Tag: news

Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.

New on the Short Circuit podcast: Special guests Scott Michelman of ACLU-DC and Adrian Snead of Whiteford Taylor Preston tell us what’s what. There’s a pending petition for cert over a police dog bite, a pending petition for en banc review that seeks to hold prison officials responsible for a guard who sexually assaulted inmates, and a case where police shot an innocent bystander (that the panelists agree is due for further review). Click here for iTunes.

  • Allegation: Hamas terrorists post messages on Facebook encouraging violence in Israel; Facebook’s algorithms display those messages to people receptive to them who then injured and killed Americans in Israel. Second Circuit: Can’t sue Facebook over that. Congress immunized internet publishers from these kinds of claims. Dissent: Using algorithms to match people with messages means Facebook is more than a publisher.
  • White-collar defendant requests pre-trial release, offering to pay for private armed security guards to ensure he doesn’t skip town. District court: No. Second Circuit: Affirmed—not least because the sort of “self-funded private jail[]” the defendant requested would benefit the wealthy alone.
  • In which the Third Circuit examines the “non-utilitarian, sculptural features” of a full-body banana costume. (See Appendix A for photographs of said costume.)
  • Allegation: Following up on vague tip, police interrogate two teen brothers, each with severe mental disabilities, suspected of the rape and murder of 11-year-old Red Springs, N.C. girl. After hours of continuous questioning punctuated by threats, racial epithets, and empty promises, the brothers sign contradictory confessions written by the officers. They spend 31 years in prison until DNA evidence exonerates them and proves another man was the culprit. Can they sue the officers for coercing their confessions, suppressing evidence that pointed to the other man during the initial investigation? The Fourth Circuit says yes.
  • Unemployed sexagenarian—now suffering from degenerative ailment—seeks to discharge student-loan debt she incurred while enrolled in community college in 2012. Fifth Circuit: Gotta talk to Congress about that. They write the bankruptcy laws. And they say discharge is not available under the demanding “undue hardship” standard that applies to student loans.
  • In 1896, the Supreme Court ordered new trials for two men convicted of seeking to aid Cuban revolutionaries seeking to secure independence from Spain. In so doing, the Court invented the doctrine of plain error review, an exception to usual rule that appellate courts mustn’t consider arguments that weren’t raised below. So writes Judge Oldham of the Fifth Circuit, tracing the doctrine’s waxings and wanings and concluding the Supreme Court has allowed it to overwax of late.
  • Allegation: Parma, Ohio man satirizes local police department with fake Facebook page. (Minorities need not apply, pedophiles to receive police honors, etc.) The displeased police respond by arresting the satirist. Sixth Circuit: Ridiculing the government is as American as apple pie. Most of the satirist’s claims survive a motion to dismiss. [There’s more at Popehat.]
  • Drunk U.S. Marshal in Chicago takes phone call at the movies, threatens other patrons when they heckle him. Moviegoers then complain to the Marshal Service—and it turns out the guy isn’t a marshal at all. The last time he (allegedly) did this—when he used emergency lights to run a red light, then lied to the cops who pulled him over—the Marshals told him to quit it. So this time he’s promptly convicted of impersonating a federal officer. Seventh Circuit: No First Amendment problem there. You can’t falsely shout marshal in a crowded theater. [There’s more at Popehat.]
  • Man spends 10 years in prison for cocaine possession based on the testimony of a dirty Chicago cop. Now freed, he sues the (now incarcerated) cop, who pleads the Fifth while claiming that he would “love to” testify if his own case were not on appeal. Seventh Circuit: The jury should have been told that you can only invoke the Fifth to avoid incriminating yourself. New trial.
  • Allegation: Three Rockford, Ill. detectives use physical force, threat of prison time to obtain false statements from witnesses that helped put three innocent men in prison for more than 10 years. Seventh Circuit: Which is not fabricating evidence unless the detectives knew the statement was false. One detective has admitted as much (and also admitted to handcuffing a mother and leaving her baby crying on the floor in attempt to get a statement), so the fabricating evidence claim against him can proceed. The other detectives are off the hook. (Though different claims against them can proceed.)
  • Allegation: Inmate in Chester, Ill. penitentiary attempts suicide three times in solitary. A nurse mocks him for failing and urges him to try again. Cruel and unusual punishment by the nurse? District court: No. Seventh Circuit: That claim should have gone to trial. And it could be that he gets a new trial (on separate claims that were allowed to proceed to trial) if the gov’t didn’t have a good enough reason to strike three of the four potential black jurors.
  • Craighead County, Ark. officials use private company to run probation for people convicted of misdemeanors. The company charges probationers monthly fees, other fees on pain of arrest, which results in more fees. (On one day in 2016, of 34 defendants brought to court, only six were charged with crimes. The remaining 28 were in jail for failing to pay the company.) Voters elect new judges who promise to cease using the company, erase outstanding debts. Company: Which violates the Contracts Clause, Takings Clause. Eighth Circuit: Can’t sue the judges over that. The judges are entitled to modify probation conditions and discharge debts.
  • In Minnesota, if wineries want to offer tastings at their farms and sell directly to consumers, at least 51 percent of the grapes they use must be grown in state. An unconstitutional boon to Minnesota’s grape industry at the expense of out-of-state growers? The wineries certainly have standing to find out, says the Eighth Circuit. The case should not have been dismissed. (This is an IJ case. Click here to learn more.)
  • Allegation: Teased incessantly by another student, 7-year old yells at the other student, declines to calm down as instructed. By the time a Kansas City, Mo. school resource officer arrives, the student has stopped yelling. But the officer drags him crying to the principal’s office in handcuffs and leaves them on until the student’s father arrives 20 minutes later. District court: Could be an unreasonable seizure or excessive force. Eighth Circuit: Reversed. The kid tried to pull away from the officer, and, if he wasn’t handcuffed, he might have attempted to leave and posed a harm to himself.
  • Missouri law permits random roadside inspections of commercial vehicles without any probable cause. Rancher: Which violates the Fourth Amendment as applied to my dump truck, which I only use for ranch operations and am legally barred from using to transport people or goods for hire. Eighth Circuit: Not so. Warrantless inspections are okay in highly regulated industries, which commercial trucking is.
  • Allegation: St. Louis prosecutor dismisses all charges against man, but he remains in jail for eight days. Can he sue the prosecutor? The Eighth Circuit says no. While there is a right not to be imprisoned without charges, the prosecutor has no clearly established duty to ensure that anyone is released from jail. (The man’s claims against other officials are still pending.)
  • North Dakota is the only state that does not require voters to register. You just show up with ID and vote. Plaintiffs: A 2017 change to the law disenfranchises roughly 10% of the state’s eligible Native American voters, many of whom lack residential street addresses and thus can’t get the requisite ID. Eighth Circuit: The law is not a substantial burden to the vast majority of eligible voters, and it’s not clear how many would-be voters tried to obtain ID and were unable to. Dissent: The law was purportedly enacted to address voter fraud, but there is no evidence of voter fraud.
  • Guam officials seek to hold referendum allowing voters to express their opinion about the future of the relationship between Guam and the United States but will only permit “Native Inhabitants of Guam” to vote. Ninth Circuit: Which means restricting voting based upon race, which is explicitly prohibited by the Fifteenth Amendment.
  • Mexican national enters the U.S. 20 miles east of a port of entry. It’s a federal crime for aliens to enter the U.S. at any point other than that designated by immigration officers. And it’s a separate federal crime to elude examination by immigration officers. He’s charged with the latter. Ninth Circuit: Nope, you can only elude examination at a place where examinations occur—ports of entry. Concurrence: But I sympathize with the gov’t, because we’ve basically made it impossible to enforce the other law about border crossing.
  • In the Tenth Circuit, we encounter the following allegation: “shepherds tend herds of 1,000 sheep or more, . . . protecting them from the constant threat of natural predators like coyotes, mountain lions, and wolves . . . . During lambing . . . season, the shepherds assist the animals in the birthing process, and at all times, the shepherds provide for the health and medical needs of the herd.” Will this somehow result in a civil RICO claim surviving a motion to dismiss? Ewe bet it will. [There’s more at Popehat.]
  • Jury convicts investor of wire fraud for participating in scheme wherein attractive women lured men to Miami Beach night clubs to buy wildly overpriced drinks. Eleventh Circuit (2016): Conviction overturned. The jury should have been instructed that the failure to disclose the financial arrangement between the women and the night clubs isn’t by itself wire fraud. Eleventh Circuit (2019): It’s not double jeopardy to retry the investor for concealment-based money laundering, a charge the first jury did not reach a verdict on. His new conviction stands.
  • And in panel rehearing news, the Ninth Circuit has withdrawn its decision in a lawsuit with broad ramifications for businesses that classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. The California Supreme Court will have a chance to weigh in.

