, NJ.com reported.

What are the details?

Springsteen sat next to his lawyer, Mitchell Ansell, during a virtual appearance before Magistrate Judge Anthony Mautone, answered a few questions from his lawyer, and admitted he drank alcohol on Nov. 14, 2020, within a “closed area” of the park where drinking alcohol was recently prohibited, the outlet said.

“I had two small shots of tequila,” Springsteen said, according to NJ.com.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Baker said Springsteen did not take a preliminary breath test during field sobriety tests but did give a sample at the park ranger station, the outlet said. Baker said the initial test isn’t legally required, NJ.com, while the judge noted that it’s not admissible in court.

With that, the prosecutors moved to dismiss the drunk driving and reckless driving charges, the outlet said.

“I am going to impose nothing but a fine,” Mautone said, according to NJ.com, and noted the musician’s clean driving record dating to 1973. “Rarely would you see a driver’s abstract so devoid of any entries. I’m convinced a fine is the appropriate sentence in this case.”

Mautone said only three violations were on Springsteen’s driving record, including using a handheld mobile phone, the outlet said.

“Mr. Springsteen, I need to ask you how long you need to pay that fine?” the judge inquired, according to NJ.com.

Springsteen smiled and answered, “I think I can pay that immediately,” the outlet said.

Mautone set Wednesday as the deadline for paying the $500 fine, as well as an additional $40 in court fees, NJ.com reported.

What did Springsteen’s lawyer have to say?

“Mr. Springsteen is pleased with the outcome of today’s court appearance,” Ansell said in a statement after the hearing, the outlet said. “The prosecutor was unable to provide the necessary evidence and facts as it related to the charge of driving under the influence (DUI) and reckless driving and therefore, dismissed both of those charges. Mr Springsteen, who has no previous criminal record of any kind, voluntarily plead guilty to a violation of consuming an alcoholic beverage in a closed area, agreeing to a fine of $500. We want to thank the court and will have no further comment at this time.”

What’s the background?

Springsteen — known far and wide as “The Boss” — was arrested after a park ranger spotted him take one of the shots of tequila and start the engine on his Triumph motorcycle, NJ.com reported, citing court records.

The park ranger said Springsteen smelled “strongly of alcohol,” had “glassy eyes,” and showed “signs of intoxication.”

After news of his arrest surfaced, Jeep pulled its Super Bowl LV ad featuring Springsteen “until the actual facts [about the incident] can be established.”

Anything else?

Spotify earlier this week announced the launch of “Renegades: Born in the USA,” a podcast hosted by Springsteen and former President Barack Obama that will cover sociopolitical issues such as race and the future of the country and personal subjects such as fatherhood and marriage.

Share
Categories
abolish slavery Court Curfew Dutch government feedback loop of oppression government is slavery Headline News Intelwars liars in suits Mark Rutte Masters no masters no rulers no slaves Obey PSYCHOPATHS Ruling ruling class Self-ownership slaves wake up we don't need masters

Dutch Ruling Class Reinstates COVID Curfew

The Dutch court has reinstated the COVID-19 curfews initially removed. The court has overturned a ruling handed down hours earlier ordering the government to lift the “illegitimate” measure immediately.

If this doesn’t prove that government will do what they want and those in it believe they own other human beings and get to dictate their rights, I’m not sure what does.  We need to wake up as humanity.  Government is slavery and it is so in every single country.

According to a report by RT, a three-judge appellate panel granted an emergency injunction following a request from the Dutch government on Tuesday, agreeing to vacate the earlier order from a lower court to end the nightly curfew, DW reported. The decision came just moments before the 9 pm curfew was set to take effect, with the judges scheduling a full hearing on its legality for Friday.

The appeals judges argued that they wanted to avoid what they called a yo-yo effect, referring to public confusion around whether the curfew was still in force, adding that “in this case, the state’s interests weigh more than that of Virus Truth’s,” the activist group that brought the initial complaint against the curfews to court – also known by its Dutch name, Viruswaarheid. –RT

While the Dutch Justice Ministry noted it was reviewing the decision after it was handed down, Prime Minister Mark Rutte continued to insist the curfew would be enforced regardless, urging citizens to “keep respecting the curfew” even if the government’s appeal failed. Later on Tuesday night, Rutte tweeted: “Curfew applies, even tonight. The coronavirus is not yet under control. It remains important to stay at home, meet as few people as possible, and adhere to all measures, such as curfews.”

We don’t need masters or rulers or owners.  We are free. It’s time to start acting like it. Government is slavery and until we figure that out we are doomed to suffer under this oppressive feedback loop.

The post Dutch Ruling Class Reinstates COVID Curfew first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
beheading Court Daniel Pearl Intelwars journalist Pakistan release

Pakistan Supreme Court orders release of man convicted in murder of Daniel Pearl

Pakistan’s Supreme Court sparked international outrage Thursday by ordering the release of a man who was convicted in the gruesome 2002 murder of late Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl before being acquitted last year.

What are the details?

Ahmad Saeed Omar Sheikh has been on death row since his conviction for luring Pearl to his death at the hands of Al Qaeda, but was acquitted of his murder conviction in April 2020 along with three other individuals accused of lesser charges in connection to the killing, the Associated Press reported.

But all four men were tried together in the original case, and doubt cast regarding the guilt of other defendants caused two out of three judges to decide all should now be let free.

The Washington Post reported that the Pearl family’s appeal to Sheikh’s conviction being overturned was submitted quickly after last year’s decision, “but that was ultimately dismissed Thursday by Pakistan’s Supreme Court,” too.

Judea Pearl, Daniel’s father, tweeted Thursday:

When a killer is behind bars, responsibility is absorbed by one deranged individual. When a killer is freed, society as a whole assumes responsibility for the crime. Today, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has handed an indictment to an entire nation, institutionally, culturally, and morally, for one of the most horrific crime[s] of the century, which forever will stain the moral standing of that nation. We urge the US Department of Justice to vigorously pursue a request for extraditing Omar Schiek to stand a trial in the US, and we hope Pakistan responds positively to such request, to rectify the injustice brought about today by two of the three judges.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki called the Pakistan high court’s decision “an affront to terror victims everywhere,” saying that Washington is “committed to securing justice for Daniel Pearl’s family,” according to Reuters.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued a statement saying that the “United States recognizes past Pakistani actions to hold Omar Sheikh accountable and notes that Sheikh currently remains detained under Pakistani law.” Blinken added, “We are also prepared to prosecute Sheikh in the United States for his horrific crimes against an American citizen.”

