Month: January 2022

#TheyLied and the Fair Report Privilege

From Magistrate Judge Eric Long’s opinion in Sun v. Xu (C.D. Ill.), decided in May 2020 but just posed on Westlaw:

The three Plaintiffs are two former students and one professor at the University of Illinois. The three Plaintiffs are suing former University of Illinois Professor Gary Xu …. The first Plaintiff, Xingjian Sun …, a female student at the University, claims Xu raped her, forced her to get an abortion, beat her, and attempted to hit her with a car during their two-year relationship. The second Plaintiff, Xing Zhao …, a female student at the University of Illinois, claims Xu sexually harassed her and took credit for her work. The third Plaintiff, Ao Wang …, is a professor at the University of Illinois. Professor Wang claims Xu tried to ruin his career in retaliation for an online article Professor Wang wrote about Xu abusing female students….

Plaintiffs made public comments about their allegations against Xu. The first Plaintiff, Sun, was interviewed by CBS Morning News, and a video of the interview was aired on CBS’s television channel. Additionally, CBS published an article of Sun’s interview on CBS News’ website. In this interview, Sun stated Xu raped her, beat her, and tried to kill her by running her over with his car.

The second plaintiff, Zhao, is not quoted in the Sixth Tone report that details the allegations against Xu. {Sixth Tone is an online magazine that is owned by the Chinese Government. However, Sixth Tone’s target audience is readers in the western hemisphere.} In the Sixth Tone article, two females make anonymous allegations against Xu, alleging sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Xu alleges that Zhao was one of the anonymous sources for the Sixth Tone article. According to Xu, Zhao told Sixth Tone: (1) Xu harassed her; (2) Xu forced her into horrifying sexual behavior; (3) Xu threatened her; and (4) Xu attempted to kiss her but his attempt failed.

The third Plaintiff, Professor Wang, published a post on an online platform stating Xu sexually harassed students for 20 years. Additionally, Xu’s Answer states Professor Wang accused him of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and beating women via internet posts from March 11, 2018, until March 19, 2018. Moreover, Xu’s Answer alleges that Professor Wang posted written statements on a website called Weibo that stated Xu sexually assaulted and harassed women. Lastly, Xu alleged that Professor Wang stated in an online post that he was trained in Thai boxing and could “beat up” Xu….

Xu denies Plaintiffs’ allegations in his Answer, and Xu asserts four counterclaims against the three Plaintiffs [for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation]….

Sun argues Xu’s defamation counterclaim should be dismissed because her interview with CBS News is protected under the Fair Report Privilege [which covers, among other things, fair reports of judicial proceedings -EV]…. [But] the Illinois Supreme Court [has] endorsed Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611 [“Report of Official Proceeding or Public Meeting”] Comment c[, which states] …: “… A person cannot confer this privilege upon himself by making the original defamatory publication himself and then reporting to other people what he had stated.” Importantly, the word “publication” in this context is defined as: “Any act by which defamatory matter is communicated to someone other than the person defamed[.]”

Here, Sun made statements to a CBS News reporter asserting sexual assault allegations against Xu. After Sun gave the interview to CBS, CBS News made an oral and written report for the public. For this reason, under Comment (c), the reporter and CBS News are eligible to use the Fair Report Privilege [presumably because they are reporting on Sun’s complaint filed in court six days before -EV], but Sun’s statements are not privileged because Sun made the original allegedly defamatory statement, and Sun cannot confer the privilege upon herself….

Note that not all states follow the § 611 comment c rule; some California courts, for instance, conclude (applying California’s statutory fair report privilege) that a plaintiff indeed has an absolute privilege to publicly report the allegations in the complaint that she filed in court, just as third parties have an absolute privilege to report on those allegations.

The court also held that the alleged defamation could form the basis for the intentional infliction of emotional distress counterclaims as well as the defamation counterclaims:

Here, Xu has pled sufficient facts to establish the “extreme and outrageous” element for his three IIED counterclaims. Specifically, Xu alleged that Plaintiffs made false statements about him committing sexual assaults on students. At this stage of the litigation, the Court must accept these alleged facts as true. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss these claims because Xu sufficiently alleged conduct “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of human decency.” … The Court holds that a reasonable person would know there is a high probability that false allegations of sexual assault would cause the accused individual severe emotional distress. For this reason, Plaintiffs’ argument is denied…. [And] Xu sufficiently plead that he suffered severe emotional distress from Plaintiffs’ conduct.

 

The post #TheyLied and the Fair Report Privilege appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3eRxDAN
via IFTTT

Nebraska Town Sues Resident to Stop Sending Officials Letters, Ends Up Paying Him $16,000

From Lori Pilger (Lincoln Journal-Star) Saturday:

An Ord man has agreed to a $16,000 settlement with the central Nebraska town that filed a lawsuit against him last year in an attempt to get him to stop writing letters and emails to city officials and the police department that they called “burdensome.”