For a few months this past winter and spring, Jessica Barron and Kenny Wylie let their son’s 19-year-old friend crash at their Granite City, Ill. home because he didn’t have anywhere else to go and it was cold. But the friend lied to them and tried to steal from them, and they ultimately kicked him out after he burglarized a restaurant. That should have been the end of the matter, but now city officials are trying to evict Jessica, Kenny, and their three teenage children using an ordinance that requires landlords to evict tenants if any member of the household commits a crime. Though their houseguest is long gone and their landlord views them as model tenants, the city wants to render the family homeless. This week, they joined with IJ to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance. Click here to read more.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Ztx8Uq
via IFTTT

Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.

New on the Short Circuit podcast: Special guests Scott Michelman of ACLU-DC and Adrian Snead of Whiteford Taylor Preston tell us what’s what. There’s a pending petition for cert over a police dog bite, a pending petition for en banc review that seeks to hold prison officials responsible for a guard who sexually assaulted inmates, and a case where police shot an innocent bystander (that the panelists agree is due for further review). Click here for iTunes.

  • Allegation: Hamas terrorists post messages on Facebook encouraging violence in Israel; Facebook’s algorithms display those messages to people receptive to them who then injured and killed Americans in Israel. Second Circuit: Can’t sue Facebook over that. Congress immunized internet publishers from these kinds of claims. Dissent: Using algorithms to match people with messages means Facebook is more than a publisher.
  • White-collar defendant requests pre-trial release, offering to pay for private armed security guards to ensure he doesn’t skip town. District court: No. Second Circuit: Affirmed—not least because the sort of “self-funded private jail[]” the defendant requested would benefit the wealthy alone.
  • In which the Third Circuit examines the “non-utilitarian, sculptural features” of a full-body banana costume. (See Appendix A for photographs of said costume.)
  • Allegation: Following up on vague tip, police interrogate two teen brothers, each with severe mental disabilities, suspected of the rape and murder of 11-year-old Red Springs, N.C. girl. After hours of continuous questioning punctuated by threats, racial epithets, and empty promises, the brothers sign contradictory confessions written by the officers. They spend 31 years in prison until DNA evidence exonerates them and proves another man was the culprit. Can they sue the officers for coercing their confessions, suppressing evidence that pointed to the other man during the initial investigation? The Fourth Circuit says yes.
  • Unemployed sexagenarian—now suffering from degenerative ailment—seeks to discharge student-loan debt she incurred while enrolled in community college in 2012. Fifth Circuit: Gotta talk to Congress about that. They write the bankruptcy laws. And they say discharge is not available under the demanding “undue hardship” standard that applies to student loans.
  • In 1896, the Supreme Court ordered new trials for two men convicted of seeking to aid Cuban revolutionaries seeking to secure independence from Spain. In so doing, the Court invented the doctrine of plain error review, an exception to usual rule that appellate courts mustn’t consider arguments that weren’t raised below. So writes Judge Oldham of the Fifth Circuit, tracing the doctrine’s waxings and wanings and concluding the Supreme Court has allowed it to overwax of late.
  • Allegation: Parma, Ohio man satirizes local police department with fake Facebook page. (Minorities need not apply, pedophiles to receive police honors, etc.) The displeased police respond by arresting the satirist. Sixth Circuit: Ridiculing the government is as American as apple pie. Most of the satirist’s claims survive a motion to dismiss. [There’s more at Popehat.]
  • Drunk U.S. Marshal in Chicago takes phone call at the movies, threatens other patrons when they heckle him. Moviegoers then complain to the Marshal Service—and it turns out the guy isn’t a marshal at all. The last time he (allegedly) did this—when he used emergency lights to run a red light, then lied to the cops who pulled him over—the Marshals told him to quit it. So this time he’s promptly convicted of impersonating a federal officer. Seventh Circuit: No First Amendment problem there. You can’t falsely shout marshal in a crowded theater. [There’s more at Popehat.]
  • Man spends 10 years in prison for cocaine possession based on the testimony of a dirty Chicago cop. Now freed, he sues the (now incarcerated) cop, who pleads the Fifth while claiming that he would “love to” testify if his own case were not on appeal. Seventh Circuit: The jury should have been told that you can only invoke the Fifth to avoid incriminating yourself. New trial.
  • Allegation: Three Rockford, Ill. detectives use physical force, threat of prison time to obtain false statements from witnesses that helped put three innocent men in prison for more than 10 years. Seventh Circuit: Which is not fabricating evidence unless the detectives knew the statement was false. One detective has admitted as much (and also admitted to handcuffing a mother and leaving her baby crying on the floor in attempt to get a statement), so the fabricating evidence claim against him can proceed. The other detectives are off the hook. (Though different claims against them can proceed.)
