The Obama administration informed House Speaker John A. Boehner this week it will not prosecute former IRS executive Lois G. Lerner for contempt of Congress, concluding that she did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid answering questions when she was called to testify nearly two years ago. Ms. …
Continue reading here:
Updated at 4:33 p.m. ET
The Justice Department will not pursue criminal contempt charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was at the center of a political storm over the agency’s alleged targeting of conservative groups. The announcement came from Ronald Machen, the outgoing U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to House Speaker John Boehner. (The letter is embedded at the bottom of this story.)
Here’s the background: Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March 2014. But Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who headed that panel, said at the time that Lerner had waived that right by making an opening statement at a May 2013 hearing in which she proclaimed her innocence in short opening remarks.
The House voted later in 2014 to hold Lerner in criminal contempt. Machen’s office was examining the case and, in the letter dated March 31, he disagreed with Issa’s interpretation.
“Ms. Lerner did not waive her Fifth Amendment privilege by making general claims of innocence,” his office said in a statement. “The Constitution would provide Ms. Lerner with an absolute defense if she were prosecuted for contempt.”
Wednesday’s announcement grants a reprieve to the former IRS official, who at the time of the controversy led the agency’s division that oversees tax-exempt groups. William Taylor, her attorney, said in a statement: “We are gratified but not surprised by today’s news.”
But as Politico notes, she and other officials from the Internal Revenue Service are still under investigation by the FBI for the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.
As NPR’s Mark Memmott reported at the time: “[A] report … concluded some conservative groups had been ‘deliberately targeted.’ (Democrats have released IRS documents showing liberal groups also came in for extra scrutiny.) A political furor erupted, eventually leading to the resignation of the agency’s acting director. Lerner retired from the agency later in the year.”
You can read the letter in full here:
Continue reading here:
Justice Department Won't Charge IRS' Lois Lerner With Criminal Contempt
By: Luz Rivas
See the rest here:
CLEVELAND, Ohio — The otherwise low-key trial of Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo saw some drama Wednesday, the third day of testimony, when a fellow police officer refused to testify.
Prosecutors got through just a couple basic questions about the identity and work history of Cleveland police officer Michael Demchak beforeDemchak invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on the witness stand.
According to a report from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Demchak was one of 13 officers that fired their guns one night in November 2012, when two unarmed suspects were killed. Investigators concluded Demchak fired his gun four times.
Brelo, 31, is on trial on two counts of manslaughter in the case ofTimothy Russell and Malissa Williams, who were shot to death by police in a 1979 Chevy Malibu. Russell, the driver, had evaded police during a 22-minute car chase through Cleveland and East Cleveland on Nov. 29, 2012.
Demchak told the court he invoked his right based on the advice of his attorney and would not testify unless he is granted immunity by the prosecutor’s office.
Prosecutors had filed motions before the start of the trial opposing police officers who may invoke the Fifth Amendment. And they were quick to voice their opposition in court as well.
“We don’t believe police officers should be granted immunity for testifying,” assistant prosecuting attorney Adam Chaloupka told the court. Chaloupka said police officers should trust the Prosecutor’s Office to not to charge them for testimony given during the trial.
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty, who has been present but silent at the proceedings until Wednesday, told the court that as a matter of public policy police officers should be required to testify without being able to demand immunity.
“It won’t end with this,” McGinty told the court. “I am reluctant to start doing it here and now for fear of the future result.”
McGinty also told the court that police officers knew one of their fellow officers did something wrong that night, but refused to come forward with that information to investigators.
Follow this link:
Cleveland police officer refuses to testify during trial of fellow officer Michael Brelo (video)
CLEVELAND, Ohio — Cleveland police detective Michael Demchak invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination shortly after being called to the witness stand Wednesday to testify in the trial of fellow officer Michael Brelo. A heated argument ensued.
Demchak, who was involved in the 22-minute chase and fired some shots at the car driven by Russell, was granted his right by Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge John P. O’Donnell.
Prosecutor Timothy McGinty filed a motion saying he wanted to treat any Cleveland police officers that might testify during the trial as hostile witnesses. The motionargues police officers were not fully cooperative with investigators during interviews with the Ohio Attorney General’s Bureau of Investigations and with prosecutors’ efforts leading up to the trial.
Brelo is the only officer to face criminal charges in the November 2012 chase that ended with 13 officers firing 137 shots into a car fatally shooting unarmed Russell and Williams.
Brelo, who prosecutors have said fired 49 of the shots, waived his right to a jury. O’Donnell will ultimately render a verdict in the case.
