web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

BREAKING: Andrew McCabe Drops His Lawsuit Against the DOJ

Westlake Legal Group comey-mccabe-620x348 BREAKING: Andrew McCabe Drops His Lawsuit Against the DOJ suckers scam Politics lawsuit james comey gofundme Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI Dropped doj democrats Assistant Director Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception

There’s noway this is a coincidence. The day after news breaks that Bill Barr and John Durham have elevated their probe into the Russia investigation into a criminal investigation, Andrew McCabe has now filed a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.

This smells like him not wanting to keep kicking the hornets nest. He’s unlikely to get any leniency in his coming prosecution (which has reported as coming last month) if he’s suing the DOJ.

I can’t imagine the suckers who handed this guy over $500,000 through a GoFundMe feel too good about their investment. It’ll now be used to defend him in criminal court, not to teach Bill Barr a lesson in civil court.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post BREAKING: Andrew McCabe Drops His Lawsuit Against the DOJ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SAD-mccabe-300x157 BREAKING: Andrew McCabe Drops His Lawsuit Against the DOJ suckers scam Politics lawsuit james comey gofundme Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI Dropped doj democrats Assistant Director Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rose McGowan sues Harvey Weinstein and attorney Lisa Bloom

Westlake Legal Group McGowan Rose McGowan sues Harvey Weinstein and attorney Lisa Bloom The Blog Rose McGowan lisa bloom lawsuit harvey weinstein

Actress Rose McGowan has sued disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein, attorneys Lisa Bloom and David Boies, and the firm Black Cube. From the Hollywood Reporter:

McGowan’s claims include racketeering, violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, invasion of privacy, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

“This case is about a diabolical and illegal effort by one of America’s most powerful men and his representatives to silence sexual-assault victims,” states the opening sentence of the complaint, which is posted below. “And it is about the courageous women and journalists who persisted to reveal the truth.”

The details of how Weinstein hired Black Cube to spy on McGowan in an effort to gain access to her autobiography were conveyed in a story Ronan Farrow wrote back in 2017.  Here’s a summary of some of that material as it appears in McGowan’s lawsuit:

In 2016, nearly two decades after WEINSTEIN raped her, MCGOWAN began working on a memoir and motivational book called Brave, which HarperCollins published in January 2018. The book was not all about WEINSTEIN; it was about MCGOWAN’s life, including challenges throughout her childhood and as a young woman. To be sure, however, MCGOWAN intended to write about the painful episode in her life involving WEINSTEIN. She intended to describe the rape, in detail, and to discuss how WEINSTEIN’s conduct toward her and others poisoned the film and television industry.

When WEINSTEIN learned of MCGOWAN’s plans, he tapped into his team of fixers. The goal was to ensure that MCGOWAN’s story never saw the light of day, and—if it did—that no one would believe her…

He enlisted prominent, media-savvy representatives DAVID BOIES and LISA BLOOM. He hired the international spy agency, BLACK CUBE. Together, they worked in concert for more than a year to silence WEINSTEIN’s victims and the journalists who were reporting WEINSTEIN’s abuses. With MCGOWAN specifically, Defendants tried steal MCGOWAN’s unpublished book, attempted to buy MCGOWAN’s silence, and planned—in the event that they could not intimidate MCGOWAN into withholding her book—to undermine MCGOWAN’s reputation, such that she would not be believed.

People working for Black Cube made several contacts with McGowan under false pretenses in which they tried to convince her it would be a bad idea to say anything about Weinstein:

In early January 2017, MCGOWAN’s literary agent Lacy Lynchconnected her with Seth Freedman, whom she described to MCGOWAN as afreelance journalist from London, who was allegedly working on a story about menin Hollywood. MCGOWAN spoke to the journalist by phone. Freedman was inEngland at the time, and MCGOWAN was in the United States…

Many of Freedman’s statements to MCGOWAN seemed designed tointimidate her. For example, he suggested to MCGOWAN that others might beafraid to go on the record with allegations about WEINSTEIN because “if they dosay it, then they’ll never work again.” He also suggested that MCGOWAN wouldsuffer if she named WEINSTEIN because someone could “come back at” her.Freedman ultimately asked MCGOWAN what would make her “call it quits,”meaning refrain from going public with her allegations against WEINSTEIN.

