We Have Another Soros DA in Los Angeles County

Posted on December 8, 2020December 8, 2020 by Denise Simon

No more deportations…..

As part of the Los Angeles City Charter:

Sec. 215. Oath of Office.

Every officer provided for in the Charter shall, before entering upon the discharge of the duties of office, take the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Los Angeles, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (here inserting the name of the office) according to the best of my ability.”

On first day, L.A. County D.A. George Gascón eliminates bail - Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES (CN) — On his first day on the job as Los Angeles County’s top prosecutor, George Gascón says the district attorney’s office will no longer ask for cash bail for nonviolent felony charges, seek the death penalty or charge children as adults.

Gascón, the former San Francisco DA, unseated Jackie Lacey last month in a closely watched race that pitted an incumbent prosecutor against a reform challenger.

He was sworn in Monday and promised to “change course and implement a system of justice that will enhance our safety and humanity” as he takes the helm of one of the nation’s largest prosecutor’s offices.

“Today we are confronting the lie that stripping entire communities of their liberties somehow made us safer — and we’re doing it with science, research, and data,” Gascón said in a statement. “For decades those who profit off incarceration have used their enormous political influence — cloaked in the false veil of safety — to scare the public and our elected officials into backing racist policies that created more victims, destroyed budgets and shattered our moral compass. That lie and the harm it caused ends now.”

The turning tide promised by Gascón garnered an immediate reaction from law enforcement representatives. The LA Police Protective League, a union representing local police officers, called Gascón’s ending of cash bail “disturbing” and said pushing LA County into the progressive direction San Francisco followed would be “disastrous.”

“The new DA talks a good game, but his plans will do nothing but further victimize” LA County residents including people of color, the police union said in a statement.

The police union did not immediately respond to news that the DA’s office will form a board to review deadly police shootings going back to 2012, which is when Lacey first took office. The University of California, Irvine, criminal justice clinic said it assist the board.

Gascón, a Cuban-born immigrant, served as an assistant police chief with the LAPD and then police chief in Mesa, Arizona, before serving as police chief in San Francisco from 2009 to 2011.

He was appointed as San Francisco DA by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom to fill the vacancy left by Kamala Harris when she was elected as California attorney general.

Gascón’s pull toward LA County was in part encouraged by local activists who sought a candidate to challenge Lacey, including the Black Lives Matter-LA chapter.

The DA race played out amidst a backdrop of demands across the country for criminal justice reform over the murder of unarmed Black people.

For the last three years, local activists rallied outside Lacey’s downtown offices to demand an audience with her to discuss the killing of unarmed Black and brown civilians by police. Families whose loved ones were killed by police also wanted to know why the DA’s office was unwilling to bring charges against police over the shootings of unarmed people.

Under Lacey’s command, the DA office only brought charges against one police officer in the shooting death of a driver who fled during a traffic stop.

In a letter addressed to LA County police officers, Gascón said during his career as a police officer and then DA he’s “become a fierce advocate for good policing for largely the same reasons I seek to hold bad police accountable. It’s not simply because I believe Black Lives Matter, or because of the oath I will take today to uphold the Constitution and ensure equal justice under the law.”

He said problem officers severely hinder law enforcement’s standing in the community.

“We are all scarred by their misdeeds, leading many in our communities to perceive police as persecutors instead of protectors,” said Gascón.

In a tweet Gascón wrote, “40 years ago I walked my first beat as a young police officer. Today, I was sworn in as the 43rd District Attorney of Los Angeles.”

His campaign and win is widely viewed as an indictment of Lacey’s role as a prosecutor who did not change fast enough for a county of 10 million that sought a more progressive approach to criminal justice.

Lacey, the first Black prosecutor and first woman to hold the office, conceded the race to Gascón last month. He won roughly 2 million votes to Lacey’s 1.7 million, according to the county’s election results.

Along with doing away cash bail, Gascón said his office would ensure a better response to reach out to victims of sexual assault, will stop charging low-level offenses connected to poverty, addiction, mental illness and homelessness, according to a statement from his transition team.

His office will also emphasize resentencing for people convicted of nonviolent crimes and are deemed low risk or those with records of rehabilitation.

***

In October, Gascon’s campaign released a detailed plan that would use the power of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office to help criminal illegal aliens avoid arrest and deportation by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

As part of the plan, Gascon has proposed factoring in “severe collateral consequences in charging decisions, plea negotiations, and use of diversion programs” for criminal illegal aliens so as to avoid arrest and deportation by ICE.