In an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, Husain Haqqani declared that “acquitting Daniel Pearl’s killer is part of Pakistan’s dance with jihadism.” Haggani wrote that Sheikh “is an unrepentant jihadist terrorist who lured Mr. Pearl on the pretext of an interview and handed him over to al Qaeda associates.” He went on to not that “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, bragged about beheading the reporter during a hearing before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay.”

Wall Street Journal’s editor said of the news, “This is an infuriating and unjust decision. We’ll continue to support efforts to hold to account those responsible for the brutal murder of Danny.”

Share
Categories
anarchy Court Funds Intelwars Mayor bill de blasio New York City trump

‘We’ll see you in court, Mr. President’: De Blasio vows to sue after Trump threatens to ‘defund’ NYC

Far-left Democratic New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio vowed Thursday to sue over President Donald Trump’s recent actions seeking ways to redirect federal funds away from U.S. cities the commander in chief says have permitted “anarchy” amid nationwide riots.

What are the details?

The New York Post broke the news Wednesday that President Trump sent a 5-page memo to federal agencies wherein he writes:

My Administration will not allow Federal tax dollars to fund cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones. To ensure that Federal funds are neither unduly wasted nor spent in a manner that directly violates our Government’s promise to protect life, liberty, and property, it is imperative that the Federal Government review the use of Federal funds by jurisdictions that permit anarchy, violence, and destruction in America’s cities.

The president named Portland, Washington, D.C., Seattle, and New York City as preliminary targets, and The Post noted that de Blasio was mentioned twice in the president’s order.

On Thursday, De Blasio — who has repeatedly asked the federal government to bail out his city citing revenue losses due to COVID-19 lockdowns — released a video responding to President Trump’s move, and promised to fight back with legal action.

“The president of the United States — a New Yorker by birth — threatening to take away federal funding from this city while we’re still in the grips of this crisis,” de Blasio begins in his recorded statement. “It just makes no sense.”

The mayor said this is “a time when we should be seeing solidarity with New York City, support for New York City, understanding for New York City, and we’re seeing the opposite.”

De Blasio then addressed President Trump directly, saying the Supreme Court has already determined that presidents cannot interfere with funding appropriated to cities.

In a tweet posting the video, de Blasio wrote, “We asked @realDonaldTrump to do his job. We asked him for COVID-19 testing and for a stimulus to help us get back on our feet. He refused to lift a finger. He failed New York City. And now he wants to threaten us? We’ll see you in court, Mr. President.”

New York City has seen more deaths from COVID-19 than anywhere in the U.S., partially attributed to its high population density. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has faced heavy criticism for his policies early on in the crisis requiring coronavirus-positive patients to be placed in nursing homes amid vulnerable elderly patients.

But Trump’s threat to pull federal funds is aimed at leaders for their policies against law enforcement during the rioting that has been ongoing since the death of George Floyd in late May.

The president wrote in his memo:

In New York City, city officials have allowed violence to spike. In light of this unconscionable rise in violence, I have offered to provide Federal law enforcement assistance, but both Mayor de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo have rejected my offer.

While violence has surged, arrests have plummeted. In a 28-day period during the months of June and July, [New York City] arrests were down 62 percent from the same period in 2019. Amidst the rising violence, Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York City Council agreed to cut one billion dollars from the New York Police Department (NYPD) budget, including by cancelling the hiring of 1,163 officers.

Police officials have cited this decision as a factor contributing to the rise in violence.

Share
Categories
Court Intelwars Men competing Sports Transgender Women's sports

Horowitz: Trump-appointed judge: Idaho can’t block men from competing in women’s sports

Another day, another failure of those conservatives who chose the “appoint better judges” route rather than scrapping judicial supremacy over our culture.

We are living in a time when states and cities can indefinitely mandate draconian “face coverings” on our own mouths and noses, along with a full panoply of restrictions on life, liberty, and property. Yet the courts have been silent because those are real constitutional rights that are being infringed upon, and old-fashioned inalienable rights are not in vogue. What is cool to the black-robed tyrants, including some GOP appointees, is the “right” for men to participate in female sports. Presumably, so long as they wear masks while they are running the track.

On Monday, Judge David C. Nye, a Trump appointee to Idaho’s federal bench, placed a temporary injunction on Idaho’s “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which bars men who claim they are women from participating in female sports (and vice versa). Nye said that plaintiffs, who include track and field athletes at Boise State University, “are likely to succeed in establishing the Act is unconstitutional as currently written” because, in his estimation, it likely violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Nye claimed that Idaho’s ban is “in stark contrast to the policies of elite athletic bodies that regulate sports both nationally and globally” and that separating sexes by scientific designation “burdens all female athletes with the risk and embarrassment of having to ‘verify’ their ‘biological sex’ in order to play women’s sports.”

Shockingly, Nye acted as if he really wanted to avoid this controversy, but he contends that the 14th Amendment from 1868 is what compels him to redefine sexuality! “In making this determination, it is not just the constitutional rights of transgender girls and women athletes at issue but, as explained above, the constitutional rights of every girl and woman athlete in Idaho,” Nye wrote.

Remember when we were told that Gorsuch’s opinion in the transgender employment case was just about statutory reading of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and not about creating a constitutional right? Yeah, right. As I warned at the time, the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision served as a green light for lower courts to take it a step further.

Imagine the looks on the faces of those who wrote the 14th Amendment if they were to see how a provision designed to grant freed black slaves equal fundamental rights is being used for state-sponsored gender-swapping. Rep. James F. Wilson, R-Iowa, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee back in the 1860s who helped draft the 14th Amendment, spoke emphatically that it was “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.” “It is not the object of this bill to establish new rights, but to protect and enforce those which belong to every citizen,” declared Wilson in 1866.