And from Judge John Gerrard in Brock v. City of Ord (D. Neb. Sept. 17, 2021), in the opinion denying the city’s motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim (and denying qualified immunity):

[J]ust because this case will be permitted to proceed doesn’t mean it ought to. All of the people involved with this lawsuit should regret being here. To begin with, nearly every public official draws the attention of critics and cranks who have opinions they insist on sharing. This Court has no shortage of its own pen pals. But rather than accept that as one of the privileges of public service, the defendants decided to pursue a lawsuit that asked a state court to impose a prior restraint on the plaintiff’s speech. The plaintiff, for his part, prevailed in that case, and for his part could have been content with having his First Amendment rights vindicated by that victory—but instead, he’s filed another lawsuit in response, despite facing no current peril.

This Court’s docket is full of cases genuinely implicating lives, livelihoods, and liberty—but instead of addressing those claims, the Court finds its attention diverted by having to referee this squabble. It is tempting to turn this car around and go straight home. But of course, as long as the parties intend to keep it up, the Court is duty-bound to preside, so instead, the Court proceeds to the merits….

Brock’s complaint alleges the following[:] …

  • [Plaintiff Guy] Brock regularly wrote letters to elected officials of the City [of Ord], including [Mayor Dan] Petska, related to activities of city government.
  • Petska, [City Attorney Heather] Sikyta, and other City representatives met in the winter of 2019–2020 to discuss Brock’s letter-writing, and ways to prevent Brock from further petitioning his representatives.
  • At this meeting, Petska and Sikyta decided to take legal action against Brock in response to his practice of letter- writing.
  • On March 4, 2020, the City sued Brock in the District Court for Valley County, Nebraska requesting a permanent injunction enjoining Brock from sending “any kind” of communication to the City or the Ord Police Department “unless directly related to a city service or other city function related specifically to Defendant and his property.”
  • In its lawsuit, the City also requested damages in an undisclosed sum, attorney fees, and the costs of the lawsuit.
  • Brock retained counsel to defend the lawsuit, and the District Court of Valley County ultimately dismissed the action on June 12, 2020 for failure to state a claim.

Brock alleges that the above actions by the defendants violated his First Amendment rights ….

“[T]o establish a First Amendment retaliation claim in a particular case, a plaintiff must show (1) that he engaged in a protected activity, (2) that the defendant’s actions caused an injury to the plaintiffs that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the activity, and (3) that a causal connection exists between the retaliatory animus and the injury.”

Brock has pleaded sufficient facts to show that he engaged in a protected activity. Petitioning the government for redress is “among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.” Writing letters to elected representatives about government activities is “unquestionably” a protected activity.

Brock has also pleaded facts sufficient to reasonably infer the defendants’ conduct caused him an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to petition city officials…. Here, Brock has alleged that in response to his letter-writing, the defendants brought legal action against him. In the resulting lawsuit, the City sought to permanently limit Brock’s speech and also requested monetary damages, attorney fees, and costs.  Brock further alleges that he was “forced to retain counsel at his own expense in order to defend his rights to speak freely and petition his government.” … It can … be plausibly inferred that a person of ordinary firmness would be chilled from further petitioning city officials once facing civil liability and the threat of monetary damages. (Nor would it be unreasonable to conclude that a lawsuit expressly meant to prevent Brock from petitioning was, in fact, meant to deter him from petitioning.) …

Brock has alleged sufficient facts to establish a violation of a constitutional right—specifically, a violation of his right to be free from retaliatory action by the government for petitioning his elected officials…. [And a]t the time the lawsuit was filed, it was clearly established beyond debate that citizens have a right to be free from intentional, retaliatory conduct by the government in response to protected petitioning. Additionally, this Circuit had held only two classes of petitioning speech to be unprotected: (1) “sham” speech directed only toward harming others and not toward influencing government action; and (2) certain genuine attempts to influence governmental policy that are violent, illegal, or defamatory.

Further, the precedent of this Circuit clearly established that citizens have a right to be free from government officials engaging the machinery of the government to lodge baseless proceedings against them for exercising their right to petition…. Taking Brock’s allegations as true—that he was writing letters to his elected officials about city activities, and that Petska and Sikyta decided to assert the lawsuit because of that speech—every reasonable official would have known that Brock’s speech was protected from intrusion by the First Amendment.