“Local criminal justice actors must be careful not to become part of a pipeline to deportation in a dysfunctional immigration system … the DA must also strive to limit unnecessary exposure to immigration enforcement,” Gascon’s plan continues:

Immigration status can have a disproportionate adverse impact on noncitizen defendants because of federal immigration law implications. A core duty of prosecutors is to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. As such, it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to be aware of and mitigate collateral consequences, particularly when they are more severe than the punishment for the crime itself. Indeed, in Padilla v. Kentucky 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that immigration consequences of a conviction for immigrants can be profound and warrant consideration by the prosecution as well as the defense. [Emphasis added]

…

An immigration-informed approach includes working with defense attorneys to obtain a defendant’s immigration status–without requiring onerous proof or documentation – and implementing training programs to increase awareness of immigration law, with the goal of equipping prosecutors to exercise discretion in achieving immigration-neutral charges and plea bargaining. The basic principle guiding this approach is that the full range of punitive consequences – both direct and collateral–should be roughly equivalent for citizen and noncitizen offenders. [Emphasis added]

Likewise, Gascon has proposed reducing “prosecution of low-level, ‘quality of life’ offenses” such as drug possession, driving without a license, and public urination, so that illegal aliens who are arrested for these crimes do not face what Gascon deems “outsized immigration ramifications, due to the booking and fingerprint sharing between local law enforcement and immigration authorities following an arrest.”

Even further, Gascon plans to “limit exposure to immigration enforcement” for criminal illegal aliens by reducing jail-time so that suspects are booked and almost immediately released. More here from Breitbart.

Texas AG Ken Paxton is suing 4 battleground states in the Supreme Court

Posted on December 8, 2020December 8, 2020 by Denise Simon

Reporting:

Texas attorney general Ken Paxton (R.) is suing four battleground states in the Supreme Court, accusing them of using the coronavirus pandemic as a pretext to sidestep election laws and swing votes to Democrats.

The suit says state officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated the Constitution when they unilaterally revised voting deadlines and allowed widespread mail-in voting. Similar post-election claims from Republican groups and the Trump campaign have struggled to gain traction in court.

“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania … usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes,” the lawsuit reads. “Presently, evidence of material illegality in the 2020 general elections held in Defendant States grows daily.”

Texas wants the High Court to order a special election in the four battleground states and disqualify any Electoral College votes based on current results. Such orders would be unprecedented. Paxton is also pressing the Court to act on an expedited basis and hear oral arguments on Friday, an unusual move and an extraordinary one given the relief Texas requested.

Timing is a problem for Texas, since electors must be appointed on Monday. Paxton said the Court can just ignore the deadline, which is set in federal law. He said the justices “should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm.”

The justices rarely decide lawsuits filed directly in the Supreme Court, as Texas’s case is. While the Constitution provides that the Court should hear cases involving the states, the justices have long held that they have discretion to turn them away.

Paxton’s future in public life is in question after senior aides accused him of bribery and abuse of office. An FBI investigation is ongoing. His current term expires in 2022.

Texas v. Pennsylvania motio… by Washington Free Beacon

Sen. Cruz, Colleagues Submit Amicus Brief To Supreme Court

Posted on December 8, 2020December 8, 2020 by Denise Simon

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Rick Scott, (R-Fla.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) today submitted a joint amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the petitioners in the case of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and in defense of laws that combat election fraud.

The amicus brief argues that the Voting Rights Act does not prevent states from enacting neutral election integrity measures like Arizona’s ban on ballot-harvesting, or other measures such as in-precinct voting requirements, voter ID requirements, election observer zones, and straight-ticket voting.

The full text of the amicus brief may be viewed here. Excerpts are below.

“‘The risk of voter fraud [is] real.’ As this Court has repeatedly confirmed, States have the authority and responsibility to ensure the integrity of their elections. These measures do not deny anyone the equal ‘opportunity’ to vote ‘on account of race or color.’ […]

“In the past decade, plaintiffs have pushed an aggressive Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act theory seeking to invalidate voting laws regulating absentee voting, precinct voting, early voting, voter identification, election observer zones, voter registration, durational residency, and straight-ticket voting. […]

“In the past few years, many recommended election-integrity regulations–which impose no more than ‘the usual burdens of voting,’–have been challenged in a wave of novel Voting Rights Act litigation. […]

“Were this Court to adopt the sweeping interpretation […] advocated by Respondents, these recommended laws and other neutral time, place, and manner voting laws would be put in grave danger across the country.”

Arizona Sees Massive Turnout, Smooth Process in Early Voting | Arizona News | US News photo

MARK BRNOVICH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.,Petitioners,v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL., Respondents.

_____________

ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL.,Petitioners,v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL., Respondents.

41 page Amicus is found here.

For reference on the Voting Rights Act, go here.

14 Fort Hood Soldiers Fired, Suspended

Posted on December 8, 2020December 8, 2020 by Denise Simon

Army leaders are firing or suspending 14 officers and enlisted soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, and ordering policy changes to address chronic leadership failures at the base that contributed to a widespread pattern of violence including murder, sexual assaults and harassment.

Two general officers are among those being removed from their jobs, as top Army leaders on Tuesday announced the findings of an independent panel’s investigation into problems at the Texas base.

