A federal judge in Idaho issued a block on a state law that would ban gender transitions for children before it was set to go into effect Jan. 1.

(The Center Square) — The new year signals new laws taking effect in New Jersey, especially in the health care industry.

(The Center Square) — The new year signals change, specifically new laws which will take effect in Virginia, especially in the health care sector.

L.A. County jurors decided largely in favor of a man with silicosis who had to undergo a double lung transplant after years of cutting engineered stone countertops.

New amendments to the California Journalism Preservation Act aim to make it more like a similar law in Canada.

California lawmakers are trying to get ahead of AI in the workplace, but are already playing catchup

The bill would tax Amazon, Meta and Google for the data they take from users and pump the money into news organizations in the form of tax credits.

Supreme Court sidesteps a ruling on laws in Florida and Texas that would regulate social media platforms.

California's efforts to protect children from the harms of social media have faced legal challenges from the tech industry.

In a sweeping lawsuit, the Dept. of Justice on Friday accused TikTok of illegally collecting information on minors without their parents' permission.

Lawmakers agree to shelve the California Journalism Preservation Act, which aimed to revive the struggling news business by forcing Google to pay for news content it distributes.

If Gov. Newsom vetoes SB 1047, the forces of anti-regulation — AI companies — will have little incentive to work on alternatives.

Two bills newly signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom outlaw the possession and distribution of sexually charged images of minors even when they're created with computers, not cameras.

AB 2839 aimed to label AI-generated content in political ads as "manipulated." A federal judge says the law violates the 1st Amendment.

The Supreme Court refuses to shield Uber and Lyft from California state labor lawsuits that seek back pay for tens of thousands of drivers.

A divided FTC adopted a powerful rule that requires companies to make it just as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for one.

Zymo Research believes that Qiagen’s lawsuit is part of a larger strategy to misuse litigation as a tool to stifle innovation and delay the adoption of groundbreaking technologies that benefit the scientific and medical communities.  

Former Idaho state Rep. Aaron von Ehlinger was sentenced Wednesday to 20 years behind bars for raping a 19-year-old intern.

(The Center Square) — A legislative task force "to study the dissolution or absorption of fiscally distressed municipalities" set the tone in its first meeting with a vote to change its name.

A Native American group filed a lawsuit against the Washington Commanders after the team alleged the group, which is advocating that the team revert to its "Redskins" title, was "fake."

Law and Disorder is a weekly, independent radio program that gives listeners access to rare legal perspectives on issues concerning civil liberties, privacy, right to dissent and the horrendous practices of torture exercised by the US government.

In the early morning of June 10, 2015, Dennis Platz woke up to go open the gate to his Colbert property and let in his neighbor, Dan Carver, who planned to borrow a field sprayer…

Imagine this: You're voting on a matter of national significance, you get to the front of the line, and the poll worker asks, "What state are you from?"…

Transport lobbyists call for alterations to Wolverhampton extension.

Birmingham Yardley MP John Hemming has pledged his support for renewable energy and green jobs across the West Midlands

City centre location for Police Bill protest.

£15,000 raised for Birmingham Children’s Hospital.

An investigation by India's antitrust body found food delivery giants Zomato and SoftBank-backed Swiggy breached competition laws, with their business practices favouring select restaurants listed on their platforms, documents showed.

Texas lawmakers began filing bills for next year’s legislative session on Tuesday, submitting a record-breaking 1,500 in the first filing period.

According to Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter, Georgia’s citizen’s arrest law is rooted in medieval times and is an “outmoded concept” in this age of “increased police forces.” Porter made those remarks at a Georgia House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee hearing on Monday.

Jordan Daniels has worked in the Atlanta film industry for years. Monday's court ruling, which reversed the controversial "heartbeat" abortion bill passed last year in Georgia, came as a relief. "We did have a few productions leave on the basis of HB 481, and I'm happy that more won't," she said. "Obviously, I'm dually relieved since I'm a woman who loves her job, and also wants the right to choose."