In light of [Circuit precedent], reasonable city officials would have also known that their lawsuit was without merit if, as Brock alleges, he was only engaging in protected petitioning activities not subject to restraint by the government. Finally, although Williams and Harrison dealt with slightly different government conduct, they clearly established that frivolous legal and regulatory actions taken by local government against citizens in retaliation for petitioning violate the First Amendment…. Putting it all together, every reasonable official would have understood that baseless, retaliatory legal proceedings against a citizen for petitioning the government violate the First Amendment…..

The post Nebraska Town Sues Resident to Stop Sending Officials Letters, Ends Up Paying Him $16,000 appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3sSFTc5
via IFTTT

Futures, Global Markets Start 2022 With A Bang

Futures, Global Markets Start 2022 With A Bang

If 2021 ended with a whimper, then 2022 is starting off with a bang, as futures on all major U.S. equity indexes rise on the first trading day of the year amid light volumes with markets including the U.K., Japan China, Australia and New Zealand closed for holidays. Europe’s Stoxx 600 rose 0.6%. In Hong Kong, property shares dropped and China Evergrande Group halted trading without an explanation. The dollar rose, as did bond yields and bitcoin, while oil erased earlier gains.  At 745am, emini S&P futures traded 29 points, or 0.61% higher, and rising as high as 4,790, just inches away from all time highs of 4,799.75; Dow futs were 172 points or 0.48% higher and the Nasdaq was also in the green by 29 points or 0.6%.

Investors continue to weigh the impact of the rapid spread of the omicron Covid-19 variant on the economic recovery, even as it appears less severe than earlier strains. Investors are also focusing on the policy trajectory of the Federal Reserve and other central banks into 2022, particularly as inflation continues to present a challenge.

In premarket moves, Tesla’s shares climbed 6.8% in U.S. premarket trading after the company reported record quarterly deliveries.  Alibaba ADRs dropped in premarket trading with shares listed in Hong Kong on concern that some investors may pare stakes amid data showing the conversion of company’s ADRs into Hong Kong shares has picked up pace.

And with the new year, broad, sweeping assessments are hitting the tape, such as this one from Jefferies strategist Sean Darby who wrote that last year “was simply a period of ‘risk on,’” adding that “peering into 2022, we expect volatility to rise, meaning that the return per unit of risk comes to the forefront.”

European equities rose on the first day of trading in 2022 and headed for a record on bets that the global economy can weather the impact of the omicron coronavirus variant. The Stoxx Europe 600 Index rose 0.5% to 490.47, above the record closing level set in November, led by gains by automakers and chemical sector companies. Meanwhile, the Euro Stoxx 50 climbed 0.9%. U.K. markets were closed for a holiday on Monday.

European stocks had climbed 22% last year and have posted seven consecutive quarters of gains — the longest winning streak since 1998. Most strategists expect this year’s returns to be more muted, with an average target of 506 index points for the Stoxx 600. Among individual movers, Vestas Wind Systems A/S dropped after the company announced details of its fourth-quarter order intake. Sydbank AS said the order tally was “weak.”

Asian stocks were mixed on their first trading session of 2022, with Hong Kong’s benchmark gauge dropping on concerns over the spread of the omicron variant and the financial health of China’s real estate sector.    The MSCI Asia Pacific Index was little changed after rising as much as 0.3%, weighed down by consumer discretionary and health-care firms. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index slid 0.5%, with Chinese developers tumbling on media reports that China Evergrande Group has been ordered to tear down apartment blocks in Hainan province. Read: Property Stocks Sink After Demolition Order: Evergrande Update Shares in Hong Kong also dropped amid a fresh wave of infections tied to an outbreak at a local restaurant. The city administered more than 7,000 initial injections on both Saturday and Sunday, the most since the end of November. “Any further restrictions to curb virus spreads remain a key risk to watch, and more clarity will be sought from economic data over the coming weeks to validate the resilience of the economy” of the U.S., said Jun Rong Yeap, a strategist at IG Asia Pte in Singapore. Malaysia’s stock index was the region’s worst performer, dropping 1.2%, while South Korea and Taiwan equities rose.

Markets in mainland China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand were closed for holidays. Asia’s stock benchmark capped an annual loss of 3.4% in 2021 in its worst performance since 2018, lagging behind the U.S. and Europe.

