Italians Outraged After Court Rules Woman ‘Too Ugly’ To Be Raped

The Italian Justice Ministry has ordered a preliminary investigation into an appeals court ruling by all-female judges which overturned a rape verdict by arguing in part that the woman who was attacked was too ugly to be a credible rape victim, according to The Star.

The ruling has sparked outrage in Italy, prompting a flash mob Monday outside the Ancona court, where protesters shouted “Shame!” and held up signs saying “indignation.”

The appeals sentence was handed down in 2017 — by an all-female panel — but the reasons behind it only emerged publicly when Italy’s high court annulled it on March 5 and ordered a retrial. The Court of Cassation said Wednesday its own reasons for ordering the retrial will be issued next month. –The Star

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

Two Peruvian men were initially convicted in 2015 of raping a 20-year-old Peruvian woman in Ancona – however the Italian appeals court overturned the verdict, absolving the men. In their decision, the judges ruled that the men “didn’t find her attractive,” and that “she was too masculine.

A lawyer for the victim, Cinzia Molinaro, said that the woman’s appeal to the Court of Cassation cited the “absolute unacceptability” of the Italian court’s decision to refer to the victim’s physical appearance. 

The appeals court quoted one of the suspects as saying he had listed the woman as a “Viking” on his cellphone, adding that the “photograph present in her file would appear to confirm this.”

The woman, who has since returned to Peru, required 14 stitches in her vagina after the attack. 

“She had confused memories of what exactly happened during the night because she was drugged,” said Molinaro, adding that doctors had confirmed the presence of a “date rape” drug in her blood. 

“I don’t remember how it all started, but I remember I shouted ‘enough, enough'” the woman reportedly told police. 

In 2016, one of the accused rapists was originally sentenced to five years in prison for the rape, while the other was sentenced to three years for standing guard. While the ruling was overturned in 2017, the reasons for the acquittal only became known last week after the Italian supreme court annulled the appeal and ordered a retrial. 

Italians Outraged After Court Rules Woman ‘Too Ugly’ To Be Raped

The Italian Justice Ministry has ordered a preliminary investigation into an appeals court ruling by all-female judges which overturned a rape verdict by arguing in part that the woman who was attacked was too ugly to be a credible rape victim, according to The Star.

The ruling has sparked outrage in Italy, prompting a flash mob Monday outside the Ancona court, where protesters shouted “Shame!” and held up signs saying “indignation.”

The appeals sentence was handed down in 2017 — by an all-female panel — but the reasons behind it only emerged publicly when Italy’s high court annulled it on March 5 and ordered a retrial. The Court of Cassation said Wednesday its own reasons for ordering the retrial will be issued next month. –The Star

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

Two Peruvian men were initially convicted in 2015 of raping a 20-year-old Peruvian woman in Ancona – however the Italian appeals court overturned the verdict, absolving the men. In their decision, the judges ruled that the men “didn’t find her attractive,” and that “she was too masculine.

A lawyer for the victim, Cinzia Molinaro, said that the woman’s appeal to the Court of Cassation cited the “absolute unacceptability” of the Italian court’s decision to refer to the victim’s physical appearance. 

The appeals court quoted one of the suspects as saying he had listed the woman as a “Viking” on his cellphone, adding that the “photograph present in her file would appear to confirm this.”

The woman, who has since returned to Peru, required 14 stitches in her vagina after the attack. 

“She had confused memories of what exactly happened during the night because she was drugged,” said Molinaro, adding that doctors had confirmed the presence of a “date rape” drug in her blood. 

“I don’t remember how it all started, but I remember I shouted ‘enough, enough'” the woman reportedly told police. 

In 2016, one of the accused rapists was originally sentenced to five years in prison for the rape, while the other was sentenced to three years for standing guard. While the ruling was overturned in 2017, the reasons for the acquittal only became known last week after the Italian supreme court annulled the appeal and ordered a retrial. 

Justice Thomas assails landmark U.S. libel ruling that protects media

February 19, 2019

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its landmark 1964 ruling that made it harder for public figures to sue for defamation, a precedent that has served as powerful protection for the news media.

