abcnews--2019-12-11--Texas inmate faces execution for killing prison supervisor

A Texas inmate is set to be executed Wednesday evening for killing a supervisor at an Amarillo state prison shoe factory nearly 17 years ago.  Travis Runnels, 46, is facing lethal injection for the Jan. 29, 2003, death of 38-year-old Stanley Wiley.  Prosecutors said Runnels slashed Wiley’s throat at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Clements Unit in Amarillo because he didn’t like working as a janitor at the shoe factory. They said Runnels had wanted to transfer to a job at the prison barber shop and was angry at Wiley because that hadn't happened.  Runnels had been serving a 70-year sentence for an aggravated robbery conviction in Dallas when he killed Wiley with a knife used to trim shoes. The factory makes shoes for inmates in the state’s prison system.  Runnels approached Wiley from behind, pulled his head back and used enough force for the knife to go through his trachea and cut Wiley’s spinal cord.  If the execution happens, Runnels would be the 22nd inmate put to death this year in the U.S. and the ninth in Texas.  His attorneys are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, alleging a prosecution witness at his trial provided false testimony regarding his prison classification if a jury chose life without parole rather than a death sentence. Runnels’ attorneys also say that no defense was presented at his 2005 trial as his lawyers advised him to plead guilty and then called no witnesses in a trial that lasted two days.  Janet Gilger-VanderZanden, one of his attorneys, said Runnels has become a changed man during his 14 years on death row.  “There is true and authentic remorse for the death of Mr. Wiley. There are no excuses, rather there is a commitment to finding some kind of light in what was once a world of only darkness,” said Gilger-VanderZanden.  Lower courts and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles have turned down requests by Runnels’ attorneys to stop his execution.  Three inmates who were convicted in the deaths of state correctional officers or other prison employees have been executed since 1974, while three others remain on death row, according to Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Wiley, who grew up in the Texas Panhandle city of Amarillo, began working as a state corrections officer in 1994. He was later promoted to a supervisory position.  Inmate Bud Williams Jr., who worked at the shoe factory, testified that Wiley “was a good guy.”  At his trial, Runnels’ lawyers didn’t present any witnesses or evidence, including information about Runnels’ troubled childhood and family history of drug and alcohol abuse, Gilger-VanderZanden said.  In their petition to the Supreme Court, Runnels’ attorneys argue his death sentence was mainly due to the testimony of prison expert A.P. Merillat, who told jurors that inmates like Runnels could not be held in a secure environment if sentenced to life in prison without parole.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has previously overturned the death sentences of two other inmates, in 2010 and 2012, after ruling that jurors had been given incorrect information from Merillat.  The Texas Attorney General’s Office pointed to assaults by Runnels on other guards after Wiley’s death, including throwing feces and a light bulb at them, as evidence he was a future danger and merited a death sentence.  In his clemency petition to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Runnels included letters from more than 25 individuals from around the world who said Runnels has worked to make amends for what he did.  “He has become a light that shines bright even in the darkest of spaces. The tragedy that he is responsible for will only be compounded if his valuable light were to be extinguished,” Kristin Procanick, from Syracuse, New York, wrote in one of the letters.


activistpost--2019-06-25--Legal Reform and The Elephant in the Room Or Here Comes Da Judge

Legal Reform and The Elephant in the Room (Or, Here Comes “Da Judge!”)

Legal reform initiatives now litter the landscape. From new bills proposed in state and national legislatures, to the efforts of established groups like the ACLU and the CCR, to jury nullification efforts, to groups dedicated to propping up the co-opted grand jury system, the political landscape is now populated with people trying to reform what is an obviously ailing system. A number of efforts have also been launched to beseech international tribunals to weigh in on and correct the injustices in American courts.  This article will focus on some of these efforts as they impact adult guardianship proceedings. Nevertheless, the concerns stated herein, concerning the integrity of the judiciary, are equally applicable to family and criminal court and appellate proceedings. The “elephant in the room” would be visible in all these courts.  As the grave civil rights violations inherent in adult guardianships gain more public awareness and more media attention, various attempts have been launched by a number of states to amend their laws surrounding these guardianships.  Guardianships in essence constitute a legal loophole through which an individual can lose his rights and all access to his funds, upon allegations of incapacity. The potential for abuse through such a process is obvious. The fact that these abuses have become an epidemic is reflected not only in a number of GAO reports but also in recent articles in The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, The New York Times and numerous local publications, as well. Even the US Senate has weighed in — Courts Fail To Protect 1.3 Million Vulnerable Americans In Guardianship Charges Senate Report.  However, the media coverage and the subsequent proposed legal remedies have carefully avoided the obvious—the elephant in the room. For it is now a matter of mounting concern that the judges in these proceedings are receiving under the table monies in order to throw these cases.  The very concept of a bribed judiciary is anathema to the idea of impartial justice. Not one word concerning the possibility that the guardianship judges are bought and paid for has been uttered by any mainstream publication. And when guardianship abuses hit the local press, as they recently did in Nevada the subsequent legislative efforts to pass laws to “reform” adult guardianships make a studied detour around the problem of “Da Judge.”  The state of Oregon, a hotbed of continued focus on potential elder abuse issues, due to its long standing legislation permitting euthanasia, has recently passed a guardianship reform package. The new law was heralded by Representative Nancy Nathanson as adding “safeguards to protect vulnerable elders and people with disabilities in guardianship.” Representative Nathanson goes on to assure us that “…national standards of practice will be put in place to ensure that the ward’s wishes and choices are taken into consideration.”  In fact, the new Oregon law, HB 2601, does no so such thing. The law states the following:  (2) A guardian may not limit a protected person’s preferred associations, except: (a) As specifically allowed by the court; or (b) To the extent the guardian determines necessary to avoid unreasonable harm to the protected person’s health, safety or well-being.  In other words, the court has all the power to limit a ward’s associations, as stated in 2) a) and as codified in b), the guardian may make his or her own unilateral determination that an association may result in harm.  Missing is the voice of the protected person. In a scenario where a judge is known to be entirely honest and dedicated to impartiality, such an omission would still be of concern. In the current climate, such an omission could be seen as a guarantee that justice will stumble and fail.  In another attempt to reform guardianship legislation, this time in Washington state, we see again the removal of any locus of power from the protected person and lodged with the judge. Attorney Cheryl Mitchell has done an extensive analysis of the Washington bill, SB 5604.  Mitchell writes, “…it seems clear that the new law will no longer allow incapacitated persons to make their own health care choices and the guardian will apparently make those decisions based on the ‘best interests’ test.” Mitchell goes on to assert that “It appears that if this legislation goes into effect, an incapacitated person’s past preferences may be completely disregarded by guardians and the courts.”  The Washington bill, which was just signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee, does afford the protected person the right to counsel, due to some last minute changes. As it stands, a protected person may ask the judge to appoint him an attorney. However, Cheryl Mitchell has asserted that she is aware of cases wherein the judge refused to allow an attorney to be appointed. “There is a disconnect between the way the statute is written and actual practice,” she stated.  Concerning the importance of the right to representation, Mitchell writes that:  In fact, Mitchell has noted that an emergency petition for guardianship can be filed without notice given to the prospective ward. In other words, a Washingtonian could wake up one morning to discover that he no longer has any rights left and can not even access his bank accounts.  Through the adult guardianship process, the various states in the Union have created a new class of people, a non-person class. The individuals in this group have no legal rights, no voice and no access to their assets. Legislative “reform” has so far only guaranteed that a judge will weigh in on the fate of the non-person, ignoring the growing voices of concern that the judges in these cases are bought and paid for.  Individuals in Nevada, California and the state of Washington have contacted their local US attorneys in efforts to turn over evidence that judges have laundered payoffs through their home loans. In each and every case, the US attorney has refused to accept the evidence. It has been estimated that roughly two thirds of the judges already checked have mortgage histories redolent of money laundering. As long as the elephant—who is simply a white collar criminal with a considerable legal education and societal standing, receiving monies to commit heinous crimes against an American—is ignored, legal reform will continue to fail. And as the non-person class expands—approximately 1.5-2 million people are under guardianship in America today—the entire concept of civil rights in America drifts further and further into history. Janet Phelan is an investigative journalist and author of the groundbreaking exposé, EXILE. Her articles previously appeared in such mainstream venues as the Los Angeles Times, Orange Coast Magazine, Long Beach Press Telegram, etc. In 2004, Janet “jumped ship” and now exclusively writes for independent media. She is also the author of two collections of poetry—The Hitler Poems and Held Captive. She resides abroad. You can follow her on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012703457651 Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


abcnews--2019-12-20--Pastor sentenced to over 1,000 years for sex abuse

GADSDEN, Ala. -- An Alabama youth evangelist was sentenced Friday to more than 1,000 years in prison after pleading guilty to multiple child-sex charges.  Al.com reports that a judge handed down the maximum sentence on every count to Paul Edward Acton Bowen. Bowen had pleaded guilty in Etowah County to 28 counts involving six boys between the ages of 13 and 16.  The 39-year-old Bowen faced charges that include sexual abuse, sodomy, enticing a child for sex and traveling to meet a child for sexual abuse. He still faces other charges in the Birmingham area.  Victims and family members wept as the judge slowly read out the maximum sentence and fine on every count, the newspaper reported.  The shackled minister apologized to his own family and victims in the courtroom.  “The shame and guilt I feel is overwhelming and has been for a long time,” he said. “My heart was never wanting to hurt anybody but my mind was not well.”  He had previously pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disorder.  Bowen was arrested on sex abuse charges last year. Authorities say additional victims came forward after he was in jail.  Bowen was a Christian minister who wrote books, ran his own youth ministry and traveled to speak at youth events.  Bowen pleaded guilty as his first trial was set to begin.