MCGOWAN did not know it at the time, but would learn much laterthat Freedman was being paid by BLACK CUBE to get information aboutMCGOWAN and her book, and that he was recording their call withoutMCGOWAN’s consent. BLACK CUBE was likewise using Freedman to try toobtain information about other possible WEINSTEIN accusers and “unfriendly” journalists.

Seth Freedman and another Black Cube operative using the fictitious identity Diana Filip were also in contact with reporters who were working on the Weinstein story, trying to find out what they knew so Weinstein could get ahead of the story.

There’s so much more to McGowan’s story. It really does read like a paperback thriller. But McGowan, thanks in part to work by Ronan Farrow, seems to have the goods to prove it happened. She is requesting an unspecified amount in damages and a jury trial.

The post Rose McGowan sues Harvey Weinstein and attorney Lisa Bloom appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group McGowan-300x153 Rose McGowan sues Harvey Weinstein and attorney Lisa Bloom The Blog Rose McGowan lisa bloom lawsuit harvey weinstein   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Judge denies Jussie Smollett’s motion to dismiss Chicago’s lawsuit

Westlake Legal Group smollett Judge denies Jussie Smollett’s motion to dismiss Chicago’s lawsuit The Blog lawsuit Jussie Smollett Chicago

Last month, Jussie Smollett’s attorneys sought to have a lawsuit filed against their client by the city of Chicago dismissed. The city is seeking $130,000 reimbursement for the cost of the investigation that concluded Smollett was not the victim of a hate crime but had staged a hoax. Smollett’s attorneys argued that even if that were true (which team-Smollett is still not admitting) he had no way to know that filing the report would result in such a massive and expensive investigation. In other words, ‘It’s not my fault you went crazy investigating my hate hoax.’ Today a judge disagreed with that argument and refused to dismiss the case:

In denying Smollett’s motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall said that on its face, Smollett’s claim that the police went overboard in investigating his report didn’t hold up.

“The natural, ordinary and reasonable consequence of a police report like this one — a racist, homophobic physical assault in which masked attackers invoked the President of the United States’ official campaign slogan — is an intensive, sprawling investigation like the one that took place,” Kendall wrote in an 18-page opinion made public Tuesday.

She also pointed out that Chicago police took the allegations seriously in large part because of Smollett’s high profile “and the extreme nature of the accusations.”

“Most crime victims do not have the opportunity to discuss the crime on ‘Good Morning America’,” Kendall wrote.

Smollett’s attorney put a positive spin on the defeat:

William Quinlan, Smollett’s Chicago lawyer, said in an email to USA TODAY that the ruling means the case will be “decided on the facts and not the pleadings.” He said he was not surprised at the decision given that it’s a “very high bar” to get a case dismissed based on the pleadings.

“The pleadings are just the city’s side of the story. Now, Mr. Smollett will get to present his side of the case,” Quinlan said. “Mr. Smollett has always maintained his innocence and is eager to have the complete facts of the case come out. He looks forward to taking depositions and otherwise bringing to light many of the facts that have been overlooked in the court of public opinion to date.

“Mr. Smollett is confident that once the full story is available he will be vindicated.”

Um, okay. I think we’ve already seen the evidence at this point. No one believes Smollett was attacked after midnight in freezing Chicago weather by two white racists who nevertheless were such fans of the black soap opera Empire that they could recognize Smollett on the street, in the dark. But purely as a matter of entertainment value, I look forward to hearing his attorneys offer their best attempt to make sense of all of that.

