A federal appeals court has delivered a significant blow to Ghislaine Maxwell's attempts to overturn her sex trafficking conviction.
According to The Epoch Times, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Maxwell's appeal on September 17, upholding her 2021 conviction for conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and sex trafficking of minors.
The court's decision addressed several key arguments presented by Maxwell's legal team, including claims related to a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) involving Jeffrey Epstein and challenges to the statute of limitations for her crimes.
U.S. Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes, writing for the unanimous panel, ruled that the NPA Epstein reached with Florida prosecutors did not extend protection to Maxwell.
The court determined that the agreement was specifically limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other jurisdictions, such as the Southern District of New York, where Maxwell was prosecuted.
Judge Cabranes emphasized that the NPA's language and negotiation history did not indicate any intention to restrict prosecutors outside of Florida from pursuing charges against potential co-conspirators.
Maxwell's legal team also contended that the charges against her fell outside the statute of limitations. However, the appeals court dismissed this argument, citing a 2003 law that eliminated the statute of limitations for serious crimes against children.
The judges pointed out that this law allows for prosecution "during the life of a child or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer," effectively negating Maxwell's statute of limitations defense.
The Second Circuit panel also upheld the district court's handling of Maxwell's sentencing and a post-trial juror issue.
Judge Alison Nathan, who presided over the original trial, was found to have acted within her discretion when denying Maxwell's motion for a new trial based on a juror's inaccurate responses during selection.
The appeals court agreed with Judge Nathan's assessment that the jurors would not have been dismissed even if they had provided accurate answers to the questionnaire.
Regarding Maxwell's 20-year prison sentence, the appeals court found that Judge Nathan had adequately explained the rationale behind the punishment.
Judge Cabranes noted that the district court had properly considered the sentencing factors and recognized the gravity of Maxwell's conduct. The panel agreed that the sentence reflected the significant harm inflicted on the victims and Maxwell's pivotal role in facilitating the abuse.
The appeals court quoted Judge Nathan's explanation:
The district court recognized that the sentence 'must reflect the gravity of Ms. Maxwell's conduct, of Ms. Maxwell's offense, the pivotal role she played in facilitating the offense, and the significant and lasting harm it inflicted.'
This statement underscores the court's view that the lengthy sentence was justified, given the nature and impact of Maxwell's crimes.
The Second Circuit's decision represents a significant setback for Maxwell, who is currently serving her sentence in federal prison. With her primary avenues for appeal now exhausted, Maxwell's options for challenging her conviction and sentence appear limited. The ruling also reinforces the prosecution's case against her and validates the jury's verdict from 2021.
This decision by the federal appeals court marks a crucial moment in the long-running legal saga surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. The court's rejection of Maxwell's appeal upholds her conviction for sex trafficking of minors, affirms her 20-year prison sentence, and dismisses her claims regarding the non-prosecution agreement and statute of limitations.
By addressing each of Maxwell's arguments and finding them without merit, the Second Circuit has effectively closed a significant chapter in this high-profile case, leaving Maxwell with few remaining legal options to challenge her conviction.
Governor Tim Walz's historic $2.3 billion education spending bill has yet to improve Minnesota's student test scores.
According to a report from The Daily Caller, despite the massive financial investment in Minnesota's education system, recent data shows little improvement in student performance.
The legislation, signed by Walz in 2023, was touted as the largest education investment in Minnesota's history. It aimed to improve child literacy and included provisions for ethnic studies curricula and increased pre-k education funding. However, the latest round of state test scores reveals that approximately half of public school students still fail to meet grade-level standards.
The Minnesota Department of Education addressed the lack of progress in an August 29 press release, stating that the long-term investments from the 2023 legislative session are still being implemented.
The department expressed optimism about the future impact of these investments, suggesting that once fully implemented, they will positively affect students for years to come.
However, the current data paints a concerning picture. When Walz took office in 2019, about 60% of Minnesota public school students met state reading standards, and 55% were proficient in math. As of 2024, those numbers have dropped to 50% for reading proficiency and 45% for math proficiency.
While most states experienced a decline in test scores during the pandemic, Minnesota's drop was notably worse than the national average.
In 2015 and 2017, Minnesota's fourth-grade math scores were 10 points above the national average. By 2022, that lead had shrunk to just four points above the national average.