Thomas took aim at the unanimous ruling in the libel case known as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in an opinion he wrote concurring with the court’s decision to end a defamation suit against Bill Cosby filed by a woman who said the comedian raped her in 1974.

Thomas, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, said the 55-year-old decision was not rooted in the U.S. Constitution. That ruling and subsequent ones extending it “were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” Thomas wrote, expressing views in harmony with President Donald Trump, who often attacks the media and has advocated making it easier to sue news organizations and publishers for defamation.

Thomas agreed with his fellow justices in refusing to consider reviving a defamation lawsuit against Cosby by Kathrine McKee, an actress and former Las Vegas showgirl who said the entertainer falsely called her a liar after she accused him of rape.

McKee was represented in the case by attorney Charles Harder, who represented Trump in a defamation suit brought against the president by adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Daniels has said she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which he denies. McKee had appealed a court ruling in Massachusetts that threw out her lawsuit.

The New York Times v. Sullivan ruling has served as a safeguard for media reporting on public figures.

Trump in January 2018 called current defamation laws “a sham and a disgrace” following the publication of a book about the White House by author Michael Wolff called “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” which among other things questioned the president’s mental health.

The high court’s 1964 ruling held that in order to win a libel suit, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the offending statement was made with “actual malice,” meaning knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard as to whether it was false.

The case involved a lawsuit against the New York Times, a newspaper that Trump often criticizes for its coverage of him.

Thomas wrote that “we should carefully examine the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” referring to the constitutional provisions protecting freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the application of those rights to the states.

“If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas said defamation law was historically a matter for the states, and should remain that way.

“The states are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm,” Thomas wrote.

None of the other eight justices joined Thomas in his opinion.

COSBY PRISON SENTENCE

Cosby, 81, was convicted in April 2018 of three counts of aggravated indecent assault for the drugging and sexual assault of Andrea Constand, a former Temple University administrator, in 2004. He was sentenced last September to three to 10 years in prison.

The Supreme Court last October snubbed Cosby’s appeal in another defamation case, allowing a lawsuit by former model Janice Dickinson to go forward against the entertainer best known for his starring role in the 1980s hit television series “The Cosby Show.”

McKee went public with her rape accusation in a 2014 interview with the New York Daily News. She is one of more than 50 women who have accused Cosby of sexual assault dating back to the 1960s by using drugs to incapacitate them.

An attorney for Cosby then sent a letter to the newspaper, suggesting McKee was a liar and calling her an unreliable source. In the letter, Cosby’s lawyer said McKee had admitted lying to get hired as a showgirl.

McKee sued Cosby for defamation in 2015 in federal court in Boston, saying the letter made false statements and harmed her reputation.

A trial judge in 2017 dismissed her claims, saying the lawsuit was barred by the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

The appeals court said that by deliberately wading into the controversy, McKee had become a public figure, requiring her to prove Cosby acted with malice to win a defamation claim.

McKee told the justices that she “should not be victimized twice over” by making it harder for her to prove defamation merely because she went public as an alleged victim.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung. Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

U.S. Supreme Court to decide legality of census citizenship query

February 15, 2019

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the fate of a fiercely contested plan by President Donald Trump’s administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, agreeing on Friday to an expedited review of a judge’s ruling blocking the plan.

The justices, in a brief order, granted the administration’s request to hear its appeal of Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman’s Jan. 15 ruling even before a lower appeals court has considered the matter. Oral arguments will take place in late April, with a ruling due by the end of June.

Furman’s ruling came in lawsuits brought by 18 U.S. states, 15 cities and various civil rights groups challenging the Republican administration’s decision to include the question. The plaintiffs said the question would scare immigrants and Latinos into abstaining from the census, disproportionately affecting Democratic-leaning states.

Furman ruled that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had concealed the true motives for his “arbitrary and capricious” decision to add the citizenship question in violation of federal law.

Opponents have accused the administration of trying to engineer an undercount of the true population and diminish the electoral representation of Democratic-leaning communities in Congress, benefiting Trump’s fellow Republicans. Non-citizens comprise an estimated 7 percent of people living in the United States.

Time is of the essence in the case, as the official census forms are due to be printed in the coming months.

The U.S. Constitution mandates a census every 10 years. The official population count is used in the allocation of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funds. There has not been a census question about citizenship status since 1950.