As it stands now, the case could go to trial next year. This is a civil case so only Smollett’s money is at stake. However, a special prosecutor is still looking at State’s Attorney Kim Foxx’s decision to dismiss the 16 felonies Smollett was initially facing. If the special prosecutor decides the dismissal was improper (and there’s some evidence it was) criminal charges could be brought against Smollett.

The post Judge denies Jussie Smollett’s motion to dismiss Chicago’s lawsuit appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group smollett-300x153 Judge denies Jussie Smollett’s motion to dismiss Chicago’s lawsuit The Blog lawsuit Jussie Smollett Chicago   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor

Westlake Legal Group wcco-target-lawsuit Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor The Blog Target Center security costs MINNEAPOLIS lawsuit jacob frey donald trump campaign

As of now, Donald Trump is scheduled to appear at the Target Center in Minneapolis on Thursday, part of his plan to flip Minnesota to the GOP in 2020. The city wants to make sure he pays for the privilege — through the nose, apparently. The city sent a $530,000 security bill to the venue for Trump’s rally, which then passed it along to Team Trump, which then promptly threatened to sue the city over its “outrageous abuse of power”:

Tensions between Minneapolis city leaders and President Donald Trump’s campaign escalated Monday when the campaign threatened to sue the city for trying to force it to pay $530,000 for security during this week’s rally.

Trump’s campaign team said in a news release late Monday night that Mayor Jacob Frey is “abusing the power of his office” by “conjuring a phony and outlandish bill for security” to cover those costs for Thursday’s campaign rally.

City officials told the Target Center, which is managed by AEG, that it would be responsible for paying the costs. The center then allegedly tried to pass the bill on to Trump’s team and told them they would not be able to use the arena unless they agreed to the charges.

“This is an outrageous abuse of power by a liberal mayor trying to deny the rights of his own city’s residents just because he hates the President,” Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement. “People want to hear from their President, and no mayor looking to beef up his résumé for a run for higher office should stand in the way.”

Frey might have been looking to get around an issue that has hung in the background of Trump’s campaign for months. Other cities have tried billing the Trump campaign directly for increased police costs, only to have the billings ignored. The Center for Public Integrity reported on the backlog of police-security bills last June in conjunction with NBC and CNBC, when it totaled up to almost $900,000 in this cycle already:

At least nine other city governments — from Mesa, Arizona, to Erie, Pennsylvania — are still waiting for Trump to pay public safety-related invoices they’ve sent his presidential campaign committee in connection with his political rallies, according to interviews with local officials and municipal records obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

Some invoices are three years old. In all, city governments say Trump’s campaign owes them at least $841,219.

However, the campaign never agreed to pay police costs in the first place. The Secret Service did request extra police presence, as they would wherever the president travels and for whatever purpose, but that’s been considered part of the normal operation in protecting presidents as well as the local communities impacted. CPI also noted that many municipalities agree with that concept, expressly prohibiting imposing security costs on politicians for holding events.

By billing the Target Center instead of the Trump campaign, it certainly looks as though Frey was trying to get around that issue. This actually demonstrates why such policies might be wise; Frey’s actions could easily be taken to arbitrarily deny politicians a forum to engage with voters. Do they charge these costs to every venue that hosts events for political campaigns? Do the venues always pass along those costs if/when they get billed? Or is this treatment only reserved for Republican presidential candidates who visit MN-05?

Those turn out to be excellent questions, at least when it comes to Minneapolis. The city doesn’t even bill the Twins and the Vikings for such costs — at least not yet:

In an interview Monday, Minneapolis City Attorney Susan Segal said “it’s not fair” for residents to shoulder such costs, whether they are for political or sporting events. She said the city has been having conversations with organizations including the Twins, the Vikings and the Minnesota Ballpark Authority about sharing the costs of additional event expenses during games. She said these discussions have been going on since before the Super Bowl in 2018.