This significant decline has raised questions about the effectiveness of the state's education policies and the impact of the pandemic on student learning.
Despite the massive influx of cash, many school districts in Minnesota are facing financial difficulties. Minneapolis Public Schools, for instance, is expecting a $116 million budgetary shortfall.
This situation has led to concerns about the allocation and management of funds within the education system. Critics argue that simply increasing funding without addressing systemic issues may not be sufficient to improve educational outcomes.
The financial challenges faced by school districts, even with increased funding, highlight the complexity of education reform and the need for strategic allocation of resources.
The education spending bill also introduced controversial elements into the curriculum, particularly in the realm of ethnic studies.
The new requirements mandate that first-graders "identify examples of ethnicity, equality, liberation and systems of power" and use these examples to construct meanings for these terms. High school students are required to "develop an analysis of racial capitalism" and "anti-Blackness" while being critical of "dominant European beauty standards."
These curriculum changes have sparked debate about the appropriate content for different age groups and the role of political ideology in education.
As a Democratic vice presidential nominee, Walz's education policies and their outcomes are likely to face increased scrutiny on the national stage. The Harris campaign and the Minnesota governor's office have not yet responded to requests for comment on the matter. This silence may fuel further debate about the effectiveness of the education policies implemented under Walz's administration.
The situation in Minnesota raises broader questions about education reform, the impact of increased funding, and the most effective ways to improve student performance. As the 2024 election approaches, education policy is likely to remain a crucial issue for voters and policymakers alike.
In conclusion, Governor Tim Walz's $2.3 billion education investment has not yet yielded the expected improvements in Minnesota's test scores. Despite the historic funding increase, student proficiency in reading and math has declined since 2019. The introduction of new curricula and the ongoing implementation of long-term investments add complexity to the situation. As Minnesota grapples with these challenges, the effectiveness of its education policies remains a topic of debate and national interest.
In a significant ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided that mail-in ballots with incorrect dates will not be counted in the upcoming November election.
This decision, as reported by The Hill, overturns a previous ruling from a lower court in this crucial battleground state.
The state's highest court argued that the lower court's ruling, which initially applied only to Philadelphia and Allegheny counties, lacked proper jurisdiction. This reversal has been hailed as a victory for election integrity by Republican officials while drawing criticism from civil rights organizations concerned about voter disenfranchisement.
The court's decision has sparked a debate about the balance between maintaining election integrity and ensuring voter participation.
Supporters of the ruling argue that it upholds the importance of following proper procedures in the voting process, while critics contend that it may disenfranchise eligible voters over minor clerical errors.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania expressed disappointment with the ruling, characterizing misdated ballots as a "common trivial error on the external envelopes." The organization views this decision as a setback for Pennsylvania voters and has vowed to continue fighting for voter rights.
ACLU of Pennsylvania attorney Steve Loney stated:
Today's procedural ruling is a setback for Pennsylvania voters, but we will keep fighting for them. These eligible voters who got their ballots in on time should have their votes counted and voices heard. The fundamental right to vote is among the most precious rights we enjoy as Pennsylvanians, and it should take more than a trivial paperwork error to take it away.
The case that led to this ruling originated from a lawsuit filed by ten community organizations against Pennsylvania State Secretary Al Schmidt, a Republican, and election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny counties. The plaintiffs sought to have misdated ballots counted, arguing that the date on the envelope was a technicality that should not disqualify otherwise valid votes.
It's worth noting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision was not unanimous. Three out of the seven justices dissented against the reversal, indicating a split in judicial opinion on this matter. This division reflects the complex and often contentious nature of election law interpretations.
The majority opinion focused on the jurisdictional issue, suggesting that the lower court overstepped its authority by making a ruling that applied only to specific counties rather than the entire state. This technical aspect of the decision may leave room for future legal challenges or legislative action to address the issue of misdated ballots statewide.
The court's decision has elicited strong reactions from political figures and organizations. Republican Party Chair Michael Whatley celebrated the ruling on social media, describing it as a "HUGE election integrity win in Pennsylvania." This response underscores the GOP's focus on tightening election procedures and combating potential voter fraud.