The police killings of George Floyd , Eric Garner and other black men and women began with allegations of a minor offense, such as passing a counterfeit $20 bill or selling individual, untaxed cigarettes. Misdemeanors — these types of low-level criminal offenses — account for about 80% of all arrests and 80% of state criminal dockets, says Alexandra Natapoff, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine and author of Punishment Without Crime . "It's surprising to many people to realize that misdemeanors — these low-level, often chump-change offenses that many of us commit routinely without even noticing it — make up the vast majority of what our criminal system does," Natapoff tells NPR's Ari Shapiro on All Things Considered . "The offenses can include everything from traffic offenses to spitting, loitering, trespassing, all the way up to more serious offenses like DUI or many domestic violence offenses," she says. "It's ... the vast majority of ways that individuals

Many Christians teach that the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross. But if that were true, why would the apostle Paul refer to them as being instrumental in his conversion? Other laws were indeed nailed to the cross, but not the one that explains how we are to love God and our neighbor.

In Atlanta today, President Trump will announce big changes to the regulations that govern one of the nation's most significant environmental laws. The aim is to speed up approval for major projects like pipelines and highways, but critics say it could sideline the concerns of poor and minority communities impacted by those projects, and discount their impact on climate change. The 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, was signed into law by President Richard Nixon. It requires federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of proposed projects before they are approved. It also gives the public and interest groups the ability to comment on those evaluations. The administration's new regulations are expected to reduce the types and number of projects that will be subject to review under the NEPA. An earlier version of the proposed rules truncated those reviews in an effort to streamline processes that can take years to complete. It also dropped a requirement

video screenshot via abc.net.au

Recently besieged by dry weather and Crazy Ants, Christmas Island's Red Crabs are Back, baby. Chariot pulled by cassowaries has posted about their 100 million march to the ocean (and incidental occupation of roads, school grounds, living rooms, toilet drains, and Metafilter threads).

Many Christians teach that the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross. But if that were true, why would the apostle Paul refer to them as being instrumental in his conversion? Other laws were indeed nailed to the cross, but not the one that explains how we are to love God and our neighbor.

NPR's Ayesha Rascoe talks to Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck about the role federal courts can play as a check on presidential power during a second Trump Administration.

Is Law & Order the greatest TV show of all time? With the recent release of Law & Order Toronto: Criminal Intent, Kate Davis and Sean Cullen are taking this series to court. Then, Hunter Collins and Marito Lopez are sharp-tongued when they debate the current ease of learning a new language.

I was an associate at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison from 1988 until 1991. These almost three years were impactful even though my time there was brief. To say that I learned a great deal is an understatement. My work at the firm took me to places like Gracie Mansion, and to Hollywood for several weeks to perform due diligence for a music publishing company. My time there was further evidence of my African American family’s dramatic upward mobility in just six generations. My maternal grandmother was the granddaughter of enslaved African Americans. She worked as a maid and cook before she went back to school. With a sixth-grade education, she passed the New York State licensing exam for cosmetology. She opened a successful hair salon, and she and my grandfather sent my mom to Hunter College. My mother retired decades ago from a successful career as a scientist and school administrator. And when I went to Paul Weiss, I was making more money than anyone in my immediate and extended family had ever made.

There were about 400 lawyers at the firm’s New York office during the years I was there. Only six of those lawyers (associates) were Black/African American. None of the approximately 80 partners were Black.  My time at Paul Weiss was brief because my plan was to become a law professor. But while I was at the firm, I was supported and mentored. That is why I was surprised to see a 2018 LinkedIn photo of the firm’s new partners in which almost all were white and male. None were Black.

Happily, much has changed in the years since I was associated with the firm, and even in the almost three years after the LinkedIn photo. I attended the firm’s webinar (The Biden Administration:  What’s Next for Businesses) on March 3^rd, 2021. Two of the firm’s (Black) litigation partners were on the panel– Loretta Lynch, former U.S. Attorney, and Jeh Johnson, Former Secretary of Homeland Security. After the webinar I went to the firm’s website that reported the following: “27% of our attorneys self-identify as racially diverse compared to the 20% Big Law average” and “Racially diverse partners are 13% of the equity partnership, compared to the 8% national average”. 