abcnews--2019-12-20--Suspect in student death will stand trial in assault case

SALT LAKE CITY -- A man accused of killing a Utah college student was ordered Friday to stand trial on charges he sexually assaulted another woman he met on a dating site more than a year before the slaying.  Ayoola Ajayi, 31, pleaded not guilty to felony kidnapping and three counts of forcible sexual abuse.  Defense attorneys had asked to cross-examine the woman, saying there there were inconsistencies between her written testimony and initial statements to police, but Judge Venice Trease denied the request, citing victims' rights law.  Ajayi, shackled and in a yellow jail uniform, hung his head as the judge read the order, The Deseret News reported.  He met the woman on a dating app for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and invited her to his house for dinner in March 2018, prosecutors have said. He pinned her arms and assaulted her as they were watching television but she was able to get away, charges stated. She reported the crime after seeing news stories about 23-year-old Mackenzie Lueck, whom authorities say disappeared after meeting up with Ajayi in a park in June.  Ajayi is charged with murder and kidnapping in the death of Lueck, a University of Utah student from California. Her charred body was later found with her arms bound behind her back.  Ajayi was also charged with sexual exploitation of a minor after investigators discovered child pornography on his computer.  He has not yet entered pleas to those charges, and his lawyers have not commented.


abcnews--2019-12-21--Guam judge rejects effort to nullify cockfighting ban

HAGATNA, Guam -- A judge in the U.S. territory of Guam has ruled against a local businessman’s attempt to continue cockfighting despite a new American law banning it.  U.S. District Court of Guam Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan Jr. denied Sefrey Linsangan's motion for a preliminary injunction against the new prohibition, the Pacific Daily News reported Friday.  Linsangan, described in court papers as a business owner involved in “gamefowl raising and competition" for 40 years, argued the ban was unconstitutional.  “It is not only part of his culture, custom and tradition but also a hobby, pastime, exercise and sport,” the lawsuit said.  President Donald Trump last year signed a law banning all animal fighting in the U.S. territories. The law took effect on Friday. Prior to the law, cockfighting had been illegal in the 50 states but not U.S. territories.  The judge wrote that Linsangan failed to show how the federal ban deprives him of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”  He said Linsangan didn’t show that enacting the cockfighting ban discriminated against him or any person on account of his race, language or religion. Manibusan said the law applies uniformly throughout the 50 states and territories.  He said he sympathized with the argument that the people of Guam have been disenfranchised because the territory's residents aren’t allowed to vote for president, nor are they allowed to elect voting members of Congress.  "The remedy for such disenfranchisement lies within the political, not judicial, process," he wrote.  On Wednesday, Gov. Wanda Vázquez of Puerto Rico, another U.S. territory, signed a bill authorizing cockfighting in defiance of the federal ban.  The measure says it is legal for Puerto Rico to host cockfights as long as people don’t export or import cocks or any goods or services related to cockfighting.


abcnews--2019-12-21--Pair could face new charges in Indiana neglect case

LAFAYETTE, Ind. -- Prosecutors are looking to file four additional charges against an Indiana couple accused of abandoning their adopted daughter.  Michael and Kristine Barnett, who were charged in September with two counts of neglect of a dependent, now possibly face six to 20 years in prison if convicted, according to the Journal and Carrier.  If the prosecutors' proposed new charges are allowed, the felony will move to a Class B felony.  The now-divorced couple adopted 6-year-old Natalia, who has a severe form of dwarfism, in 2010. Three years later, they claimed she was actually an adult con artist trying to kill them.  The Barnetts moved to Canada and left Natalia in an apartment in Lafayette.  Tippecanoe Superior 2 Judge Steve Meyers is set to hear arguments on the motion on Dec. 27.


abcnews--2019-12-23--Court of Appeals strikes down Minnesota's revenge porn law

MINNEAPOLIS -- Minnesota's law against revenge porn is unconstitutional and infringes on First Amendment rights, the state Court of Appeals ruled Monday as it reversed the conviction of a man who circulated explicit photos of a former girlfriend.  The court ruled that the state law was such a broad violation of First Amendment free-speech rights that it couldn't be fixed by a ruling limiting its scope.  According to court filings, Michael Anthony Casillas used the victim's passwords to access her accounts after their relationship ended to obtain sexual photos and videos of her, then threatened to release them. She later received a screenshot from one explicit video that had been sent to 44 recipients and posted online.  A Dakota County judge rejected defendant Casillas' First Amendment challenge to the state law and sentenced him to 23 months in prison.  The three-judge appeals panel called Casillas' conduct "abhorrent," and said they recognized that the non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images can cause significant harm.  “The state legitimately seeks to punish that conduct,” they wrote. "But the state cannot do so under a statute that is written too broadly and therefore violates the First Amendment.”  In throwing out his conviction, Judges Michelle Larkin, Peter Reyes and Randall Slieter said the state's revenge porn statute has the potential to cover conduct that is constitutionally protected, such as sharing images that appear in publicly accessible media with the consent of the people depicted.  Specifically, they said, the statute lacks a requirement that prosecutors prove an intent to cause harm. They said the language allows for convictions even if the defendant didn't know that the person depicted did not consent to the distribution of that image. And they said it allows convictions when the defendant didn't know that the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Rep. John Lesch, a St. Paul Democrat and chief author of the 2016 law, called on Attorney General Keith Ellison and Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom to appeal the ruling to the Minnesota Supreme Court. He said similar laws have withstood constitutional challenges elsewhere, most recently in Illinois in October.  "Advocates who have worked across the country to end this reprehensible behavior and I are confident our Supreme Court would correctly decide this case and thereby vindicate the rights of thousands of victims whose reputations and lives are digitally exploited,” Lesch said in a statement.  Backstrom's spokeswoman, Monica Jensen, said she trying for comment but that people in the know about the case were off for the Christmas holiday.  “The people of Minnesota want everyone to live with dignity and respect," Ellison said in a statement. "This means the victims of revenge porn should be protected. Our office will review this opinion and consult with the Dakota County Attorney about options in this important case.”


abcnews--2019-12-23--Judge: Key evidence can be used in Mollie Tibbetts' slaying

IOWA CITY, Iowa -- In a victory for prosecutors, a judge ruled Monday that they can use key evidence at trial against the migrant worker charged with killing University of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts.  Judge Joel Yates agreed with prosecutors that some statements made by the defendant, Cristhian Bahena Rivera, must be suppressed because they came during an interrogation after he was not fully read his legal rights.  But Yates ruled that prosecutors can still use the information provided by Rivera that led them to the body of Tibbetts, who disappeared in July 2018 while out for a run in her small hometown of Brooklyn, Iowa. He also ruled that statements made by Rivera after the discovery of the body were admissible because he was read his rights at that point.  In addition, Yates also ruled that Rivera gave consent to search his vehicles, so prosecutors can use blood evidence discovered in the trunk of one car that allegedly contained Tibbetts' DNA.  Rivera, a 25-year-old dairy farm employee who was allegedly in the country illegally, is scheduled to stand trial in February. He faces life in prison if convicted at the trial, which has been moved across the state to Sioux City due to extensive pretrial publicity.  A spokesman for the attorney general's office, which is helping Poweshiek County prosecute Rivera, hailed Monday's ruling as a positive step forward.  “We're pleased with the judge's ruling and we're prepared to try the case in February,” spokesman Lynn Hicks said.  Yates had been weighing what evidence to allow at the trial after overseeing a two-day hearing in November on Rivera's motion to suppress key evidence.  Tibbetts' disappearance touched off one of the largest manhunts in Iowa history and drew extensive media attention. Investigators began focusing on Rivera, a Mexico native who is suspected of living in the U.S. illegally since he was a teenager, a month later after he was tied to a vehicle seen on surveillance video appearing to stalk Tibbetts while she jogged.  Investigators showed up at the dairy farm where Rivera worked to interview him and other employees in August 2018. He was taken to the sheriff's office, where he was questioned for hours. Eventually, Rivera allegedly directed investigators to the cornfield where they found Tibbetts' body.  Yates ruled that Rivera voluntarily gave consent to search his vehicles and to go the sheriff's office for the interrogation. He denied Rivera's defense's argument that he had been coerced into giving permission for both, and that his confession was the product of a sleep-deprived interrogation.  Investigators later discovered blood in the trunk of one of the vehicles that they say testing later linked to Tibbetts' DNA. Since the search of the vehicle was voluntary, Yates said that evidence can be used.  Agreeing with prosecutors' legal position, Yates found that Rivera was effectively taken into custody hours into the interrogation when agents put a detainer on him due to his immigration status. He ruled that statements made by Rivera over the next several hours are inadmissible because an officer did not warn him that his statements could be used against him.  However, Yates ruled that prosecutors can use the discovery of Tibbetts' body as evidence since Rivera's statements were voluntarily given.