Read more:
Watch Cleveland police officer take the Fifth in Michael Brelo trial sparking heated debate (video)
CLEVELAND- The trial of Cleveland Police Officer Michael Brelo continued Wednesday morning in a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas courtroom. Brelo is charged with two counts of voluntary manslaughter for the deaths of two people in the November 2012 police chase and shooting. Judge John P. ODonnell is hearing the case. Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams []
Read the original:
Live blog: Officer takes Fifth Amendment in trial over 2012 chase and shooting
A prosecutors opening statement to the jury that the defendant will tell you about his setting fires doomed the states case from the start, Marylands top court has unanimously ruled in overturning a mans conviction for trying to set his ex-girlfriends family car ablaze. The statement likely fueled the Prince Georges County jurors expectation that William Simpson would testify in his own defense thus making him appear guilty when he exercised his federal and state constitutional privilege not to testify, the Court of Appeals said. Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here.
Forgot your password?
Here is the original post:
A Clevelandpolice officer refused to testify Wednesday during the trial of a colleague, Officer Michael Brelo, who facestwo counts of manslaughterin a case that involved a wild high-speed chase. Officer Michael Demchak invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on the witness stand after answering just a few basic questions about his identity and work history, citing advice from an attorney to not testify unless granted immunity, Cleveland.comreported.
Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty wasn’t pleased with the officer’s refusal to answer questions. “We need his testimony in this trial. We’re asking for his testimony,” McGinty said, asWEWS-TV reported.”We’re asking for the truth. That is his duty as a police officer.”
Brelo, who was indicted on two counts of voluntary manslaughter May 30, 2014, is on trial in connection with the Nov. 29, 2012, deaths ofTimothy Russell and Malissa Williams. Russell, 43, and Williams, 30, both unarmed, led police on a wild car chase that involved more than 100 officers and 60 police cars. Russell and Williams were each struck with more than 20 rounds after police fired nearly 100 shots at the 1979 Chevrolet Malibuin which the pair had been traveling.
Brelo, 31, fired 49 rounds and reportedly jumped on the hood of the car and fired about 15 rounds after the chase had concluded, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported. Prosecutors argue the action was unjustifiable since the chase was over.
Investigators said Demchak fired his gun four times during the incident and prosecutors filed motions before the trial opposing police officers who might invoke the Fifth Amendment, Cleveland.com reported. McGinty reportedly told the court that police officers knew one of the fellow officers had done something wrong that night but were refusing to come forward.
The judge in the case decided to allow police officers to invoke the Fifth Amendment just as any other citizen would be allowed to do. “You’re asking a witness to rely on your word that you won’t charge him, but that’s just not the standard,” said Judge John P. O’Donnell, as Cleveland.com reported.
Prosecutors expressed frustration that Demchak’s refusal to testify had set a precedent. “It won’t end with this,” McGinty told the court, Cleveland.com reported. “I am reluctant to start doing it here and now for fear of the future result.”
Two other police officers — the first to say he saw Brelo on the hood of the car and that officer’s partner — have been granted immunity in the case thus far. Two more police officers are expected to invoke the Fifth Amendment in the trial, Cleveland.com reported.
The trial beganMondayand is expected to last five to seven weeks.In December 2014, following an investigation that began in response to the shooting of Russell and Williams,U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder found that the Cleveland Division of Police engaged in a pattern of excessive use of deadly force.
See the rest here:
By: WEWS NewsChannel5
The rest is here:
CPD Officer Invokes Fifth Amendment right during Michael Brelo trial – Video
By: cleveland.com
See the original post here:
By: Tax Chat
More here:
By: Michael DeBlis
Excerpt from:
Part II: Defenses and Privileges: The Fifth Amendment Privilege & Testimony – Video
CLEVELAND, Ohio Cuyahoga County prosecutors continued to present witnesses Monday morning in the sixth day of Cleveland Patrol Officer Michael Brelo s criminal trial. Brelo is facing two counts of manslaughter for his actions in the Nov. 29, 2012 deadly chase and shooting that claimed the lives of two unarmed suspects, Timothy Russell and []
More:
5 police supervisors take Fifth Amendment in trial of officer charged with manslaughter
By: Tax Chat
Excerpt from:
Module II: Defenses and Privileges: The Fifth Amendment Privilege & Testimony – Video
CLEVELAND, Ohio Cuyahoga County prosecutors continued to present witnesses Monday in the sixth day of Cleveland Patrol Officer Michael Brelo s criminal trial. Brelo is facing two counts of manslaughter for his actions in the Nov. 29, 2012 deadly chase and shooting that claimed the lives of two unarmed suspects, Timothy Russell and Malissa []
Read the original post:
Live blog: 5 supervisors take Fifth Amendment in trial of officer charged with manslaughter
DOVER, Del. (AP) – Attorneys for a young woman who claims in a lawsuit that she was sexually abused by former Republican Sussex County Councilman Vance Phillips asked a Superior Court judge on Monday to find Phillips liable because he has not explicitly denied the allegations.
Citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Phillips has refused to address the allegations by the 21-year-old woman, who was once his political protegee, even though he has previously said that he looked forward to telling his side of the story to a jury.
The Associated Press does not normally identify possible victims of sexual assault.
The woman’s lawyers argued that the judge should grant partial summary judgment in her favor regarding liability because Phillips has not disputed the allegations.
“The defendant wholly failed to address the claims at issue,” attorney Brian Brittingham told Judge William Witham Jr.
Brittingham said Phillips’ decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment does not amount to a denial or a defense, but was simply “the avoidance of an answer.”
After a brief hearing, Witham gave no indication on when he would rule.
Delaware State Police investigated Phillips in 2012 after members of the General Assembly received an anonymous letter claiming he was involved in a relationship with an underage girl. No criminal charges were ever filed, but Phillips invoked his rights against self-incrimination in the civil action after the lawsuit was filed in May 2013.
Kurt Heyman, a lawyer for Phillips, told Witham the court cannot infer his liability based on the assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights, especially on a motion for summary judgment. He also said inconsistent and contradictory statements the woman has made about her relationship with Phillips and the allegations of abuse preclude summary judgment in her favor, and that a jury must determine whether she is believable.
“It’s for the jury to decide which version of her story to credit,” he said.
See the rest here:
CLEVELAND, Ohio – Five more police supervisors invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Monday in the trial of Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo.
The five supervisors have been charged with dereliction of duty in connection with the same Nov. 29, 2012 police chase and fatal shootings that resulted in Brelo being charged with voluntary manslaughter.
Michael Donegan, Patricia Coleman, Randolph Dailey, Jason Edens and Paul Wilson have all pleaded not guilty to the charges, and a date for their trial has not been set yet.
Brelo, 31, is charged with two counts of voluntary manslaughter in thedeaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams. Russell drove the Chevy Malibu that led police on the chase. Williams was a passenger in the car.
The supervisors appeared in court on Monday, but none took the witness stand. Instead, they pleaded the Fifth as a group, with their lawyers present. There was no discussion of their right to plead the Fifth, as there was last week, when Officer Michael Demchak invoked his Fifth Amendment right.
The rest of the morningfocused on a Bratenahl police officer and a Cleveland police officer, both of whom were involved in the chase but not the shooting.
Here are highlights from the morning’s testimony.
1. A Bratenahl police officer suspected crossfire.
Bratenahl Sgt. Michael Flanagan, a K-9 officer, testified to joining the chase and stopping at Lee Boulevard, perpendicular to the driveway that Russell’s 1979 Malibu was stopped in.
Flanagan said he got out of his car, heard shots fired, and ran to take cover behind a nearby gray Ford.
Read more here:
Five police supervisors plead the Fifth in the trial of Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo
By Ryan Mavity | Apr 13, 2015
Dover A Delaware Superior Court judge is expected to rule within 90 days on a motion for summary judgment in a civil sexual-assault case against former Sussex County Councilman Vance Phillips.
Phillips did not appear at the April 13 hearing in Dover. In previous depositions Phillips has consistently invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.
Brian Brittingham, attorney for Phillips accuser, Katelynn Dunlap, said Phillips silence is telling, as he has not refuted accusations that Phillips sexually assaulted Dunlap 10 times in different locations starting May 9, 2011, and continuing through July.
According to Dunlaps lawsuit, the relationship between the now 21-year-old Lincoln woman and the then-Sussex councilman began in 2010 when Dunlap was 16. When Dunlap turned 18 in April 2011, Phillips was 48; the lawsuit says at that point, the relationship took a sexual turn. On May 9, the lawsuit said, Dunlap met Phillips in the parking lot of a Georgetown dental office, where Dunlap alleges Phillips tried to have sex with her and then threatened her if she told anyone.
Despite ample opportunity, the defendant wholly failed to address the claims at issue, Brittingham said. He said Phillips has consistently invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid addressing Dunlaps allegations. He also invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions not related to the allegations, such as when Phillips and his wife divorced.
Defense attorney Kurt Heyman said the court could not infer guilt from Phillips decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. He said Dunlap has made inconsistent statements and has changed her story numerous times.Heyman said at one point, Dunlap said some of the encounters with Phillips were consensual, but she later changed her story to say she was sexually assaulted.
Brittingham said Dunlaps inconsistencies are explained by the fact that she was fearful, confused, shamed and intimidated by Phillips. He said Dunlap was scared of retaliation by Phillips and had an emotional breakdown.