After seeing this website report, I was left wondering how many of these “racially diverse” individuals are Black. Paul Weiss played such a significant role in the upward trajectory of my African American family. And Paul Weiss issued a statement in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. But its racial diversity disclosure had only a fraction of the precision that has made the firm a giant in the legal profession. Law firms can address antiblack racism, if they choose to do so, only if they confront the problem and its impact on the success of Black lawyers. Firms can’t do this if they fail to consider that Black lawyers face issues that are saliently different from those endured by white women, and indigenous, Asian and Latinx individuals. Firms can make their disclosure on these issues more meaningful by counting the Black lawyers. If the numbers are not good (on retention, percentages of partners), it’s time for the firm to engage in some meaningful introspection.

Oh, and one more small, but important point. People of color bring racial diversity to an organization. White people bring racial diversity to an organization. But to say that an individual (a partner, for example) is “racially diverse” is the kind of inaccurate, imprecise language that clouds discussions about difficult issues like antiblack racism. 

 

All times are Eastern.  

To register and attend by Zoom for free, click here.

 The United States invented the Rule of Law through the fragmentation of sovereignty among 51 sovereign authorities each with three branches of government. It further protects individual rights from state and federal infringement. This effectively created a legal system that could all state actors to account before law. While still imperfect in many important ways, Donald Trump took a sledgehammer to the Rule of Law particularly since January 6, 2021.

Today in America the rule of law faces severe challenges and may well face a total sunset. If so, the Supreme Court of the United States played a central role as accomplice. Most notably, today granted review (certiorari) on the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. That question in the abstract may hold academic interest, but the answer lies in many disputes in the future over decades or even centuries. 

Prof. Laurence Tribe, a legendary Constitutional Law scholar, explains the effect of this action:

The Supreme Court effectively gives Trump the potential to now escape any accountability for his role in the insurrection of January 6, 2021. This order puts partisan politics above the Rule of Law. A very dark day for America.

Today, the United States Supreme Court obliterated the Fourteenth Amendment, section 3, in Trump v. Anderson. The language of this section appears simple enough:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Court held that: "the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3." More specifically, the Court held that only Congress may enforce the disqualification of section 3 and that states could only enforce the provision against state candidates for office and state officeholders. Otherwise the nation would face a risk of a patchwork of state outcomes. This, despite the fact that in 1868, shortly after the provision became law, the Governor of the State of Georgia disqualified a federal candidate for office. (See fn 3).

Further, if "only" Congress holds power to enforce section 3 then why did the drafters of the Amendment just insert an "only" in the section granting Congress power. The Court needs that "only" and it simply does not exist. Rather than apply the plain meaning the Court instead pretends there is an only when there is no such word. Section 5 plainly states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The Court did violence to the statute to protect Donald Trump.

Former Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative jurist explains:

The Supreme Court did leave one last avenue for accountability under law that the Biden Administration or DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith could use to disqualify Trump. 18 U.S.C. section 2383 provides:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The Court cited this section with approval. It would provide a uniform federal solution. And, it arises from an exercise of Congressional power. Even this Court (which works overtime to protect Trump) would uphold such an action. 

Why did Jack Smith (or Attorney General Merrick Garland before him) fail to use this section against the obvious insurrectionist Donald Trump? Or, alternatively, why not bring such an action tomorrow morning? Colorado would provide a form indictment and a trial map, complete with comprehensive evidence?

So, the Court today shifted the spotlight to DOJ with today's SCOTUS ruling. Agreement or disagreement with the Court's opinion no longer matters. Many excellent arguments support the use of section 3 in precisely the manner of Colorado. All moot.

Why did DOJ fail (and continue to fail) to seek disqualification through a criminal action a criminal action? 

The most disturbing and vivid reality of all of this: law failed to hold Trump to account as an oath breaking insurrectionist despite many available pathways.

 

 

 I just published a new law review article with the Seattle University Law Review entitled: Students for Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action and Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity? The article can be downloaded here: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol47/iss4/7/. Here is the abstract:

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater institutional efficacy, including possible race-neutral alternatives. The programs also failed to break down stereotypes through the introduction of a critical mass to empower diverse voices. The programs thereby resembled prohibited quotas or racial balancing. As such, the programs at issue violated Grutter, which still governs race-based affirmative action in college admissions. More importantly, the Roberts court paved the way for more expansive diversity-based admissions programs by permitting institutions to value individual racial experiences, which authentically further an institution’s mission and interests. After SFFA, the use of race as a factor could well face time limits. Contrastingly, individualized racial experiences may benefit college applicants at institutions that embrace diversity in an authentic way without facing any time limitation. Further, institutions with distinct missions may value diversity in a race-conscious way but without any racial preference. In sum, the Roberts Court guides the use of race in college admissions toward a race-neutral, diversity-based paradigm such that institutions may still unlock the empirically proven benefits of cultural diversity with only de minimus interference from the courts. This approach rests upon a powerful policy basis that leads to superior innovation, macroeconomic outcomes, social cohesion and, therefore, superior national security for the United States. This approach thus could support a powerful interest convergence.