Bear in mind that the city has been eating those costs for decades, even while building both teams brand new stadiums over the past few years. Nor, in fact, have they ever billed a political campaign before now:

Robin McPherson, Minneapolis Police Department’s finance director, said in a Sept. 26 e-mail to city officials that the agency has not sought reimbursement for campaign rallies because it was “to ensure public safety not security for the candidate and any costs have been nominal.” But she said Trump’s rally “will be significantly more expensive and extensive.”

In other words, this was an arbitrary choice to impose such security costs. It’s also an absurd amount to charge, as WCCO reported noted this morning and picked up Team Trump. For comparison, a similar Trump campaign visit to Duluth in 2018 cost that city only $69,000 — about 87% less than Minneapolis’ bill:

They literally don’t do it for anyone else but Trump. If it comes to a lawsuit, Minneapolis had better expect to lose, which means they’ll eat not just this clearly inflated bill, but also the inflated legal costs that won’t be so easy to write off.

Allowing city governments to charge arbitrary fees to politicians for campaign rallies seems like a very bad idea. That’s exactly what this is — an arbitrary and ludicrous fee charged to a politician which this city government doesn’t like.

The police union president is unhappy with Frey, and went on Fox & Friends this morning to discuss it. This may not turn out well for Frey, especially since the city has ordered police in the past to participate in presidential photo ops.

The post Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group wcco-target-lawsuit-300x162 Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor The Blog Target Center security costs MINNEAPOLIS lawsuit jacob frey donald trump campaign   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New York lawsuit seeking Trump’s tax returns will proceed

Westlake Legal Group trump-westerhout New York lawsuit seeking Trump’s tax returns will proceed The Blog tax returns New York State lawsuit donald trump

Of the many lawsuits and investigations launched against President Trump on a seemingly daily basis, one of the less discussed ones has been unfolding in the state of New York. The Manhattan D.A.’s office has been seeking eight years of both personal and business tax returns from Trump as part of an investigation that’s never been very clearly spelled out for the public. Still, a grand jury was convinced to make the request for the returns over a month ago and the President’s legal team has been fighting it ever since.

Today, the judge in the case threw out the objection from Trump’s lawyers. They had claimed that the President had virtually full immunity from prosecution while in office. Obviously, the judge disagreed. (NBC News)

A federal judge Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s claim that he was immune from criminal investigations as part of his bid to block a subpoena from the Manhattan district attorney seeking eight years of personal and business tax returns.

The judge, Victor Marrero, tossed the lawsuit Trump’s legal team brought against District Attorney Cyrus Vance that argued Vance should not receive Trump’s tax returns because “‘[v]irtually all legal commenters agree’ that a sitting President of the United States is not ‘subject to the criminal process’ while he is in office.”

In a 75-page order, Marrero called the presidential immunity Trump invoked in the lawsuit to stop the production of tax documents “unqualified and boundless.”

Judge Marrero (a Clinton appointee) serves in the Southern District of New York, where many of the lawsuits and charges aimed at the President originate. His assertion that claims of presidential immunity are “unqualified and boundless” will be interesting to evaluate on appeal. The question of whether or not the President really is immune from any form of prosecution or arrest while serving in office is an old one that’s been argued for as long as the republic has existed. You can find legal scholars both agreeing and disagreeing, sometimes depending on which party currently holds power.

Of course, it might be more useful to know precisely what they’re thinking of charging Trump with. Thus far, all of the statements released from the DA’s office simply claim that the matter is related to “payments made to two women who allegedly had affairs with the president.” If these were payments made as part of more NDAs lurking in Trump’s closet, I’m not sure what criminal charges they could be referring to unless we’re bringing back New York’s old blue laws against adultery.

Either way, now that the judge has kicked Trump’s motion, his legal team will need to move fast if they want to avoid the document dump. One journalist from Bloomberg stated earlier today that the appeal would need to be filed almost immediately under the terms of a previous agreement. Otherwise, the documents would start flowing to the court in a matter of days if not hours.

As it turns out, Trump’s team got the appeal filed in no time flat and a judge has already granted an extension.

