This Program Aims to Correct the Culture of Acquiescence That Allowed Derek Chauvin to Kill George Floyd


Lane-Kueng-Thao-Hennepin-County-Sheriff-enlarged

The federal trial of three former Minneapolis police officers who are charged with failing to stop Derek Chauvin from killing George Floyd resumed today. Much of the testimony presented by the prosecution has focused on the legal duty to prevent a fellow officer from using excessive force. The defense argues that the three officers, two of whom were rookies at the time of Floyd’s arrest in May 2020, understandably deferred to Chauvin, the senior officer at the scene, as he pinned Floyd facedown to the pavement for nine and a half minutes.

The crucial question for the jury is whether J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane, and Tou Thao “willfully” deprived Floyd of his constitutional rights by failing to intervene and/or render medical aid. But the trial also raises the broader question of how police officers can be encouraged to stop their colleagues from violating people’s rights, especially when the perpetrator outranks them and is presumed to know more about proper procedure. A training program that has taken off in the wake of Floyd’s death aims to answer that question by providing officers with the practical skills they need to intervene in situations like this.

Chauvin, who was convicted of murder and manslaughter last April, is serving a 22-year sentence in state prison. He also has pleaded guilty to violating 18 USC 242 by depriving Floyd of his constitutional rights under color of law. Kueng, Lane, and Thao are charged with violating the same statute, but the issue is not so much what they did as what they failed to do.

Kueng and Lane, who had arrested Floyd for buying cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 bill, helped Chauvin restrain Floyd as he repeatedly complained that he could not breathe and as bystanders repeatedly warned that his life was in danger. While Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck, Kueng knelt on his back and Lane held his legs. Thao, who was tasked with handling the bystanders, alternately assured them that Floyd was fine and ordered them to step back when they tried to intervene.

Kueng and Thao are both charged with failing to stop Chauvin from continuing the prolonged prone restraint. Lane does not face that charge, presumably because he twice suggested that Floyd should be rolled from his stomach onto his side, consistent with what police are taught about the danger of “positional asphyxia.” But all three officers are charged with showing “deliberate indifference to [Floyd’s] serious medical needs.”

Minneapolis Police Department Inspector Katie Blackwell, who resumed her testimony today, has emphasized that the defendants should have known, based on their training, that Chauvin’s use of force was excessive and that they had a duty to protect Floyd. The defense has argued that the training the officers received was inadequate to prepare them for what happened that day.

While questioning Blackwell, Thao’s attorney, Robert Paule, noted that department policy allowed officers to use their legs during a neck restraint, but “police officers received absolutely zero training on how to use a leg as a mechanism for restraint.” Blackwell agreed.

Paule and Thomas Plunkett, Kueng’s attorney, have also noted that the defendants were trained in the proper use of force but not in how to intervene when a colleague violates those rules. Blackwell conceded that officers are told they should never argue with a training officer.

Chauvin, a 19-year veteran, was Kueng’s training officer. Kueng and Lane, who prior to Chauvin’s arrival had tried unsuccessfully to force an agitated Floyd into the back seat of a squad car, were both new to the job. Kueng was working the third shift of his career. Thao had been a police officer for about 11 years.

The legal duty to intervene when another officer uses excessive force is well-established in the 8th Circuit, which includes Minnesota. In the 1981 case Putman v. Gerloff, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit held that a deputy sheriff, James Crowe, could be held liable for failing to stop his supervisor, Sheriff Elmer Gerloff, from repeatedly striking a prisoner in the head with the butt of a shotgun. The prisoner had attempted to escape but was incapacitated at the point when the sheriff delivered those blows. “Although Crowe was a subordinate,” the court said, “the evidence is sufficient to hold him jointly liable for failing to intervene if a fellow officer, albeit his superior, was using excessive force and otherwise was unlawfully punishing the prisoner.”

While conceding that Kueng and Thao were aware of this duty, their lawyers argue that their training left them ill-equipped to comply with it. Given Chauvin’s seniority, they say, it was natural for the defendants to assume he knew what he was doing, and their failure to contradict him in these circumstances does not amount to a willful deprivation of Floyd’s rights.

Whether or not that argument sways the jury, the defendants have identified a real problem that police training frequently does not address. Granted that officers are supposed to do something in a situation like this, exactly what are they supposed to do, and how can they reasonably be expected to do it given the strong social and psychological pressures in favor of obedience and conformity?

Active Bystandership for Law Enforcement (ABLE), a training program that was established in 2021 and so far involves more than 200 police departments, aims to fill that gap. ABLE, which was developed by Georgetown University’s Center for Innovations in Public Safety, grew out of a New Orleans program known as EPIC (Ethical Policing Is Courageous) that was launched in 2014 under the guidance of Ervin Straub, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. It is based on insights gained from research into why people either intervene or fail to intervene in emergency situations. The obstacles to intervention include deference to authority, diffusion of responsibility, and fear of retaliation and ostracism.