  • Allegation: Inmate in Chester, Ill. penitentiary attempts suicide three times in solitary. A nurse mocks him for failing and urges him to try again. Cruel and unusual punishment by the nurse? District court: No. Seventh Circuit: That claim should have gone to trial. And it could be that he gets a new trial (on separate claims that were allowed to proceed to trial) if the gov’t didn’t have a good enough reason to strike three of the four potential black jurors.
  • Craighead County, Ark. officials use private company to run probation for people convicted of misdemeanors. The company charges probationers monthly fees, other fees on pain of arrest, which results in more fees. (On one day in 2016, of 34 defendants brought to court, only six were charged with crimes. The remaining 28 were in jail for failing to pay the company.) Voters elect new judges who promise to cease using the company, erase outstanding debts. Company: Which violates the Contracts Clause, Takings Clause. Eighth Circuit: Can’t sue the judges over that. The judges are entitled to modify probation conditions and discharge debts.
  • In Minnesota, if wineries want to offer tastings at their farms and sell directly to consumers, at least 51 percent of the grapes they use must be grown in state. An unconstitutional boon to Minnesota’s grape industry at the expense of out-of-state growers? The wineries certainly have standing to find out, says the Eighth Circuit. The case should not have been dismissed. (This is an IJ case. Click here to learn more.)
  • Allegation: Teased incessantly by another student, 7-year old yells at the other student, declines to calm down as instructed. By the time a Kansas City, Mo. school resource officer arrives, the student has stopped yelling. But the officer drags him crying to the principal’s office in handcuffs and leaves them on until the student’s father arrives 20 minutes later. District court: Could be an unreasonable seizure or excessive force. Eighth Circuit: Reversed. The kid tried to pull away from the officer, and, if he wasn’t handcuffed, he might have attempted to leave and posed a harm to himself.
  • Missouri law permits random roadside inspections of commercial vehicles without any probable cause. Rancher: Which violates the Fourth Amendment as applied to my dump truck, which I only use for ranch operations and am legally barred from using to transport people or goods for hire. Eighth Circuit: Not so. Warrantless inspections are okay in highly regulated industries, which commercial trucking is.
  • Allegation: St. Louis prosecutor dismisses all charges against man, but he remains in jail for eight days. Can he sue the prosecutor? The Eighth Circuit says no. While there is a right not to be imprisoned without charges, the prosecutor has no clearly established duty to ensure that anyone is released from jail. (The man’s claims against other officials are still pending.)
  • North Dakota is the only state that does not require voters to register. You just show up with ID and vote. Plaintiffs: A 2017 change to the law disenfranchises roughly 10% of the state’s eligible Native American voters, many of whom lack residential street addresses and thus can’t get the requisite ID. Eighth Circuit: The law is not a substantial burden to the vast majority of eligible voters, and it’s not clear how many would-be voters tried to obtain ID and were unable to. Dissent: The law was purportedly enacted to address voter fraud, but there is no evidence of voter fraud.
  • Guam officials seek to hold referendum allowing voters to express their opinion about the future of the relationship between Guam and the United States but will only permit “Native Inhabitants of Guam” to vote. Ninth Circuit: Which means restricting voting based upon race, which is explicitly prohibited by the Fifteenth Amendment.
  • Mexican national enters the U.S. 20 miles east of a port of entry. It’s a federal crime for aliens to enter the U.S. at any point other than that designated by immigration officers. And it’s a separate federal crime to elude examination by immigration officers. He’s charged with the latter. Ninth Circuit: Nope, you can only elude examination at a place where examinations occur—ports of entry. Concurrence: But I sympathize with the gov’t, because we’ve basically made it impossible to enforce the other law about border crossing.
  • In the Tenth Circuit, we encounter the following allegation: “shepherds tend herds of 1,000 sheep or more, . . . protecting them from the constant threat of natural predators like coyotes, mountain lions, and wolves . . . . During lambing . . . season, the shepherds assist the animals in the birthing process, and at all times, the shepherds provide for the health and medical needs of the herd.” Will this somehow result in a civil RICO claim surviving a motion to dismiss? Ewe bet it will. [There’s more at Popehat.]
  • Jury convicts investor of wire fraud for participating in scheme wherein attractive women lured men to Miami Beach night clubs to buy wildly overpriced drinks. Eleventh Circuit (2016): Conviction overturned. The jury should have been instructed that the failure to disclose the financial arrangement between the women and the night clubs isn’t by itself wire fraud. Eleventh Circuit (2019): It’s not double jeopardy to retry the investor for concealment-based money laundering, a charge the first jury did not reach a verdict on. His new conviction stands.
  • And in panel rehearing news, the Ninth Circuit has withdrawn its decision in a lawsuit with broad ramifications for businesses that classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. The California Supreme Court will have a chance to weigh in.