The article shows that Supreme Court did not overrule its prior affirmative action precedents, and in fact paved the way for universities to embrace cultural and cognitive diversity to enrich their educational missions. This is important because the case has been widely misconstrued.

My next article will extend the Court's holding to corporate DEI efforts and demonstrate that such efforts are not only remain lawful but also essential to rational human resources management.

Currently, the nation and perhaps the world struggles with the recent jury verdict against Donald Trump finding him guilty of 34 felony counts. Trump claims that the verdict proves Joe Biden uses the criminal justice system as a political tool intended to defeat his political opponents, in this case him. On the other hand, many take the position that the case demonstrates the triumph of the rule of law because it proves that even the most privileged and powerful of citizens must ultimately reckon with legal accountability. I opt for the conclusion that the case exemplifies a healthy rule of law operating to impose reasonable and predictable accountability and consequences for even the most powerful governing elites in American today for the following six reasons.

First, and foremost, the guilty verdict reflects the unanimous conclusion of 12 jurors, after careful deliberation and judicial instruction, empaneled pursuant to pre-announced New York Law. Donald Trump, like all criminal defendants, held the power to refuse a limited number of jurors without cause and to move to strike jurors for cause. The jurors hailed from Trump's former home state and the headquarters of the Trump Organization—New York. It is noteworthy that not a single juror dissented from the verdict and that they reached the verdict without any judicial cajoling through, for example, an Allen charge. The jury questioned the evidence and the instructions to assure they acted properly. They deliberated about 12 hours after spending five weeks listening to witness testimony and reviewing other evidence including extensive documents. Trump's high-powered legal team exercised their right to cross-examine witnesses, explain away evidence and submit their own exculpatory evidence. Despite these rights, the best legal team money could buy failed to raise any reasonable doubt with even one juror, on even one count, regarding Trump’s guilt.

Second, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds a well-earned reputation as a professional prosecutor who gets the job done and gets it done professionally. Recall that Bragg endured severe criticism for declining to prosecute Trump for tax fraud in 2022, prompting two prosecutors to resign. Bragg apparently found the case against Trump too risky to warrant pursuit. Instead, he meticulously built this case which proved bullet-proof. Bragg won his office through an election of local voters and does not work for Joe Biden or even the federal government. The man holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and proved himself as a non-partisan prosecutor by letting Trump walk on other fraud charges in 2022. The fact that he sought a Grand Jury indictment against Trump on this case suggests that there was probable cause that Trump committed the crimes—a fact that the jury's verdict fully vindicates.

Third, Justice Juan Merchan presided over the entire Trump matter with appropriate judicial restraint. Given Trump’s contemptuous misconduct and constant threats of violence against the judge, his family, his staff and the jury, Merchan certainly held the power to imprison Trump for contempt. He held his fire and allowed the jury to do its job. Despite Fox “News” reports to the contrary, the evidence suggests the Judge ruled on objections and other procedural matters with judicious wisdom. He righteously rejected Trump’s efforts to dismiss the charges, as proven by the unanimous jury verdict on all counts. Again, Merchan, a New York state judge, holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and, Trump and his team produced zero evidence that Biden even attempted to influence Merchan.

Fourth, Trump himself knew he faced an uphill battle once he decided not to testify and take the stand to declare his innocence. Due to Trump’s decision the jury never heard Trump deny the charges, claim innocence or explain the mountain of evidence against him in the form of witnesses, key documents, or the tape-recording directing Cohen to pay Daniels by check. In fact, there was no defense theory of the case. Trump would not exude credibility as a witness due to his history of fraud, and he would risk a finding of perjury if he claimed innocence under oath or if he simply made-up stories on the stand. In any event, many defendants face challenges testifying on their own behalf, but Trump made that call, not Joe Biden.