Ross announced in March 2018 that the administration would include a citizenship question, saying the Justice Department had requested the data to help enforce the Voting Rights Act that protects eligible voters from discrimination. Only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco said the administration is pleased the justices will review its “legal and reasonable decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census.”

Trump has pursued hardline policies to limit legal and illegal immigration. On Friday, Trump declared a national emergency in a bid to fund his promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border without congressional approval, a step he has called necessary to combat illegal immigration.

‘LONG-LASTING EFFECTS’

New York was one of the states suing the administration. New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, said her office looks forward to defending the lower court victory at the high court, citing the “far-reaching and long-lasting effects” of a census undercount.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Dale Ho, representing immigrant rights groups suing the administration, said adding a citizenship question would damage democracy. “The evidence presented at trial exposed this was the Trump administration’s plan from the get-go,” Ho said.

The administration has called Furman’s ruling “the first time the judiciary has ever dictated the contents of the decennial census questionnaire.”

In his ruling, Furman said the evidence showed that Ross and his aides “worked hard to generate” a request for the citizenship question from the Justice Department, and that he made the decision despite Census Bureau evidence that such a question would lead to lower response rates for the census.

The judge found a “veritable smorgasbord” of violations of a law called the Administrative Procedure Act.

Democrats call the citizenship question part of a broader Republican effort at the federal and state level, also including voter-suppression measures and redrawing of electoral districts, to diminish the voting power of areas and groups that typically back Democratic candidates, including immigrants, Latinos and African-Americans. Republicans reject the accusation.

A decision by the justices to take up a case like this one before an appeal is handled by one of the regional federal appeals courts is rare. According to the court’s rules, it takes up such requests only when the case is of “imperative public importance” warranting immediate review.

The last time it decided a case officially filed in advance of judgment by an appeals court was in 2005. That case, during the President George W. Bush’s administration, involved a challenge to criminal sentencing guidelines.

The Supreme Court rejected an earlier Trump administration request to halt the New York trial that led to Furman’s later ruling.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

Valley Fever cases in California continue to increase

Dust billows as a farmer plows a dry field in Kern County, California. Documented cases of Valley Fever rose 11 percent in 2018 — a preliminary total of 7,886 cases compared to 7,090 cases for the same period in 2017, according to California Department of Public Health. Photo: David McNew/Getty Images, Getty

Ted Andersen

A potentially deadly illness found in the soil and dusty winds of California’s Central Valley is on the rise, state health officials say.

Documented cases of Valley Fever rose 11 percent in 2018 — a preliminary total of 7,886 cases compared to 7,090 cases for the same period in 2017, according to the California Department of Public Health. Health officials said final data for 2018 will be available in March.

Valley Fever (coccidioidomycosis) is an illness caused by a fungus found in the soil and dirt in the Central Valley. The fungus thrives in areas of low rainfall, high summer temperatures and moderate winter temperatures. The spores are carried by the wind in dust particles when the desert soil is disturbed.

Simply passing through an area with Valley Fever and breathing in a small number of spores can lead to an infection of the lungs with flu-like symptoms. About half of the infections produce no symptoms, but in a few cases, the infection can spread from the lungs to the brain, bones, skin or eyes, causing blindness, skin abscesses, lung failure and, occasionally, death.

Kern County documented the lion’s share of California’s cases last year, with 2,771, up 17 percent from 2017 and 46 percent from 2016. In 2017, Kern County recorded nine deaths — the second-highest number since the county started keeping track of cases in 1992 and the highest number in over a decade. Kern County health officials told SFGATE they have yet to release death totals for 2018.

Other counties that recorded the most Valley Fever cases last year were Fresno (623), Tulare (425) and San Luis Obispo (340). Monterey, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties have also seen their Valley Fever numbers more than double in recent years.

“We’ve seen a lot more cases recently,” said Michelle Rivera, a health education specialist for Fresno County. “Not all providers are testing for it so there might be more cases out there.”

Los Angeles County reported 973 cases of Valley Fever last year. Los Angeles County Public Health officials could not speculate as to the exact location of exposure, but based on environmental surveillance data and individual case reports, officials stated that the disease is also endemic to Los Angeles County soil.