On the other hand, voting rights advocates and some Democratic-leaning organizations have expressed concern that the ruling could lead to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. They argue that rejecting ballots over minor dating errors could disproportionately affect certain communities and potentially alter election outcomes in a closely contested state.
The timing of this decision is particularly significant given Pennsylvania's status as a crucial swing state in the upcoming election. Recent polling data aggregated by The Hill/Decision Desk HQ indicates that the state is likely to be a toss-up between Vice President Harris and former President Trump, with Harris holding a slim lead of less than 1 percent.
Given the importance of Pennsylvania in national elections and the narrow margin by which recent presidential contests have been decided in the state, it's likely that this ruling will not be the final word on the matter of misdated mail-in ballots. Voting rights organizations and political parties may seek further legal clarification or pursue legislative solutions to address the issue.
State lawmakers could potentially introduce bills to clarify the requirements for mail-in ballot envelopes or to provide a process for voters to correct minor errors on their ballot envelopes. Such legislative action would need to balance concerns about election integrity with the desire to maximize voter participation and minimize disenfranchisement.
Additionally, this ruling may prompt election officials to increase voter education efforts, particularly regarding the proper completion of mail-in ballot envelopes. Improved communication and clearer instructions could help reduce the number of ballots rejected due to dating errors in future elections.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that mail-in ballots with incorrect dates will not be counted in the November election, overturning a lower court's decision. This ruling has been praised by Republicans as a win for election integrity but criticized by civil rights organizations as potentially disenfranchising eligible voters.
The decision is particularly significant given Pennsylvania's status as a key battleground state, where recent polls show a tight race between Vice President Harris and former President Trump. The court's ruling may lead to further legal challenges or legislative action to address the issue of misdated ballots in future elections.
Two IRS operatives have launched a defamation suit in Washington, D.C., against attorney Abbe Lowell, asserting reputational damage stemming from his conduct.
IRS agents Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler assert that Lowell falsely accused them of illegal activity in their whistleblower allegations against his client, Hunter Biden, as Just the News reports.
The dispute has its roots in comments made by Lowell, Hunter Biden's defense lawyer, who is alleged to have claimed that Shapley and Ziegler breached grand jury secrecy.
These allegations, reportedly directed to several congressional committees, have sparked significant controversy, escalating to a formal legal challenge.
The filing occurred last Friday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, represented by Mitchell Landsberg of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, and Schreck, argue that Lowell’s claims were not only injurious but blatantly false.
The accusations against the IRS agents were potent enough to prompt a defamation lawsuit, underscoring the severity of Lowell's alleged statements.
Lowell reportedly leaked these serious accusations to third parties, including the media, which Shapley and Ziegler claim were attempts to malign their integrity and professional standing.
Landsberg, speaking on behalf of his clients, emphasized the maliciousness of the defamatory statements made by Lowell. The complaint specifically highlights Lowell's influential status as a noted white-collar defense lawyer, arguing that his statements carried damaging weight against the plaintiffs.
The initial whistleblowing by Shapley and Ziegler involved reporting to the House Ways and Means Committee regarding what they perceived as undue leniency shown towards Hunter Biden in a tax probe. This act of whistleblowing is what they claim was met with Lowell's damaging and retaliatory assertions.
The reputational damage claimed in the lawsuit is significant, with the plaintiffs seeking a jury trial to address their grievances. They allege that Lowell’s actions reflect not only a personal attack but a professional one, with profound implications for their careers in law enforcement.
In response to the allegations, Shapley and Ziegler have stated through their legal representation that they acted with both integrity and honor in their roles as whistleblowers. Lowell's accusations involved alleged felonies, magnifying the potential harm conveyed through his claims.
The legal stakes are heightened by the sum in controversy, which surpasses $75,000. This figure underlines the severity and depth of the claimed defamation, positioning the lawsuit as a significant legal entanglement for both parties involved.
The narrative within the lawsuit draws attention to Lowell's description of himself as a formidable force in legal defense, suggesting that such a reputation should have precluded the kinds of accusations made against Shapley and Ziegler. This aspect of the complaint intends to illustrate the supposed irony and irresponsibility of Lowell's actions.
The plaintiffs' statement in the lawsuit contends that their careers as dedicated IRS Criminal Investigation agents have been unfairly tarnished. This declaration forms a core component of their claim, as they seek judicial recourse to restore their reputations.