Fifth, after reviewing the jury instructions, I saw no error, in that the instructions fairly reflect governing law in New York. While some complain reasonably that the jury was not required to identify the precise crime that transforms misdemeanor falsification of records into a felony, there is Supreme Court authority in support of this. Juries typically do not need to identify with particularity (nor even agree upon a particular predicate crime) a predicate crime to a felony charge; here the crime Trump intended to further with false business records. The US Supreme Court might well make up some means of saving Donald Trump (see Trump v. United States and Trump v. Anderson). Justice Merchan, however, cannot read the minds of the conservative Court majority and it is not his job to predict ways the Supreme Court can throw lifelines to former President Trump. Merchan’s instructions reflect the law today and that is the goal of jury instructions, not to craft new innovations to save Trump.

Sixth, all the cries of conspiracy theory and a rigged justice system from Trump and his minions lack any evidentiary foundation. They produced zero evidence that Joe Biden masterminded this entire prosecution. The claim is facially absurd. Biden did not set up Trumps illicit and adulterous liaisons, Trump did. Biden did not meet with David Pecker to set up a scheme to hide Trump’s prior bad acts in the run-up to election 2016. Trump signed the checks reimbursing Cohen the hush money paid to Trump’s co-adulterers. Trump can only blame Trump for his 34 felony convictions.

In light of the above, I conclude that Donald Trump enjoyed all the due process the US Constitution accords criminal defendants. Of course, with his billions, Trump can afford the very best lawyers which most defendants cannot. As former President, Trump enjoys the right to argue before many justices he appointed which most defendants do not. From a rule of law perspective the case proves that even the richest and most politically powerful must answer for their crimes.

Federal legislation needs to be simplified and improved, according to Liberal Democrats candidate Mark Guest, who is running for the seat of Parramatta.

Defense for Children International – Palestine v. Biden

There are defendants in a lawsuit brought in the northern district of California called Defense for Children International– Palestine v. Biden. The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and attorney Marc Vander Hout. We’re going to talk about this lawsuit against President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin. This lawsuit follows a January 2024 historic hearing that included testimony from some Palestinian plaintiffs and witnesses to the scale of destruction in Gaza and its impact on their families and communities.

Last week, a federal trial court in northern California found that Israel’s assault and siege of the Palestinian people in Gaza, possibly constituted genocide and implored the Biden administration to explain its “unflagging support“ for Israel. Notwithstanding these findings, the court denied the Center for Constitutional Rights‘ preliminary injunction motion and granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the administration of foreign relations.
The CCR appealed the decision. The appeal was argued on June 10, 2024.

Guest – Attorney Katherine Gallagher is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights . Her areas of legal expertise include matters of torture, war crimes and militarism. Among her many major cases is the case titled, Situation of Afghanistan at the International Criminal Court; and the case titled, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests-v-Vatican. Prior to her work at the CCR, she worked at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

—-

A Century Of Repression: The Espionage Act And Freedom Of The Press

These are dire times for freedom of speech around the world. According to a recently-released report, more than half of the world’s population now lives in countries that are in a state of “crisis” regarding freedom of speech. This is occurring during a year that has been marred by attacks on investigative journalism all over the world, which we have especially seen in elections in Mexico and India, as well as in the United States.

Against this backdrop, the United States is only adding gasoline to a media-freedom fire by pursuing an ongoing prosecution and attempting to extradite WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange under a 100-year-old US law called the Espionage Act of 1917. This prosecution threatens to set a dangerous precedent for journalists everywhere during these perilous times.

Guest – Carey Shenkman, is a constitutional lawyer and serves on a panel of experts at Columbia University’s Global Freedom of Expression Program. He is co-author, along with Ralph Engelman, of A Century Of Repression: The Espionage Act And Freedom Of The Press. Carey has recently been appointed Legal and Policy Advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. [Source for 50% figure – Global Expression Report, published by the London-based free speech organization ARTICLE 19] https://www.globalexpressionreport.org/

——————————————–

A Brief History of Kill Lists, From Langley to Lavender

Two artificial intelligence systems are being used by Israel and the United States to compile kill lists of Palestinians in Gaza. They are called Lavender and Where’s Daddy. This has led to the indiscriminate slaughter of whole families and has killed mostly women and children. The CIA and the US military have always tried to use the latest data processing technology to identify and kill their enemies. The history of American government assassinations goes back to collaborating with ex-Nazi intelligent officers after World War II.