abcnews--2019-12-23--State auditor, treasurer reject payments in Branstad case

DES MOINES, Iowa -- A group of top state officials on Monday approved payments of nearly $400,000 to a Des Moines law firm to continue a lawsuit in which a jury concluded former Gov. Terry Branstad discriminated against an ex-state official because the official is gay.  Two Democratic members of the Iowa Executive Council, the five-member panel responsible for authorizing state litigation expenses, refused to approve legal bills presented Monday.  Iowa Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald and Auditor Rob Sand voted no. But the three Republicans, Gov. Kim Reynolds, Secretary of State Paul Pate and Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig, voted in favor, allowing the bills to be paid.  Four bills submitted by the Nyemaster Goode law firm reached $388,594, bringing the total cost for the case to more than $8 million.  A jury awarded former Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner Chris Godfrey $1.5 million in July, finding he was the victim of discrimination and retaliation when Branstad tried to force him to quit in 2011 and then cut his pay.  Jurors found against Branstad, one of his staff members and the state. Branstad resigned as governor in 2017 to become the U.S. ambassador to China.  Reynolds decided last month to appeal the case to the Iowa Supreme Court. If Godfrey prevails in appeals, taxpayers must pay the total court costs.  The governor said the bills approved Monday are still part of the main case including trial expenses and appeal costs that haven't yet begun to be billed.  She reiterated her reason for continuing to have taxpayers pay for the case and for appealing.  “As I said before, I think it would be irresponsible for me not to as it's a relatively small cost moving forward and we believe that we have a good case,” Reynolds said.  Sand, a former state prosecutor who became auditor in January, said the bills presented Monday included some main case costs and appeals costs. He has said since September that he wouldn't force taxpayers to pay appeals costs.  Sand said it's unlikely the courts, on appeal, would dismiss the case.  “The odds of that happening versus the odds of getting a new trial and having to pay those expenses all over again are pretty bad,” he said.  Reynolds has said she believes the Iowa Supreme Court could reverse the verdict and end the case, eliminating the verdict and Godfrey's attorney costs.  Attorneys for Branstad and the state have argued that the verdicts weren’t supported by substantial evidence and conflict with the law. Branstad testified that at the time he asked Godfrey to resign, he didn’t know that Godfrey was gay. His attorneys claim there was insufficient evidence to show that Branstad knew.  Those appeals and others were rejected on Nov. 13 by Judge Brad McCall, who also presided over the trial. He wrote the jury clearly rejected Branstad’s contention that he didn’t know Godfrey was gay.  McCall said the jury was presented with substantial evidence from which to conclude that Branstad’s action against Godfrey was due to Godfrey’s sexual orientation.


abcnews--2019-12-24--Bankruptcy judge thrust into spotlight in Purdue Pharma case

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- The judge overseeing the bankruptcy of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma warns that real-life court cases don't unfold like “Perry Mason.” But he’s afraid this one might come to resemble “Dr. Strangelove.”  U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain of White Plains, New York, has a reputation for thorough preparation, deep experience handling big, complicated corporate cases, a sometimes forceful manner from the bench — and a fondness for pop-culture references, some of them of baby boomer vintage.  It will be up to him to decide whether to approve a potentially $12 billion plan by Purdue Pharma to settle more than 2,700 lawsuits over its role in the opioid crisis that has killed 400,000 people in the U.S. over the past two decades.  The proceedings are all but certain to be complex and acrimonious: Nearly half of the nation's state attorneys general and many victims have come out against the plan and vowed to press on with their lawsuits, arguing that the deal on the table does not wring enough money from members of the billionaire Sackler family who own the company and does not contain an admission of guilt over one of the gravest public health crises in U.S. history.  At a hearing in October, Drain cautioned that that's not necessarily how the real legal world works: “There are trials where people stand up and say, `I did it’ — and that usually happens on `Perry Mason' only.”  At the same time, he warned that pressing ahead with individual lawsuits — a risky strategy that could torpedo a global settlement and result in plaintiffs coming up empty-handed — reminded him of the “doomsday machine" in the 1964 movie “Dr. Strangelove.”  Drain graduated from Yale and got interested in bankruptcy law in the 1980s, when he was in law school at Columbia University. He told Federal Lawyer magazine in 2013 that he found its complexities, the overlap with other areas of law and “the strong and often odd personalities" of the clients and practitioners "strangely compelling.”  The judge, who declined to be interviewed or photographed for this story, was a bankruptcy lawyer for nearly two decades before being appointed to his current position in 2002 by the federal appeals court in New York. For the past decade, his courtroom has been in White Plains, where he is the only bankruptcy judge handling big business cases.  He has presided over the cases of Hostess, Sears, Reader’s Digest, auto parts maker Delphi and the grocer A&P. In some of the highest-profile matters before him, he has done what the companies seeking bankruptcy protection asked.  Over some objections, he approved Delphi’s restructuring in 2009 in a way that would keep it operating with new owners; shutting it down could have brought production at its largest customer, General Motors, to a virtual halt.  In 2012, he let Hostess shut down over the objections of employee unions. Earlier this year, he allowed Sears to be sold to a hedge fund despite opposition from creditors and landlords who wanted it liquidated.  “If he thinks the debtor is in good faith attempting to reorganize, he will, on balance, support that when he can,” said Jonathan Lipson, a law professor at Temple University who worked for Drain in private practice at the start of his legal career. “The tie goes to the debtor.”  Drain doesn’t always side with corporate interests; in foreclosure cases, he often has ruled against big banks.  So far, Drain’s major rulings in the Purdue case have been what the drugmaker has wanted, though they have come after some compromise. He put lawsuits against the company and the Sacklers on hold until at least April. He also allowed Purdue to pay bonuses to its employees, though he left open for now the question of whether CEO Craig Landau should get $1.3 million on top of his $2.6 million salary.  But he has also been attentive to the victims, noting at one point in court, “What we’re talking about here is flesh and blood." While opioid victims are assured a role in the proceedings through several seats on an official committee of unsecured creditors, Drain went further and told an advocate for victims to coordinate with state attorneys general.  In fact, addiction — the scourge at the center of the Purdue case — is something he was thinking about well before the case arrived in his courtroom. In 2013, he self-published a 460-page piece of fiction titled “The Great Work in the United States of America,” about the adventures of a 19th-century founder of a new religion.  One of the novel’s main characters is addicted to opium. Another character blames pharmacies that keep selling the drugs because the market for them is so lucrative.  In the hearings he has held so far in the case, Drain has been particularly hard on state attorneys general and their representatives, though he stopped a Purdue lawyer at a hearing this month from chastising states over a court filing that asked whether the company should be forced to pay for drug treatment or stop selling its most powerful OxyContin dosage.  At the proceeding in October, he was impatient with a lawyer for Arizona who argued that Drain should let the state’s case against the Sacklers move ahead in the U.S. Supreme Court. Drain, raising his voice, said: “Come on, give me a break. … You can raise that argument on appeal.” The high court later refused to hear the Arizona case.  During that same hearing, the judge sternly warned a lawyer for a group of 24 states that wanted to move forward with their own lawsuits that going to trial doesn’t always work out the way you hoped.  He pointed to the 1912 trial over the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire in New York that killed 146 workers. The business owners were acquitted of manslaughter despite evidence that exit doors were locked.


abcnews--2019-12-24--Judge: Parolee will face murder trial in California stabbing

SAN FRANCISCO -- A judge has ruled that a 29-year-old parolee with a history of mental illness is mentally fit to stand trial for the slaying of a woman on an Oakland subway platform.  Alameda County Superior Court Judge James Cramer said Tuesday that John Lee Cowell will face trial starting in January for the unprovoked stabbing death of 18-year-old Nia Wilson in July 2018, KPIX-TV reported.  Cowell has been charged with murder and attempted murder for the attack on Wilson and her sister, Letifah, 26, who was wounded in the attack.  The trial had been in legal limbo as authorities sought to determine Cowell's mental competence. At a hearing Monday, Cramer said that Cowell was not cooperating with doctors appointed last month to evaluate him, for the latest in a series of evaluations. The judge said he understood Cowell has a history of mental illness but that doctors who had previously examined him felt he was “malingering”to avoid standing trial. The judge recessed the hearing, saying he needed 24 hours to reach his decision and announced his ruling Tuesday.  Wilson's death was one of several violent or fatal attacks on Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) lines that connect San Francisco to the cities of Berkeley, Oakland and others.  BART has announced new safety measures and installed thousands of security cameras as part of an effort to increase safety.  Prosecutors have said they will seek a life sentence against Cowell and are investigating if he was motivated by racial hate when he killed Wilson. The women are black and he is white.


abcnews--2019-12-24--Lawyer: Man tied to Jersey City shooters deserves bail

NEWARK, N.J. -- The new attorney for a pawn shop operator whose number was found in the pocket of one of two attackers who killed four people in Jersey City said Tuesday his client deserves to be freed on bail on a weapons charge.  Ahmed A-Hady has been jailed since his arrest several days after the Dec. 10 shootings. He is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, stemming from a 2012 drug conviction. He hasn't been charged with providing any weapons to the Jersey City shooters.  Attorney Robert Stahl, who took over the representation of A-Hady last week, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he will continue the effort to have his client released on bail. He said the note is the only connection between his client and shooters David Anderson and Francine Graham, both of whom died in a shootout with police.  “It’s as if he had the number of a sporting goods store in his pocket, or a hardware store,” Stahl said. “You would certainly go check it out, but it doesn’t mean there’s some tie. I think people have been trying to show some connection that just isn't there.”  Authorities have not said publicly if they know why the number was in Anderson's pocket.  Stahl said a new bail hearing likely would be scheduled for after the new year. A federal judge held an initial bail hearing on Dec. 16 but gave A-Hady's public defender two more days to put together a bail package proposal.  The second bail hearing on Dec. 18 was abruptly adjourned, after the government said it had direct and circumstantial evidence that A-Hady was involved in buying and selling firearms.  “Ultimately that will be shown to be incorrect,” Stahl said. He added that defendants facing the charge his client faces normally are granted bail.  Anderson and Graham killed Jersey City Police Det. Joseph Seals before driving a van to a kosher market and killing three people inside. Authorities have said they acted out of a hatred for Jews and law enforcement.