"It is particularly ironic and damaging that a well-known attorney like Lowell -- in his words, 'one of the country’s foremost white-collar defense and trial lawyers' that is 'widely viewed as counsel of choice for individuals facing government investigations and potential indictments' -- has chosen to falsely accuse these special agents of criminal behavior," the lawsuit states.
"Shapley and Ziegler, both experienced and dedicated special agents of IRS Criminal Investigation, bring this action to vindicate their reputations for the incredible and malicious harm they have suffered at the hands of Abbe Lowell," the legal document elaborates. They hope that a jury trial will address their claims, leading to a restoration of their personal and professional standing.
As the legal proceedings progress, the implications for all involved -- particularly regarding professional ethics and the protection of whistleblowers -- remain a focal point.
The outcome of this case may set significant precedents for how retaliatory defamation claims are handled in the context of high-profile legal and political disputes.
The commissioner of the New York Police Department (NYPD) has resigned amid a burgeoning federal investigation in a development that was announced by Mayor Eric Adams during a recent press briefing.
Amid the ongoing federal probe, Edward Caban resigned on Friday, hours after his residence was searched by investigators, as Spectrum News NY reports.
The resignation, officially effective as of 5 p.m. on Friday, was disclosed Mayor Adams. The news came shortly after federal authorities conducted a raid on Caban's home, indicating a serious level of scrutiny.
The search extended beyond Caban's possessions to include electronic devices owned by other high-ranking NYPD officials, hinting at a broader investigation within the department's top echelons.
Edward Caban has served as NYPD commissioner since July 2023, developing a notable record during his tenure. Under his command, New York City saw significant reductions in crime rates, and a substantial number of illegal firearms were confiscated.
His role marked him as the first Latino to head the NYPD since he began his career with the department back in 1991. His leadership was notable for efforts leading to historic lows in several crime categories in the city.
Adams, in detailing Caban's contributions, emphasized the remarkable success in curbing gun-related crimes and reducing robbery incidents to record lows across the city.
Details surrounding the federal raid revealed that not only were Caban’s devices seized, but also those of his twin brother James, purportedly involved in the nightlife industry. Authorities are investigating James Caban’s consultancy roles and his alleged misuse of police connections.
In his resignation letter, Edward Caban mentioned the distraction caused by these developments, which made him anxious about maintaining focus on the department’s core responsibilities. His commitment to the NYPD's mission and his reluctance to let distractions hinder their work were clear reasons for his departure.
Additionally, Caban signaled his intent to fully cooperate with the Southern District of New York's ongoing investigation, according to statements from his legal team, Russell Capone and Rebekah Donaleski.
Following the resignation, Adams moved quickly to appoint an interim commissioner, selecting Tom Donlon, a former FBI official with extensive experience in national security and police operations.
Donlon’s past roles include leadership at the FBI’s National Threat Center and the Office of Homeland Security in New York, before founding a security consulting firm in 2020. His appointment is seen as a powerful strategic choice to stabilize the NYPD during this tumultuous period.
In his statement, Donlon expressed his commitment to continue the department’s progress in crime reduction and maintaining public safety, respecting the high standards set during Caban's tenure.
The local community and city officials reacted variously to the news of Caban’s resignation, highlighting its potential impacts on the city's law enforcement policies and practices.
Many expressed regret at the departure of a commissioner who managed to significantly lower crime rates in the city, while others focused on the necessity of maintaining integrity and transparency within the NYPD's leadership.
Legal experts, on the other hand, are closely watching the implications of the federal investigation not only for the individuals directly involved but also for the broader operations of the NYPD.
The city looks on as Tom Donlon takes up the mantle in these challenging times. His leadership will undoubtedly be scrutinized as he maneuvers the NYPD through a landscape altered by his predecessor’s sudden resignation and the shadows cast by the ongoing investigation.
As New York City navigates this change, the principles of transparency, integrity, and relentless dedication to public safety remain the pillars upon which the NYPD intends to build its future actions.
In conclusion, Edward Caban steps down amidst federal scrutiny, leaving a legacy of crime reduction and proactive law enforcement. Tom Donlon’s tenure begins with a backdrop of ongoing investigations but also an opportunity to build upon successes and reinforce the public’s trust in the NYPD.