No new principle, indeed! In fact, the only thing this amendment is not used for today is what it was intended – to stop states from crushing individual liberty, as we are seeing with the mask mandates and closures of churches and businesses.

Justice Gorsuch tried to deny that his decision would grow legs beyond the scope of the employment discrimination ruling, but Justice Alito warned that it would affect female sports, among other things. “The effect of the Court’s reasoning may be to force young women to compete against students who have a very significant biological advantage, including students who have the size and strength of a male but identify as female and students who are taking male hormones in order to transition from female to male,” wrote Alito in his dissent, citing, among other cases, this budding Idaho lawsuit.

Fast-forward to this week, and the Idaho judge cited Gorsuch’s Bostock decision as part of his rationale for believing transgenderism is enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Noting that while the ruling was in the context of Title VII employment discrimination law, Judge Nye still cited Gorsuch’s operative line to apply it elsewhere: “It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being … transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” The bottom line is that once you apply that thinking to a statute, it will be applied to the 14th Amendment, and once it’s applied to employment, it will be applied to every facet of life.

Taking a broad look at the state of play in the courts, conservatives must finally recognize the imbalance in political outcomes. Notice how, in blue states, where the governments mandate broad violations of individual liberty, the courts are nowhere to be seen in defending rights that existed since the time of Blackstone. Yet, when red states want to simply protect against novel and destructive policies that are in opposition to individual rights, the federal courts are empowered to swoop in.

Thus, conservatives who are stuck in California where “my body, my right” doesn’t seem to extend to one’s own mouth and nose to breathe fresh air, can’t exactly go to Idaho to find respite. Where the legislators don’t implement the woke leftist agenda, the courts will. The Ninth Circuit has already forced Idaho to pay for a castration “operation” for a male child sex offender sitting in state prison. The Supreme Court refused to reverse that opinion. Likewise, last year, the Supreme Court refused to overturn a Ninth Circuit opinion preventing the city of Boise from cleaning up homeless encampments.

Heads the Left wins, tails the Right loses. Either way, the alt-Left gets its policies enacted in all 50 states.

Putting everything together, the courts of Sodom and Gomorrah believe there is a right for a man to play female sports, a right for a man to secure a taxpayer-funded castration, and a right to camp out on city streets – but no right to open your business or walk freely without a cloth on your own mouth and nose.

At a time when blue states clearly have a license to supplant the Constitution with the Antifa agenda, red states have a responsibility to hold their ground against lawless courts. And no, “but Gorsuch” and “appointing Republican judges” are not the answer. It is the problem.

Share
Categories
Abortion Born-alive Botched abortion Court Intelwars jail sentence murder charges South Korea

Abortionist gets jail for drowning baby in bucket of water after infant ‘burst out crying’ during botched abortion in South Korea

A South Korean court sentenced an obstetrician to three years and six months in prison for killing a baby who was born alive and “burst out crying” during an abortion procedure, the Korea Times reported.

Seoul Central District Court on Friday convicted the 65-year-old doctor, surnamed Yun, of killing the 34-week-old baby, the paper said, adding that Yun had been indicted on murder charges for placing the infant in a bucket of water.

‘It is clear that the doctor killed the baby, who was born alive’

“Medical staff who participated in the operation have consistently said they heard the baby crying,” a three-judge panel of the court said in a statement, the Times reported. “It is clear that the doctor killed the baby, who was born alive.”

Yun, who ran a maternity clinic in Seoul, received 28 million won ($23,000) for the procedure from the mother of a 16-year-old pregnant girl, the paper said.

Along with the prison sentence, the court suspended Yun’s medical license for three years, the Times said.

Anything else?

The Constitutional Court in 2019 ruled that the law banning abortion is unconstitutional and demanded the National Assembly revise it by the end of 2020, the paper said.

The court ruled that abortion before 22 weeks of pregnancy should be decriminalized and that women’s rights to self-determination outweighs a fetus’ right to life, the Times reported.

Here is a 4D ultrasound video of a baby in the womb. The clip’s description says the baby is 34 weeks old — the same age of the infant in the aforementioned court case:


4D Ultrasound of 34 Week Baby

youtu.be

Share
Categories
Coronavirus Coronavirus outbreak Court COVID-19 Crime Intelwars Social Media Texas Texas man

Texas man facing charges for allegedly lying about contracting coronavirus infection online in ‘social experiment’

A man in Texas allegedly said that he wanted to conduct a “social experiment” by lying about having the coronavirus — formally known as COVID-19 — on social media. Now he’s facing criminal charges.

According to a Wednesday report from KJAS-FM:

The Tyler County Sheriff’s Department has announced that a man has now been arrested after he intentionally posted a false claim on his Facebook page that he tested positive for Coronavirus. District Attorney Lucas Babin says it caused a panic and actually tied up phone lines at Tyler County Hospital in Woodville with concerned residents phoning in.

The man has been identified as 23-year-old Michael Lane Brandin, of Woodville. Sheriff Bryan Weatherford says Brandin turned himself in on Tuesday and was charged with False Alarm or Report, which is a class A misdemeanor, and his bond was set at $1,000.00.

Meanwhile, Babin says Brandin told Tyler County investigators that he did it as a “social experiment” to make a point that you can’t believe everything you read online. However, Babin said he believes that Brandin did it to shock people and to draw attention upon himself.

The Tyler County District Attorney’s announced the charge Monday afternoon in a Facebook post. In a separate post sent out earlier that same day, the office reminded people that “Knowingly communicating, initiating, or circulating a false report/false alarm of COVID-19 that one *knows is false or baseless*, and that would ordinarily cause action by an official or interrupt the occupation of any place of assembly, can be a criminal offense in the State of Texas.”

According to a Wednesday news release from the Sheriff’s Office, the suspect turned himself into authorities on Tuesday.

Numbers provided by the Texas Department of State Health Services show that the state has so far seen 83 confirmed cases of the virus and two associated deaths.

Share
Categories
Court Intelwars judicial nominations

Mitch McConnell is asking GOP-appointed judges to step aside so younger replacements can be confirmed: Report

As the 2020 elections draw closer, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has reportedly been reaching out to Republican-appointed federal judges and encouraging them to step aside so other, younger nominees can take their places in a timely fashion.