The post New York lawsuit seeking Trump’s tax returns will proceed appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group trump-westerhout-300x162 New York lawsuit seeking Trump’s tax returns will proceed The Blog tax returns New York State lawsuit donald trump   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Robert De Niro sued for sexual harassment and discrimination

Westlake Legal Group Robert-DeNiro Robert De Niro sued for sexual harassment and discrimination The Blog Robert De Niro lawsuit

Robert De Niro has recently been making news for his use of the F-word on cable TV, not in one of his films but in an interview on CNN. But back in August De Niro was in the news for something else. His company filed a $6 million lawsuit against a former employee named Graham Chase Robinson. The lawsuit called Robinson a “disloyal employee” and accused her of charging personal expenses on her company credit card, improperly reimbursing herself from the office’s petty cash fund, and “binge-watching astounding hours of TV shows on Netflix” during working hours. In sum, the suit portrayed Robinson as a loafer and a thief. Today, Robinson responded with her own $12 million lawsuit accusing De Niro of sexual harassment and discrimination:

“Robert De Niro is someone who has clung to old mores,” states a complaint filed on Thursday in New York federal court. “He does not accept the idea that men should treat women as equals. He does not care that gender discrimination in the workplace violates the law. Ms. Robinson is a casualty of this attitude.”

Robinson accuses the famous actor of gratuitous unwanted physical contact.

“Among other things, De Niro would direct Ms. Robinson to scratch his back, button his shirts, fix his collars, tie his ties and prod him awake when he was in bed,” it reads. “De Niro also stood idly by while his friend slapped Ms. Robinson on her buttocks.”

Robinson also claims De Niro made sexually charged comments, including calling her a “bitch” and a “brat” while labeling another female business partner a “c—.”

“De Niro made vulgar, inappropriate and gendered comments to Ms. Robinson,” continues the complaint. “He would joke with Ms. Robinson about his Viagra prescription. De Niro smirked to Ms. Robinson about his young paramour, who was around Ms. Robinson’s age.

In addition to the harassment claims, Robinson says the big lawsuit the company filed against her was a pre-emptive attempt to sully her name. From her lawsuit:

De Niro was enraged at the prospect of Ms. Robinson bringing a lawsuit challenging his behavior. So, he retaliated and struck first. On the heels of Ms. Robinson’s complaints of gender discrimination, De Niro had Canal Productions file an abusive, preemptive lawsuit against her. The lawsuit concocted false allegations designed to inhibit Ms. Robinson from pursuing her claims, destroy her reputation, and obliterate her job prospects.

The lawsuit also contradicts the claim made in the previous lawsuit that Robinson is a loafer who sat around watching Netflix on company time:

As a result of the demands De Niro placed on Ms. Robinson, she had to work longer hours than her male colleagues. De Niro described Ms. Robinson as “chained” to the office. On weekdays, it was typical for Ms. Robinson to start working by around 7 a.m. and stop working around 8 p.m. She typically worked through breakfast, lunch, and dinner. In addition, she also routinely worked additional hours during weekends. In sum, Ms. Robinson routinely worked approximately 20 to 30 hours of overtime per week (or more) without receiving any overtime pay.

I obviously don’t know who is telling the truth here, if anyone. De Niro’s lawyer told the Hollywood Reporter the allegations were “beyond absurd.” Maybe, but as part of their lawsuit Robinson’s lawyers posted the audio of an angry phone message DeNiro left her in 2012 (h/t Buzzfeed). The language here is NSFW and, at a minimum, suggests De Niro wasn’t always an easy person to work for.