In a significant legal development, four members of the St. Petersburg-based Uhuru Movement have been found guilty of conspiracy to act as Russian agents in a federal trial that concluded on September 12, 2024.
The verdict, delivered in a Tampa federal court, has sent shockwaves through political and activist circles. According to Bay News 9, while the jury convicted the defendants on conspiracy charges, three of the four were acquitted of acting as foreign agents.
The trial centered on allegations that the defendants, affiliated with the African People's Socialist Party and Uhuru Movement, had conspired to sow discord in U.S. society, spread Russian propaganda, and interfere illegally in U.S. elections. The case has raised questions about the intersection of political activism, foreign influence, and the limits of free speech.
Among those convicted was Omali Yeshitela, the 82-year-old chairman of the Uhuru organization, known for its focus on Black empowerment and advocacy for reparations.
Other defendants included Penny Hess, 78, and Jesse Nevel, 34, both leaders of branches of the group's white allies. The fourth defendant, Augustus C. Romain Jr., 38, had been expelled from the Uhurus in 2018 and subsequently established his own group in Atlanta called The Black Hammer.
The prosecution, led by Menno Goedman, argued that the defendants had knowingly collaborated with the Russian government. Goldman emphasized the defendants' own statements as evidence of their complicity, telling the jury:
The defendants knowingly partnered with the Russian government. Just look at their own words.
However, the defense presented a different narrative, contending that the defendants were unaware of any connections to Russian intelligence.
Leonard Goodman, the attorney representing Penny Hess, asserted that Aleksandr Ionov, who runs an organization known as the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia, had concealed his relationship with Russian intelligence from the Uhurus. Goodman stated, "The government has not proven that they knew Ionov was a Russian agent or a Russian government official."
The defense team characterized the case as potentially dangerous for First Amendment rights, suggesting that the government was attempting to silence the Uhurus for expressing their views. This argument highlights the delicate balance between national security concerns and protected speech.
The indictment against the defendants outlined a series of events dating back to 2015 when Yeshitela allegedly traveled from Tampa to Moscow to meet with Ionov and other Russians to discuss future cooperation.
Prosecutors claim that this meeting led to covert Russian funding and support for various activities in the U.S. until the summer of 2022.
These activities reportedly included demonstrations at the California and Georgia state capitols, as well as at an unnamed social media company in San Francisco. The government's case suggests a pattern of foreign influence attempting to exploit domestic political divisions and social issues.
The allegations and subsequent convictions have drawn attention from local officials. St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch, a Democrat, expressed concern over the implications of the case.
In a statement, Welch emphasized the city's stance against foreign interference: "It is important to underscore that the City of St. Petersburg does not support, condone or tolerate any foreign government engaging in activities to undermine or influence our elections."
This response underscores the broader implications of the case for local and national politics, particularly in an era of increased scrutiny on foreign influence in domestic affairs.
Despite the guilty verdicts on conspiracy charges, the defendants have indicated their intention to appeal. Yeshitela, speaking after the trial, remained defiant:
The most important thing is they were unable to convict us for working for anyone but black people. I am willing to be charged and found guilty of working for Black people.
This statement reflects the complex nature of the case, intertwining issues of political activism, racial justice, and national security.
The Uhuru case has concluded with mixed verdicts, finding the defendants guilty of conspiracy but not of acting as foreign agents. The trial involved charges of conspiring with Russian entities to influence U.S. politics and spread propaganda. While three defendants were acquitted of acting as foreign agents, all four were convicted of conspiracy. The case has raised significant questions about the boundaries of political activism and foreign influence in domestic affairs.
Vice President Kamala Harris's recent debate statement regarding her presence at the Capitol during the January 6 riot has come under scrutiny.
According to a fact check by Breitbart News, Harris's claim that she "was there" on January 6 at the Capitol is being challenged as potentially misleading.
During Tuesday's presidential debate, Harris made a statement suggesting she was present at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. However, investigative reports indicate that she had left the Capitol building before the riot began, raising questions about the accuracy of her debate remarks.