According to a Monday report in the New York Times:

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who has used his position as majority leader to build a judicial confirmation juggernaut for President Trump over the past three years, has been personally reaching out to judges to sound them out on their plans and assure them that they would have a worthy successor if they gave up their seats soon, according to multiple people with knowledge of his actions.

It was not known how many judges were contacted or which of them Mr. McConnell had spoken to directly. One of his Republican colleagues said others had also initiated outreach in an effort to heighten awareness among judges nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush that making the change now would be advantageous.

The overt effort by Republicans to create vacancies reflects a realization that Mr. Trump could lose the presidency, or that Republicans could lose the Senate majority and deprive Mr. Trump of his partner on judicial confirmations even if he did gain a second term.

Mike Davis, who founded the conservative Article III Project, told the Times that while he believes President Trump would win re-election in November, “we have to hope for the best and plan for the worst.” Davis’ organization estimates that more than 90 federal judges are either currently eligible to take “senior status” — a form of judicial semi-retirement that allows new judges to take their seats — or will become eligible to do so this year.

A McConnell spokesman told the newspaper that it shouldn’t surprise people that the majority leader would be interested in incumbent judges’ career plans: “I’d point you back to his long-running mantra of ‘leave no vacancy behind.'”

The nomination and confirmation of conservative federal judges has been one of the most successfully delivered campaign promises of the Trump presidency and one of the biggest focuses of the McConnell-led Senate.

As of early March, the Senate had confirmed a total of 193 Trump judicial appointments, according to Ballotpedia; that number includes the two Supreme Court justices the president has successfully appointed. Furthermore, the Washington Post pointed out in late December that, as a result the White House and Senate’s joint efforts over the past few years, one quarter of America’s federal district judges at that point were Trump appointees.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus america Coronavirus outbreak Coronavirus us Court COVID-19 Intelwars SCOTUS Supreme Court

SCOTUS postpones hearing arguments due to coronavirus spread

Businesses, schools, and public events around the United States have begun to temporarily shut down some operations for the near future due to the global spread of the coronavirus — formally known as COVID-19. Now the highest court in the land is following suit.

According to a Monday announcement from the Supreme Court of the United States, all oral arguments for the rest of the month have been postponed for the foreseeable future. The news release says that the court made the decision “in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response” to the virus’ global outbreak and that it “will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due course in light of the developing circumstances.”

Despite the postponement, members of the court will still hold their scheduled conference — where they discuss and make decisions about cases — on Friday, but will have the option of participating in the meeting via telephone instead of showing up in-person. Additionally, the court will also issue orders as scheduled on the following Monday morning, the announcement said.

The cases with now-postponed arguments include a high-profile intellectual property case against Google, a case about Congress’ efforts to get ahold of President Donald Trump’s tax information, and two consolidated religious freedom cases dealing with the rights of Catholic schools to hire and fire employees in line with their institutional missions.

Last week — following similar decisions at the White House and the Capitol complex — the Supreme Court closed the doors of its building to the general public in an effort to protect “the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees,” according to a statement on its website.

Monday’s announcement explained that the building will remain open for official business and closed to the general public while the court works to expand “remote working capabilities to reduce the number of employees in the Building, consistent with public health guidance.”

This isn’t the first time that the Supreme Court has taken a break from hearing cases in response to a global disease outbreak. During the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, the court recessed for nearly one full month during October and November of that year, according to more-than-century-old reporting from the Washington Post. That was back when the court still met in the Old Senate Chamber of the Capitol Building.

Share
Categories
Court Crime harvey weinstein Intelwars Rape Sexual Assault Weinstein

Weinstein sentenced to 23 years in prison; his lawyers previously said he wouldn’t survive more than five

Disgraced former Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein could very well spend the rest of his life behind bars after being sentenced to 23 years in prison Wednesday on rape and sexual assault convictions, according to his lawyers.

According to Reuters, after the sentence was handed down by Judge James Burke in Manhattan criminal court, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said that prosecutors were “grateful” for the outcome and that the sentence “sent a message today that this type behavior is something that any potential offender is going to have to consider.”

Late last month, a jury found Weinstein guilty, both of sexually assaulting former “Project Runway” production assistant Mimi Haleyi in 2006 by forcibly performing oral sex on her in his apartment and the 2013 third-degree rape of actress Jessica Mann in a New York City hotel room.

While it falls short of the maximum 29 years that prosecutors wanted, Weinstein’s sentence could very well put him in prison for the rest of his life. The convicted rapist is 67 years old and recently underwent a heart procedure at Bellevue Hospital before being transferred to Rikers Island prison last week.

Furthermore, in a letter to the judge earlier this week, Weinstein’s attorneys claimed that he would likely die behind bars if given anything more than the minimum five-year sentence for his crimes, according to Deadline Hollywood.

“Given his age and specific medical risk factors,” the letter reads, “any additional term of imprisonment above the mandatory minimum—although the grave reality is that Mr. Weinstein may not even outlive that term—is likely to constitute a de facto life sentence.”

Before Wednesday’s sentence was handed down, Weinstein addressed the court and his victims, saying, “I feel remorse for this situation. I feel it deep in my heart. I’m really trying to be a better person,” according to USA Today. He also said, “I think about the thousands of men and women who are losing due process, and I’m worried about this country.”

At a press conference following the decision, Weinstein defense attorney Donna Rotunno blasted the sentence, saying that the number of years given to her client “did not speak to evidence, nor did it speak to justice.” She added that she was “overcome with anger” at that number and that she thought the “judge caved.”

Before the sentence was handed down, a tearful Haleyi told the court, “I believe that if Harvey Weinstein was not convicted by this jury, it would happen again and again and again,” according to Fox News.

“I could only hope whatever sentence, [it’s] long enough for him to acknowledge for what he has done to me and others.”

Share
Categories
Court Dc circuit court House Judiciary Committee House of Representatives Intelwars Judge Mueller investigation Mueller report

DC appeals court sides with House Democrats, says DOJ must hand over sealed Mueller grand jury info

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Department of Justice has to turn sealed grand jury information from the Mueller probe over to congressional Democrats.