India’s key equity gauges posted their best gain in nearly four weeks, led by a rally in banking and software stocks as investors shift focus to the upcoming corporate earnings season for the latest quarter.  The S&P BSE Sensex rose 1.6% to 59,183.22 in Mumbai, the most since Dec. 8. The benchmark also posted its biggest advance on the first trading day of a new year since 2009. The NSE Nifty 50 Index gained by a similar magnitude on Monday. All of the 19 sector sub-indexes compiled by BSE Ltd. climbed, led by gauges of banking and financial companies. The corporate earnings season for the December quarter will start with Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services announcing results on Jan. 12. Investors will be focusing on the software exporters’ commentary on demand amid rising cost pressures. HDFC Bank contributed the most to the index gain, increasing 2.7%. Out of 30 shares in the Sensex index, 25 rose and five fell

With much of Europe including the U.K. on bank holiday, Treasuries reopen around 7am ET with yields cheaper by 2bp to 4bp across the curve and losses led by belly.  U.S. 10-year yields around 1.535%, cheaper by ~2bp vs Friday’s close, while 5-year yields are higher by more than 3bp; 5s30s is flatter by ~1bp. Gains for most European stock benchmarks add to cheapening pressure on yields, as S&P 500 futures trade above Friday’s high.  Ahead of the cash open Treasury futures edged lower during Asia session European morning on light volume as S&P 500 futures advanced toward last week’s record highs.

In FX, the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index inched up and the dollar traded mixed against its Group-of-10 peers in thin trading, with Japan, Australia and New Zealand markets shut for holidays. The Canadian dollar was the worst performer while the New Zealand dollar climbed against all of its Group-of-10 peers. The euro slipped to trade around $1.1350 and Bund yields rose, led by shorter maturities, while European peripheral spreads narrowed.

In commodities, in early trading oil rose towards $79 a barrel on Monday supported by tight supply and hopes of further demand recovery in 2022 spurred in part by a view that the Omicron coronavirus variant is unlikely to significantly dampen the outlook. Libyan oil output will be cut by 200,000 barrels per day for a week due to pipeline maintenance. OPEC and its allies, known as OPEC+, are expected to stick to a plan to raise output gradually at a meeting on Tuesday.

Brent crude rose 95 cents, or 1.2%, to $78.73 a barrel. West Texas Intermediate crude added $1.03 or 1.4%, to $76.24. Last year, Brent rose 50%, spurred by the global recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and OPEC+ supply cuts, even as infections reached record highs worldwide.

“Infection rates are on the rise globally, restrictions are being introduced in several countries, the air travel sector, amongst others, is suffering, yet investors’ optimism is tangible,” said Tamas Varga of oil broker PVM. “It seems that the current strain produces less severe symptoms than its predecessors, which might just help us to struggle through the fourth wave of the pandemic.”

Some see more gains in 20222: “Crude and oil product prices should benefit from oil demand moving above 2019 levels,” said a report from UBS analysts including Giovanni Staunovo. “We expect Brent to rise into a $80–90 range in 2022.”

Key U.S. events this week include minutes of the December FOMC meeting and non-farm payrolls; on deck today is the Flash Markit Manufacturing PMI read for December as well as the November construction spending data.

Market Snapshot

  • S&P 500 futures up 0.5% to 4,781.25
  • STOXX Europe 600 up 0.5% to 490.21
  • MXAP little changed at 193.17
  • MXAPJ little changed at 630.24
  • Nikkei down 0.4% to 28,791.71
  • Topix down 0.3% to 1,992.33
  • Hang Seng Index down 0.5% to 23,274.75
  • Shanghai Composite up 0.6% to 3,639.78
  • Sensex up 1.6% to 59,208.86
  • Australia S&P/ASX 200 down 0.9% to 7,444.64
  • Kospi up 0.4% to 2,988.77
  • Brent futures up 1.6% to $78.99/bbl
  • Gold spot down 0.1% to $1,827.19
  • U.S. Dollar Index up 0.1% to 95.80
  • German 10Y yield little changed at -0.18%
  • Brent futures up 1.4% to $78.83/bbl

Top Overnight News from Bloomberg

  • Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is vowing to bring a revised version of the $2 trillion tax, climate and spending package to the floor for a vote as soon as this month, despite unresolved differences within his party that have stalled the legislation
  • President Joe Biden reaffirmed U.S. support for Ukraine’s sovereignty on Sunday in a call with the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy
  • Germany’s Finance Minister Christian Lindner said the new government is working on tax relief measures of more than 30 billion euros ($34 billion)
  • Turkish inflation surged to a 19-year high in December, propelled by a slump in the lira and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s push for cheaper borrowing
  • Asia’s factory activity continued its expansion in December, lifted by resilient demand and easing supply-chain bottlenecks as the omicron strain begins to spread in the region

Top Asian News

  • North Korean Defector Likely Crossed DMZ Twice, Seoul Says
  • Property Stocks Sink After Demolition Order: Evergrande Update
  • Alibaba Drops on Concern Over Conversion of ADRs to H.K. Shares
  • Hong Kong’s Stock Benchmark Marks Its Worst Start in Three Years
  • Star China Stock Fund Manager Suffers a Disastrous 2021
  • Tokyo Finds 103 New Covid Cases, Most in Nearly Three Months