For a few months this past winter and spring, Jessica Barron and Kenny Wylie let their son’s 19-year-old friend crash at their Granite City, Ill. home because he didn’t have anywhere else to go and it was cold. But the friend lied to them and tried to steal from them, and they ultimately kicked him out after he burglarized a restaurant. That should have been the end of the matter, but now city officials are trying to evict Jessica, Kenny, and their three teenage children using an ordinance that requires landlords to evict tenants if any member of the household commits a crime. Though their houseguest is long gone and their landlord views them as model tenants, the city wants to render the family homeless. This week, they joined with IJ to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance. Click here to read more.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Ztx8Uq
via IFTTT

“Can Pelosi Ignore This Number”: Majority Of Democrats Now Support Impeachment

After months of sternly refusing to pursue impeachment proceedings of Donald Trump over fears that this could have dire consequences for democrats at the polls, Nancy Pelosi suddenly finds herself in a bind. The reason: the movement to oust President Trump from office crossed a new threshold Friday, with a majority of House Democrats endorsing an impeachment inquiry — a development that puts the House majority speaker in confrontation with a majority of democrats, and could potentially lead to a fissure between moderate and progressive Democrats.

As of Friday, a majority of one – or 118 out of 235 House Democrats – said they support at least opening an impeachment inquiry, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. Politico, using different criteria, reported that the threshold was crossed Thursday.

As the WaPo notes the push in the House to remove Trump has been accelerated by testimony from former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III confirming that the president could be charged with obstruction of justice after he leaves office — prompting more than 20 Democrats to announce support for an inquiry since then. Those calls, the WaPo adds, have come amid mounting pressure from liberal activists — applied in some cases by Democratic primary challengers who argue that incumbents, including four powerful committee chairmen, have been too reticent in taking on Trump.

California Rep. Salud Carbajal pushed Democrats past the majority threshold with his announcement Friday. “We cannot ignore this president’s actions, and we cannot let him off the hook because of his title,” he said in a written statement.

Among those newly backing an impeachment inquiry are two prominent House committee chairmen from New York, Rep. ­Eliot L. Engel of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Rep. Nita M. Lowey of the Appropriations Committee. Both face energetic Democratic opponents in next year’s elections.

Of the Democrats calling for an impeachment inquiry, more than 75 have done so since Mueller made a public statement on May 29 about his findings. The former special counsel said he could neither clear nor accuse Trump of obstructing his probe, leaving room for Congress to make that call.

Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), who recently left the Republican Party, has also said he supports beginning impeachment proceedings against Trump.

* * *

Finding herself trapped, while Pelosi continues to stress investigations over impeachment, last week she gave a green light for lawmakers to chart their own course while telling reporters that it would not necessarily change her views. 

CNN’s in house democratic lackey, Brian Stetler, was quick to frame the question as one of Pelosi now ignoring the opinion of the majority, or “Can House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignore this number?” adding that “That’s the biggest question” and “All eyes on the speaker at this point.”

For now, Pelosi is willing to face the majority onslaught. “I’m willing to take whatever heat there is,” she said.

Pelosi refused to answer questions about impeachment during an appearance on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

Ironically, Pelosi appears to be all that is standing between what is now a majority of Democrats and political suicide:  her reluctance about impeachment is based in part on public opinion. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last month showed 59 percent of Americans believe the House should not begin impeachment proceedings against Trump, while 37 percent believe it should — including 61 percent of Democrats.

And when one considers just how titled to Democrats such polls are, it is safe to assume that only a small, but very vocal minority, of constituents actually want a Trump impeachment. Which also explains why the politically inexperience, ultra progressive wing of the Democrats is now willing to pursue a step that could cost Democrats dearly.

Stetler is right about one thing: all eyes are indeed on Pelosi. What she does next could end up handing the 2020 presidential election to Trump on a silver platter.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2KiWJsR Tyler Durden

“These Products Are Defective”: Yet Another Family Sues Tesla Over Yet Another Fatal Autopilot Accident

Tesla has now been sued for the second time in three months by the family of a car owner who was killed while using Autopilot, according to Bloomberg.

50-year-old Jeremy Banner died when his Model 3 sedan failed to break or avoid a semi trailer that ran a stop sign on a Florida highway in March. According to the lawsuit, which also named the semi driver as a defendant, Banner had engaged Autopilot about 10 seconds before the collision.

Tesla didn’t respond to Bloomberg’s request for a comment on the lawsuit, which makes the claim that the company knew its product was defective. We reported back in May that the National Transportation Safety Board had put out a preliminary report on the crash.

The report describes the events leading up to the incident:

As the Tesla approached the private driveway, the combination vehicle pulled from the driveway and traveled east across the southbound lanes of US 441. The truck driver was trying to cross the highway’s southbound lanes and turn left into the northbound lanes.

According to surveillance video in the area and forward-facing video from the Tesla, the combination vehicle slowed as it crossed the southbound lanes, blocking the Tesla’s path. The Tesla struck the left side of the semitrailer. The roof of the Tesla was sheared off as the vehicle underrode the semitrailer and continued south. The Tesla came to a rest on the median, about 1,600 feet from where it struck the semitrailer. The 50-year-old male Tesla driver died as a result of the crash. 

The report then goes on to note that Autopilot had been engaged 10 seconds before the collision and that the vehicle, traveling about 68 mph, didn’t execute evasive maneuvers: 

The driver engaged the Autopilot about 10 seconds before the collision. From less than 8 seconds before the crash to the time of impact, the vehicle did not detect the driver’s hands on the steering wheel. Preliminary vehicle data show that the Tesla was traveling about 68 mph when it struck the semitrailer. Neither the preliminary data nor the videos indicate that the driver or the ADAS executed evasive maneuvers.

Trey Lytal, a lawyer for the family said: 

“We’re not just talking about the consequences of this defect to the Banner family, which is horrific. These products are defective.”

The lawyer compared the crash to one involving a Tesla Model S owner who died in a similar tractor trailer collision in 2016. We also reported that the family of an Apple engineer who died in a Model X last year sued the company in May.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2KctwB2 Tyler Durden

Something Significant Just Happened. ‘Northman’ Warns “Watch Closely”

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

Something significant has happened with US markets this week and whether you’re bullish or bearish I suggest: Watch closely.

Full disclosure: We’ve been approaching July from the sell side and I’ve been very transparent about this. In late June we identified the Sell Zone, I reiterated it on CNBC on July 5th, talking about the broadening wedge pattern and discussion the 2990-3050 zone on $SPX as key technical resistance. And throughout July I outlined technical problems with the rally on NorthmanTrader as well is in videos. Last week I talked about an imminent $VIXplosion, also on CNBC, when the $VIX was trading at 12, today it as hit 19.98 as of this writing.