Jonathan Aronie, a partner at the law firm Sheppard Mullin, which sponsors ABLE, is chairman of the program’s board of advisers. He says ABLE, which includes a week-long certification program for officers who oversee eight hours of training for their colleagues, is based on principles that have been proven effective for hospitals and airlines seeking to prevent surgical and pilot error. The challenge in those contexts is similar to the one exemplified by Floyd’s death: overcoming the natural tendency to go along rather than risk negative consequences by challenging the judgment of colleagues and superiors.

ABLE, which demands explicit and conspicuous buy-in from police executives, local politicians, and community groups, strives to create a culture that reinforces the duty to intervene. The program, which is free to police departments thanks to support from Sheppard Mullin and several corporate donors, uses case studies and role-playing scenarios to identify and overcome the obstacles that prevented Kueng, Lane, and Thao from second-guessing Chauvin.

During a recent ABLE webinar, New Orleans activist Ted Quant, who said he had spent 50 years “protesting against police brutality,” recalled an incident, prior to the creation of EPIC, when two officers who had undergone an earlier version of intervention training were punished because they forcibly stopped an officer who was beating a teenager. The difference, he said, was that, at that point, local police leadership did not support the changes that were necessary to address “the certifiably brutal culture of the New Orleans Police Department.”

EPIC changed that culture, Quant said, and thereby equipped “the lowest-ranking officer” to “intervene with the highest-ranking officer to prevent each of them from making mistakes or doing harm.” He gave a real-life example of what that means in practice, describing an incident in which “a young rookie police officer” de-escalated an argument between her supervisor and women who were selling liquor shots on the street in an area of the French Quarter where that was not allowed.

“The senior officer was telling them that they can’t sell the drinks,” Quant said. “The senior officer was being very professional and handling it, but the rookie could see that he was about to lose his temper and go off on these women, and there was going to be some mess.”

The rookie’s response was subtle but effective. “The rookie touched his sleeve,” Quants said, “got his attention, and stepped in as if to say, ‘I got this.’ Now the senior officer gives a look like, ‘Who do you think you are, telling me what to do?’ And she pointed to her EPIC pin. When she pointed to her pin, and he sees this, he stepped back, and she took over. She de-escalated the situation and got compliance from the women, and as a result, there was no negative incident.”

While that situation began with a minor offense, so did the arrest that led to Floyd’s death. It is impossible to say what would have happened if the rookie had not stepped in, but there was clear potential for violent conflict between women who were angry about being hassled and an officer who was losing his patience.

“EPIC creates stories that are never told because nothing happened,” Quant said. “But something did happen: an incident was prevented. The rookie was really proud of what she did…She said, ‘I EPICed him.’ EPIC creates many untold stories.”

ABLE aims to replicate those untold stories across the country. “When George Floyd was murdered,” ABLE co-founder Christy Lopez told the Georgetown student newspaper last year, “one of the things that jumped out at many of us was not just Derek Chauvin’s knee on his neck for so, so very many minutes. It was all the officers standing around who didn’t really do anything at all. We’re never going to prevent harm that could be prevented unless we focus on the bystanders who are in a position to intervene and make sure they actually intervene.”

The post This Program Aims to Correct the Culture of Acquiescence That Allowed Derek Chauvin to Kill George Floyd appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/huJc7iSeU
via IFTTT

US Charged With Trying To Provoke Russian Military Action At UN: “You Want It To Happen”

US Charged With Trying To Provoke Russian Military Action At UN: “You Want It To Happen”

At a rare UN Security Council debate Monday, which was urged by the US but slammed by Russia as a publicity stunt – in order for Moscow to “explain itself” over what Washington has for weeks asserted are “imminent” plans to “invade” Ukraine – Russia’s ambassador charged the US with seeking to provoke Russian action

“They themselves are whipping up tensions and rhetoric and are provoking escalation,” Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said of US and NATO motives. “The discussions about a threat of war is provocative in and of itself. You are almost calling for this. You want it to happen. You’re waiting for it to happen.”

Russia’s ambassador to the UN, via Atlantic Council

Just prior to the meeting at UN headquarters in New York, the Kremlin once again charged the US and and some allies, especially Britain, of stoking “hysteria”: “To our dismay, American media have lately been publishing a very large amount of unverified, distorted and deliberately deceitful information about what’s happening in Ukraine and around it,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

    “Hysteria hyped up by Washington is causing hysteria in Ukraine, almost to the point that people are packing their bags for the front. It’s a fact,” he added. Last week Ukrainian leaders surprisingly made similar statements, seeking to calm their own population amid reports of people raiding grocery stores and taking out all their cash from banks. There have also been reports that average Ukrainians are stockpiling weapons in preparation for a Russian onslaught and occupation.