Statewide, the number of reported cases quintupled from about 816 cases in 2000 to more than 4,000 cases in 2012. During that period, a total of 1,098 death records listed coccidioidomycosis as a cause, averaging 78 deaths annually, according to state public health data. Since then, Valley Fever cases have continued to trend up and state health officials have yet to pinpoint the exact cause.

Valley Fever made headlines in 2018 when, on Feb. 1, a U.S. appeals court threw out inmates’ lawsuits and ruled that California prison inmates cannot hold state officials liable for contracting Valley Fever. Ian Wallach, an attorney for some of the inmates, said the ruling was devastating.

“The families of over 40 inmates who died and 100 who got infected and require lifetime medical care are left to fend for themselves,” Wallach told the Associated Press.

Possible contributing factors include heavy rainfall after years of drought, as well as other climatic and environmental factors, increased number of susceptible people in areas where the fungus is present, and increased awareness, testing and diagnosis by health care providers.

Since the areas with the highest rates of Valley Fever are found along swaths of both Interstate 5 and Highway 101, drivers should be mindful of gusty conditions.

“While driving through these areas, drivers could keep car windows shut and use ‘recirculating’ air conditioning to reduce the risk of Valley Fever,” said Corey Egel, assistant deputy director of public affairs for the California Department of Public Health.

It’s unknown if or how the relatively dry 2017-18 winter in California will impact the number of Valley Fever cases this year, but researchers such Ian McHardy, co-director of the Center for Valley Fever at UC Davis, are cautious that the relatively wet winter California has experienced so far may portend higher numbers of incident cases — both human and animal — between the months of May and December 2019.

“There is concern that we’ll see another record number of cases in California this year,” McHardy said.

Trump administration moves to appeal census ruling

January 17, 2019

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s administration on Thursday took the first steps to appealing a lower court ruling that blocked its contentious plan to ask people taking part in the 2020 national census whether they are U.S. citizens.

In a case likely to reach the Supreme Court in short order, the administration filed a notice in federal court that it would appeal the case to the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan on Tuesday invalidated the administration’s addition of the citizenship question.

The judge found that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the census, concealed the true motives for his “arbitrary and capricious” decision to add the question in violation of federal law.

Despite the appeal, the case may not ultimately be decided by the appeals court. The Justice Department could ask the Supreme Court to step in first, and some legal scholars expect the administration to do so.

The conservative-leaning high court is “less likely to defer to Judge Furman” and “probably more sympathetic” to the government, said Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who is watching the case.

Timing is a factor too, with the Census Bureau required to print questionnaires by June.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment on its plans.

Also on Thursday, the group of states, cities and civil rights groups challenging the administration’s decision to add the citizenship question asked the Supreme Court to throw out a pending Justice Department appeal due to be argued next month.

Lawyers for the challengers, including the state of New York, filed court papers saying that case, contesting the scope of evidence that Furman could consider in ruling on the issue, is moot now that Furman has issued his final decision this week. The case is scheduled to be argued before the justices on Feb. 19.

Opponents have accused the Trump administration of devising a citizenship question to use the census to pursue the political objectives of Trump’s fellow Republicans by engineering an undercount of the true population and reducing the electoral representation of Democratic-leaning communities in Congress.

The 18 states, 15 cities and civil rights groups that sued said a citizenship question would frighten immigrants and Latinos into abstaining from the count.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley in Washington and Andrew Chung, Nick Brown and Alison Frankel in New York; Editing by Will Dunham, Tom Brown and James Dalgleish)

U.S. watchdog faults handling of government lease for Trump D.C. hotel

January 16, 2019

By Jan Wolfe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – An internal U.S. government watchdog on Wednesday found “serious shortcomings” in federal officials’ handling of a lease by President Donald Trump’s company of a historic government building in Washington now home to a Trump International Hotel.

Amid intensifying scrutiny of possible conflicts of interest involving Trump’s businesses, the inspector general of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) found fault with the agency’s review of the lease of the Old Post Office Pavilion.

The Romanesque Revival landmark on Pennsylvania Avenue, not far from the White House, was leased by the Trump Organization in 2013 for 60 years and now houses a luxury Trump hotel often frequented by government officials.