Top European News

  • Nordea Analysts Who Wrote Retracted Report to Leave Bank
  • Iveco Valued at $4.4 Billion in Spinoff to Navigate Truck Shift
  • Germany Heads Toward New Pandemic Measures as Omicron Threatens

US Event Calendar

  • 9:45am: Dec. Markit US Manufacturing PMI, est. 57.7, prior 57.8
  • 10am: Nov. Construction Spending MoM, est. 0.7%, prior 0.2%

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/03/2022 – 08:02

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ETwzXQ Tyler Durden

#TheyLied and the Fair Report Privilege

From Magistrate Judge Eric Long’s opinion in Sun v. Xu (C.D. Ill.), decided in May 2020 but just posed on Westlaw:

The three Plaintiffs are two former students and one professor at the University of Illinois. The three Plaintiffs are suing former University of Illinois Professor Gary Xu …. The first Plaintiff, Xingjian Sun …, a female student at the University, claims Xu raped her, forced her to get an abortion, beat her, and attempted to hit her with a car during their two-year relationship. The second Plaintiff, Xing Zhao …, a female student at the University of Illinois, claims Xu sexually harassed her and took credit for her work. The third Plaintiff, Ao Wang …, is a professor at the University of Illinois. Professor Wang claims Xu tried to ruin his career in retaliation for an online article Professor Wang wrote about Xu abusing female students….

Plaintiffs made public comments about their allegations against Xu. The first Plaintiff, Sun, was interviewed by CBS Morning News, and a video of the interview was aired on CBS’s television channel. Additionally, CBS published an article of Sun’s interview on CBS News’ website. In this interview, Sun stated Xu raped her, beat her, and tried to kill her by running her over with his car.

The second plaintiff, Zhao, is not quoted in the Sixth Tone report that details the allegations against Xu. {Sixth Tone is an online magazine that is owned by the Chinese Government. However, Sixth Tone’s target audience is readers in the western hemisphere.} In the Sixth Tone article, two females make anonymous allegations against Xu, alleging sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Xu alleges that Zhao was one of the anonymous sources for the Sixth Tone article. According to Xu, Zhao told Sixth Tone: (1) Xu harassed her; (2) Xu forced her into horrifying sexual behavior; (3) Xu threatened her; and (4) Xu attempted to kiss her but his attempt failed.

The third Plaintiff, Professor Wang, published a post on an online platform stating Xu sexually harassed students for 20 years. Additionally, Xu’s Answer states Professor Wang accused him of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and beating women via internet posts from March 11, 2018, until March 19, 2018. Moreover, Xu’s Answer alleges that Professor Wang posted written statements on a website called Weibo that stated Xu sexually assaulted and harassed women. Lastly, Xu alleged that Professor Wang stated in an online post that he was trained in Thai boxing and could “beat up” Xu….

Xu denies Plaintiffs’ allegations in his Answer, and Xu asserts four counterclaims against the three Plaintiffs [for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation]….

Sun argues Xu’s defamation counterclaim should be dismissed because her interview with CBS News is protected under the Fair Report Privilege [which covers, among other things, fair reports of judicial proceedings -EV]…. [But] the Illinois Supreme Court [has] endorsed Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611 [“Report of Official Proceeding or Public Meeting”] Comment c[, which states] …: “… A person cannot confer this privilege upon himself by making the original defamatory publication himself and then reporting to other people what he had stated.” Importantly, the word “publication” in this context is defined as: “Any act by which defamatory matter is communicated to someone other than the person defamed[.]”

Here, Sun made statements to a CBS News reporter asserting sexual assault allegations against Xu. After Sun gave the interview to CBS, CBS News made an oral and written report for the public. For this reason, under Comment (c), the reporter and CBS News are eligible to use the Fair Report Privilege [presumably because they are reporting on Sun’s complaint filed in court six days before -EV], but Sun’s statements are not privileged because Sun made the original allegedly defamatory statement, and Sun cannot confer the privilege upon herself….

Note that not all states follow the § 611 comment c rule; some California courts, for instance, conclude (applying California’s statutory fair report privilege) that a plaintiff indeed has an absolute privilege to publicly report the allegations in the complaint that she filed in court, just as third parties have an absolute privilege to report on those allegations.