    During the UN back-and-forth, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield accused Russia of not just building up forces near the Ukrainian border, but of a massive force build-up in Belarus. She said Russia aims to send at least 30,000 troops to its closest former Soviet satellite state ally:

    After placing some 5,000 troops in Belarus, “we’ve seen evidence that Russia intends to expand that presence to more than 30,000 troops near the Belarus border” with Ukraine by early February, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the UN Security Council, noting the forces would be “less than two hours north of Kyiv.”

    Her words had echoes of recent admin officials who bizarrely claimed (without evidence) that Russia is looking to invade and take over the Ukraine capital. During the remarks, Thomas-Greenfield decried what she described as “the largest… mobilization of troops in Europe in decades.”

    “You heard from our Russian colleagues that we’re calling for this meeting to make you all feel uncomfortable. Imagine how uncomfortable you would be if you had 100,000 troops sitting on your border in the way that these troops are sitting on the border with Ukraine,” she said. “This is not about antics. It’s not about rhetoric. It’s not about ‘U.S. and Russia.’ What this is about is the peace and security of one of our member states.”

    Addressing the specific Russian charge that it’s actually the US seeking to provoke, she responded, “I cannot let the false equivalency go unchecked, so I feel I must respond. … The threats of aggression on the border of Ukraine – yes on its border – is provocative. Our recognition of the facts on the ground is not provocative.”

    Notably backing Russia was its powerful neighbor to the south, China:

    In a sign of their increasing alignment, China was the only country to back Russia’s effort to squash the public meeting. Its ambassador Zhang Jun said they oppose “microphone diplomacy of public confrontation” and believed the open discussion of the issue would add “fuel to the tension.”

    Monday’s UNSC meeting didn’t result in any specific action or even a joint statement, but appeared geared toward making each side’s allegations official before the global body.

    Separately on Monday, President Biden addressed the ongoing crisis, saying, “We continue to urge diplomacy as the best way forward, but with Russia continuing its buildup of its forces around Ukraine, we are ready no matter what happens.”

     “I had a productive talk last week with President Zelenskyy, and we continue engage in non-stop diplomacy,” he added, but stressed the US would remain “ready” to act.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 01/31/2022 – 16:40

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/EyarAKqcl Tyler Durden

    The Media’s Censorious Freakout Over Joe Rogan


    Pod-Thumb-131

    This Monday The Reason Roundtable‘s Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie gather together to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court appointment, Neil Young leaving Spotify, and why they all live in libertarian-unfriendly cities.

    Discussed in the show:

    2:06: Supreme Court and identity politics.

    17:47: Neil Young’s ultimatum with Spotify.

    41:45: Weekly listener question: I’m a pretty radical libertarian; living in NY/DC/California is my personal nightmare. Why do you guys live there? Are there important journalism reasons? How do you feel about the idea of “voting with your feet?” Extra bonus points if Suderman can answer without using the phrase “cocktail bar.”

    52:43: Media recommendations for the week. (And click here for all of the Roundtable‘s media recommendations, ever.)

    This week’s links:

    Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

    Audio production by Ian Keyser
    Assistant production by Regan Taylor
    Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve

    The post The Media's Censorious Freakout Over Joe Rogan appeared first on Reason.com.

    from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/iloF43n2s
    via IFTTT

    The Media’s Censorious Freakout Over Joe Rogan


    Pod-Thumb-131

    This Monday The Reason Roundtable‘s Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie gather together to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court appointment, Neil Young leaving Spotify, and why they all live in libertarian-unfriendly cities.

    Discussed in the show:

    2:06: Supreme Court and identity politics.

    17:47: Neil Young’s ultimatum with Spotify.

    41:45: Weekly listener question: I’m a pretty radical libertarian; living in NY/DC/California is my personal nightmare. Why do you guys live there? Are there important journalism reasons? How do you feel about the idea of “voting with your feet?” Extra bonus points if Suderman can answer without using the phrase “cocktail bar.”

    52:43: Media recommendations for the week. (And click here for all of the Roundtable‘s media recommendations, ever.)

    This week’s links:

    Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

    Audio production by Ian Keyser
    Assistant production by Regan Taylor
    Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve

    The post The Media's Censorious Freakout Over Joe Rogan appeared first on Reason.com.

    from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/iloF43n2s
    via IFTTT

    Nancy Pelosi’s Son Becomes Subject Of Sixth FBI Investigation

    Nancy Pelosi’s Son Becomes Subject Of Sixth FBI Investigation

    Submitted by ‘Blueapples’.

    Although she’s most recently announced her intent to run for re-election of the congressional seat that she holds as Speak of the House, perhaps Nancy Pelosi has a 2024 presidential run on her mind. While there’s no indication of that directly from her camp, there may be reason to presume she is given that her son Paul is doing his best Hunter Biden impersonation. Already amidst controversy, Paul Pelosi Jr. became the subject of a sixth FBI investigation following news that he was previously involved in five different companies suspect of fraud and associated with convicted criminals.