In the course of the debate, Vice President Harris made a statement regarding her whereabouts on January 6, 2021. She stated that she was at the Capitol on that day, mentioning her roles as Vice President-elect and acting senator at the time.
Harris described the events of that day, including the actions of then-President Donald Trump and the impact on law enforcement officers.
Harris's exact words during the debate were:
I was at the Capitol on January 6th. I was the Vice President-Elect. I was also an acting senator. I was there. And on that day, the president of the United States incited a violent mob to attack our nation's Capitol, to desecrate our nation's Capitol. On that day, 140 law enforcement officers were injured. And some died.
This statement has now become the center of a fact-checking debate, with some questioning its accuracy based on reported timelines of Harris's movements that day.
RealClearPolitics investigative reporter Julie Kelly has challenged Harris's statement, providing a different account of the Vice President's whereabouts on January 6. According to Kelly's report, Harris had left the Capitol building well before the riot began.
Kelly stated on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) that Harris departed from the Capitol at 11:20 AM for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters.
She was reportedly evacuated from the DNC at 1:17 PM and did not return to the Capitol. Kelly noted that the first breach of the Capitol's interior occurred at 2:12 PM, nearly three hours after Harris had left the building.
The discrepancy between Harris's debate statement and the reported timeline has sparked discussions about the accuracy of political statements during high-profile events like presidential debates.
It raises questions about the responsibility of candidates to provide precise information about their experiences, especially concerning significant historical events.
This situation also highlights the importance of fact-checking in political discourse. With the prevalence of social media and instant communication, statements made by political figures can quickly spread and shape public perception. The role of journalists and fact-checkers in verifying such claims becomes crucial in maintaining the integrity of public debate.
Furthermore, the controversy surrounding Harris's statement may impact public trust in political figures. Voters often rely on candidates' personal accounts and experiences to inform their decisions. When these accounts are called into question, it can potentially influence voter perception and confidence.
The debate between Vice President Harris and former President Donald Trump was a significant event in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election. Both candidates addressed various crucial issues, including economic policies, immigration, and past events such as the January 6 riot.
Harris's statement about January 6 was part of a broader discussion about the events of that day and their implications for American democracy. The debate also touched on other key topics that are likely to shape the upcoming election, such as abortion rights and gun ownership.
The fact-checking of Harris's statement is just one aspect of the post-debate analysis. Both candidates' performances are being scrutinized by media outlets, political analysts, and voters as they evaluate the potential leaders for the next presidential term.
Vice President Kamala Harris's claim of being present at the Capitol during the January 6 riot has been challenged by investigative reports. These reports suggest Harris had left the Capitol before the riot began, contradicting her debate statement. The discrepancy has sparked discussions about the accuracy of political statements and the importance of fact-checking in public discourse. This controversy may impact voter perception and highlight the complexities of discussing significant historical events in political debates.
The Missouri Supreme Court has ruled that a constitutional amendment to legalize abortion will remain on the November 5, 2024 ballot, overturning a lower court's decision.
The ruling, issued on September 10, 2024, came just hours before the constitutional deadline to remove questions from the ballot. According to the Missouri Independent, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft has been ordered to certify Amendment 3 for the upcoming general election.
The court's decision reverses a recommendation by Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh, who had ruled on Friday that the amendment should be removed from the ballot.
The Supreme Court's judgment directs Ashcroft to "certify to local election authorities that Amendment 3 be placed on the Nov. 5, 2024, general election ballot and shall take all steps necessary to ensure that it is on said ballot."
The ruling comes after a series of legal challenges to the amendment. A lawsuit filed in late August by anti-abortion lawmakers and activists sought to prevent the measure from appearing on the ballot. In an unexpected move, Secretary of State Ashcroft announced he was decertifying the measure on the eve of the Supreme Court hearing.
However, the Supreme Court judges determined that Ashcroft had missed the statutory deadline to change his decision. They stated that any action taken to alter the certification after the deadline "is a nullity and of no effect." This decision effectively nullified Ashcroft's attempt to remove the amendment from the ballot.
Following the court's ruling, Amendment 3 was promptly relisted on the Secretary of State's website under the 2024 ballot measures section by Tuesday afternoon.