The court also held that the alleged defamation could form the basis for the intentional infliction of emotional distress counterclaims as well as the defamation counterclaims:

Here, Xu has pled sufficient facts to establish the “extreme and outrageous” element for his three IIED counterclaims. Specifically, Xu alleged that Plaintiffs made false statements about him committing sexual assaults on students. At this stage of the litigation, the Court must accept these alleged facts as true. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss these claims because Xu sufficiently alleged conduct “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of human decency.” … The Court holds that a reasonable person would know there is a high probability that false allegations of sexual assault would cause the accused individual severe emotional distress. For this reason, Plaintiffs’ argument is denied…. [And] Xu sufficiently plead that he suffered severe emotional distress from Plaintiffs’ conduct.

 

The post #TheyLied and the Fair Report Privilege appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3eRxDAN
via IFTTT

Nebraska Town Sues Resident to Stop Sending Officials Letters, Ends Up Paying Him $16,000

From Lori Pilger (Lincoln Journal-Star) Saturday:

An Ord man has agreed to a $16,000 settlement with the central Nebraska town that filed a lawsuit against him last year in an attempt to get him to stop writing letters and emails to city officials and the police department that they called “burdensome.”

And from Judge John Gerrard in Brock v. City of Ord (D. Neb. Sept. 17, 2021), in the opinion denying the city’s motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim (and denying qualified immunity):

[J]ust because this case will be permitted to proceed doesn’t mean it ought to. All of the people involved with this lawsuit should regret being here. To begin with, nearly every public official draws the attention of critics and cranks who have opinions they insist on sharing. This Court has no shortage of its own pen pals. But rather than accept that as one of the privileges of public service, the defendants decided to pursue a lawsuit that asked a state court to impose a prior restraint on the plaintiff’s speech. The plaintiff, for his part, prevailed in that case, and for his part could have been content with having his First Amendment rights vindicated by that victory—but instead, he’s filed another lawsuit in response, despite facing no current peril.

This Court’s docket is full of cases genuinely implicating lives, livelihoods, and liberty—but instead of addressing those claims, the Court finds its attention diverted by having to referee this squabble. It is tempting to turn this car around and go straight home. But of course, as long as the parties intend to keep it up, the Court is duty-bound to preside, so instead, the Court proceeds to the merits….

Brock’s complaint alleges the following[:] …

  • [Plaintiff Guy] Brock regularly wrote letters to elected officials of the City [of Ord], including [Mayor Dan] Petska, related to activities of city government.
  • Petska, [City Attorney Heather] Sikyta, and other City representatives met in the winter of 2019–2020 to discuss Brock’s letter-writing, and ways to prevent Brock from further petitioning his representatives.
  • At this meeting, Petska and Sikyta decided to take legal action against Brock in response to his practice of letter- writing.
  • On March 4, 2020, the City sued Brock in the District Court for Valley County, Nebraska requesting a permanent injunction enjoining Brock from sending “any kind” of communication to the City or the Ord Police Department “unless directly related to a city service or other city function related specifically to Defendant and his property.”
  • In its lawsuit, the City also requested damages in an undisclosed sum, attorney fees, and the costs of the lawsuit.
  • Brock retained counsel to defend the lawsuit, and the District Court of Valley County ultimately dismissed the action on June 12, 2020 for failure to state a claim.

Brock alleges that the above actions by the defendants violated his First Amendment rights ….

“[T]o establish a First Amendment retaliation claim in a particular case, a plaintiff must show (1) that he engaged in a protected activity, (2) that the defendant’s actions caused an injury to the plaintiffs that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the activity, and (3) that a causal connection exists between the retaliatory animus and the injury.”

Brock has pleaded sufficient facts to show that he engaged in a protected activity. Petitioning the government for redress is “among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.” Writing letters to elected representatives about government activities is “unquestionably” a protected activity.

Brock has also pleaded facts sufficient to reasonably infer the defendants’ conduct caused him an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to petition city officials…. Here, Brock has alleged that in response to his letter-writing, the defendants brought legal action against him. In the resulting lawsuit, the City sought to permanently limit Brock’s speech and also requested monetary damages, attorney fees, and costs.  Brock further alleges that he was “forced to retain counsel at his own expense in order to defend his rights to speak freely and petition his government.” … It can … be plausibly inferred that a person of ordinary firmness would be chilled from further petitioning city officials once facing civil liability and the threat of monetary damages. (Nor would it be unreasonable to conclude that a lawsuit expressly meant to prevent Brock from petitioning was, in fact, meant to deter him from petitioning.) …

Brock has alleged sufficient facts to establish a violation of a constitutional right—specifically, a violation of his right to be free from retaliatory action by the government for petitioning his elected officials…. [And a]t the time the lawsuit was filed, it was clearly established beyond debate that citizens have a right to be free from intentional, retaliatory conduct by the government in response to protected petitioning. Additionally, this Circuit had held only two classes of petitioning speech to be unprotected: (1) “sham” speech directed only toward harming others and not toward influencing government action; and (2) certain genuine attempts to influence governmental policy that are violent, illegal, or defamatory.