That’s not to say I’m right or I told you so, it’s just an technical acknowledgement that so far the sell zone has proven to be worth a fade and the volatility pattern has kicked in.

But that’s not the important part.

The important part is what is happening with markets structurally from a technical perspective and I think everybody needs to pay attention to this.

Firstly, we made new highs in anticipation of easy money from the Fed, all of July investors kept pushing prices higher into the Fed meeting this week. $SPX 3028 was reached, right smack in the middle of the sell zone.

All of these buyers are currently under water, with all of July’s prices taken out in just 2 days:

Why is this potentially so significant? Because of where it happened and what the result is.

The where? Price perfectly tagged the broadening wedge we’ve been discussion and finally rejected from there:

Now this is no confirmation yet that the pattern target will hit, but it’s a warning sign especially in this context: Key indices are losing the highs from last year.

Example $DJIA:

Example $WLSH:

This places these index charts in imminent danger of having printed a fake breakout.

One of my technical criticisms of the rally and a favor in calling it a sell zone was internal weakness compared to previous highs.

The value line geometric index has been making lower highs with each new rally and again in July:

Structurally I’ve been pointing to the $VIX looking for another breakout, this breakout happened this week.

None of this precludes further rallies or confirms yet the validity of the larger structural sell case.

However what it does show is that the resistance zone outlined previously has been valid. As of this writing the low on $SPX has been 2914 (115 handles off the highs). Markets are now getting short term oversold, but as the previous highs from 2018 have now been broken to the downside they represent a mission critical task for bulls to recapture especially in context of the larger megaphone pattern I’ve outlined.

Failure to recapture these highs risks that the larger technical pattern gets triggered and I’ve outlined the other day: There’s a lot of open space below:

Indeed there is:

This is not about the day to day action, it’s about larger structural technical patterns and they are telling a story and this story needs to be watched closely in the days ahead.

*  *  *

For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OBkL7X Tyler Durden

The City Wants to Evict This Family Because a House Guest Committed a Crime They Didn’t Know About Somewhere Else

Last fall and winter, Jessica Barron and Kenny Wylie let one of their teenaged son’s friends, who described himself as homeless, stay at their house in Granite City, Illinois. At first the teenager, Jason Lynch, slept at the house intermittently; later, as the weather got colder, he often was there several nights a week. Barron and Wylie’s reward for that act of kindness, if the city has its way, will be government-ordered eviction from their home.

After Lynch broke into a local restaurant last May, the city invoked its “crime-free housing” ordinance, which demands eviction when “any member of lessee’s household” commits a crime. In this case, the crime did not happen at the rental property, and Barron and Wylie did not participate in it, know about it ahead of time, or help Lynch evade the police afterward. In fact, Barron turned Lynch in after she found him hiding in her basement. But none of that matters under Granite City’s ordinance, which holds tenants strictly liable for the crimes of household members, including temporary residents like Lynch.

“This effort to make an innocent family homeless violates the federal Constitution at a bedrock level,” the Institute for Justice argues in a federal lawsuit it filed yesterday on behalf of Barron, Wylie, and their landlord, Bill Campbell, who does not want to evict them. The complaint says the crime-free housing ordinance violates their due process rights, the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, the Fifth Amendment’s ban on taking property for “public use” without “just compensation,” and freedom of association, which is protected by the First Amendment.

Barron and Wylie, who have three teenaged children, have been living in the house at 1632 Maple Street in Granite City for two years. They had planned to buy it eventually under a rent-to-own contract with Campbell. But the city is demanding that he abrogate that contract and threatening to revoke his rental license if he fails to do so. One officer even threatened to arrest Campbell, although it’s not clear what the charge would be.

If Barron and Wylie are evicted, they will lose their property interest in the home and will have to find somewhere else where they and their children can live, which may be difficult in light of the eviction. “They do not own or rent any other property,” the complaint says. “If they are kicked out of their home, they are not sure where they would go. They do not have the resources to immediately rent another property. They would likely need to rely on charity from family to avoid rendering themselves and their children homeless.”

Campbell, meanwhile, considers Barron and Wylie good tenants, is happy with their arrangement, and would like it to continue. If the city forces him to evict them, that process will cost money, as will the effort to find new tenants, and he will lose rental income in the meantime.

Given these costs, the Institute for Justice argues,  Granite City is depriving Barron, Wylie, and Campbell of their property without due process or just compensation. The lawsuit also describes three equal protection violations: The city is arbitrarily treating residents who have rent-to-own contracts differently from residents who have mortgages or own their homes outright; arbitrarily treating Campbell differently from all the other landlords in Granite City, who unlike him are free to accept Barron and Wylie as tenants; and arbitrarily treating Barron and Wylie differently from “everyone else in the world (except for Jason Lynch),” who, like the couple, “have no responsibility for Jason Lynch’s crime.” These distinctions cannot survive “any level of scrutiny,” the complaint says.