In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the House Judiciary Committee, which requested a court order unsealing the materials in late July and was granted in October.

Judge Judith Rogers, a Clinton appointee, argued in the majority opinion that the committee’s needs in its impeachment investigation against President Donald Trump outweighed the Justice Department’s desire to keep the information sealed.

“In short, it is the district court, not the Executive or the Department, that controls access to the grand jury materials at issue here,” Rogers argued. “The Department has objected to disclosure of the redacted grand jury materials, but the Department has no interest in objecting to the release of these materials outside of the general purposes and policies of grand jury secrecy, which as discussed, do not outweigh the Committee’s compelling need for disclosure.”

And while the House may have wrapped up its Ukraine investigation before the end of last year, the committee still has impeachment-related investigative work on its agenda, according to the ruling. Rogers cited the House Judiciary Committee’s December impeachment report, which, she said, “makes clear that although two Articles of Impeachment have been approved, the Committee’s impeachment investigation related to the Mueller Report is ongoing.”

In its efforts to continue where the Mueller probe left off, the Democrat-led Judiciary Committee asked a federal judge to release the sealed grand jury materials from the special counsel’s investigation in July. The move came after a months-long standoff between committee Democrats and the DOJ over the secret information. In October, a federal district court sided with the committee in a decision that was upheld by Tuesday’s ruling.

In her opinion, Rogers added that the “Committee has repeatedly stated that if the grand jury materials reveal new evidence of impeachable offenses, the Committee may recommend new articles of impeachment.”

The lone dissenter in the decision was Judge Neomi Rao — a Trump appointee who was confirmed to the bench last March. Rao argued that the committee lacked the necessary legal standing to force the release of the materials in the first place and that the issue should have been moot after the Senate concluded its impeachment trial.

“A reasonable observer might wonder why we are deciding this case at this time,” Rao wrote. “After all, the Committee sought these materials preliminary to an impeachment proceeding and the Senate impeachment trial has concluded. Why is this controversy not moot?” The judge went on to criticize her two colleagues in the dissent, writing that they had “simply turn[ed] a blind eye to these very public events.”

A DOJ spokesperson did not immediately respond to Blaze Media’s request for comment on the ruling.

Share
Categories
Court Crime Department of Homeland Security Department of Justice Intelwars

Obama-era inspector general indicted in alleged scheme to steal government workers’ info for personal gain

An former government official whose job used to be reporting improper conduct at the Department of Homeland Security has been indicted by federal authorities in an alleged scheme to defraud the government and steal federal workers’ private information.

According to a Department of Justice news release from Friday, former former acting Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security Charles Edwards and his former subordinate Murali Yamazula Venkata have been indicted on 16 counts “for their alleged theft of proprietary software and confidential databases from the U.S. government as part of a scheme to defraud the U.S. government.”

The release goes on to say that “from October 2014 to April 2017, Edwards, Venkata, and others executed a scheme to defraud the U.S. government by stealing confidential and proprietary software from DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), along with sensitive government databases containing personal identifying information (PII) of DHS and USPS employees, so that Edwards’s company, Delta Business Solutions, could later sell an enhanced version of DHS-OIG’s software to the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Agriculture at a profit.”

The charges against the two include “conspiracy to commit theft of government property and to defraud the United States, theft of government property, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft,” according to the Justice Department.

The indictment also says that, “Venkata and others also assisted Edwards by reconfiguring his laptop so that he could properly upload the stolen software and databases, provided troubleshooting support whenever Edwards required it, and helped him build a testing server at his residence with the stolen software and databases.”

Edwards — who started working as acting inspector general starting in 2011 — stepped down from the DHS watchdog post in December 2013 amid a storm of questions about his conduct in the position.

“The litany of allegations against Edwards included claims that he bowed to political pressure and watered down his reports; abused agency personnel and resources; and retaliated against employees who questioned his conduct,” according to Fox News at the time.

However, after leaving DHS, the DOJ release says, Edwards “continued to leverage his relationship with Venkata and other DHS-OIG employees to steal the software and the sensitive government databases.”

According to an investigative report from the Washington Post, the affected software and databases contained the personal information of over 250,000 government workers.

The Department of Justice also notes that an indictment is nothing more an allegation and “all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.”

Share
Categories
2020 Election Court Intelwars Lawsuit Media Bias trump campaign

?Trump campaign takes on CNN in latest media lawsuit over ‘false and defamatory’ Russia statements?

In its latest legal action against a major media outlet, President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign filed a libel lawsuit Friday against CNN, saying that the network made “false and defamatory” statements about Trump seeking help from Russia in the upcoming election.

The 13-page lawsuit, which was first reported by Fox News, says that CNN “published false and defamatory statements of and concerning the Campaign, claiming that it ‘assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia’s help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table.'”

Specifically, the lawsuit takes issue with a post published in June 2019 titled, “Soliciting dirt on your opponents from a foreign government is a crime. Mueller should have charged Trump campaign officials with it.” The network’s website labels the article as an opinion piece and has a disclaimer saying that the opinions expressed in it are solely those of the author, CNN contributor Larry Noble.

“The Trump campaign assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia’s help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table,” Noble wrote in the conclusion of the post, which focused heavily on the findings contained in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. “Let’s hope Congress has the will and time to make it clear to the Trump campaign that working with a foreign government to help you get elected is never an option.”

According to the lawsuit, “The statement that the Campaign has ‘decided to leave th[e] option on the table’ of seeking Russian assistance was made up out of whole cloth.” It adds that “Despite extensive reporting on the Campaign and its strategies, including by CNN, there have been no reports of any assessment by the Campaign to potentially seek Russian assistance in connection with the 2020 election, nor any reports about any decision of the Campaign to ‘leave that option on the table'” and “both statements by CNN are outright false, and fabricated.”

The complaint also said that the campaign’s legal team sent CNN written demand “retract and apologize for the aforementioned false and defamatory statements” in late February, but that the network refused.

“As a result, the campaign was left with no alternative but to file suit to publicly establish the truth and seek appropriate remedies,” Senior Legal Adviser to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. Jenna Ellis said in a Friday afternoon news release.