    The sixth of these investigations places the speaker’s son at the core of a fraud investigation against Rodrigo Santos, the former President of the San Francisco Building Inspection Commission who now holds the role of a city permit expediter. Santos and another commission official named Bernard Curran were indicted in November in a case that has been rumored to include Paul Pelosi. Details emerging from the FBI fraud probe of Santos and Curran include details regarding a client of theirs involved in the alleged bribery scheme who many suspect to be Paul Pelosi Jr himself.

    Details about Santos’ scheme have emerged from the United States Department of Justice in a press release that gives context to the investigation that Pelosi became ensnared by. This indictment follows an earlier criminal complaint filed against Santos on May 11, 2020. Then, the San Francisco public official was alleged to have committed bank fraud as the principal and co-founder of Urrutia Structual Engineers, Inc. Santos was initially appointed to the San Francisco Building Inspection Committee in 2000 by then-mayor Willie Brown before being promoted to the office of its president by Brown’s successor, current California Governor and Pelosi family member Gavin Newsome.

    The scope of the 2020 indictment against Santos was broadened in July 2021 before the subsequent November case brough against he and Curran to include ten additional charges of bank fraud during a period between November 2012 and March 2019. Additional charges in the latest indictment against him include two counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of falsifying records in a federal investigation with the intent to obstruct justice. The DoJ announcement conveys that Santos’ is the subject of an on-going investigation while his current case is being prosecuted by the Special Prosecution Section of the US Attorney’s Office.

    While Pelosi has not been mentioned by name as a conspirator in the previous indictments made by the federal government, FBI records of the five-year investigation they conducted on Santos disclose that Pelosi was interviewed as the federal government built its case. At the core of the bribery scheme uncovered by the FBI is a property owned by Pelosi Jr.’s girlfriend and a non-profit organization alleged to have been a vehicle that used “donations” as ad hoc bribes to Santos in exchange for city building permits.

    The property in question is infamously referred to as “The Pit” by residents of San Francisco. For years, the flop house has been allowed to operate despite numerous violations. The FBI investigation alleges that a those violations were removed as part of the bribery scheme that has brought charges against Santos. Prosecutors claim that Santos used a local rugby club and hockey association for their non-profit status in order to receive payments through them which led to the removal of building violations. Pelosi’s connections to The Pit go back years to a period that federal prosecutors claim was rife with fraud. In the past, building inspectors in the city have also revealed that Pelosi himself asked them to “take care” of violations at the nefarious Utah St. property. Those revelations present a potential connection between Pelosi and “Client 9” in mentioned in federal charges against Santos.

    Client 9 was referred to as “an individual working on behalf of the owners of the property” which is located at 1312 Utah Street. Leaked documents from my own sources show that Pelosi filed the necessary paperwork to submit building permit applications on behalf of the owners of an adjacent property at 1314 Utah Street back in 2017 during the same period in which Santos is alleged to have committed the fraud that charges made against him by the Department of Justice are based upon.

    San Francisco building permit records for the 1314 Utah Street address that Pelosi is associated with also include pending and completed permits for the adjacent 1312 Utah Street location that is at the core of the controversy enveloping Santos. Pelosi himself admitted that he was engaged in an effort to help remove citations made by the Building Inspection Committee against the 1312 Utah Street property. In the years that Pelosi has been associated with The Pit, the property has received 248 reports against it via local 311 public assistance resources offered by the city.

    Pelosi responded to local media investigations into his affiliation with the owners of The Pit by saying he had frequented the location a decade earlier when it was leased to Feng’s Holistic Healing Center so that he could receive frequent foot massages. The massage parlor of sorts was owned by Edward Feng, who was caught selling pills containing hallucinogenics from poisonous toads and arsenic in an undercover sting by federal agents back in 2011. Pelosi himself downplayed Feng’s trouble following the sting, conveying that the business wasn’t focused on selling suspect herbal supplements and that its real focus was on the foot massages he apparently become so fond of.

    The latest revelations concerning public corruption allegations involving Paul Pelosi Jr. are nothing new for the family. Nancy Pelosi and her husband Paul Sr. have drawn the ire of political detractors for their record of suspicious investments. On at least two separate occasions, Paul Sr. and Nancy Pelosi have purchased securities ahead of the announcement of government contracts given to Amazon and Microsoft spawning suspicion of insider trading based on his wife’s political standing.

    Based on Paul Jr.’s conduct, it appears that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. As Rodrigo Santos’ federal prosecution continues to develop, it’s only a matter of time before the scope of Paul the younger’s involvement in the sordid political affairs of a criminal underbelly that has come to be associated with his family come to light.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 01/31/2022 – 16:20

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/jFhvlbVud Tyler Durden

    This Libertarian Won His Local Election, but the Politicians He’d Audit Refuse To Seat Him.


    Thumbnail

    Kevin Gaughen is a real estate broker and the executive director of the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party. He has lived in Silver Spring Township, near the state capital of Harrisburg, for 10 years and has concerns about how his town’s finances have been managed.

    In 2021, Gaughen decided to run for township auditor as a write-in candidate. On Election Day, he mobilized friends to hand out cards to potential voters that read, “Write In Kevin Gaughen for Auditor.” Improbably, he won. Now, however, Silver Spring Township’s manager won’t let him do his job.

    On January 3, Gaughen showed up to the year’s first meeting of the board of supervisors, a five-person board that “govern[s] and supervise[s]” the township. To his surprise, his swearing-in was not on the agenda. According to Gaughen’s account, when he raised the issue during the public comment section, the board insisted that it had been an oversight and that he would be sworn in at the next meeting. But days later, the township manager, Raymond Palmer, sent an email stating that, in fact, the township had retained an accounting firm, Maher Duessel, to serve as auditors and that “the elected auditor has duties lifted when a Township appoints an auditing firm.” (Palmer did not respond to an email or text messages requesting comment).

    It is within a township’s authority to appoint an accounting firm to serve the audit function. Silver Spring Township appears to have retained Maher Duessel since at least 2010. (A representative for Maher Duessel did not respond to emails or a voicemail requesting comment.)

    Simply hiring an accountant for the audits is not, in itself, suspicious, says Jennifer Moore, chair of the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party, who also serves as an auditor in the township where she lives. Her local board contracts with an accountant, which she feels is necessary for larger townships with bigger budgets. But, as she tells Reason, “we do still definitely have a role: We’re elected by the people to make sure that everything’s on the up-and-up.” In Moore’s case, the firm compiles the audit, and then the board of elected auditors pores through the report for anything that may require further scrutiny.

    A Pennsylvania township auditor is not a particularly prestigious or powerful position. Salaries are capped at $2,000 annually—half that for smaller municipalities. Auditors scrutinize their township’s finances and deliver an annual report to the state capital. They also set the salaries for the board of supervisors. Each township has three auditors, who serve staggered six-year terms.

    In addition to setting supervisor salaries and financial auditing and reporting, township auditors may investigate “official records of the district justices,” similar to small claims courts, “to determine the amount of fines and costs paid over or due the township.” If a township is writing too many tickets or assessing an inordinate amount of fines, the board of auditors would have the authority to investigate. The board of auditors also has the power to issue subpoenas to investigate members of the board of supervisors and to assess fines to any supervisor who misuses taxpayer funds. An accounting firm would be unable to serve these functions.

    “I see them putting projects out, and I don’t believe they’re doing fair bidding on them,” Gaughen told Reason. “I see them handing deals out” without putting it through a “fair bidding process… There’s a lot of items of concern that I see in this township, and I thought, ‘I want to get involved, I want to open the books, I want to start attending these township meetings, and I want to know exactly what’s going on here.'”

    It is not clear whether the board of supervisors is even allowed to rely solely on an accounting firm for audits. “They just simply can’t do that, under election law,” says Moore, who also has an MBA. “It’s a violation of the election code. The election code says that they may hire a CPA, but they still have to have a board of auditors.” Indeed, state law stipulates that if an accountant or firm is appointed, “the board of auditors shall not audit, settle or adjust the accounts audited by the appointee but shall perform the other duties of the office.” (A representative from the Governor’s Center for Local Government Services, which oversees the township audit reports, did not respond to voicemails requesting comment.)

    In trying to determine what his next steps were, Gaughen sought out the previous office winner. Chris Trafton ran as a Republican in 2019, though he self-identifies as an independent. In an interview with Reason, Trafton described an experience very similar to Gaughen’s: Tired of seeing “shenanigans” in local governance, Trafton gravitated toward the township auditor role and mounted a successful write-in campaign based on word-of-mouth. When he showed up to be certified in his new role, town officials seemed surprised to see him. He was informed that “we’ve been intending to close down those [positions] in the election” anyway, since with a third-party auditing company, “there’s no point in having auditors at all.”

    Trafton also shared with Reason a copy of an email from the township manager at the time, Theresa Eberly. Eberly’s email used nearly identical language as Palmer’s email to Gaughen, stating that “the elected auditor has duties lifted when a township appoints an auditing firm.” (Eberly, who has since moved to a position in a different town, did not respond to emailed questions).

    Currently, on the Cumberland County website, Silver Spring Township lists three auditors. Two, Gaughen and Trafton, have yet to be seated; the third, Kathleen Albright, has apparently moved out of the township and has not been replaced. (Albright responded to a text message, but has so far declined to participate in an interview for this article.)

    It is entirely possible that the Silver Springs Township board of supervisors is operating in good faith, but by refusing to seat an auditor and instead relying solely on its own hand-picked replacement, the board is not only violating state law, but also defying the most basic principles of good governance. In Gaughen’s words, the auditor is “a watchdog for the citizens,” put in place to “make sure that economic malfeasance isn’t going on. And I don’t think that someone hired, who has a financial interest from the township, should be auditing the people that hired them.”