The attempted eviction also implicates freedom of association, I.J. argues. “The only reason that Granite City is trying to force Jessica and Kenny out of their home is that they allowed Jason Lynch to stay there,” the complaint says. “Allowing a teenager to stay in your home to shelter him from the cold is a form of association. Punishing Jessica and Kenny for crimes committed by Jason Lynch is punishing them for their decision to associate with Jason Lynch.”

In 2002 the Supreme Court upheld a “one strike” public housing policy under which  tenants were evicted based on drug-related activity involving a household member, even if the lessees were not involved in it and did not know about it. But that was a situation where the government was acting as landlord. Here the government is trying to force eviction over the objections of a private landlord.

“No one should be punished for a crime someone else committed,” says I.J. senior attorney Robert McNamara. “That simple notion is at the heart of our criminal justice system—that we are all innocent until proven guilty. And yet Granite City is punishing an innocent family for a crime committed by someone they barely knew.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2yuuemy
via IFTTT

Judge Recommends Firing Cop Who Choked Eric Garner

A judge has recommended that New York Police Department (NYPD) officer Daniel Pantaleo be fired for his role in the death of Eric Garner in 2014, a killing that was captured on cellphone video and provoked nationwide outrage.

Pantaleo was recorded confronting Garner, apparently suspecting that he was selling loose, untaxed black market cigarettes. Garner resisted when Pantaleo attempted to arrest him. Pantaleo put the man in a chokehold, and Garner ultimately died; an autopsy blamed the chokehold for his death. Garner’s final words, a repetition of “I can’t breathe,” became a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement.

A grand jury declined to indict Pantaleo for any crimes, and in July, five years later, the Justice Department announced it would not file civil rights charges against him. The city has been dragging its feet in determining what sort of discipline, if any, Pantaleo should face for his role in Garner’s death. Protesters showed up at the Democratic primary debates earlier this week to heckle Mayor Bill de Blasio for failing to force Pantaleo out of the NYPD. (Pantaleo, meanwhile, has been on desk duty.)

Today, following an administrative hearing, NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Trials Rosemarie Maldonadoa—the judge presiding over Pantaleo’s disciplinary trial—recommended that the officer be terminated. But this does not actually end Pantaleo’s employment with the NYPD. The recommendation now goes to NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill, who will ultimately decide whether to fire Pantaleo.

While it’s not impossible, it seems unlikely that O’Neill would decide to buck the judge and keep Pantaleo on the force. CNN reports from inside sources that O’Neill is expected to follow the recommendation. But New York state has laws that mandate official secrecy about police discipline and shield misconduct records from the eyes of the press and the public. If Pantaleo is fired, he could quietly be hired by another police department in New York or another state.

After the the announcement, Pantaleo was suspended for 30 days without pay, which is standard procedure when firing is recommended.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2KjFcRb
via IFTTT

Stocks Re-Accelerate Losses As China UN Envoy Warns “We Will Fight”

Well you didn’t think they would just roll over?

China’s UN Envoy Zhang Jun tells reporters in New York that “if US wants to fight on trade, we will fight.”

Stocks accelerated lower on the headline…

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31a3vrz Tyler Durden

The City Wants to Evict This Family Because a House Guest Committed a Crime They Didn’t Know About Somewhere Else

Last fall and winter, Jessica Barron and Kenny Wylie let one of their teenaged son’s friends, who described himself as homeless, stay at their house in Granite City, Illinois. At first the teenager, Jason Lynch, slept at the house intermittently; later, as the weather got colder, he often was there several nights a week. Barron and Wylie’s reward for that act of kindness, if the city has its way, will be government-ordered eviction from their home.

After Lynch broke into a local restaurant last May, the city invoked its “crime-free housing” ordinance, which demands eviction when “any member of lessee’s household” commits a crime. In this case, the crime did not happen at the rental property, and Barron and Wylie did not participate in it, know about it ahead of time, or help Lynch evade the police afterward. In fact, Barron turned Lynch in after she found him hiding in her basement. But none of that matters under Granite City’s ordinance, which holds tenants strictly liable for the crimes of household members, including temporary residents like Lynch.

“This effort to make an innocent family homeless violates the federal Constitution at a bedrock level,” the Institute for Justice argues in a federal lawsuit it filed yesterday on behalf of Barron, Wylie, and their landlord, Bill Campbell, who does not want to evict them. The complaint says the crime-free housing ordinance violates their due process rights, the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, the Fifth Amendment’s ban on taking property for “public use” without “just compensation,” and freedom of association, which is protected by the First Amendment.

Barron and Wylie, who have three teenaged children, have been living in the house at 1632 Maple Street in Granite City for two years. They had planned to buy it eventually under a rent-to-own contract with Campbell. But the city is demanding that he abrogate that contract and threatening to revoke his rental license if he fails to do so. One officer even threatened to arrest Campbell, although it’s not clear what the charge would be.

If Barron and Wylie are evicted, they will lose their property interest in the home and will have to find somewhere else where they and their children can live, which may be difficult in light of the eviction. “They do not own or rent any other property,” the complaint says. “If they are kicked out of their home, they are not sure where they would go. They do not have the resources to immediately rent another property. They would likely need to rely on charity from family to avoid rendering themselves and their children homeless.”