The post Robert De Niro sued for sexual harassment and discrimination appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Robert-DeNiro-300x159 Robert De Niro sued for sexual harassment and discrimination The Blog Robert De Niro lawsuit   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Robert De Niro sued for sexual harassment and discrimination

Westlake Legal Group Robert-DeNiro Robert De Niro sued for sexual harassment and discrimination The Blog Robert De Niro lawsuit

Robert De Niro has recently been making news for his use of the F-word on cable TV, not in one of his films but in an interview on CNN. But back in August De Niro was in the news for something else. His company filed a $6 million lawsuit against a former employee named Graham Chase Robinson. The lawsuit called Robinson a “disloyal employee” and accused her of charging personal expenses on her company credit card, improperly reimbursing herself from the office’s petty cash fund, and “binge-watching astounding hours of TV shows on Netflix” during working hours. In sum, the suit portrayed Robinson as a loafer and a thief. Today, Robinson responded with her own $12 million lawsuit accusing De Niro of sexual harassment and discrimination:

“Robert De Niro is someone who has clung to old mores,” states a complaint filed on Thursday in New York federal court. “He does not accept the idea that men should treat women as equals. He does not care that gender discrimination in the workplace violates the law. Ms. Robinson is a casualty of this attitude.”

Robinson accuses the famous actor of gratuitous unwanted physical contact.

“Among other things, De Niro would direct Ms. Robinson to scratch his back, button his shirts, fix his collars, tie his ties and prod him awake when he was in bed,” it reads. “De Niro also stood idly by while his friend slapped Ms. Robinson on her buttocks.”

Robinson also claims De Niro made sexually charged comments, including calling her a “bitch” and a “brat” while labeling another female business partner a “c—.”

“De Niro made vulgar, inappropriate and gendered comments to Ms. Robinson,” continues the complaint. “He would joke with Ms. Robinson about his Viagra prescription. De Niro smirked to Ms. Robinson about his young paramour, who was around Ms. Robinson’s age.

In addition to the harassment claims, Robinson says the big lawsuit the company filed against her was a pre-emptive attempt to sully her name. From her lawsuit:

De Niro was enraged at the prospect of Ms. Robinson bringing a lawsuit challenging his behavior. So, he retaliated and struck first. On the heels of Ms. Robinson’s complaints of gender discrimination, De Niro had Canal Productions file an abusive, preemptive lawsuit against her. The lawsuit concocted false allegations designed to inhibit Ms. Robinson from pursuing her claims, destroy her reputation, and obliterate her job prospects.

The lawsuit also contradicts the claim made in the previous lawsuit that Robinson is a loafer who sat around watching Netflix on company time:

As a result of the demands De Niro placed on Ms. Robinson, she had to work longer hours than her male colleagues. De Niro described Ms. Robinson as “chained” to the office. On weekdays, it was typical for Ms. Robinson to start working by around 7 a.m. and stop working around 8 p.m. She typically worked through breakfast, lunch, and dinner. In addition, she also routinely worked additional hours during weekends. In sum, Ms. Robinson routinely worked approximately 20 to 30 hours of overtime per week (or more) without receiving any overtime pay.

I obviously don’t know who is telling the truth here, if anyone. De Niro’s lawyer told the Hollywood Reporter the allegations were “beyond absurd.” Maybe, but as part of their lawsuit Robinson’s lawyers posted the audio of an angry phone message DeNiro left her in 2012 (h/t Buzzfeed). The language here is NSFW and, at a minimum, suggests De Niro wasn’t always an easy person to work for.

The post Robert De Niro sued for sexual harassment and discrimination appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Robert-DeNiro-300x159 Robert De Niro sued for sexual harassment and discrimination The Blog Robert De Niro lawsuit   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

San Francisco backs down to the NRA… for now

Westlake Legal Group NRA San Francisco backs down to the NRA… for now The Blog San Francisco nra National Rifle Association mayor London Breed lawsuit blacklist

As you may recall, San Francisco recently passed a municipal resolution effectively blacklisting the NRA in their city and encouraging everyone to refuse to do business with the organization or its members. This predictably resulted in the group bringing a lawsuit against the city in short order. It looks like their Mayor, London Breed, saw the writing on the wall and didn’t feel like waiting around for a court to smack them down. On Friday she issued a memorandum basically saying, our bad, nevermind. (Daily Caller)