Further, the precedent of this Circuit clearly established that citizens have a right to be free from government officials engaging the machinery of the government to lodge baseless proceedings against them for exercising their right to petition…. Taking Brock’s allegations as true—that he was writing letters to his elected officials about city activities, and that Petska and Sikyta decided to assert the lawsuit because of that speech—every reasonable official would have known that Brock’s speech was protected from intrusion by the First Amendment.

In light of [Circuit precedent], reasonable city officials would have also known that their lawsuit was without merit if, as Brock alleges, he was only engaging in protected petitioning activities not subject to restraint by the government. Finally, although Williams and Harrison dealt with slightly different government conduct, they clearly established that frivolous legal and regulatory actions taken by local government against citizens in retaliation for petitioning violate the First Amendment…. Putting it all together, every reasonable official would have understood that baseless, retaliatory legal proceedings against a citizen for petitioning the government violate the First Amendment…..

The post Nebraska Town Sues Resident to Stop Sending Officials Letters, Ends Up Paying Him $16,000 appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3sSFTc5
via IFTTT

“Walls Creaked, Buildings Shook”: Magnitude 6.2 Earthquake Hits Off The Coast Of Taiwan

“Walls Creaked, Buildings Shook”: Magnitude 6.2 Earthquake Hits Off The Coast Of Taiwan

A magnitude 6.2 earthquake hit moments ago 64 km east of Hualien City, Taiwan, according to data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program.

The earthquake shook buildings in Taipei and across “much of the northern part of the island”, AP reported early on Monday morning. 

“Walls creaked as office buildings shook in Taipei, the capital. Lights swayed and mirrors and pictures fell to the floor,” the report said.

Interactive Map via usgs.earthquake.gov

The country’s Central Weather Bureau said there were no immediate reports of damage, according to NDTV citing AFP. The CWB said the magnitude was 6.0 and that it occurred at a depth of 19 km. 

However, USGS data from earthquake.usgs.gov says that the origin of the quake was at a depth of 28.7km and that the magnitude was 6.2. The USGS reported that losses are expected to be low. 

Here are additional details from the USGS on the quake:

The quake took place during Taipei’s rush hour commute Monday evening, about 5:46pm local time. 

“The shaking lasted for a good 20 seconds with the ground moving left and right,” an AFP reported stationed in Taipei said. 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/03/2022 – 07:11

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3zmWaaI Tyler Durden

COVID, Ivermectin, And ‘Mass Formation Psychosis’: Dr. Robert Malone Gives Blistering Interview To Joe Rogan

COVID, Ivermectin, And ‘Mass Formation Psychosis’: Dr. Robert Malone Gives Blistering Interview To Joe Rogan

mRNA inventor Dr. Robert Malone gave a fascinating interview to Joe Rogan which aired on New Year’s Eve.

If you’ve got three hours to spare, we recommend you watch the entire thing (cliffs notes here):

Malone, an expert in mRNA vaccine technologies who trained at UC Davis, UCSD and the Salk Institute, was suspended by Twitter with no explanation on Thursday. It appears he’s preparing to sue, as Alex Berenson is currently doing.

The suspension came after Malone was vilified by a hit piece in The Atlantic which was funded by Facebook and Johnson & Johnson.

“Three days before this thing came out, the journalist – he previously publishes on ‘woke’ issues on the topic of higher education. He’s clearly hired. And they explicitly say the article was funded by the Robert Boyd Johnson foundation and the Zuckerberg-Chan initiative.

…

He was totally obsessed. ‘Robert, why are you saying these things? You must have some financial incentive. There must be some reason you’re doing this‘ – and I told him repeatedly, ‘because it’s the right thing to do.’

I think I’m the only one who has been involved deeply in the development of this tech, that doesn’t have a financial stake in it. For me, the reason is, because what’s happening is not right. It’s destroying my profession. It’s destroying the practice of medicine worldwide … I’m a vaccinologist. I spent 30 years developing vaccines. A stupid amount of education learning how to do it, and what the rules are. And for me, I’m personally offended watching my discipline get destroyed for no good reason at all except, apparently, financial incentives, and – I dunno – political ass-covering?” -Robert Malone

“Our government is out of control on this,” Malone continues. “And they are lawless. They completely disregard bioethics. They completely disregard the federal common-rule. They have broken all the rules that I know of, that I’ve been trained for years and years and years. These mandates of an experimental vaccines are explicitly illegal. They are explicitly inconsistent with the Nuremberg code. They are explicitly inconsistent with the Belmont report. They are flat out illegal, and they don’t care.“

Malone then explained to Rogan how the Uttar Pradesh province in India crushed Covid with early treatment that included ivermectin, however he claims that the Biden administration met with Modi and a ‘decision was made not to disclose the contents of the treatment.’