Some Democrats have charged that Trump’s businesses, now managed by his sons, have profited from his presidency, saying that foreign dignitaries sometimes stay at the hotel in part to curry favor with him.

“GSA’s decision-making process related to Tenant’s possible breach of the lease included serious shortcomings,” the report said. “GSA had an obligation to uphold and enforce the Constitution. However, GSA opted not to seek any guidance from OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) and did not address the constitutional issues related to the management of the lease.”

For the inspector general’s report, see: https://bit.ly/2RAV9ct)

The White House declined to comment.

The original lease stated that no elected federal official could participate in the lease or any benefit arising out of it.

In March 2017, after Trump was elected president the previous November, the GSA issued a 166-page decision concluding that the president was in “full compliance” with the lease.

The inspector general’s report said the GSA ignored “issues under the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause that might cause a breach of the lease.”

The Old Post Office lease is at the center of litigation over whether the president is violating the emoluments provisions, which bar U.S. officials from accepting payments from foreign and state governments without congressional approval.

The attorneys general of Washington, D.C., and Maryland have won preliminary rulings allowing them to proceed with one lawsuit alleging the hotel violates the emoluments clauses. A federal appeals court will soon review those rulings.

U.S. Department of Justice lawyers have argued in court filings that the emoluments clauses were intended to prohibit outright bribes and that the president was not in violation of them.

The report from the inspector general, a watchdog inside GSA that monitors its activities, said: “We also found that the decision to exclude the emoluments issues from GSA’s consideration of the lease was improper because GSA, like all government agencies, has an obligation to uphold and enforce the Constitution; and because the lease, itself, requires that consideration.”

Congressional Democrats, who took control of the House of Representatives earlier this month, have listed the Old Post Office lease and the Trump hotel there as likely targets for upcoming investigation.

“This devastating new report from the Inspector General is proof that President Trump should have divested his business interests rather than ignoring the advice of ethics experts,” Democratic U.S. Representative Elijah Cummings, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement.

(Reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Peter Cooney)

Tuberculosis, flu, infections rampant as the number of sick migrants surge at border

A Border Patrol officer holds a baby as he helps a migrant to go down after they jump the border fence to get into the U.S. side to San Diego, Calif., from Tijuana, Mexico, Saturday, Dec. 29, 2018. Discouraged by the long wait to apply for asylum through official ports of entry, many migrants from recent caravans are choosing to cross the U.S. border wall and hand themselves in to border patrol agents. (AP Photo/Daniel Ochoa de Olza)

Border authorities are referring 50 people a day for urgent medical care, including tuberculosis, flu and even pregnant women about to give birth, a top official said Monday, saying it’s unlike anything they’ve ever seen before.

Most of those in need of care are children, and a staggering 28 percent are under age 5, having been dragged along for the trip by parents who in many cases are hoping to use the children as a shield against speedy deportation from the U.S.

The numbers were released after a full review was done of all children in the custody of Customs and Border Protection in the wake of two illegal-immigrant children who died in U.S. hospitals in December.

CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said most of those needing help were ill when they arrived at the border, and some appear to have made the initial decision to leave even while ailing.

“Many were ill before they departed their homes,” the commissioner said. “We’re talking about cases of pneumonia, tuberculosis, parasites. These are not things that developed urgently in a matter of days.”

Agents have spotted a new trend in the traffic from Central America to the U.S., with smuggling organizations using commercial buses to get people through the journey in less than a week. That’s far faster than the 25 to 30 days it takes most migrants who walk or take a mixture of transportation to get from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras through Mexico and to the border.

Mr. McAleenan said the commercial buses are also delivering migrants to parts of the border such as western Texas and New Mexico that have traditionally been less afflicted by the flow of immigrants crossing into the U.S. illegally.

The faster trip also makes it easier for sick people to come, and provides “confidence for parents to bring younger children” along as well, he said.

As of Monday, 17 of the people referred for medical care were still hospitalized, Mr. McAleenan said.

The deaths of a 7-year-old girl and an 8-year-old boy in CBP custody in December have drawn fierce criticism, with some Democrats and a number of immigrant-rights groups saying the agency has blood on its hands.