The National Rifle Association of America declared victory in San Francisco today, after Mayor London Breed formally disavowed key provisions of a municipal resolution that signaled the blacklisting of contractors linked to the Second Amendment advocacy group…

Late last week, rather than await “instruction” from a court, San Francisco Mayor London Breed backed down. In a formal memorandum to City officials, she declared that “no [municipal] department will take steps to restrict any contractor from doing business with the NRA or to restrict City contracting opportunities for any business that has any relationship with the NRA.”

“Through these actions and our public advocacy, we hope the message is now clear,” says NRA CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “The NRA will always fight to protect our members and the constitutional freedoms in which they believe.”

On the surface, this certainly looks like good news for Second Amendment fans and an embarrassing loss for Mayor Breed and the City Council. You don’t issue that sort of a walk back unless someone with a basic understanding of the law whispered in your ear and let you know that you were walking into a legal buzzsaw. This was such a blatantly illegal maneuver that the authors of the original resolution should really be evaluated for criminal incompetence.

But is it really over and should the NRA drop the suit at this point? Yes, the resolution is being rescinded and the Mayor’s instructions sound clear enough. But in some ways, the damage has already been done. The city put out a very clear signal with their bungled resolution and both the people making contracting decisions and the private businesses around the city undoubtedly got the message loud and clear.

It may not be an “official policy” to reject deals with businesses associated with the NRA, but that doesn’t mean that anyone has to do business with them either. If there are multiple bidders for any particular bit of business and there’s an unofficial list of NRA associates floating around, those associates might just happen to not win the bid. Proving in court that the sort of discrimination I’m describing is taking place would be difficult, to say the least.

Now that the city has made its position clear, the NRA could face a sort of “shadow banning” of the same type that conservative Twitter accounts frequently run into. Some sort of oversight of the San Francisco municipal government at a higher level should be in order. Since all of their business dealings are matters of public record, periodic reviews of contracts awarded and bids received could be conducted to see if NRA associates are just coincidentally doing less business going forward.

Just as a reminder, the NRA is still engaged in a similar lawsuit in Los Angeles, where a nearly identical resolution was passed but the city isn’t backing down. As the Daily Caller points out, however, a federal district judge threw out the city’s bid to dismiss the suit entirely last month. All of the caveats I mentioned here should be kept in mind for that case as well.

The post San Francisco backs down to the NRA… for now appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group NRA-300x159 San Francisco backs down to the NRA… for now The Blog San Francisco nra National Rifle Association mayor London Breed lawsuit blacklist   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits

Westlake Legal Group SquadAOCOmarTlaibPressley-620x317 Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits twitter Politics New Rules lawsuit judge Hypocrisy Hikind Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats consistency Blocking

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., speaks as, from left, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., listen during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, July 15, 2019. President Donald Trump on Monday intensified his incendiary comments about the four Democratic congresswomen of color, urging them to get out if they don’t like things going on in America. They fired back at what they called his “xenophobic bigoted remarks” and said it was time for impeachment. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

This is one of the sillier stories of the day, but new rules and all that.

If you recall, Donald Trump was successfully sued by liberals with nothing better to do because he blocked people on Twitter. Eventually a judge decided you now have a constitutional right to not have to log out to view tweets if someone blocks you.

Not all heroes wear capes I guess.

Because the only way to fight back against this insanity is to make Democrats play by their own rules, a lawsuit was filed against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for also blocking people on Twitter.

I’m not going to take the time to dig up my old Twitter arguments on the matter, but the most common rebuttal I got was that AOC can block people because she only represents her district. So it’s (D)ifferent, because it always is, right? That seemed too convenient by half, as she’s still a government figure who makes national policy. Now, a judge apparently agrees and she’s being made to testify.