If passed by voters on November 5, Amendment 3 would have significant implications for reproductive rights in Missouri. The amendment would go into effect 30 days after the election, potentially legalizing abortion up to the point of fetal viability and protecting other reproductive rights, including access to birth control.
Currently, abortion is illegal in Missouri, with limited exceptions for medical emergencies. The proposed amendment reads in part: "The government shall not deny or infringe upon a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care."
Tori Schafer, an attorney with the ACLU of Missouri, which is part of the coalition behind the amendment, emphasized the significance of the court's decision:
What this decision really says today is that we deserve to be on the ballot. That people deserve to make this decision for themselves.
The Supreme Court's decision has elicited strong reactions from both supporters and opponents of the amendment. Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the group behind the amendment, expressed satisfaction with the ruling:
This fight was not just about this amendment—it was about defending the integrity of the initiative petition process and ensuring that Missourians can shape their future directly.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit against the amendment, including state legislators and anti-abortion activists, expressed their disappointment.
The Missouri Republican Party also voiced its opposition to the court's decision, calling it "devastating" and "the most dangerous threat to Missouri's pro-life laws in our state's history."
With the general election only eight weeks away, the court's decision has energized both sides of the abortion debate in Missouri. Missourians for Constitutional Freedom has already raised over $15 million for their campaign, including substantial donations from national groups.
Democratic candidates have seized on the news to rally supporters. Crystal Quade, the Democratic nominee for governor, stated that voters would overturn Missouri's abortion ban, which she described as "cruel" and lacking exceptions for rape and incest.
Meanwhile, Lucas Kunce, the Democratic candidate running against incumbent U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, criticized attempts to block the amendment from reaching voters, saying, "The lies and lawfare used by Josh Hawley and his allies to try to block a citizen-led effort to end their total abortion ban have failed."
The Missouri Supreme Court's decision to keep the abortion rights amendment on the November ballot marks a significant moment in the state's ongoing debate over reproductive rights. The ruling ensures that voters will have the opportunity to decide on the legalization of abortion up to fetal viability.
With strong opinions on both sides and substantial campaign funding already in place, the amendment is set to be a central issue in Missouri's upcoming general election, potentially reshaping the state's abortion laws and impacting reproductive healthcare access for its residents.
A trial concerning the 2020 "Trump Train" highway incident involving a Biden-Harris campaign bus is set to commence in Texas.
According to Just The News, the case stems from allegations that supporters of former President Donald Trump harassed a Biden campaign bus for approximately 90 minutes during the 2020 election cycle.
The lawsuit, filed by former Texas state senator Wendy Davis, a campaign volunteer, a staffer, and the bus driver, claims that Trump supporters in vehicles and on motorcycles engaged in aggressive behavior towards the campaign bus.
The incident reportedly resulted in a collision with a Biden-Harris campaign staffer's car and forced the bus driver to take evasive action to avoid direct contact with other vehicles.
The plaintiffs in the case represent a cross-section of individuals involved in the Biden-Harris campaign during the 2020 election.
Wendy Davis, a prominent Democrat who previously ran for governor in Texas, is joined by others who were directly affected by the incident. Their decision to pursue legal action highlights the seriousness with which they view the events that transpired on the highway.
The lawsuit aims to address the alleged harassment and potentially dangerous situation created by the "Trump Train" supporters.
By bringing the case to trial, the plaintiffs seek to establish a legal precedent regarding campaign safety and the boundaries of political expression on public roads.
The inclusion of a campaign volunteer and staffer in the lawsuit suggests that the impact of the incident extended beyond high-profile political figures to affect campaign workers at various levels.
The confrontation, as described in the lawsuit, lasted for an extended period, with the Biden-Harris campaign bus allegedly being targeted for about an hour and a half. This duration suggests a sustained and coordinated effort by the Trump supporters involved in the incident.
During the confrontation, it is claimed that a vehicle belonging to a Biden-Harris campaign staffer was struck. While the exact circumstances of this collision are likely to be a key point of contention in the trial, it underscores the potential for physical danger during such incidents.
Perhaps most alarmingly, the bus driver reportedly had to take evasive action to prevent a direct collision with other vehicles. This claim suggests that the situation on the highway may have escalated to a point where there was a real risk of a more serious accident occurring.
The trial raises important questions about the intersection of political activism, public safety, and the right to campaign freely.