abcnews--2019-12-25--New wife, 26, charged with exploiting husband, 77, for money

TAMPA, Fla. -- A newly married 26-year-old woman has been arrested on charges alleging she tried to cash almost $1 million in checks from her 77-year-old husband's account.  Lin Helena Halfon was arrested earlier this month at Tampa International Airport. She is facing charges of money laundering, organized fraud and exploitation of an elderly person. During her first court appearance, a judge set her bail at $1 million.  The Tampa Bay Times reported that when her husband, Tampa businessman Richard Rappaport, was notified by investigators about what his wife was doing, he said wanted to give his wife the benefit of the doubt, according to a warrant affidavit.  He said he didn’t want her to be deported to her native Israel.  An Amscot employee in Tampa refused to cash the checks. Eventually, two checks worth about $666,000 were cashed by an Orlando business.  Asked later if he felt he was the victim of fraud and fraud, Rappaport told investigators, “yes,” according to the arrest warrant.  Halfon and Rappaport were married in August in Sarasota.  Rappaport's daughter, Dayna Titus, said in an arrest affidavit that family members were unaware of the marriage.  “Titus believed that Halfon was ‘conning’ Rappaport due to his age,” FDLE Special Agent Victoria Morris wrote in the affidavit.  Halfon's attorney, Todd Foster, said the couple had a valid marriage.  "We look forward to bringing forward additional facts to bring clarity to this situation,” Foster said.


abcnews--2019-12-26--Airline's workers can't sue as class in pay dispute: Court

NEWARK, N.J. -- American Airlines workers at Newark's airport who claim in a lawsuit they've been shorted on overtime pay can't sue as a class, a federal appeals court ruled this week.  The three-judge panel's decision published Tuesday reversed a New Jersey judge's ruling that would have allowed the lawsuit to go forward and include all non-exempt hourly workers employed at Newark Liberty International Airport since April 2014.  Several employees, including mechanics and workers responsible for tasks such as cargo handling, filed the suit in 2016 and said American's timekeeping system automatically paid employees based on their schedules rather than on the hours they actually worked.  They also alleged managers regularly refused to authorize overtime pay for work performed before and after scheduled shifts and during scheduled 30-minute lunch breaks. The lawsuit sought back pay as well as punitive damages. American denied the allegations.  The appeals court sided with the airline, which argued that while the timekeeping system applied to all employees, it would be wrong to group all employees into a class because it would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis which employees worked overtime.  “For example, some employees testified that they began working immediately after clocking in,” the court wrote. “Others testified that they chatted with co-workers or watched TV after clocking in but before their shifts began. Thus, whether they were actually working pre- and post-shift is an open and inherently individualized question.”  The court also questioned the judge's reliance on a 2016 ruling involving workers at a Tyson Foods pork-processing plant who weren't paid for the time they spent putting on and taking off protective equipment.  In that case, “all activities were common, unlike here,” the judges wrote. “The record evidence here, on the other hand, demonstrates that employees were not always working while clocked in and there was substantial variability in what they were doing, even if some of it could be called work.”  Brett Gallaway, an attorney representing the employees, said in an email Thursday that he disagreed with the ruling and his clients were considering their options.


abcnews--2019-12-26--Dallas dismissed from lawsuit over police shooting

DALLAS -- A federal judge has ruled the city of Dallas is not liable for an off-duty police officer fatally shooting a man in his own apartment last year.  On Monday, U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn dismissed the city from civil lawsuit that the family of Botham Jean brought after the 26-year-old was killed by Amber Guyger.  The ruling leaves the 31-year-old former officer as the sole defendant in the suit, which argues she used excessive force and that better police training could have prevented Jean's death. It makes a large financial settlement unlikely.  In her brief ruling, Lynn wrote that she was upholding a magistrate judge's decision and dismissing the city because the suit failed “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."  Guyger was found guilty of murder for Jean's death and sentenced to a decade in prison in October. She testified at trial that she mistook Jean's apartment for her own on the floor below and thought he was an intruder.  Jean, an accountant from the Caribbean island nation of St. Lucia, had been eating a bowl of ice cream when Guyger entered his home and shot him.  His death drew national attention for its unusual circumstances and as one of several prominent killings of black men by white police officers.  A lawyer for Jean's family did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.


abcnews--2019-12-26--Federal oversight of St. Louis County Family Court ends

ST. LOUIS -- The U.S. Department of Justice is ending its oversight of the St. Louis County Family Court, saying the court is now in compliance with a 2016 agreement meant to ensure the fair treatment of juveniles, especially black juveniles.  The Family Court on Thursday released a letter dated Dec. 16 in which Steven Rosenbaum, chief of the Justice Department’s Special Litigation Section, wrote that the required reforms had been implemented.  “We recognize the hard work that the Family Court has put into protecting the due process and equal protection rights of youth in juvenile justice proceedings through changed policies and practices,” Rosenbaum wrote.  The Justice Department didn't immediately reply to an email seeking comment.  The department began investigating the court in November 2013. The investigation was unrelated to the unrest that followed the fatal police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, by a white police officer in Ferguson on Aug. 9, 2014, a shooting that led to months of unrest and spurred scrutiny of other courts in the St. Louis area.  The Justice Department's family court investigation cited racial inequities in the treatment of defendants and concerns that defendants' constitutional rights were often violated. The 2016 agreement required several changes, including doubling the number of defense attorneys available to represent indigent youths and ensuring that defense lawyers were appointed in a timely manner and properly trained.  The deal also barred police interrogations at the juvenile detention center unless an attorney for the youth was present, and it stressed that authorities make sure juveniles understand their rights before they can waive them. The family court also was required to adopt standardized hearings to ensure that juveniles' pleas to delinquency charges are voluntary.  Family Court Administrative Judge Margaret T. Donnelly said the court also expanded its collaboration with schools, police agencies, faith-based groups and advocacy organizations.  “Our judges and every member of the Family Court staff are dedicated to ensuring that juveniles’ constitutional rights and best interests are protected at every step of the legal process,” Donnelly said in a statement. “We also are committed to maintaining community safety, repairing harm done to victims and focusing on accountability for juveniles. Going forward, we will continue the partnerships we have built to ensure that court-involved youth obtain the services they need to develop into responsible adults.”


activistpost--2019-06-26--Facebook to Hand Over Users Info to French Govt For Hate Speech Prosecutions

Facebook to Hand Over Users’ Info to French Govt For “Hate Speech” Prosecutions

Facebook is going to work in concert with the government of France to rat out its own users so they can be prosecuted for “hate speech.”  The move comes just three months after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg pledged a “privacy-focused” overhaul of the social network.  From Reuters, “In a world first, Facebook to give data on hate speech suspects to French courts”:  In a world first, Facebook has agreed to hand over the identification data of French users suspected of hate speech on its platform to judges, France’s minister for digital affairs Cedric O said on Tuesday. O, whose father is South Korean, is one of French President Emmanuel Macron’s earliest followers, and has been influential in shaping the president’s thinking on Big Tech as an advisor at the Elysee palace in the first two years of Macron’s presidency. The decision by the world’s biggest social media network comes after successive meetings between Zuckerberg and Macron, who wants to take a leading role globally on the regulation of hate speech and the spread of false information online. So far, Facebook has cooperated with French justice on matters related to terrorist attacks and violent acts by transferring the IP addresses and other identification data of suspected individuals to French judges who formally demanded it.  All French citizens are to be treated as terrorists now if they hold the wrong opinions.  Following a meeting between Nick Clegg, Facebook’s head of global affairs, and O last week, the social media company has extended this cooperation to hate speech. “This is huge news, it means that the judicial process will be able to run normally,” O told Reuters in an interview. “It’s really very important, they’re only doing it for France.” O, who said he had been in close contact with Clegg over the last few days on the issue, said Facebook’s decision was the result of an ongoing conversation between the internet giant and the French administration. Since his nomination as minister in March, O has made the fight against hate speech online a key priority through regular contacts with Facebook’s top executives, including founder Mark Zuckerberg.  BuzzFeed reported in March that Macron had begun working with Facebook to “solve” its “deep-rooted anti-Semitism problem.”


activistpost--2019-06-27--Chevron Corruption Fed Judge Kaplan Seeks Destruction of Amazonian Lawyer Steven Donziger

Chevron Corruption: Fed Judge Kaplan Seeks Destruction of Amazonian Lawyer, Steven Donziger