An aide to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday said the freshman congresswoman blocks people on Twitter if their input isn’t “constructive” — but a federal judge demanded that she come and explain that herself…

…But Brooklyn federal Judge Frederic Block wants to hear directly from the prolific tweeter herself.

“I think she has to testify,” the judge said. “Her point is that this was an A-OK thing to do … she has to explain.”

Hikind said he was blocked by Ocasio-Cortez after he tweeted at her about her controversial comments in June comparing migrant centers at the border to concentration camps.

Look, I think this is ridiculous. Anyone should be able to block who they want on Twitter. But AOC was one of the people who gloated when Trump lost the lawsuit filed against him over blocking people on Twitter, so she better be willing to play by her own rules.

The real issue here is the stupidity of our justice system in the age of Trump. Judges continually torture the law and invent reasons to rule against the President simply for partisan gain. It’s how you can a judge in California have the same ruling overturned twice, finally having to be slapped down by the Supreme Court. There’s no care for normalcy or deference among many Democrat appointed judges anymore. It’s orange man bad all the time.

I’d love to return to a time of sanity on legal matters like this but that doesn’t appear possible right now. In the meantime, the best way to cut back on the nonsense is to hold Democrats to the standards they set.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AOCAPimage-300x153 Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits twitter Politics New Rules lawsuit judge Hypocrisy Hikind Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats consistency Blocking   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits

Westlake Legal Group SquadAOCOmarTlaibPressley-620x317 Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits twitter Politics New Rules lawsuit judge Hypocrisy Hikind Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats consistency Blocking

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., speaks as, from left, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., listen during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, July 15, 2019. President Donald Trump on Monday intensified his incendiary comments about the four Democratic congresswomen of color, urging them to get out if they don’t like things going on in America. They fired back at what they called his “xenophobic bigoted remarks” and said it was time for impeachment. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

This is one of the sillier stories of the day, but new rules and all that.

If you recall, Donald Trump was successfully sued by liberals with nothing better to do because he blocked people on Twitter. Eventually a judge decided you now have a constitutional right to not have to log out to view tweets if someone blocks you.

Not all heroes wear capes I guess.

Because the only way to fight back against this insanity is to make Democrats play by their own rules, a lawsuit was filed against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for also blocking people on Twitter.

I’m not going to take the time to dig up my old Twitter arguments on the matter, but the most common rebuttal I got was that AOC can block people because she only represents her district. So it’s (D)ifferent, because it always is, right? That seemed too convenient by half, as she’s still a government figure who makes national policy. Now, a judge apparently agrees and she’s being made to testify.

An aide to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday said the freshman congresswoman blocks people on Twitter if their input isn’t “constructive” — but a federal judge demanded that she come and explain that herself…

…But Brooklyn federal Judge Frederic Block wants to hear directly from the prolific tweeter herself.

“I think she has to testify,” the judge said. “Her point is that this was an A-OK thing to do … she has to explain.”

Hikind said he was blocked by Ocasio-Cortez after he tweeted at her about her controversial comments in June comparing migrant centers at the border to concentration camps.

Look, I think this is ridiculous. Anyone should be able to block who they want on Twitter. But AOC was one of the people who gloated when Trump lost the lawsuit filed against him over blocking people on Twitter, so she better be willing to play by her own rules.

The real issue here is the stupidity of our justice system in the age of Trump. Judges continually torture the law and invent reasons to rule against the President simply for partisan gain. It’s how you can a judge in California have the same ruling overturned twice, finally having to be slapped down by the Supreme Court. There’s no care for normalcy or deference among many Democrat appointed judges anymore. It’s orange man bad all the time.

I’d love to return to a time of sanity on legal matters like this but that doesn’t appear possible right now. In the meantime, the best way to cut back on the nonsense is to hold Democrats to the standards they set.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AOCAPimage-300x153 Judge Demands AOC Testify In Court Over Her Twitter Habits twitter Politics New Rules lawsuit judge Hypocrisy Hikind Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats consistency Blocking   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com