The actions, taken by Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, come in the aftermath of a year that saw 25 soldiers assigned to Fort Hood die due to suicide, homicide or accidents, including the bludgeoning death of Spc. Vanessa Guillen. Guillen was missing for about two months before her remains were found.

The firings and suspensions include Army Maj. Gen. Scott Efflandt, who was left in charge of the base earlier this year when Guillen was killed, as well as Maj. Gen. Jeffery Broadwater, commander of the 1st Cavalry Divisions. The administrative actions are expected to trigger investigations that could lead to a wide range of punishments. Those punishments could go from a simple letter of reprimand to a military discharge.

The base commander, Army Lt. Gen. Pat White, will not face any administrative action. He was deployed to Iraq as the commander there for much of the year.

Army leaders had already delayed Efflandt’s planned transfer to Fort Bliss, where he was slated to take over leadership of the 1st Armored Division. Command of a division is a key step in an Army officer’s career.

Efflandt’s move was paused while the team of independent investigators conducted its probe into whether leadership failures contributed to the killings of several people, including Guillen, and who should be held accountable.

*** 26 died this year.

According to investigators, Guillen, 20, was bludgeoned to death at Fort Hood by Spc. Aaron Robinson, who killed himself on July 1 as police were trying to take him into custody. Guillen was missing for more than two months before her remains were found. Her family has said Robinson sexually harassed her, though the Army has said there is no evidence supporting that claim.

The body of Pvt. Mejhor Morta was found in July near a reservoir by the base. In June, officials discovered the remains of another missing soldier, Gregory Morales, about 10 miles from that lake. All together, so far this year, 25 soldiers assigned to Fort Hood have died due to suicide, homicide or accidents, compared with 32 last year and 24 in 2018.

In an Associated Press interview last month, White said that he and other commanders bear responsibility for the problems. But he said it will take time to correct what some believe are systemic failures, and that some units will respond more quickly than others.

“I think all leadership is accountable for it, if you’re in this chain of command,” White said. “We have got to do everything we can to get this back on track.”

Under Army procedures, when a soldier is fired or suspended from a post, it can often lead to a fuller investigation into the matter. While some can move on to another Army job, a firing or suspension can often signal the end of a soldier’s career.

Army leaders have said this year that they are concerned that 20 years of war have led the service to focus so much on readiness that they have paid less attention to the well-being of the soldiers and their families.

Lawsuit: Facebook Unfairly Overlooked American Workers

Posted on December 8, 2020December 8, 2020 by Denise Simon

Another reason to get off of Facebook. Maybe Zuckerberg missed the memo, the official memo, rather the Presidential Executive Order that was signed on April 18, 2017.

In part: (b) Hire American. In order to create higher wages and employment rates for workers in the United States, and to protect their economic interests, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to rigorously enforce and administer the laws governing entry into the United States of workers from abroad, including section 212(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)).

***

The US Department of Justice accused Facebook on Thursday of discriminating against American workers, saying in a new lawsuit that the social media giant had given hiring preferences to temporary workers, including those who hold H-1B visas.

The DoJ said that Facebook had “refused” to recruit, consider or hire qualified US workers for more than 2,600 jobs that in many cases paid an average salary of $156,000 a year.

Instead, it opted to fill the positions using temporary visa holders, such as those with H-1B visas, the department added.

“Facebook intentionally created a hiring system in which it denied qualified US workers a fair opportunity to learn about and apply for jobs,” the justice department said.

photo

The social media company instead sought to channel such jobs to temporary visa holders it wanted to sponsor for green cards or permanent residency, it added.

H-1B visas are often used by the technology sector to bring highly skilled foreign guest workers to the United States. But critics say the laws governing these visas are lax, and make it too easy to replace US workers with cheaper, foreign labor.

“Facebook has been cooperating with the DoJ in its review of this issue and while we dispute the allegations in the complaint, we cannot comment further on pending litigation,” company spokesman Daniel Roberts said.

The Facebook lawsuit is the latest example of the Trump administration clashing with Silicon Valley over attempts to restrict immigration for foreign workers.

Trump and Republican lawmakers have also clashed with the company in other areas, such as accusing the platform of stifling conservative voices.

The justice and labor departments have both investigated big tech companies in the past over allegations similar to those against Facebook, but they have rarely brought charges due to loopholes in the law.

Tech companies and industry groups have contested moves to limit immigration of foreign workers by saying there are not enough American students graduating with science and engineering degrees to meet the demand for filling jobs in areas such as artificial intelligence.

In June, Trump issued a presidential proclamation that temporarily blocked foreign workers entering on H-1B visas – an attempt the administration then said would open up 525,000 jobs for US workers.

Among the top 30 H-1B employers are major US firms including Amazon, Microsoft, Walmart, Alphabet’s Google, Apple and Facebook, according to a report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in May.

The EPI report said most companies using H1B visas take advantage of program rules in order to legally pay such workers below the local median wage for the jobs they fill.