The girl arrived with her father as part of a group of more than 160 people at a remote part of the border in New Mexico, hours from the nearest Border Patrol station. Her father at first told agents she was healthy, but later alerted them when she began to vomit and then lose consciousness.

Agents revived her twice and she was flown by air ambulance to a hospital where she later died after suffering major organ failure.

The boy died Christmas Eve after six days in CBP custody, having been transferred to multiple facilities because of overcrowding due to the new surge of people.

His initial illness was diagnosed at a hospital as a common cold, then he was deemed to have a fever. He was treated and released, but hours later, back at a border holding facility, he vomited.

His father declined medical attention, but an agent during a later welfare check said the boy looked ill and had him taken back to the hospital, where he died.

The boy’s mother, back in Guatemala, told Reuters news agency they had been told by neighbors that if he brought the child, the father would get more lenient treatment by U.S. authorities and would be quickly released into the U.S. where he could disappear into the shadows, live in the U.S. illegally and find work.

She was referring to a 2015 court ruling in the Flores case, which saw an Obama-appointed judge issue a decision that forces the government either to separate children from their parents — a practice that was tried earlier this year, to much criticism — or to release both parents and children within about 20 days.

That ruling was appealed by the Obama administration, but was mostly upheld by an appeals court.

Homeland Security officials say families released rarely show up for deportations. About one-third of them cut off ankle bracelets almost immediately after they’re released, authorities say.

“It’s no secret that we are seeing an increase of family units and unaccompanied aliens minors as a direct result of the Ninth Circuit’s Flores Settlement Agreement and the 2008 [Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act] — these are clear gaps in U.S. law that smugglers and traffickers are taking advantage of,” said Katie Waldman, a Homeland Security spokeswoman.

Investigations into both December deaths are ongoing and final medical evaluations have not been publicly detailed.

But border illnesses are nothing new.

During the 2014 surge of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) authorities reported massive chickenpox and other communicable disease outbreaks.

The numbers of children crossing now exceed that previous surge, with 22,000 children nabbed at the border in December, out of about 60,000 total immigrants who were either caught sneaking in, or were encountered at border crossings.

Since Dec. 22 there have been 450 medical cases that needed treatment, including flu, parasites, blood infections, abscesses, tuberculosis and pneumonia, Mr. McAleenan said.

Part of the surge could be that the government is looking more closely at those in its custody. Where before agents deferred to parents on whether their children needed care, the two recent deaths suggest parents can’t be trusted to know dangers or admit to them.

Every child in CBP custody was given a new medical check last week, including taking vital signs. Medical pros from the Coast Guard and the Public Health Service are going to be on site moving forward, the government says.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also been roped into duty to look at the infectious diseases, with U.S. officials saying they think the shelters where migrants stage in Mexico before crossing the border could be an incubator.

Supreme Court Hands Mueller Win Against Mystery Firm From “Country A” 

The Supreme Court handed special counsel Robert Mueller a win on Tuesday, leaving in place a lower court ruling that required an unnamed foreign company to comply with a subpoena to produce information said to be related to Mueller’s seemingly-limitless investigation, according to the Washington Post

Without offering any explanation, the court dissolved a temporary stay on the subpoena issued by Chief Justice John Roberts until the Justices could consider the request. 

The entity that is the subject of the cloaked legal battle — known in court papers simply as a “Corporation” from “Country A” — is a foreign financial institution that was issued a subpoena by a grand jury hearing evidence in the special counsel investigation, according to two people familiar with the case.

It is thought to be the first time that an aspect of Mueller’s wide-ranging probe into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign has reached the Supreme Court.

Last year, a federal court in Washington ordered the corporation to pay a daily fine until it complied with the subpoena, according to court records. An appeals court panel upheld that decision last month, prompting the company’s lawyers to appeal to the Supreme Court. –Washington Post

The battle between Mueller and the unidentified foreign company has intrigued Washington politicos for months. In October, Politico reported that a journalist hanging around the DC Circuit Court of Appeals overheard a man in the clerk’s office request a copy of the latest sealed filing from the special counsel’s office in order to put together a response. 