As campaigns increasingly take to the roads to reach voters, incidents like the "Trump Train" confrontation highlight the potential risks associated with mobile political events.
The case may set a precedent for how similar incidents are handled in future election cycles. It could potentially influence the strategies employed by both campaigns and law enforcement to ensure the safety of political candidates and their staff while traveling.
Moreover, the trial may prompt discussions about the appropriate limits of political expression and support, particularly when such actions occur on public highways where safety is paramount.
The "Trump Train" trial in Texas is set to begin, focusing on a contentious highway incident from the 2020 election cycle. Former Texas state senator Wendy Davis, along with a campaign volunteer, staffer, and bus driver, are suing over alleged harassment by Trump supporters.
The lawsuit claims the Biden-Harris campaign bus was targeted for 90 minutes, resulting in a vehicle collision and forcing evasive action by the bus driver. This case raises questions about campaign safety, political expression limits, and potential legal precedents for future elections.
In a surprising turn of events, Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, has pleaded guilty to nine tax charges in a California court.
According to a report from the Washington Examiner, the first son's decision to enter an "open plea" on September 5, 2024, abruptly ended what was expected to be a weeks-long trial.
The guilty plea, made without a negotiated deal with prosecutors, leaves Hunter Biden facing up to 17 years in prison and fines of up to $1.3 million.
Judge Mark Scarsi, who presided over the proceedings, set the sentencing hearing for December 16, 2024, giving time for a pre-sentencing investigation to be conducted.
The charges against Hunter Biden stem from his alleged failure to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes between 2015 and 2019.
During this period, he reportedly earned millions from foreign business ventures while struggling with substance abuse issues following the death of his brother, Beau Biden, in 2015.
In court, government prosecutors read the entire 56-page indictment brought by special counsel David Weiss last December. This detailed reading laid out the specifics of the tax crimes Biden had committed.
After the reading, Judge Scarsi asked Biden if he agreed that he had committed every element of every crime outlined in the indictment. Biden's affirmative response sealed his guilty plea.
The decision to plead guilty came as a shock to many, as it occurred on the same day that jury selection for the trial was set to begin. By entering an open plea, Biden avoided what was anticipated to be a deeply personal and potentially embarrassing trial.
With his guilty plea, Hunter Biden now faces significant legal consequences. The maximum sentence of 17 years in prison and $1.3 million in fines represents a serious potential punishment for the tax crimes he has admitted to committing.
Judge Scarsi made it clear to Biden that by entering an open plea, he was leaving his fate entirely in the court's hands. This means that the judge will have full discretion in determining the sentence, without the constraints of a plea agreement negotiated with prosecutors.
The severity of the potential sentence underscores the seriousness of the charges and the significant amount of unpaid taxes involved in the case. It also highlights the legal system's approach to high-profile tax evasion cases, regardless of the defendant's familial connections.
This tax case is not the only legal challenge Hunter Biden is currently facing. In June 2024, he was convicted of three felonies related to a gun purchase, marking the first time a sitting president's child was criminally convicted. The sentencing for those charges is scheduled for November 2024.
The timing of these legal proceedings has placed them squarely in the midst of a presidential election year, adding a layer of political complexity to the cases. President Joe Biden stated that he would not pardon his son, emphasizing the independence of the judicial process.
Special counsel David Weiss, who brought the indictment against Hunter Biden, had planned to call various witnesses to testify about Biden's behavior during the period in question. This would have included testimony from ex-girlfriends and potentially embarrassing details about Biden's personal life and struggles with addiction.
The guilty plea and potential prison sentence for Hunter Biden present significant challenges for the Biden family and the current administration. As the son of a sitting president, Hunter Biden's legal troubles have been under intense public scrutiny and have become a point of political contention.
President Biden's commitment not to pardon his son demonstrates an attempt to maintain the appearance of impartiality and respect for the legal process. However, the situation inevitably raises questions about the impact on the President's personal life and political standing.
Hunter Biden's guilty plea in the tax evasion case marks a significant moment in a long-running legal saga. The potential for a substantial prison sentence and hefty fines underscores the seriousness of the charges. The outcome of this case, along with the pending sentencing for the gun-related felonies, will likely remain a topic of national interest and debate in the months to come.