Guest – Medea Benjamin, is co-founder of the international antiwar organization CODEPINK. She is the author of several books, including, with Nicholas J.S. Davies, War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict. She has been an advocate for social justice for more than 40 years. Described as “one of America’s most committed — and most effective — fighters for human rights” by New York Newsday, and “one of the high profile leaders of the peace movement” by the Los Angeles Times, she was one of 1,000 exemplary women from 140 countries nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the millions of women who do the essential work of peace worldwide.

—-

A Trend In Abolishing Capital Punishment

A growing number of states have abolished capital punishment in recent years. However, the death penalty remains on the books in 27 states, although the number of executions in American is at an all-time low. It is well documented that the death penalty is riddled with fatal flaws. Literally, the flaws are denying defendants a fair trial and are killing innocent people. An average of 4 wrongly convicted death-row prisoners have been exonerated each year since 1973.

According to recent research, jurors are three times more likely to recommend a death sentence for a black defendant than for a white defendant in a similar case. The death penalty does not serve as a deterrent. A study by the Death Penalty Information Center found that the South has consistently had by far the highest murder rate, yet the South accounts for more than 80% of all executions. The Northeast, which has fewer than 0.5% of all executions, has consistently had the lowest murder rate.

Guest – Mike Farrell is the President of Death Penalty Focus, an organization on whose Board I’ve served for many years. Known to millions as “B.J. Hunnicutt” on television’s historic show “M*A*S*H,” he is also a writer, director and producer. A human rights activist for over 35 years, Mike has taken part in scores of aid missions and human rights delegations to countries all over the world. Mike has visited prisons and been personally involved in numerous death penalty cases across the U.S. for over three decades.

—————————-

 

Freedom For Julian Assange!

After serving 1901 days in solitary confinement in a tiny cell in the infamous Belmarsh prison in London, journalist and publisher Julian Assange is free at last.

Julian gained his freedom pursuit to a plea bargain with the government of the United States which had sought to extradite him and try him under the 1917 Espionage Act He faced a certain conviction in a hostile Virginia court and 175 years in prison on 17 count of conspiracy to commit espionage for receiving and publishing information damaging to the United States government.

Julian Assange was forced to plead guilty to one count of espionage in return for the time he has served in prison. Prior to that he was confined for seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he had sought and received political asylum.

The alleged crime he was accused of committing was the receipt and publication in 2010 of the so-called Iraq and Afghanistan war logs which document American government guilt in torture and murder including the 11 civilians and two Reuters journalists.

Julian Assange was sentenced to time served by an American federal court judge on an island in the Pacific Ocean 2000 miles from Australia. Julian Assange will now be living as a free man in Australia with his wife and two children.

Guest – Randy Credico, a steadfast supporter of Julian Assange. Mr. Credico. hosted the program “ Countdown to Freedom” in support of Julian for many years. He had visited him in Belmarsh prison.

—-

War Crimes, Dictators and the ICC

The International Criminal Court (ICC) along with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) were set up in 1998 in order to help prevent wars and crimes against humanity with the profound understanding that without a system of international law a future World War III might eliminate humanity.

The United States of America, under Bill Clinton, was one of seven countries that voted against the Rome statute which set up the International Criminal Court. Clinton did eventually sign the statute but George Bush “unsigned“ it and the United States has had a testy relationship with the court. Indeed under Trump, the US imposed sanctions on the court and its prosecutor.

Last month Imran Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, issued arrest warrants for Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Galant, the Israeli Minister of Defense for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC also issued arrest warrants for three top leaders of Hamas.

Guest – Attorney Reed Brody, was a friend, colleague, and mentee of our late cohost Michael Ratner. Reed Brody is the author of the recently published book To Catch a Dictator: The Pursuit and Trial of Hissene Habre. He has worked for many years with Human Rights Watch. Reed Brody has helped pursue the dictators Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Jean-Claude “ Baby Doc” Duvalier of Haiti. He has uncovered atrocities by US backed Contras in Nicaragua, led United Nations missions in El Salvador and the Congo, and exposed Bush administration torture.

—————————————-