“False statements are not protected under the U.S. Constitution; therefore, these suits will have no chilling effect on freedom of the press,” Ellis added in the release. “If journalists are more accurate in their statements and reporting, that would be a positive development, but not why these suits were filed.”

This latest lawsuit follows behind similar legal action from the Trump campaign against other major media companies. Last week, the Trump campaign filed a lawsuit against the New York Times over a March 2019 post that made claims about Russian collusion in an effort to hold the newspaper “accountable for intentionally publishing false statements against President Trump’s campaign.” On Tuesday, the campaign filed suit against The Washington Post for two opinion June 2019 opinion pieces.

A CNN spokesperson told Blaze Media that the network did not have any comment on the lawsuit.

Share
Categories
Court Intelwars Lawsuit Media Bias trump campaign Washington Post

Trump campaign files suit against WaPo for ‘false and defamatory’ collusion claims in opinion pieces

President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Washington Post, claiming that the national newspaper knowingly published false and defamatory claims in two opinion pieces that came out in June 2019.

The eight-page lawsuit, which was filed in D.C. District Court, points to June 13 post written by Greg Sargent, titled, “Trump just invited another Russian attack. Mitch McConnell is making one more likely.” and a June 20 post written by Paul Waldman, titled, “Trump: I can win reelection with just my base“.

In Sargent’s piece, the campaign takes issue with “the defamatory claim that Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that the Campaign ‘tried to conspire with’ a ‘sweeping and systematic’ attack by Russia against the 2016 United States presidential election” and counters that “the Mueller Report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Campaign and the Russian government.”

In regards to Waldman’s post, the campaign singles out a line that reads, “who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign, now that he has invited them to offer their assistance?” which it also says is defamatory.

“There has never been any statement by anyone associated with the Campaign or the administration ‘inviting’ Russia or North Korea to assist the Campaign in 2019 or beyond,” the lawsuit says in rebuttal. “There also has never been any reporting that the Campaign has ever had any contact with North Korea relating to any United States election.”

The suit also goes on to allege that the newspaper “was well aware at the time of publishing the foregoing statements that they were not true” and that the articles containing them “are part of the The Post‘s systematic pattern of bias against the Campaign, designed to maliciously interfere with and damage its reputation and ultimately cause the organization to fail.”

“The statements were and are 100 percent false and defamatory,” said Trump campaign Senior Legal Adviser Jenna Ellis in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “The campaign files suit to publicly establish the truth and seek appropriate legal remedies for the harm caused by false reporting.”

In relief, the campaign is asking for “Compensatory damages in the millions of dollars,” the cost of the lawsuit and “Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.”

The Washington Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

Last week, the Trump campaign also filed a similar defamation suit against the New York Times over a March 2019 post that made claims about Russian collusion in an effort to hold the newspaper “accountable for intentionally publishing false statements against President Trump’s campaign.”

Share
Categories
Alabama Baby trump Court Crime Intelwars trump Trump balloon

Alabama man accused of slashing ‘Baby Trump’ balloon ordered to get counseling and do community service

A court ordered an Alabama man who reportedly slashed a “Baby Trump” balloon at a football game last year to get counseling and do community service in an effort to get the charges against him dropped.

The Associated Press reported Friday:

If Hoyt Hutchinson, 32, finishes the Tuscaloosa County District Attorney’s diversion program without any other infractions, the case and charges against him could be removed from his record. Hutchinson will also be required to pay $3,500 to the group that rents out the inflatable for the damages.

Hutchinson is accused of deflating the diaper-clad “Baby Trump” during a University of Alabama football game the President attended in November. The 20-foot-tall inflatable, commonly used as a protest symbol, was set up in a nearby park.

After Hutchinson’s arrest, the Tuscaloosa Police Department put out a statement on Facebook that said the suspect “attempted to flee the area” but that police “apprehended the suspect and took him into custody on a charge of Criminal Mischief First Degree.”

In the wake of his arrest, a GoFundMe page raised tens of thousands of dollars in order to help Hutchinson “pay legal fees and restitutions,” according to The Hill.

“It comes a point when you gotta take a stand,” Hutchinson later told the “Rick & Bubba Show” of his thinking. “We don’t have two parties anymore. We have good versus evil. When you got one party that says it’s OK to kill babies and by the way, this is the first time I’ve ever seen a liberal get mad about chopping up a baby.”

WIAT-TV reported Thursday that the court-ordered counseling and community service were part of Tuscaloosa County District Attorney’s Second Chance program, which is a pre-trial diversion program. Hutchinson was charged with first-degree criminal mischief related to the widely covered slashing.

The Alabama deflation wasn’t the first run-in a large, inflatable likeness of the U.S. president in a diaper has had with a sharp object. In June, a woman stabbed a “Baby Trump” blimp in the back at a protest near the House of Commons as Trump was visiting the United Kingdom.

“The president of the United States is the best president ever, shame on you!” the woman said after the stabbing, according to Mashable.

Share
Categories
appeals court Court Court ruling election Election 2020 Election Commission Esenberg Intelwars Judge malloy purge Remove Voter purge Voter rolls Wisconsin Wisconsin voters

Wisconsin appeals court strikes down an order to remove 209,000 voters from voter rolls before the 2020 election

On Friday, a Wisconsin appeals court overturned a ruling that ordered state election commissioners to remove 209,000 individuals from voter rolls who are suspected as having moved out of the state.

A previous ruling on the matter last month found the commission — and specifically three of its Democratic members — in contempt of court for refusing to comply with the order, which instructed the commission to remove individuals flagged as having potentially moved and who subsequently failed to respond within 30 days to a deactivation notice.

Last fall, the deactivation notice was sent to roughly 234,000 residents, and by the end of the year, 209,000 voters had yet to respond requesting for their voter status be continued.

In the January ruling, Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Paul Malloy moved to fine the commission $50 a day and the three members $250 a day until the commission started the removal process. But no fines were ever paid because the Wisconsin court of appeals temporarily blocked the motion the following day.

“I can’t be any clearer than this, they need to follow my order,” Malloy said at the time.

But now with the new appeals court ruling, the contempt of court order has been vacated along with the order to immediately purge, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports.