    The post This Libertarian Won His Local Election, but the Politicians He'd Audit Refuse To Seat Him. appeared first on Reason.com.

    from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/cCiGdWkX1
    via IFTTT

    Extra Remedies for Libel if the Libeler Chose Target Based on Race, Religion, Sex, Etc.?

    That’s the theory of Halftown v. Bowman, filed last week in New York trial court. The plaintiffs are public officials in the Cayuga Nation Indian tribe: the apparently controversial Clint Halftown is the Nation’s federal representative, and a member of the tribal government, and Mark Lincoln is the tribe’s Superintendent of Police (though apparently not a tribe member). They are accusing Charles Bowman of libeling them through various accusations of brutality and other misconduct, and that seems like a pretty normal public official libel claim (which of course could prevail if plaintiffs prove the statements are knowingly or recklessly false and defamatory).

    But Halftown is also suing Bowman for violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79-n, which provides for civil remedies against

    [a]ny person who intentionally selects a person or property for harm or causes damage to the property of another or causes physical injury or death to another or summons a police officer or peace officer without reason to suspect a violation of the penal law, any other criminal conduct, or an imminent threat to a person or property,

    in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age [60 or above], disability or sexual orientation of a person ….

    Their theory is that libel is “harm” (a not implausible reading of the statute); and if they’re right, then the statute would authorize some extra remedies beyond what would typically be available in libel cases:

    1. The statute allows the court to award “reasonable attorneys’ fees” to prevailing plaintiffs, something they wouldn’t normally get in libel cases.
    2. The statute allows for injunctions “enjoining and restraining any further violation, without requiring proof that any person has, in fact, been injured or damaged thereby.” Some New York courts do in any event allow injunctions against libel, but others are skeptical about them; the presence of the statute might push a court towards granting an injunction.
    3. The statute allows the Attorney General to sue to enjoin violations, though to my knowledge no such action has been filed here.

    It will be interesting to see whether the court would allow the special § 79-n claim to go forward. If so, I expect it will be raised in many cases, whenever the plaintiff might claim that he was specially targeted because he was a man (I expect that would happen in many #TheyLied claims over sexual misconduct allegations), or because he was (say) a Scientology leader or an evangelical Christian pastor, or because people have it in for him based on his being black or white or Jewish or Palestinian or whatever else.

    Thanks to the Media Law Resource Center MediaLawDaily for the pointer.

    The post Extra Remedies for Libel if the Libeler Chose Target Based on Race, Religion, Sex, Etc.? appeared first on Reason.com.

    from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/5GxWov6Rf
    via IFTTT

    This Libertarian Won His Local Election, but the Politicians He’d Audit Refuse To Seat Him.


    Thumbnail

    Kevin Gaughen is a real estate broker and the executive director of the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party. He has lived in Silver Spring Township, near the state capital of Harrisburg, for 10 years and has concerns about how his town’s finances have been managed.

    In 2021, Gaughen decided to run for township auditor as a write-in candidate. On Election Day, he mobilized friends to hand out cards to potential voters that read, “Write In Kevin Gaughen for Auditor.” Improbably, he won. Now, however, Silver Spring Township’s manager won’t let him do his job.

    On January 3, Gaughen showed up to the year’s first meeting of the board of supervisors, a five-person board that “govern[s] and supervise[s]” the township. To his surprise, his swearing-in was not on the agenda. According to Gaughen’s account, when he raised the issue during the public comment section, the board insisted that it had been an oversight and that he would be sworn in at the next meeting. But days later, the township manager, Raymond Palmer, sent an email stating that, in fact, the township had retained an accounting firm, Maher Duessel, to serve as auditors and that “the elected auditor has duties lifted when a Township appoints an auditing firm.” (Palmer did not respond to an email or text messages requesting comment).

    It is within a township’s authority to appoint an accounting firm to serve the audit function. Silver Spring Township appears to have retained Maher Duessel since at least 2010. (A representative for Maher Duessel did not respond to emails or a voicemail requesting comment.)

    Simply hiring an accountant for the audits is not, in itself, suspicious, says Jennifer Moore, chair of the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party, who also serves as an auditor in the township where she lives. Her local board contracts with an accountant, which she feels is necessary for larger townships with bigger budgets. But, as she tells Reason, “we do still definitely have a role: We’re elected by the people to make sure that everything’s on the up-and-up.” In Moore’s case, the firm compiles the audit, and then the board of elected auditors pores through the report for anything that may require further scrutiny.

    A Pennsylvania township auditor is not a particularly prestigious or powerful position. Salaries are capped at $2,000 annually—half that for smaller municipalities. Auditors scrutinize their township’s finances and deliver an annual report to the state capital. They also set the salaries for the board of supervisors. Each township has three auditors, who serve staggered six-year terms.