Then in December, reporters descended on the DC courthouse where a “dramatic scene” unfolded according to BuzzFeedas the entire floor of the DC Circuit was closed and locked to preserve secrecy. And on December 18, the panel issued a vaguely worded decision which at least offered some clues. 

“The grand jury seeks information from a corporation owned by Country A,” the three-page opinion stated. The company had sought to quash the subpoena by arguing it is protected from such demands under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and that complying with the subpoena would cause the company to violate its own domestic laws, according to the opinion.

The appeals court disagreed, saying that in this case, prosecutors have met their burden. The judges, in the unsigned opinion, said there was reason to believe the evidence prosecutors are seeking relates to an act “outside the territory of the United States” but one that also had “a direct effect in the United States.”

A lower-court judge already had sided with the U.S. prosecutors and against the company, according to the ruling. –Washington Post

“When the corporation failed to produce the requested information, the court held the corporation in contempt, imposing a fixed monetary penalty to increase each day the corporation fails to comply,” noted the appeals court panel. 

Appeals Court Rules On Transgender Military Ban

After a federal judge in Washington D.C. blocked the Trump administration’s policy of banning transgender individuals in military service, the District of Columbia Appeals Court has overturned that decision.

by

In a stunning upset for liberals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned a federal judge’s decision that blocked the policy, claiming it may have violated the constitutional rights of transgender recruits and service members.

The three-panel court ruled that Clinton-appointed Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was wrong.

“President Donald Trump announced in March that he would endorse a plan by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to restrict the military service of transgender people who experience a condition called gender dysphoria.”

A number of medical experts explain that the condition is incompatible with military service and Obama’s arbitrary move to allow those few individuals to serve was both dangerous and wrong.

The appeals court victory is limited, but is a major blow to the trans-culture-police who demand taxpayers foot the bill for their ‘feelings.’

The administration already has asked the Supreme Court to rule on the issue, and it will decide whether or not to hear the appeals on January 11.

The various court injunctions allowed the handful of transgender troops to join the ranks as of Jan. 1, 2018.

“Today’s ruling is a devastating slap in the face to transgender service members who have proved their fitness to serve and their dedication to this country,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. said Kollar-Kotelly was ‘wrong to conclude that the new restrictions were essentially the same as the original ban, which she had also blocked.’

“It was clear error to say there was no significant change,” the judges wrote.

The new plan “appears to permit some transgender individuals to serve in the military consistent with established military mental health, physical health, and sex-based standards,” the court stated.

The American Psychiatric Association defines gender dysphoria as a “clinically significant distress” due to a conflict between a person’s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth.

And, many people recognize that a person’s opinions about ‘who they are’ are not the responsibilities of others, nor should other people be forced to go along with their delusions.

The ruling gives many people hope that the country is taking back some of its standards and culture that has been attacked under the guise of politically correct attitudes.

US spy agency can keep mum on Google ties: court

ShareThis

US spy agency can keep mum on Google ties: court 11 May 2012 The top-secret US National Security Agency is not required to reveal any deal it may have with Google to help protect against cyber attacks, an appeals court ruled Friday. The US Court of Appeals in Washington upheld a lower court decision that said the NSA need not confirm or deny any relationship with Google, because its governing statutes allow it keep such information secret. The ruling came in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from a public interest group, which said the public has a right to know about any spying on citizens.

Citizens for Legitimate Government

Forcing Defendant to Decrypt Hard Drive Is Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Rules

By David Kravets, Wired.com

Forcing a criminal suspect to decrypt hard drives so their contents can be used by prosecutors is a breach of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

It was the nation’s first appellate court to issue such a finding. And the outcome comes a day after a different federal appeals court refused to entertain an appeal from another defendant ordered by a lower federal court to decrypt a hard drive by month’s end.

Thursday’s decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that an encrypted hard drive is akin to a combination to a safe, and is off limits, because compelling the unlocking of either of them is the equivalent of forcing testimony.

The case at hand concerns an unidentified “Doe” defendant believed to be in possession of child pornography on 5 terabytes of data on several drives and laptops seized in a California motel with valid court warrants.

To read more, visit:  http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/laptop-decryption-unconstitutional/

RE Tea Party » Technology

We Are Change TV.US