Connect with us

News

Federal Judge Tosses Out First Amendment Claims in J6 Trial

This could affect several cases yet to come.

Published

on

With hundreds of defendants already facing charges stemming from the attempted insurrection of January 6th, (and possibly hundreds more yet to be identified and arrested by the FBI), there are going to be no shortage of angles of litigious attack explored over the course of the next year or more.

One such avenue of legalese that had been making the rounds suggested that the events of that day, namely the gathering, was protected by the First Amendment.  This was a protest, first and foremost, and then became something else later in the day.

Now a federal judge has essentially neutered that suggestion, in a ruling that could affect several cases yet to come.

A federal judge on Tuesday declined to dismiss a sprawling criminal indictment charging four accused leaders of the far-right extremist Proud Boys with conspiring to attack the US Capitol on January 6.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Defense attorneys representing the four men previously argued that the conduct of their clients, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Charles Donohoe, was protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.

But Judge Timothy Kelly rejected the defendants’ motion to dismiss the charges against them in a Tuesday filing reviewed by Insider, arguing they could have used several other, non-violent means of expressing their thoughts about the 2020 election.

His language seemed inescapable.

“No matter defendants’ political motivations or any political message they wished to express, this alleged conduct is simply not protected by the First Amendment,” wrote Kelly, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump. “Defendants are not, as they argue, charged with anything like burning flags, wearing black armbands, or participating in mere sit-ins or protests.”

Kelly would go on to cite a previous ruling in which it was determined that First Amendment-protected actions lose their constitutional protections once they turn violent.

News

PUTIN POKES THE BEAR: Russian Troops Move Toward Ukraine as World Warns

There may be no peaceful end to this situation.

Published

on

While it has long been understood that Vladimir Putin is a figure representing chaos on the world’s stage, (whether covertly or proudly), the sort of trouble that he’s stirring up this week won’t likely have a peaceful end.

Putin appears hellbent on finding a way and a reason to take Ukraine back under Russian control.  The tiny nation, rich in natural gas and other resources, is far too minuscule to put up a fight, and so it will be up to the rest of the world to deter the Kremlin.

And despite a number of unmistakable warnings, Putin appears unfazed.

Russia is a sending an unspecified number of troops from the country’s far east to Belarus for major war games, officials said Tuesday, a deployment that will further beef up Russian military presence near Ukraine amid Western fears of a planned invasion.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Amid the soaring tensions, the White House warned that Russia could attack its neighbor at “any point,” while the U.K. delivered a batch of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine.

Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin said the joint drills with Belarus would involve practicing a joint response to external threats.

Ukrainian officials have warned that Russia could launch an attack on Ukraine from several directions, including from its ally Belarus.

As for any attempts to stop the Russian invasion?  They were squashed when a well-known Putin mouthpiece announced on television that any push to keep Putin from getting what he wants could end in the opposition being turned into “radioactive dust”.

 

While it has long been understood that Vladimir Putin is a figure representing chaos on the world’s stage, (whether covertly or proudly), the sort of trouble that he’s stirring up this week won’t likely have a peaceful end. Putin appears hellbent on finding a way and a reason to take Ukraine back under Russian control.  The tiny nation, rich in natural gas and other resources, is far too minuscule to put up a fight, and so it will be up to the rest of the world to deter the Kremlin. And despite a number of unmistakable warnings, Putin appears unfazed. Russia is a sending an unspecified number of troops from the country’s far east to Belarus for major war games, officials said Tuesday, a deployment that will further beef up Russian military presence near Ukraine amid Western fears of a planned invasion. Amid the soaring tensions, the White House warned that Russia could attack its neighbor at “any point,” while the U.K. delivered a batch of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin said the joint drills with Belarus would involve practicing a joint response to external threats. Ukrainian officials have warned that Russia could launch an attack on Ukraine from several directions, including from its ally Belarus. As for any attempts to stop the Russian invasion?  They were squashed when a well-known Putin mouthpiece announced on television that any push to keep Putin from getting what he wants could end in the opposition being turned into “radioactive dust”.  

Continue Reading

News

Starbucks Bucks Biden’s Vaccine Mandate in Latest Blow to Agenda

WOW!

Published

on

Joe Biden has not been having the smoothest first year in office, that’s for certain, and things are only getting a little rougher as the days go on.

Currently, one of the largest failures that the administration is dealing with comes from the constitutionality of their vaccine mandate.  Or, rather, it’s lack of constitutionality, as determined by the Supreme Court of the US.

And now, even one of the “wokest” companies in the nation can’t back the plan.

Employees at Starbucks are no longer required to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Roughly a week after the Supreme Court reversed President’s Biden workplace vaccine mandate, the coffee chain is following suit, according to The Associated Press.

“We respect the Court’s ruling and will comply,” Starbucks Chief Operating Officer John Culver wrote in a memo to employees.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued mixed rulings in a pair of cases challenging Biden administration COVID-19 vaccine mandates, allowing the requirement for certain health care workers to go into effect while blocking enforcement of a mandate for businesses with 100 or more employees.

Then came the lip service.

“I want to emphasize that we continue to believe strongly in the spirit and intent of the mandate,” Culver added. “Thank you to the more than 90 percent of partners who have already disclosed their vaccination status, and to the vast majority who are now fully vaccinated.”

With Starbucks opting out, there are no doubt other mega-corporations who will be following suit.

Joe Biden has not been having the smoothest first year in office, that’s for certain, and things are only getting a little rougher as the days go on. Currently, one of the largest failures that the administration is dealing with comes from the constitutionality of their vaccine mandate.  Or, rather, it’s lack of constitutionality, as determined by the Supreme Court of the US. And now, even one of the “wokest” companies in the nation can’t back the plan. Employees at Starbucks are no longer required to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Roughly a week after the Supreme Court reversed President’s Biden workplace vaccine mandate, the coffee chain is following suit, according to The Associated Press. “We respect the Court’s ruling and will comply,” Starbucks Chief Operating Officer John Culver wrote in a memo to employees. Last week, the Supreme Court issued mixed rulings in a pair of cases challenging Biden administration COVID-19 vaccine mandates, allowing the requirement for certain health care workers to go into effect while blocking enforcement of a mandate for businesses with 100 or more employees. Then came the lip service. “I want to emphasize that we continue to believe strongly in the spirit and intent of the mandate,” Culver added. “Thank you to the more than 90 percent of partners who have already disclosed their vaccination status, and to the vast majority who are now fully vaccinated.” With Starbucks opting out, there are no doubt other mega-corporations who will be following suit.

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week