    In addition to setting supervisor salaries and financial auditing and reporting, township auditors may investigate “official records of the district justices,” similar to small claims courts, “to determine the amount of fines and costs paid over or due the township.” If a township is writing too many tickets or assessing an inordinate amount of fines, the board of auditors would have the authority to investigate. The board of auditors also has the power to issue subpoenas to investigate members of the board of supervisors and to assess fines to any supervisor who misuses taxpayer funds. An accounting firm would be unable to serve these functions.

    “I see them putting projects out, and I don’t believe they’re doing fair bidding on them,” Gaughen told Reason. “I see them handing deals out” without putting it through a “fair bidding process… There’s a lot of items of concern that I see in this township, and I thought, ‘I want to get involved, I want to open the books, I want to start attending these township meetings, and I want to know exactly what’s going on here.'”

    It is not clear whether the board of supervisors is even allowed to rely solely on an accounting firm for audits. “They just simply can’t do that, under election law,” says Moore, who also has an MBA. “It’s a violation of the election code. The election code says that they may hire a CPA, but they still have to have a board of auditors.” Indeed, state law stipulates that if an accountant or firm is appointed, “the board of auditors shall not audit, settle or adjust the accounts audited by the appointee but shall perform the other duties of the office.” (A representative from the Governor’s Center for Local Government Services, which oversees the township audit reports, did not respond to voicemails requesting comment.)

    In trying to determine what his next steps were, Gaughen sought out the previous office winner. Chris Trafton ran as a Republican in 2019, though he self-identifies as an independent. In an interview with Reason, Trafton described an experience very similar to Gaughen’s: Tired of seeing “shenanigans” in local governance, Trafton gravitated toward the township auditor role and mounted a successful write-in campaign based on word-of-mouth. When he showed up to be certified in his new role, town officials seemed surprised to see him. He was informed that “we’ve been intending to close down those [positions] in the election” anyway, since with a third-party auditing company, “there’s no point in having auditors at all.”

    Trafton also shared with Reason a copy of an email from the township manager at the time, Theresa Eberly. Eberly’s email used nearly identical language as Palmer’s email to Gaughen, stating that “the elected auditor has duties lifted when a township appoints an auditing firm.” (Eberly, who has since moved to a position in a different town, did not respond to emailed questions).

    Currently, on the Cumberland County website, Silver Spring Township lists three auditors. Two, Gaughen and Trafton, have yet to be seated; the third, Kathleen Albright, has apparently moved out of the township and has not been replaced. (Albright responded to a text message, but has so far declined to participate in an interview for this article.)

    It is entirely possible that the Silver Springs Township board of supervisors is operating in good faith, but by refusing to seat an auditor and instead relying solely on its own hand-picked replacement, the board is not only violating state law, but also defying the most basic principles of good governance. In Gaughen’s words, the auditor is “a watchdog for the citizens,” put in place to “make sure that economic malfeasance isn’t going on. And I don’t think that someone hired, who has a financial interest from the township, should be auditing the people that hired them.”

    The post This Libertarian Won His Local Election, but the Politicians He'd Audit Refuse To Seat Him. appeared first on Reason.com.

    from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/cCiGdWkX1
    via IFTTT

    Panic-Bid Rescues Nasdaq (Barely) From Worst January Ever As Rate-Hike Odds Soar

    Panic-Bid Rescues Nasdaq (Barely) From Worst January Ever As Rate-Hike Odds Soar

    Tl;dr… January was this…

    ‘Bubble’ Markets continued to blow up in January (with the now ubiquitous month-end rebalance bounce of hope)…

    Source: Bloomberg

    This came as US financial conditions tightened significantly (ex-March 2020, this is as big a tightening as in Q4 2018 just before Powell folded). Bear in mind just how much ‘easier’ financial conditions are still than the ‘easiest’ they have been for the last decade…

    Source: Bloomberg

    But, most notably, Global financial conditions are now tighter than they were pre-COVID-Lockdowns…

    Source: Bloomberg

    January saw a ‘balanced’ bond-stock portfolio suffer the worst monthly performance since March 2020, and before that Feb 2009…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Thanks to today’s rebalance/meltup (especially into the close), Nasdaq narrowly avoided its worst January ever, instead suffering its worst January since 2008, S&P and Russell 2000 had their worst January since 2009. Small Caps were the laggard in January, down around 10%, Nasdaq next down around 9%, Trannies closed the month down just over 7%, S&P down 5% and The Dow down over 3%…

    Nasdaq Comp’s worst Jan ever was in 2008 (-9.89%), which implied a close today of 14089… look how hard the machines worked to keep Nasdaq above that level…

    Interestingly, The Dow has now had 3 straight years of a negative return in January.