The battle centers on the 2020 election

When the deactivation notice was sent out to flagged individuals late last year, the commission was planning to remove those who failed to respond in 2021.

But then three voters represented by a conservative group, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, sued, appealing to a state law that calls for the removal of voters from the rolls if they do not respond to a deactivation notice. They also argued that a delay in removal could compromise the 2020 election. Judge Malloy agreed and ordered the purge.

The appeals court, however, concluded that law applies only to local clerks and not to the state election commission.

Rick Esenberg, the president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court.

“Wisconsin deserves clean elections in 2020,” he said in a statement, the Journal-Sentinel reported. “It is our intent to seek review in the Wisconsin Supreme Court to ensure that the Wisconsin Elections Commission complies with state law.”

Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul praised the ruling, saying, “I think that this decision is a win not only for the voters who were close to being purged, but also for democracy.”

Every vote counts in Wisconsin, which is projected to be a key battleground state in the upcoming presidential election. In 2016, President Donald Trump narrowly won the state by just over 20,000 votes. Wisconsin holds its primaries in April.

Share
Categories
Baltimore Catherine pugh CORRUPTION Court Crime Intelwars

Democratic former Baltimore mayor sentenced to three years in prison over children’s book scandal

A federal judge sentenced Baltimore’s former Democratic mayor to three years in federal prison Thursday following what became a nationwide scandal involving her self-published children’s book series.

According to the Baltimore Sun:

Pugh, 69, asked U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow for mercy and apologized in court “to anyone I have offended or hurt through my actions.”

Outside the courthouse, Pugh again apologized to the people of Baltimore, stating “nobody loves Baltimore more than I do.”

She also said that she had not intended any harm, but nonetheless would pay the price for her actions. She told reporters: “This is not the last you’ll see of Catherine Pugh.”

Chasanow had some harsh words for the former mayor in response and her crime.

“This was not a tiny mistake, lapse of judgment,” the judge said in the newspaper’s report. “This became a very large fraud. The nature and circumstances of this offense clearly I think are extremely, extremely serious.”

Pugh’s corruption saga began last spring when it was revealed that she had sold $500,000 of her “Healthy Holly” books to the University of Maryland Medical System — where she served as a board member while an elected official — over the course of several years. She also failed to report the sales of the books on ethics forms.

Following calls for her to step down, as well as IRS and FBI searches of her homes and offices, Pugh resigned the following May, saying in a statement that she was “sorry for the harm that I have caused to the image of the city of Baltimore, and to the credibility of the office of the mayor.”

Pugh was eventually indicted on several federal fraud and tax evasion charges in November. Prosecutors accused her of accepting payments for books she never intended to deliver, and selling books to companies and nonprofits that either did business or were attempting to do business with the city of Baltimore. She would later plead guilty to four of the charges.

The books themselves became a point of ridicule for its sloppy publishing and numerous spelling and grammatical errors. The event became the subject of a segment of comedian John Oliver’s HBO show “Last Week Tonight.

According to the Baltimore Sun, Pugh was also ordered to pay $400,000 restitution to the medical system and will have to forfeit her home, the Baltimore Sun reports. She has also agree to have all the book copies in government custody destroyed.

Share
Categories
Court Department of Justice Illegal Immigration immigration Intelwars jeff sessions sanctuary cities

Federal appeals court gives President Trump a win, says admin can block federal funds for sanctuary cities

A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration on a case asking whether or not it could deny law enforcement funds to sanctuary jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

In a ruling issued Wednesday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision previously made by a district court judge.

In July 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a move to deny awards of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Programs to jurisdictions that try to shield illegal immigrants from federal enforcement efforts.

“So-called ‘sanctuary’ policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement at the time. “These policies also encourage illegal immigration and even human trafficking by perpetuating the lie that in certain cities, illegal aliens can live outside the law.”

Sessions explained that grants would only go “to cities and states that comply with federal law, allow federal immigration access to detention facilities, and provide 48 hours notice before they release an illegal alien wanted by federal authorities.”

As with most major Trump administration actions, the policy was subsequently taken to federal court. The plaintiffs in the case decided Wednesday were the states of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Rhode Island, along with New York City.

The Second Circuit determined that the attorney general was able to place the conditions on the funds under the “considerable authority” given to him by Congress under relevant federal law.

The ruling offered “several reasons” Congress would give such authority to the attorney general on grant conditions:

First, while Congress itself requires compliance certification as to “all other applicable Federal laws,” the number of laws that could apply to States and localities seeking Byrne funding is large, variable, and not easily identified in a single statutory provision. Second, the Attorney General, as the nation’s chief federal law enforcement official, is particularly suited to identify the federal laws applicable to persons and circumstances.Third, having the Attorney General identify specific laws requiring [statutory] certification serves the salutary purpose of affording applicants clear notice of what is expected of them as Byrne grant recipients.

The court also noted that its opinion differs from the opinions handed down by other federal courts, but that “we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue.”

In a statement given to Blaze Media, a DOJ spokesman praised Wednesday’s decision, but also cautioned that some jurisdictions might use other courts’ decisions to get around it.

“Today’s decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the Attorney General to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities,” the spokesman said. “While today’s ruling is a major victory for Americans, its full scope will not be realized until the practices of granting nationwide injunctions and associational injunctions are stopped, as certain cities that are parties to this judgment may nonetheless use rulings from other courts to evade these lawful conditions.”

Share
Categories
Abortion ACLU Court Intelwars Lawsuit pro choice pro-abortion Pro-Life Sanctuary City

ACLU sues Texas towns that declared themselves ‘sanctuary cities’ for unborn children

In its latest pro-abortion litigation effort, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against seven East Texas towns that declared themselves “sanctuary cities” for unborn children.

The ACLU brought the suit on behalf of two pro-abortion groups, the Lilith Fund and the Texas Equal Access Fund (TEA Fund), saying that their rights to free expression and association are violated by the pro-life ordinances.

The first of the “sanctuary” ordinances listed in Tuesday’s lawsuit was passed by the city of Waskom back in June; the other listed cities which followed later are Naples, Joaquin, Tenaha, Rusk, Gary, and Wells.