Campbell, meanwhile, considers Barron and Wylie good tenants, is happy with their arrangement, and would like it to continue. If the city forces him to evict them, that process will cost money, as will the effort to find new tenants, and he will lose rental income in the meantime.

Given these costs, the Institute for Justice argues,  Granite City is depriving Barron, Wylie, and Campbell of their property without due process or just compensation. The lawsuit also describes three equal protection violations: The city is arbitrarily treating residents who have rent-to-own contracts differently from residents who have mortgages or own their homes outright; arbitrarily treating Campbell differently from all the other landlords in Granite City, who unlike him are free to accept Barron and Wylie as tenants; and arbitrarily treating Barron and Wylie differently from “everyone else in the world (except for Jason Lynch),” who, like the couple, “have no responsibility for Jason Lynch’s crime.” These distinctions cannot survive “any level of scrutiny,” the complaint says.

The attempted eviction also implicates freedom of association, I.J. argues. “The only reason that Granite City is trying to force Jessica and Kenny out of their home is that they allowed Jason Lynch to stay there,” the complaint says. “Allowing a teenager to stay in your home to shelter him from the cold is a form of association. Punishing Jessica and Kenny for crimes committed by Jason Lynch is punishing them for their decision to associate with Jason Lynch.”

In 2002 the Supreme Court upheld a “one strike” public housing policy under which  tenants were evicted based on drug-related activity involving a household member, even if the lessees were not involved in it and did not know about it. But that was a situation where the government was acting as landlord. Here the government is trying to force eviction over the objections of a private landlord.

“No one should be punished for a crime someone else committed,” says I.J. senior attorney Robert McNamara. “That simple notion is at the heart of our criminal justice system—that we are all innocent until proven guilty. And yet Granite City is punishing an innocent family for a crime committed by someone they barely knew.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2yuuemy
via IFTTT

Key Witness In A$AP Rocky Trial Changes Her Story, Says She Didn’t See Rapper Hit Victim With Bottle

One of the prosecution’s key witnesses in the assault trial of American Grammy-nominated rapper A$AP Rocky has revised her testimony, and is now claiming that she didn’t see the rapper hit his alleged victim, an Afghan migrant who was caught on video harassing the rapper and his entourage, with a glass bottle, the AP reports.

The revelation, coming on the third day of Rocky’s trial, could help the rapper avoid an assault conviction. A guilty verdict could see the rapper sent to prison for up to two years, although prosecutors have said they would push for a lighter sentence.

Rocky has been sitting in prison for a month now since he turned himself in to police in Stockholm after he and his entourage were caught on video beating 19-year-old Mustafa Jafari. Jafari is widely believed to have instigated the fight, as video footage taken before the brawl broke out showed him following the rapper and taunting him and his entourage, even after Rocky asked repeatedly asked them to leave him alone.

The case has become one of the most high-profile criminal cases in Sweden in recent memory, as American celebrities including Justin Bieber and rap impresario Sean Combs have called for Rocky’s release. The rapper’s family members have accused the Swedish court system of racism for deciding to charge the rapper.

The women, whose identities haven’t been revealed by the court, were reportedly eating nearby, and witnessed the brawl when they spotted Rocky, and rushed outside to try and get an autograph, the AP reports.

The woman on Friday told the court she had been eating with her friend at a fast-food restaurant in central Stockholm on the evening of June 30 when they saw Mayers’ entourage and Jafari encountering each other outside the venue. The two women rushed outside to have a photo taken with the American rapper but the situation had already escalated into a brawl.

The woman testified that she heard a bottle being crushed but could not say whether Mayers’ entourage threw the bottle to the ground or hit Jafari with it. She said she didn’t see Mayers holding a bottle during the scuffle.

Her friend testified that she didn’t see anyone hitting Jafari with a bottle.

However, both women testified that they saw Mayers and his partners beating and kicking Jafari.

“Everything happened very quickly. We were scared for our lives,” the first woman told the court. “He (Jafari) was bleeding. He showed his injuries on his hand. He also said he had a sore back.”

Even President Trump has gotten involved. In a series of tweets, Trump said he offered to personally guarantee the rapper’s bail. But prosecutors have refused to release Rocky, claiming that he would be a “flight risk”, given his ample resources.

Trump later lashed out at Swedish PM Stefan Lofven after the PM refused to interfere with the country’s Justice Department. Rocky and two members of his entourage are on trial in the case, but Swedish prosecutors decided not to charge Jafari over his role in the confrontation.

Rocky testified during his trial this week, where he made an emotional plea for his freedom and admitted that he and his crew jumped the man, but only after he had attacked Rocky’s bodyguard. Rocky has pleaded not guilty.

If Rocky is found not guilty, the Swedish government could be forced to compensate him for the millions of dollars he’s lost from being forced to cancel tour dates – though Rocky has said he’s not interested in the money.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2T3jvca Tyler Durden