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has ordered that lawyer and activist Steven Donziger, who was fighting for Amazonian villagers, can be fined an egregious amount of money per day.  On June 3rd, this reporter wrote an article for Activist Post entitled “Conflicted Judge Protects Chevron Abuse of Amazon Villagers’ Attorney Donziger,” which delved into a decade-plus struggle to get justice for Ecuadoran Amazonian Villagers suffering from billions of gallons of toxic waste dumped into the Amazon environment by Texaco (that was bought out by Chevron).  Chevron lost several legal battles, in Ecuador, in large part due to the efforts of New York activist and attorney, Steven Donziger, who has been fighting for the Amazonian villagers against big oil.  As my previous article pointed out, Chevron seeks to evade its accountability by utilizing NY Federal District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to assault Donziger’s legal credentials.  Also noted in my previous article is the fact that Judge Kaplan is a conflicted jurist who had money invested in Chevron!  Bias is running amok in Judge Kaplan’s adjudication upon the merits in the Chevron cases, as the justice is well read into the fact that Chevron’s key witness was bribed with big money and coached to falsely testify against Donziger, which abuses the Amazonian villagers even further.  Unfortunately, Judge Kaplan appears to show lack of care for justice; and, the day after this reporter’s article came out, Judge Kaplan escalated his abuse against Steven Donziger by issuing a cruel and unusual punishment.  The tyrannical Kaplan ordered Donziger to face fines up to $200,000 per day and to seize his passport for each day that he fails to turn over attorney-client privileged information.  Inexplicably and intolerably, Judge Kaplan is abusing his authority with extreme measures seeking to be coercive, to force Steven Donziger to turn over attorney-client privileged materials to Chevron, while having money invested in the same company — a breach of judicial ethics which prevents Kaplan from judging the case without bias.  This author was made aware of the Amazonian villagers’ suffering, and the plight of Steven Donziger, due to Laser Haas, who is the whistleblower in this reporter’s Wall Street fraud, protected by federal corruption, series.  This reporter asked Haas why he would take time out of his works to have me step back from another Goldman Sachs/Bain Capital article for the sake of attorney at law, Steven Donziger?  Hass responded referencing Steven Donziger as one of his heroes!  According to Laser, the serial Wall St whistleblower looks for several characteristics in any given saga before getting involved in external troubling matters.  Laser said some of the things he first looks for is the degree of physical threats, and then he looks for what the whistleblower referenced as a “Solomon” moment (a moment of purity that sets the troubled person, as a breed apart).  Once those dynamics of a case are fully probed, Laser has three standards he discusses with parties he seeks to assist.  First is that the parties must be a hundred percent honest in telling their story of a plight. Second, the parties must declare by email that they completely understand that Laser Haas is not an attorney at law. And the third one that Laser claims is equal to the other two rules, is that Haas’s time is at his own volition.  It’s odd that Laser considers the discussion about his time to be as important as honesty, or that the victim or witness must acknowledge they understand Laser isn’t a lawyer.  This reporter has come to realize that time is the most precious commodity we all have. Even though time is perspective, rather than relative.  Donziger has been in a war against Chevron for two decades; and, despite the fact the Chevron shareholders recently demanded the CEO settle with the Amazonian villagers, there seems to be no end in sight, or of justice coming anytime soon.  Being that it is a fact there are crooked lawyers and judges as the very reasons why Laser’s eToys case suffers, this reporter first found it odd that Laser would seek to spend his time seeking to help an attorney, since he has been screwed over by so many in the past.  It’s the last place that one would think Laser would seek to get into a ring, metaphorically speaking, jumping into an arena where crooked judges are observably rigging a case.  Laser’s answer to this reporter instantly clarified his stance. He said that in every battle currently facing humanity, whether it is climate change, immigrant children sleeping in the cold, ICE raids, warmongering, a radical President, or any other issue – the common element to seek salvation non-violently – is our courts.  Unlike most underground journalists, and other victims, witnesses, or whistleblowers who remain aloft or unreachable, Laser freely publishes his email, social media accounts, and even his phone number; because he understands one aspect of the civil wars, running amok within our justice system.  Tyrannical leaders of schemes, cronies and corrupts are unified in protecting their evil deeds, from being held accountable.  Unfortunately, although an activist may like, or even retweet another activist’s efforts – for the most part the good guys are out there on their own.  Previously, another victim of Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs partnership with Paul Roy Traub (who lost over $100 million in the Tom Petters Ponzi Polaroid saga), offered to fund Laser Haas bystarting a grassroots organization. Instead, Laser asked the party to help fund victims, nationwide, who Laser hoped would unify to battle manifest injustice.  Regrettably, none of the parties would unify, together.  It is the mindset of Laser Haas, that, if he leads by example, sharing his time, and hard-knock expertise, in decades of fighting tyranny, cronyism, corruption and coverups – that others may find renewed hope for justice.  Laser holds Steven Donziger in high esteem. Donziger was a lawyer until Judge Kaplan got his law license suspended (which reportedly goes on trial, in September).  In Laser’s view, Donziger holds a badge of honor (Solomon moment) in his unrelenting quest for justice not just for himself, but for the Amazonian villagers who are victims to a corporate ecological crime.  Furthermore, Donziger has not even asked for Laser to help; and, most assuredly, Donziger understands how precious the dynamics of time are.  Additionally, for some further backstory on Laser, his girlfriend is retired EEOC Judge Mary Elizabeth Bullock, who, herself, had her law license suspended by unscrupulous parties.  In the past Laser has also worked to assist Israel Weinstock and Richard Fine (two other lawyers who lost their rights to practice law, resultant of tyrants despising their truth-telling, i.e. challenging them).  Even individual reporters like Matt Taibbi and David Sirota (who have told Laser to, in a nice way putting it, “go fly a kite”), are still supported by Laser Haas, privately and publicly for their work.  Among many other heroes, Laser expresses this reporter as one, as well as other journalists like – Joe Nocera, RMuse (formerly with PoliticusUSA), Nathaniel Downs, Greg Palast, Lee Camp, Vegas Jessie, Daniel Wright, and the very first to report on Laser’s eToys case (WSJ Joseph Pereira).  Though, none of those other journalists will give Laser any time of day. Which, though this reporter finds some of these journalists’ nature to be obtuse and really sad, it is a fact that this reporter is reporting on Laser as a result of those journalists’ willful blindness or lack of knowledge about Laser’s case.  Judge Kaplan is abusing the Amazonians, while Kaplan is seeking to destroy attorney at law Steven Donziger, resultant of the fact that there’s not enough public outcry, or media attention to the tyranny, cronyism, corruption, and cover-ups seeking to protect Chevron. Allowing the company to get away totally ‘Scot Free’ with the profits made off from the Ecuadoran Amazon forest environmental damages.  According to Laser, what Judge Kaplan is doing is pretending to go by the Codes and Rules of Law.  Such efforts are actually known to be a Civil Rights violation via “color of law” (in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 242). And color of law violations are frauds accomplished by arbitrary and capricious rulings, contrary to the facts and laws according to Laser.  U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the Magna Carta remarks on “protection against arbitrary action” in the 1996 case of Sacramento v.s. Lewis 523 U.S. 833 – that states:  At the end of the day, Judge Kaplan may succeed in his tyrannical pursuits to destroy Steven Donziger, and that would just prove how dire things have become as injustice after injustice happens flagrantly when it lacks public oversight. Even so, with public scrutiny involved, it seems like the tyrants don’t care anymore, openly committing acts such as these.  Chevron is already on the public record claiming that Donziger doesn’t have enough money to satisfy the $800,000 judgment Justice Kaplan has egregiously awarded Chevron, on top of the now-ordered $200,000 a day fine.  Therefore, Judge Kaplan yanking Steven Donziger’s law license and passport, preventing Donziger from earning a living, is beyond unreasonable and is the definition of “cruel and unusual punishment” much like what was issued against former Army analyst Chelsea Manning, requiring her to pay $500 dollars every day she fails to commit perjury against herself for contempt of court, by U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga.  Trenga, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ordered that “if Chelsea Manning does not purge herself of contempt within 30 days of this Order, she shall incur a conditional fine of $500 per day until such time as she purges herself of contempt.” While Judge Trenga’s abuse of Manning is horrific, Judge Kaplan is even more heinous — on June 4th, 2019, Kaplan ordered that Steven Donziger can be fined up to $200,000 per day. The cases of Donzinger and Manning have different elements, but still, the abuse is the same – a monetary punishment requiring both parties to pay to the courts money that they don’t have. Once again, by definition “cruel and unusual punishment” uses money as an intimidation factor to violate one’s rights. Resultant of these affairs, there are certain dynamics anew that Judge Lewis Kaplan should pay attention to. For one, Laser Haas is now in Steven Donziger’s fan club; and that’s significant of itself (because this reporter is also in that fan club, and writing articles about the Amazonian villagers’ plight, and Judge Kaplan’s abuse of Steven Donziger). Which means that this reporter’s friends, colleagues, and supporters are also aware of these incredulous abuses of power. Number two, one would hope, though they might be silent in the background, that there are other fans of Donziger, like that of esteemed journalists Greg Palast and Karen Hinton, and English rock musician, singer-songwriter, and composer, Roger Waters. Surely there are state and federal agents, along with members of state and federal courts, who see the manifest injustice happening in the Chevron case; and those parties are aiding the quest for justice, in their own – quiet – ways. Laser has aided other judges and Justice Department persons, including higher-ups to turn in their papers and retire; because they couldn’t take the heat of truth, in the hands of many. Steven Donziger is a true hero; as Laser says, Donziger’s temerity and tenacity are a badge of immense honor. The one thing that Judge Kaplan and Chevron will never be able to escape, no matter how many lawyers they disparage and destroy, is the fact – unequivocal – that Chevron’s profitable empire is a result of billions of dollars in environmental damages that have destroyed parts of the Amazon forest, and caused extreme hardships upon Amazonian villagers. As previously written, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan actually had the unmitigated gall to call the Amazonian villagers seeking retribution against Chevron “so-called plaintiffs”; which really makes tyrannical crony, corrupt Judge Lewis Kaplan out to be nothing more than a “so-called judge.” Anyone who isn’t blind or willfully blind to justice can see that a Judge referring to victims of a company’s ecological terrorism as “so-called plaintiffs,” siding with a company that he himself also has money invested in, is not fit to serve the bench. After all, even Chevron’s own shareholders are now demanding that Chevron settles with the Amazonian villagers. Which is a result, in no small part, due to the unrelenting pursuits for justice by heroic acts of Steven Donziger, who now suffers both monetarily and career-wise, for doing the right thing. Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Minds, Steemit, SoMee, BitChute, Facebook and Twitter.   Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


aljazeera--2019-01-08--Indias Supreme Court reinstates CBI chief removed by government