    For context, including the rally of the last couple of days into month-end, Small Caps close January down 17.5% from ATHs, Nasdaq down 12.5%, S&P down over 6% and The Dow down over 5%…All of these are the biggest drawdowns since the COVID crash in 2020…

    Source: Bloomberg

    The Energy sector was the only to close the month in the green with Consumer Discretionary and Tech the laggards…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Value stocks dramatically outperformed Growth stocks as rates rose and long-duration stocks got hammered

    Source: Bloomberg

    This was Growth stocks 2nd worst month since Sept 2008 and Value stocks biggest monthly gain since March 2001.

    Fed’s Bostic walked back his weekend attention-getter by claiming that he doesn’t really see 3 rate hikes in March and odds slipped back to unchanged from Friday…

    Source: Bloomberg

    January overall has seen a dramatically hawkish surge in rate-hike expectations, and, so far, Fed Speakers have done little to push back against that…

    Source: Bloomberg

    And this has happened as US macro data has serially disappointed in January (with both ‘hard’ real data and ‘soft’ survey data tumbling on the month)…

    Source: Bloomberg

    This was the worst month for US Treasuries since Nov 2016 (post-Trump-election growth/inflation expectations) with the short-end exploding over 40bps higher in yield and the long-end up around 20bps…

    Source: Bloomberg

    2Y Yields are at their highest since Feb 2020, 5Y and 10Y at their highest since Jan 2020, and 30Y at its highest since June 2021…

    Source: Bloomberg

    The yield curve is flatter for the 4th straight month to its flattest since March 2020…

    Source: Bloomberg

    And the forward curve is implying a recession within a year… (2s30s 1Y Fwd inverted)…

    Source: Bloomberg

    The dollar rallied to 18 month highs in January (but faded back fast today after tagging December high stops)…

    Source: Bloomberg

    A very ugly month for cryptos with Ethereum down 27% and Bitcoin down 17%…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Commodities were broadly lower in January, except for crude which surged on geopolitical concerns…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Oil prices soared in January with WTI’s best month since Nov 2020, closing at its highest since Sept 2014

    NatGas soared in January, above October highs, but it was a wild ride…

    Gold closed down on the month (worst month since Sept 2021), hovering around $1800…

    Finally, we note that January saw a very notable regime shift in options markets with call volumes dropping significantly (leveraged dip-buyers absent) and out volumes soaring (leveraged sellers or hedgers?)…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Did retail raiders get routed in January and leave the battlefield?

    Given where real yields and HY bonds are trading, bonds have a lot further to go yet…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Get back to work Mr.Powell.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 01/31/2022 – 16:00

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/0SJC1P4hF Tyler Durden

    Extra Remedies for Libel if the Libeler Chose Target Based on Race, Religion, Sex, Etc.?

    That’s the theory of Halftown v. Bowman, filed last week in New York trial court. The plaintiffs are public officials in the Cayuga Nation Indian tribe: the apparently controversial Clint Halftown is the Nation’s federal representative, and a member of the tribal government, and Mark Lincoln is the tribe’s Superintendent of Police (though apparently not a tribe member). They are accusing Charles Bowman of libeling them through various accusations of brutality and other misconduct, and that seems like a pretty normal public official libel claim (which of course could prevail if plaintiffs prove the statements are knowingly or recklessly false and defamatory).

    But Halftown is also suing Bowman for violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 79-n, which provides for civil remedies against

    [a]ny person who intentionally selects a person or property for harm or causes damage to the property of another or causes physical injury or death to another or summons a police officer or peace officer without reason to suspect a violation of the penal law, any other criminal conduct, or an imminent threat to a person or property,

    in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age [60 or above], disability or sexual orientation of a person ….

    Their theory is that libel is “harm” (a not implausible reading of the statute); and if they’re right, then the statute would authorize some extra remedies beyond what would typically be available in libel cases:

    1. The statute allows the court to award “reasonable attorneys’ fees” to prevailing plaintiffs, something they wouldn’t normally get in libel cases.
    2. The statute allows for injunctions “enjoining and restraining any further violation, without requiring proof that any person has, in fact, been injured or damaged thereby.” Some New York courts do in any event allow injunctions against libel, but others are skeptical about them; the presence of the statute might push a court towards granting an injunction.
    3. The statute allows the Attorney General to sue to enjoin violations, though to my knowledge no such action has been filed here.

    It will be interesting to see whether the court would allow the special § 79-n claim to go forward. If so, I expect it will be raised in many cases, whenever the plaintiff might claim that he was specially targeted because he was a man (I expect that would happen in many #TheyLied claims over sexual misconduct allegations), or because he was (say) a Scientology leader or an evangelical Christian pastor, or because people have it in for him based on his being black or white or Jewish or Palestinian or whatever else.

    Thanks to the Media Law Resource Center MediaLawDaily for the pointer.

    The post Extra Remedies for Libel if the Libeler Chose Target Based on Race, Religion, Sex, Etc.? appeared first on Reason.com.

    from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/5GxWov6Rf
    via IFTTT