They then went deeper into the topic of ivermectin and early interventions in general. According to Malone, “There are good modeling studies, that show a half a million excess deaths have happened in the US, through the intentional blockade of early COVID treatment by the US Government.”

Malone and Rogan then got into some heavy science behind Covid – with Malone explaining how people with natural Covid immunity are at higher risk of adverse events from the vaccine.

“There is a number of things here that are not supported by the science.”

They then discussed the case of a 14-year-old girl who was injured by the vaccine, yet the incident was reported as a stomach ache.

“This young woman who was listed as having a stomach ache, when in fact what she had was a seizure. And she’s now wheelchair-bound with a nasal-gastric tube. One of 1,000 subjects.”

Towards the end of the interview, Malone gets even deeper – suggesting that people are living through a mass formation psychosis – drawing parallels to 1920s and 1930s Germany, where “they had a highly intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad.”

And Twitter doesn’t think Malone’s voice deserves to be heard. 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/03/2022 – 05:11

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34eFXc0 Tyler Durden

Goldman Sachs Latest Wall Street Bank To Abandon Return To Office Plans As Omicron Surge Worsens

Goldman Sachs Latest Wall Street Bank To Abandon Return To Office Plans As Omicron Surge Worsens

We have arrived at the two-year anniversary of Beijing first alerting the WHO to the outbreak in Wuhan (an outbreak they initially insisted wasn’t spread by human-to-human contact, a lie that was quickly exposed as BS). And yet analysts, bankers and others still have no idea when they will be returning to the office for good.

As Bloomberg reported Friday, JP Morgan, one of Wall Street’s staunchest advocates for returning to the office, is allowing workers to continue laboring remotely through the opening weeks of 2022, if not longer.

“We are not changing our long-term plans of working in the office,” JPMorgan told staff in a memo on Thursday. “However, with the increase in holiday travel and gatherings, we are allowing for more flexibility during the first two weeks of January to work from home (if your role allows) at your manager’s discretion.”

Right now, JPM has a tentative return date set for Feb. 1.

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs is backtracking on its latest back-to-office plans by asking its US workforce to continue working from home until Jan. 18 if they can, Bloomberg reports. Since the start of the pandemic, Goldman CEO David Solomon has expressed his distaste for

The reversal from Goldman follows similar decisions by JPM, Citi and other rivals.

Goldman has long been one of the staunchest advocates of returning to the office, even going so far as to require its workers to get their booster shots.

“As we continue to monitor the trajectory of this spike, we now encourage those who can work effectively from home to do so,” the bank said in a memo shared with staff on Sunday.

The Vampire Squid (as Goldman is sometimes known/doubled down on its mandatory booster plan by making vaccination booster shots compulsory. Anyone entering its offices must get a booster by Feb. 1 if they’re eligible for the injections by that date.

Given the success of the past year, banks are lee motivated about returning to the office. Citigroup loosened workplace policies in recent weeks, allowing staff across the New York metropolitan area to work remotely over the holidays. Now, “we are asking that you work from home for the first few weeks of the New Year if you are able to do so,” the bank said in a memo Thursday. “We will continue to monitor the data and provide an update in January on when we expect to be back in the office.”

NYC and the surrounding area have been hit hard by this winter’s surge in COVID cases. The jump in infections has raised concerns about the pace of workers returning to skyscrapers across Manhattan. It has forced a number of banks to revise staffing strategies in recent weeks, with a number of them easing off mandates to commute to buildings.

Some banks are already demanding staffers get boosted even though they aren’t coming into the office. Jefferies has asked staff earlier this month to work remotely and get a vaccine booster by the end of January. Morgan Stanley told employees who will be in the office during the first two weeks of January to limit large in-person meetings and to wear face coverings when not at their desks.                                                                      

Goldman Sachs, the undisputed Wall Street leader and an important trendsetter, told staff that it will mandate booster vaccinations and double testing to twice weekly as it stands by CEO David Solomon’s demands that workers return to the office unless sickened.

Right now, JPMorgan is only “encouraging” employees to get boosters – but that could soon change as the bank contemplates ratcheting up the pressure.

“To be considered fully vaccinated may soon mean that a booster will also be required to enter our buildings,” the bank wrote in the memo. Unvaccinated staff, it noted, must be tested twice weekly when working in offices.

Bankers in London, meanwhile, are expecting to start the year at home after the UK government recommended a shift to more remote work on Dec. 8, leaving the city quiet even before the Christmas break.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/03/2022 – 07:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3zj0kQC Tyler Durden