India's Supreme Court reinstates CBI chief removed by government

India's Supreme Court has reinstated the removed director of the country's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a setback to the government that has been accused of undermining the agency.  The decision came on Tuesday, more than two months after Alok Verma and his deputy, Rakesh Asthana, were "placed on leave" last year with the government ordering a probe against both the feuding men.  The top court, however, said Verma couldn't make any major policy decisions pending a review by an autonomous anti-corruption body that had recommended Verma's and Asthana's transfers out of the CBI.  Verma had challenged the government's decision to remove him during a CBI inquiry of his deputy Asthana, who is considered close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.  Verma petitioned the Supreme Court challenging his removal, a day after the order on October 24.  Verma had said his removal "[eroded] the independence of the institution" as well as its officers' morale, while analysts called the move part of a wider pattern of government authoritarianism.  Critics have accused Modi of trying to save an allegedly "corrupt" Asthana, who worked under him when the Indian PM headed the government in Gujarat state.  CBI had alleged Asthana took bribes to settle a money-laundering investigation into a businessman.  The CBI is armed with a mandate to investigate corruption and other major crimes in India.  Party chief Rahul Gandhi had accused Modi of removing Verma to quash a probe into the purchase of 36 French Rafale aircraft for the Indian air force.  Verma's lawyer, Sanjay Hegde, told reporters on Tuesday: "I do not see it solely as a victory for Alok Verma. I see it as a victory for the independence of investigative agencies in this country."  India's Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said the government would respond after considering the court's order in detail.     "The government does not favour [any] person, all it wants is the transparency of CBI," he said.  The CBI is currently investigating several high-profile cases, including a $2bn fraud at Punjab National Bank involving fugitive diamond billionaire Nirav Modi and loan defaults by liquor baron Vijay Mallya.  However, the CBI often faces a crisis of "integrity" with the party in power using the top investigating agency to cover up wrongdoings and target political opponents.  In 2013, the previous Congress-led government was also castigated by the top court for allegedly interfering in a corruption case probe.  Former Supreme Court judge RM Lodha once denounced the CBI as a "caged parrot" and "its master's voice".  Anti-corruption campaigners in India have long argued that political interference in the CBI reinforces the importance of an independent anti-corruption body.  Despite winning on an anti-corruption platform in 2014, Modi has not appointed a Lokpal or anti-corruption ombudsman even as his tenure comes to an end.


aljazeera--2019-01-08--Manafort accused of lying about sharing polling data with Russian

A new court filing says that US President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied about sharing polling data on the 2016 presidential race with Konstantin Kilimnik, an associate accused of having ties to Russian intelligence.  The information is in a redacted court filing, unsealed on Tuesday, from Manafort's lawyers. The Associated Press was able to view the redacted material because it wasn't properly blacked out.  According to the filing, prosecutors say Manafort lied to investigators about sharing the data with Kilimnik. Manafort allegedly shared the data while he was working on Donald Trump's Republican campaign.  Both men were indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference and possible coordination with the Trump campaign. Trump has maintained there has been "no collusion".  The filing also said that any "misstatements" made by Manafort, to federal prosecutors were "unintentional" and he would not seek a hearing to contest the allegation he lied.  Manafort was responding to allegations in December by Mueller that Manafort had told "multiple discernible lies" to investigators, breaking a plea agreement struck in September.  Manafort's lawyers had been given until Monday to decide whether they would challenge the allegations, a move that would require a court hearing to weigh evidence, or simply ask the government to move on to sentencing. The filing was submitted under seal on Monday, and the redacted version released on Tuesday.  The former Trump campaign chief's lawyers said their client has been suffering from gout, anxiety and depression and that he never purposely lied to them during his 12 interview sessions with the special counsel and other prosecutors.  "The defence contests the Government’s conclusion and contends that any alleged misstatements, to the extent they occurred at all, were not intentional," Manafort's lawyers said in the filing to US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, who is handling one of two cases against Manafort.  When Manafort pleaded guilty in September in Berman Jackson's court, he promised to cooperate fully with Mueller's office and other Justice Department probes in return for a recommendation of leniency at sentencing.  But Mueller's office said Manafort had lied about at least five subjects, including his interactions with Kilimnik.  Manafort, who earned millions of dollars for his political consulting work for Ukraine's former pro-Russia government, has emerged as a key figure in Mueller's investigation.  In addition to his ties to Kilimnik, Manafort had for years worked for Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who was sanctioned by the US Treasury in April for allegedly supporting the Kremlin's "malign activity" around the world.  Manafort, 69, was convicted in August in a separate case in Virginia, for evading taxes on $16m earned as a political consultant in Ukraine and lying to banks to get loans. He is due to be sentenced in that case next month.  Russia has denied meddling in the election. Trump has said there was no collusion between his campaign and Moscow.


aljazeera--2019-01-08--Philippines Duterte wants state auditors kidnapped tortured

Philippines: Duterte wants state auditors 'kidnapped, tortured'

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has advocated the kidnapping and torture of government auditors for hampering the work of his administration.  In a speech before local officials gathered in the capital, Manila, Duterte cursed at the independent constitutional body, which is responsible for examining the accounts and spending by government agencies.  "Let's just kidnap people from COA [Commission on Audit]. Let's bring them here, then we will torture those sons of w*****," Duterte said in an expletive-laden speech in English and Filipino.  "They always make things difficult. That's what I don't like, making things difficult," he said.  For decades, government auditors in the Philippines have earned the reputation of being difficult, for closely scrutinising expenditures of all government agencies.  While they do not have powers to prosecute, evidence gathered by state auditors has been used to send public officials to jail.  Previously, Duterte had railed against the state auditors saying "they should be pushed down the stairs", and ridiculed government regulations as "s***".  Before he became president, Duterte had a run-in with the agency, also known for its acronym, COA.  In 2015, while he was serving as mayor of Davao, the main city in the country's south, government auditors had questioned the validity of Duterte's decision to hire more than 10,000 contractual workers that cost the city government an equivalent of $15m.  Auditors warned that the decision to hire a high number of government workers in a temporary capacity could foster political patronage. There have also been accusations that many of the workers were nonexistent, or so-called "ghost employees".  Critics have denounced Duterte for trying to dismantle of the democratic foundations of the country, by attacking those who opposed his policies, including judges and opposition politicians.  In the same speech, Duterte also railed against "corrupt" government officials, including judges, police and military officers, saying "my plan is, kill all of them".  "They are the ones who should be killed, a bloodletting for the nation," he said in Filipino.  The Philippine president also said that if he happens to take the same plane as an unnamed judge, whom he accused of failing to convict anyone, he will puncture the plane, "so we will go to hell together".  "I'll open the exit so that we will all be sucked out of the plane."  The Philippine president has been known for issuing controversial statements, which his spokespersons would later dismiss as presidential banter that should not be taken seriously.  In late December 2018, Duterte confessed that he molested their family help as a teenager.  He said he has "no problem" saying it in public and in front of the media "because it is true".


aljazeera--2019-01-09--Guatemala court blocks presidents expulsion of anti-graft body

Guatemala court blocks president's expulsion of anti-graft body

Guatemala City, Guatemala - The Guatemalan Constitutional Court has suspended the decision by President Jimmy Morales's administration to end the mandate of a United Nations-backed anti-corruption commission.  The court convened overnight on Tuesday after members of civil society, lawyers and Indigenous Ancestral Authorities filed injunctions against the president's decision to withdraw from the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG).  "The court has held up the law and returned the principles of international law that are held up in [the Guatemalan] constitution. It has served as a limit to the abuses of power of any organ of the state," Oswaldo Samoya, a Guatemalan Constitutional lawyer, told Al Jazeera.  "It is evident that there is a desperation within the executive branch to brutally dismantle the investigations in anti-corruption efforts," said Samayoa.  "The Constitutional Court has once again confronted these abuses."  The Morales administration was informed of the court's decision on Wednesday morning. It has yet to comment.  The court and Morales have been at loggerheads over CICIG, with the administration ignoring prior court decisions.  The Morales administration made the announcement that it was ending the agreement with the UN during a press conference on Monday in Guatemala City, where the president accused the anti-corruption body of polarising the country.  Morales claimed the CICIG jeopardises national security, violates human rights and is allied with criminal networks and "terrorists".  The anti-corruption body was given 24 hours for their investigators to leave the country. By Tuesday afternoon, CICIG investigators had fled the country, citing concern for their security.  More than 100 people protested outside the Constitutional court in Guatemala City on Tuesday, showing their support for the anti-corruption efforts by the CICIG. Protests continued Wednesday, and more are expected next week.  "The government is forcing on the state a coup d'etat to dismantle the investigations of the CICIG that are in the process and to undermine future investigations at the time of the beginning of the electoral process," Gabriel Wer, one of the founders of the anti-corruption group Justicia Ya, told Al Jazeera.  The Morales administration's actions against the CICIG have received widespread condemnation from the International community, including from the embassies of the United States, Germany, England, France, the European Union, and Sweden.  "The United States is concerned about the future of anti-corruption efforts in Guatemala," the US embassy said in a press statement. "The rule of law, the reduction of corruption and the end of impunity are key to security, stability and prosperity, not only in Guatemala, but throughout the region."  The CICIG was formed in 2006 upon the request of the Guatemalan government to combat high rates of impunity for crimes.  The commission was ratified by the country's legislative branch in 2007 following a massive police scandal.  The commission's 2015 corruption investigation in the administration of Otto Perez Molina led to the resignation of the former president, who is currently facing criminal charges.  Meanwhile, the country's Supreme Court began hearings on the possibility of impeaching three members of the Constitutional Court.  The hearing was called after Attorney General of the Nation Jorge Donado, who was appointed by Morales in May 2018, filed an injunction against three magistrates of the Constitutional Court.  The case against the judges is problematic, according to Samayoa.  "This is not the function of the Attorney General of the Nation, but rather the function of the Public Prosecutor's office," explained Samayoa.  "If the Attorney General of the Nation had evidence of an illicit action, then they should have gone to the Public Prosecutor's office for an investigation."


aljazeera--2019-01-15--ICC acquits Ivory Coasts Laurent Gbagbo of war crimes

ICC acquits Ivory Coast's Laurent Gbagbo of war crimes

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has ordered the release of former Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo after acquitting him on charges of crimes against humanity.  Judges on Tuesday said that prosecutors had failed to satisfy the burden of proof over the accusations, adding their decision could be reversed on appeal.  About 3,000 people were killed in the West African nation in a violent standoff during 2010 and 2011 when the 73-year-old refused to accept defeat in an election against his bitter rival and now Ivorian President Alassane Ouattara.  The ICC also ordered the release of Charles Ble Goude, 47, dubbed Gbagbo's "Street General", who stood trial with his former boss.  Gbagbo and Ble Goude stood trial on four counts of crimes against humanity for murder, rape, persecution and other inhumane acts committed by pro-Gbagbo forces in the aftermath of the disputed 2010 polls.  After spending seven years in prison, Gbagbo will follow in the footsteps of his wife Simone Gbagbo, who walked away from a 20-year jail term in Ivory Coast in August when she was granted amnesty by Ouattara after seven years in prison.  Tensions are high in the country where about 200 victims gathered on Monday in Abidjan to urge the ICC to keep Gbagbo in jail.  "We have come to officially and publicly oppose any release of Laurent Gbagbo - the ICC is acting as if the victims didn't exist," Issiaka Diaby, head of a group which represents 8,000 victims, told the AFP news agency, before the ICC decision.  "If Laurent Gbagbo is released, we victims will not see justice," added Karim Coulibaly, 43, whose arm was amputated after he was shot during the violence.  "I was a driver but now I am unemployed. I'm not against reconciliation but first you have to look after the victims."  The ICC was set up in 2002 for trials into war crimes and crimes against humanity. So far, most of its cases have involved African countries.  Previous attempts at the ICC to try top politicians for crimes committed by subordinates or followers have all run into serious difficulties.  In 2014, the ICC's chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, dropped crimes against humanity charges against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta.  Last year, former Congolese Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba was acquitted on appeal for crimes allegedly committed by his militia in the Central African Republic in 2002-2003.  "If Gbagbo walks out free, the ICC should rethink what it could possibly achieve," Thijs Bouwknegt, an international law specialist, told AFP.


aljazeera--2019-02-04--Amid freeze New York inmates spent days without heat or power

Amid freeze, New York inmates spent days without heat or power

A power failure at a federal detention centre in New York City spawned a humanitarian crisis worsened by authorities' response as guards wearing scarves and layers of clothing policed inmates who coped with "very cold" conditions in short-sleeve shirts and light pants, a lawsuit filed on Monday in the United States said.  The lawsuit filed in Brooklyn federal court by the Federal Defenders of New York cited numerous disruptions caused by the outage that resulted from a January 27 fire at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.  Defence lawyers have not been able to visit inmates who were reporting little or no heat, little or no hot water, minimal electricity, near total lack of access to some medical services, or access to telephones, televisions, computers, laundry or commissary, it said.  Inmates also reported smelling noxious fumes and seeing prison officers wearing masks even though none were supplied to inmates, the lawsuit said.  The Justice Department said that power was restored around 6:30pm local time on Sunday (23:30 GMT) and that it was working to prevent future problems.  "In the coming days, the department will work with the Bureau of Prisons to examine what happened and ensure the facility has the power, heat and backup systems in place to prevent the problem from reoccurring," said Wyn Hornbuckle, deputy director of public affairs for the Justice Department.  The outage occurred just as freezing Arctic air began rolling towards the East Coast.  On Wednesday night, the temperature in New York City dropped to nearly minus 18 Celsius (zero Fahrenheit).  Authorities violated the constitutional rights of over 1,600 inmates by them denying legal visits, the lawsuit alleges.  Protesters gathered outside after news reports that inmates had largely been without heat or power for a week.  The power failure caused "inhumane" conditions for inmates, and the response was "woefully inadequate" as authorities were slow to acknowledge the problem and failed to take adequate steps to obtain temporary supplies of electricity or heat and to repair damage, the lawsuit said.  It called for the appointment of a special master to inspect the lockup and unspecified damages.  The lawsuit also accused the federal government of making misleading statements to the public and courts about conditions inmates faced. And it said prison officials were largely unresponsive when lawyers sought information about "troubling reports" by inmates.  An upbeat report from the warden about the conditions for inmates was belied by what Deirdre von Dornum, lawyer-in-chief of the federal defenders office, saw when she toured the facility on Friday, the lawsuit said.  "Inmates were wrapped head to toe in towels and blankets," von Dornum said in a telephone interview on Saturday.  "Their windows were frosted over. Even more disturbingly perhaps for the inmates, their cells were pitch black and they don't have flashlights."  She said senior officials at the jail were "indifferent" to the problems during her tour even as guards complained to her of the cold.  One inmate, Dino Sanchez, has only a short-sleeved jumpsuit, T-shirt and single standard-issue thin blanket to keep him warm, according to a court filing by his lawyer. Sanchez has asthma, which the cold has exacerbated, and fears collapsing in the dark without anyone noticing and coming to his aid, his lawyer in a court filing.  Nydia Velazquez, who represents parts of New York City in the US House of Representatives, was one of the politicians who visited the jail on Saturday. She said the Bureau of Prisons was disregarding inmates' rights.  "This appalling situation needs to be fixed," she wrote on Twitter. She noted that some heat had been restored, but that the heating system was still "not at fully capacity" and that staff at the jail were still complaining about the cold on Saturday.  Hugh Hurwitz, the Bureau of Prisons' acting director, told politicians in telephone conversations he agreed that conditions in the jail were "unacceptable", according to Velazquez.  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a brief statement that the conditions at the jail were unconstitutional and demanded an immediate fix.  Judge Analisa Torres ordered the Bureau of Prisons to produce witnesses at a hearing in federal court in Manhattan on Tuesday to explain how the complaints raised by inmates' lawyers were being addressed.


aljazeera--2019-02-04--British interior minister orders extradition of Indian tycoon

Britain's Home Secretary Sajid Javid has signed an order for tycoon Vijay Mallya's extradition to India to face fraud charges, a spokesman for the interior ministry said on Monday.  Mallya, 63, the owner of Kingfisher beer and head of the Force India Formula One team, has two weeks to appeal the decision.  Javid signed the order on Sunday, a spokesman for the Home Office interior ministry told AFP.  "On February 3 the secretary of state, having carefully considered all relevant matters, signed the order for Vijay Mallya's extradition to India," he said.  "Vijay Mallya is accused in India of conspiracy to defraud, making false representations and money-laundering offences."  Mallya left India in March 2016 having owed more than $1bn after defaulting on loan payments to a state-owned bank and allegedly misusing the funds.  The loans from the state-owned IDBI bank were intended to bail out his failed carrier Kingfisher Airlines.  In December, a British court ruled he could be extradited.  Mallya has been fighting to remain in Britain but judge Emma Arbuthnot said he had misrepresented how loans received from banks would be used and therefore had a case to answer.  She said bankers had been "charmed" by a "glamorous, flashy, famous, bejewelled, bodyguarded, ostensibly billionaire playboy" into losing their common sense.  Mallya was once known as the "King of Good Times" but dropped off India's most wealthy list in 2014, engulfed by Kingfisher Airlines' massive debts.


aljazeera--2019-02-04--Dont send me to Bahrain Hakeem al-Araibi fights extradition

'Don't send me to Bahrain!': Hakeem al-Araibi fights extradition

Bangkok, Thailand - After weeks of detention in Bangkok's Klong Prem Remand Prison, refugee footballer Hakeem al-Araibi has appeared at Thailand's criminal court to fight extradition to Bahrain, the country he fled in 2014.  "Please don't send me to Bahrain!" he shouted on Monday morning, as he walked off the prison bus barefoot, his feet shackled.  Later, in a crowded courtroom filled with international diplomats in a show of support for the 25-year-old, al-Araibi denied all allegations against him and told the judge he feared being tortured if he was sent back to Bahrain.  In 2014, Bahraini authorities sentenced him in absentia to 10 years in prison for allegedly vandalising a police station.  The footballer, a former member of Bahrain's national team, has denied the accusation, saying he was playing a televised match at the time.  He fled to Australia in 2014 after hearing of his sentence, saying he had been tortured in Bahrain when he was arrested two years earlier, allegedly for his brother's political activities during the 2011 Arab Spring uprising.  In Australia, which granted him political asylum in 2017, al-Araibi started playing as a defender for Pasco Vale, a Melbourne-based semi-professional club.  At Monday's court hearing in Thailand's capital, the ruling judge denied him bail but agreed to a defence request to file a formal petition opposing extradition by April 5.  An arraignment date was set for April 22, when a witness list and trial date would be confirmed.  Al-Araibi's court appearance came more than two months after being arrested at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi airport by Thai police, who were acting on an Interpol "Red Notice" issued by Bahrain.  The footballer and his wife had just flown from Australia to begin their honeymoon.  Since his arrest in November last year, prominent rights groups have been calling for his immediate release and return to Australia.  "The Thai authorities should stop all proceedings relating to this absurd, cruel and cynical extradition request," Katherine Gerson, Amnesty International’s Thailand campaigner, said in a statement on Monday.  "It is well known that Hakeem survived torture in Bahrain and that his relatives continue to face persecution there. Hakeem and his wife have found sanctuary in Australia; he should not spend another day in detention and should be allowed home, to Melbourne, immediately."  Bahrain has a history of human rights abuses, according to the US State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices.  The report indicates instances of "arbitrary or unlawful killings by security forces; allegations of torture of detainees and prisoners; harsh and potentially life-threatening conditions of detention; arbitrary arrest and detention", among others.  The Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network (APRRN), a network of hundreds of civil society groups committed to advancing the rights of refugees in the Asia Pacific region, has also been highly active in supporting al-Araibi's case.  Evan Jones, programme coordinator at APRRN, has been working closely with the footballer, as well as the Australian government and world football governing body FIFA to ensure his safe return to Australia.  "Any move by the Thai government to extradite Hakeem would seriously tarnish Thailand's reputation as a country that abides by fundamental international human rights principles," Jones told Al Jazeera.  Jones said al-Araibi has not been able to sleep properly for days and has fallen sick from being in an overcrowded prison.  He says al-Araibi told him recently: "Why is Bahrain doing this? They don't respect human rights. I have been tortured before and they will do it again.  "I am a refugee and I live in Australia. I want to go home to Australia I don't want to go to Bahrain. Why won't Thailand just let me go home?"


aljazeera--2019-02-04--Jury to begin deliberations in trial of drug lord El Chapo

Jury to begin deliberations in trial of drug lord 'El Chapo'

After nearly three months of testimony about a vast drug-smuggling conspiracy steeped in violence, a jury is due to begin deliberations on Monday at the US trial of the infamous Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman.  A federal judge in Brooklyn is set to give instructions to jurors in the morning before asking them to begin deciding the verdict for 61-year-old Guzman, who faces life in prison.  Throughout the months-long trial, the jury has heard more than 200 hours of testimony about Guzman's rise to power as the head of the Sinaloa cartel. Prosecutors say he is responsible for smuggling at least 200 tonnes of cocaine into the US and a wave of killings in turf wars with other cartels.  The 11-week trial, which featured testimony from more than 50 witnesses, offered the public an unprecedented look into the inner workings of the cartel, named after the state in northwest Mexico where Guzman was born in a poor mountain village.  Prosecutors said he trafficked tonnes of cocaine, heroin, cannabis and methamphetamine into the US over more than two decades, consolidating his power in Mexico through murders and wars with rival cartels.  The defence has argued that Chapo was set up as a "fall guy" by Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada, a drug kingpin from Sinaloa who remains at large.  The most detailed evidence against Guzman came from more than a dozen former associates who struck deals to cooperate with US prosecutors.  Through them, jurors heard how the Sinaloa cartel gained power amid the shifting allegiances of the Mexican drug trade in the 1990s, eventually coming to control almost the entire Pacific coast of Mexico.  They heard how Guzman made a name for himself in the 1980s as "El Rapido", the speedy one, by building cross-border tunnels that allowed him to move cocaine from Mexico into the US faster than anyone else.  Despite his ties to government officials, Guzman often lived on the run. Imprisoned in 1993, he escaped in 2001 hidden in a laundry cart and spent the following years hiding in the mountains of Sinaloa, guarded by a private army.  He was seized and imprisoned again in 2014, but pulled off his best-known escape the following year when he disappeared into a tunnel dug into his prison cell.  He was finally captured again in January 2016 after a shoot-out in Sinaloa and extradited to the US on January 19, 2017.  The jury to decide his fate comprises seven women and five men. Their names have not been disclosed for security reasons.  At least three jurors are immigrants, three are Spanish speakers and several have ties to law enforcement.  Almost all of them had heard of Guzman before the trial began, but said they could be impartial. The only exception was a woman from Ethiopia who said she had "no clue" who he was.


activistpost--2019-08-23--Cities Unveil Unethical Homeless Reporting While LA Pushes Anti-Homeless Law

Cities Unveil Unethical Homeless Reporting, While LA Pushes Anti-Homeless Law

The cities of San Francisco and Seattle are testing a new way to report homeless encampments or “tent cities” via dialing 311 or using an app. Meanwhile, LA lawmakers are pushing to ban homeless people from parks, schools, and other designated areas, LA Times reported.  Residents of Seattle can now report homeless encampments quickly and remotely, providing citizens the ability to send a report directly to a corresponding city department with the “Find It, Fix It” app, Smart Cities Dive reported.  The app enables citizens the ability to “alert the city to public problems with a message including a location and description. Users submit issues by category, such as illegal dumping, potholes, dead animals, and “other inquiries,” allowing residents to report encampments,” a city spokeswoman Cyndi Wilder told Smart Cities Dive in an email interview.  There’s one problem conflating homelessness into those issues as the author writes for Smart Cities Dive, “people aren’t potholes.”  Activist Post has previously reported that Nevada app developers, BitFocus Inc, were working with government to give homeless people a tap on the shoulder of Big Brother, tracking their every move in San Francisco using the ONE System, a scary and worrying prospect.  “The idea is simple: Collect and sort information associated with the homeless to more effectively assess risk factors, determine those most in need, and get those people into available shelters and transitional housing. But the reality is more complicated. Five months after its introduction, ONE System has helped get only 70 people off the streets as it contends with the same challenges that have plagued past efforts—as well as new ones, including persuading the city’s most at-risk population to sign on to a program with echoes of Big Brother,” writes Bloomberg.  According to Bloomberg, ONE System collects data from 15 city and state agencies. Then homeless persons are asked 17 questions that can help evaluate their individual situation, including their time spent on the street, health, and overall vulnerability.  This information combined with a record of the places in the city that a person frequents is used to create a database that acts as a digital profile for caseworkers. The caseworkers helping homeless people get back on their feet would then use this data to aid them in assisting the homeless community to obtain help with their health and housing needs.  Caseworkers then must persuade the homeless to join a monitoring system. Participants in ONE System must sign medical records privacy protection forms and other legal forms. Further, to get into a permanent housing program, app users need to pass a background check, which can take 45 days and requires an identification card, a hardship since most homeless people don’t have a phone or an ID card.  Meanwhile, if you try to feed the homeless as a citizen you face fines and even jail time, as Activist Post has reported consistently on the increasingly worrying trend. App developers trying to offer the homeless a way to find free food worldwide, Chef90, were sued for their efforts to help homeless people. Chef90 allowed anyone to coordinate food drops and locations and was designed to allow small amounts of food, clothing, or blankets to be distributed to those in need. Example: Post Item = I have 4 apples View Items = Users with Chef-90 pick up the 4 apples and Distributes them to children in need on their way to work. Chef-90 uses GPS to find items close to users to easy distribute food or other items. Everyone can do a small part to help someone in need. “This app gives users the tools to achieve that goal,” the app description read according to APKPure (who keeps a downloadable copy of all apps on the Google Play Store.) The app Chef90 was available on both Google Play and Apple Stores named after the famous chef, 90-year-old Arnold Abbott, who sought to go above and beyond to feed the homeless. For his good deeds, Abbott found himself facing up to two months in jail and hundreds of dollars in fines after laws that restrict public feeding of the homeless went into effect in Fort Lauderdale in 2014, Reuters reported. However, like Abbott, developers of Chef90 quickly found themselves in legal trouble with cease and desist orders, and sued.  The developers were then forced to take down the app from the Apple App Store and Google Play store, according to a developer who worked on the app and wishes to remain anonymous.  Another problem is the laws being pushed in cities like Los Angeles that punish homelessness by barring the homeless from sleeping on public spaces. Los Angeles City Council’s homelessness and poverty committee has noticed the trend of criminalizing homelessness, and as result are working to change the law in order to align L.A.’s municipal code with a 2018 federal court ruling that limits how cities can enforce anti-camping and anti-loitering laws. In that case, Martin V. Boise, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Boise law that outlawed sleeping in any public space.  But the proposed changes made by the Los Angeles City Council’s homelessness and poverty committee aren’t designed to help those who need it and include outrageous bans on sitting, sleeping or lying in a number of designated public places. Which critics like Peggy Lee Kennedy, an advocate for the homeless from Venice argue are “inhumane,” as LAist reported.  A federal court also ruled in the Boise case that “as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property.” The court also opined that “even where shelter is unavailable, an ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible.”  In her opinion on that case, the Judge Marsha S. Berzon wrote:  A list of proposed changes in LA are below:  The reader should know that the previous law prohibited homeless from sitting or sleeping on any sidewalks at all. This new law is supposed to be a means to bridge the gap, but appears to actually designate ordinances to make legalese more clear for the public that homelessness will be punished.