According to the ACLU of Texas’ news release on the lawsuit, the ordinances in question contain language that would outlaw abortion altogether within city limits if the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, which the 79-page legal complaint argues “misleads residents of these cities as to whether individuals can in fact exercise their right to access abortion.”

The lawsuit also contends that the cities’ ordinances have dubbed abortion providers and pro-abortion entities as “criminal organizations,” which keeps them from clearing up confusion and assisting people with aborting their unborn children.

“As a result of being designated criminal, Plaintiffs are prohibited from operating, speaking, and associating within these cities,” the lawsuit contends. “Consequently, Plaintiffs are hampered from countering or clarifying the confusion created by the ordinances as to the legality of abortion services.”

“These ordinances are unconstitutional,” said ACLU of Texas staff attorney Anjali Salvador in a statement. “Abortion is legal in every state and city in the country. Cities cannot punish pro-abortion organizations for carrying out their important work – especially when they do so in a way that violates the First Amendment.”

Mark Dickson, the director of Right to Life East Texas, has been a leading figure in the unborn sanctuary movement in the Lone Star State for months now. Before Waskom passed its initial ordinance, he voiced his frustration to the city council that legislators in Austin weren’t passing “meaningful legislation that protects unborn life.”

“We have every intention of targeting every part of the state,” Dickson told the Texas Tribune last month. “Every city, no matter what size, is valuable.”

In a Tuesday facebook post, Dickson derided the ACLU’s complaint as “a meritless lawsuit brought to deter and intimidate cities from enacting these ordinances, which are entirely constitutional and consistent with the laws of Texas.” He also said, “We have a legal team ready to defend these ordinances at no charge to the cities, and we are prepared to defend all other cities that enact these laws at no charge to the taxpayers.”

Share
Categories
Acquittal Court guilty Harvey harvey weinstein Intelwars Metoo not guilty Rape Sexual Abuse sexual assault allegations Sexual Harassment Trial Weinstein

Harvey Weinstein found guilty on just two counts, acquitted on most serious charges

Disgraced former Hollywood filmmaker Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of third-degree rape and criminal sex act but has been acquitted on the most serious charges brought against him in the most high-profile case of the #MeToo movement.

The monthslong trial officially came to a close Monday when a jury of seven men and five women read the verdict after five days of deliberation, sealing Weinstein’s fate.

Weinstein, 67, was convicted on a count of criminal sex act against Mimi Haley, a former “Project Runway” production assistant, in 2006, and raping former aspiring actress Jessica Mann in a New York City hotel room in 2013, the Associated Press reported. The two convictions could land Weinstein in prison for as many as 29 years.

The jury found him not guilty on the most serious charges, however, which were two counts of predatory sexual assault, and one count of first-degree rape against Jessica Mann. The two predatory sexual assault charges each carried a life sentence.

NBC News reported that Weinstein “showed no emotion” as the verdict was read.

District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said the guilty charges signaled “a new day” for survivors of sexual assault in America.

“It is a new day because Harvey Weinstein has finally been held accountable for crimes he committed,” he added. “Weinstein is a vicious, serial sexual predator who used his power to threaten, rape, assault and trick, humiliate and silence his victims.”

Weinstein maintained his innocence throughout the trial and pleaded not guilty on all five counts. Late last year, he even insisted that he should be credited for helping women achieve success in Hollywood.

“As sure as I’m a bald man, we will be appealing,” Weinstein’s defense attorney, Arthur Aidala, said.

The guilty verdict is seen as a reckoning for Weinstein and a win for the #MeToo movement, which encourages victims of sexual harassment to publicly speak out against powerful offenders who use their power and influence to harm others.

In all, more than 80 women have come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Weinstein since October 2017, when a bombshell report by investigative journalist Ronan Farrow made the “open secret” of Weinstein’s history of abuse public.

Weinstein was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs and is scheduled to be sentenced March 11.

Here’s more about the verdict:

Share
Categories
Court Education Gender identity Intelwars Transgender

Parents sue Wisconsin school district over transgender policy they say allows kids to ‘socially transition’ without their knowledge

A group of parents in Wisconsin isn’t happy with a public school policy that they say allows teachers to affirm their children’s “gender identity” without their knowledge and consent, and they’re taking the matter to court.

According to a 19-page lawsuit filed on Tuesday, Madison Metropolitan School District’s policies allow children to “socially transition to a different gender identity at school without parental notice or consent, requires all teachers to enable this transition, and then prohibits teachers from communicating with parents about this potentially life-altering choice without the child’s consent.”

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty against the district on behalf of 14 parents who are not named in the court document.

“This action seeks to vindicate parents’ fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children,” WILL’s lawsuit contends. “The Madison Metropolitan School District has violated this important right by adopting a policy designed to circumvent parental involvement in a pivotal decision affecting their children’s health and future. The policy enables children, of any age, to socially transition to a different gender identity at school without parental notice or consent.”

While parental consent is needed before a child’s legal name can be changed legally in the district’s official records, school district policy announced in 2018 says that students can be called by their preferred name and gender pronouns without parental permission, according to the Associated Press.

The lawsuit also claims that the school district’s policy “directs its teachers and staff to deceive parents by reverting to the child’s birth name and corresponding pronouns whenever the child’s parents are nearby” and that it bars teachers from telling parents about their children’s “gender identity” as well as chosen names or pronouns being used for them at school “unless legally required to do so or unless the student has authorized such disclosure.”

In addition to other concerns described in the legal complaint, “for some Plaintiffs, gender identity issues also have deep religious significance,” according to the lawsuit. It goes on to say that 11 of the plaintiffs are active Christians who seek to apply their beliefs to everything they teach their children, including about their sex,” and that “believe that the two sexes are a core part of God’s intended design for humanity.”

In a statement about the lawsuit on Tuesday, WILL President and general counsel Rick Esenberg said, “Madison schools have adopted policies that violate constitutionally recognized parental rights. A public school district should not, and cannot, make decisions reserved for parents.”

A school district spokesperson told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the district hadn’t been served with the lawsuit and declined to comment to the outlet on the matter, but said that the district stands by its policy.

WILL also sent a legal letter to the school district in December asking them to change the policies.

Share