While Heyman said the case hinges on Dunlaps credibility, Brittingham said third parties, including family and Delaware State Police officers, support Dunlaps credibility. Brittingham said a reasonable jury would find Dunlaps claims to be true and award her damages.
The April 13 arguments were a subdued affair, with only Dunlaps family attending the proceedings. Dunlap is seeking punitive damages and legal fees. Judge William Witham offered no timetable for when he would rule on the motion, but Heyman said he would have 90 days to make a ruling. If Witham does not grant the motion, the case would head to trial.
Continue reading here:
CLEVELAND – Five Cleveland police supervisors pleaded the Fifth during CPD patrol officer Michael Brelo’s trial Monday.
The supervisors each face two counts of dereliction of duty related to the Nov. 29, 2012 Cleveland police chase and shooting.
Attorneys for Sgt. Michael Donegan, Lt. Paul Wilson, Sgt. Randolph Daley, Sgt. Jason Edens and Sgt. Patricia Coleman appeared with their clients in court.
A sixth Cleveland police officer invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination after taking the stand at the trial last Wednesday.
Officer Michael Demchake immediately stated he was told not to answer questions based on advice from his attorneys.
His refusal to answer questions sparked an angry outburst by Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Tim McGinty.
“We need his testimony in this trial. We’re asking for his testimony. We’re asking for the truth. That is his duty as a police officer,” said McGinty.
McGinty said Brelo’s colleagues knew he was “in trouble” for jumping on the hood of Timothy Russell’s Chevy Malibu and firing at least 15 shots through the windshield at the conclusion of the November 2012 CPD chase and shooting.
View a PHOTO GALLERY of some of the crime scene photos here
During opening statements last Monday , prosecutors said Brelo committed a crime when he jumped onto the hood of Russell’s car and fired 15 to 18 shots through the front windshield.
More here:
The Eighty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, enables the State to make any provision for reservation in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, giving them the benefit of consequential seniority in matters of promotion to any class of classes of posts in the services under the State, if they are not adequately represented.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows:-
1. Short title (1) This Act may be called the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.
2. Amendment of article 16 In article 16 of the Constitution, in clause (4A), for the words “in matters of promotion to any class”, the words “in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class” shall be substituted.[1]
Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The 85th Amendment amended clause (4A) of the article replacing the words “in matters of promotion to any class” with the words “in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class” in order to enable the State to make any provision for reservation in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, giving them the benefit of consequential seniority in matters of promotion to any class of classes of posts in the services under the State, if they are not adequately represented.[2]
The Bill of The Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 26 November 2001, as the Constitution (Ninety-second Amendment) Bill, 2001 (Bill No. 105 of 2001). It was introduced by Vasundhara Raje, then Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. The Bill sought to amend article 16 of the Constitution.[2] The full text of the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the bill is given below:
The Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes had been enjoying the benefit of consequential seniority on their promotion on the basis of rule of reservation. The judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) 6 SCC 684 andAjit Singh No. I AIR 1996 SC 1189, which led to the issue of the O.M. dated 30th January, 1997, have adversely affected the interest of the Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category in the matter of seniority on promotion to the next higher grade. This has led to considerable anxiety and representations have also been received from various quarters including Members of Parliament to protect the interest of the Government servants belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
2. The Government has reviewed the position in the light of views received from various quarters and in order to protect the interest of the Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it has been decided to negate the effect of O,M. dated 30th January, 1997 immediately. Mere withdrawal of the O.M dated 30th January, 1997 will not meet the desired purpose and review or revision of seniority of the Government servants and grant of consequential benefits to such Government servants will also be necessary. This will require amendment to article 16(4A) of the Constitution to provide for consequential seniority in the case of promotion by virtue of rule of reservation. It is also necessary to give retrospective effect to the proposed constitutional amendment to article 16(4A) with effect from the date of coming into force of article 16(4A) itself, that is, from the 17th day of June, 1995.
3. The Bill seeks to achieve the aforesaid objects.
The Bill was considered by the Lok Sabha on 28 November 2001, and passed on the same day with a formal amendment changing the short title from Ninety-second to Eighty-fifth. The Bill, as passed by the Lok Sabha, was considered and passed by the Rajya Sabha on 5 December 2001. The Bill, as passed by the Rajya Sabha, was considered and passed by the Lok Sabha on 22 August 2000. The Bill received assent from then President K. R. Narayanan on 4 January 2002, and was notified in The Gazette of India on the same date. It retroactively came into effect from 17 June 1995, as stated in clause (2) of Section 1 of the Amendment Act.[2]
Go here to read the rest:
