Courts & Justice Image Gallery
Last 30 Uploads
turiya
21 m
146
"The TikTok app is a malicious and menacing threat unleashed on unsuspecting Indiana consumers by a Chinese company that knows full well the harms it inflicts on users..."
turiya
22 m
107
"The Pennsylvania county boards of elections are hereby ORDERED to refrain from counting any absentee and mail-in ballots received for the November 8, 2022 general election that are contained in undated or incorrectly dated outer envelopes." -- Who is going to monitor the envelope counters?
turiya
23 m
100
"I’m also disappointed that we’re four-and-a-half years after those killings and we’re just now getting this. They used to do this, he would have been executed in six months."
turiya
23 m
117
turiya
23 m
416
turiya
23 m
404
turiya
23 m
479
turiya
23 m
438
turiya
23 m
134
Can race continue to be a factor in university admissions?
turiya
23 m
162
turiya
23 m
267
"Only after the filter team has reviewed the documents would a court rule on whether privilege applies..."
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) can use its so-called “filter teams,” including the one that is being used to review documents seized at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago. In the Korf v. United States case, the nine justices declined to hear a writ of certiorari (pdf) that questioned the legality of the filter team protocols. The rules allow agents and prosecutors who aren’t assigned to a case to examine seized materials that are claimed to be privileged before a judge issues a ruling. Like the vast majority of cases the Supreme Court declines to hear, the justices on Monday did not provide an explanation why it rejected the Korf petition. The case pertained to a DOJ money laundering probe that claimed that the use of a filter team was a violation of the Constitution’s 6th Amendment right to counsel. “Only after the filter team has reviewed the documents would a court rule on whether privilege applies. That procedure needlessly and harmfully exposes assertedly privileged communications to the government’s eyes,” lawyers for Mordechai Korf, who the DOJ targeted with a civil forfeiture complaint in January, said in their filing. “It undermines essential protections for the adversary system,” the lawyers continued. “And it jeopardizes the confidentiality needed for the applicable privileges to serve their vital purposes.” If the Supreme Court ruled on the case, it may have provided clarity for the DOJ and Trump’s legal team following the raid. In September, a district judge sided with Trump’s team in appointing a special master to review documents that were taken during the raid on Aug. 8 that the former president said was unprecedented and politically motivated. Lawyers for the DOJ confirmed the agency used a filter team to start its review of the documents that were collected during the FBI search, according to court filings. DOJ attorneys further argued that because a preliminary review of the documents was completed, it would not be necessary to appoint a special master. A Sept. 1 court filing from Trump, meanwhile, asserted that the DOJ filter team never communicated with his team following the FBI raid. “Never has an argument against ‘interference’ better underscored the need for judicial involvement,” the filing read. “All of this in the context of a unilateral filter team operation that to-date has never made any contact with counsel for the Movant, another historic first for DOJ.” His lawyers suggested that the DOJ team would possibly “impugn, leak, and publicize selective aspects” of their probe to damage Trump. The former president, who said the FBI-seized materials were declassified by him, has long argued the FBI and DOJ have unfairly targeted him since when he was a candidate during the 2016 election.
Former President Donald Trump (Left) at CPAC in Dallas, Texas, on Aug. 6, 2022, and the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., on Feb. 11, 2022. (Brandon Bell, Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Trump Case
turiya
23 m
202
"Her family is seeking to sue Google-owned YouTube for allegedly allowing ISIS to spread its message..."
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to weigh in on whether tech companies should be allowed immunity over 'problematic' content posted by users. The case at hand alleges that YouTube aided and abetted the killing of an American in coordinated 2015 terrorist attacks carried out by ISIS, which killed 130 people. The family of one of the victims, Nohemi Gonzalez, has argued that YouTube's active role in recommending videos overcomes the liability shield for internet companies enacted by Congress in 1996 as part of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of that act absolves online platforms of liability from content posted by users - and has come under fire in recent years, with the right claiming that it allows companies to inappropriately censor conservative views, and the left saying it allows social media companies to spread dangerous right-wing wrongthink, CBS News reports. Gonzalez was a 23-year-old college student studying in France when she was killed while dining at a restaurant during the wave of attacks, which also targeted the Bataclan concert hall. Her family is seeking to sue Google-owned YouTube for allegedly allowing ISIS to spread its message. The lawsuit targets YouTube’s use of algorithms to suggest videos for users based on content they have previously viewed. YouTube’s active role goes beyond the kind of conduct that Congress intended to protect with Section 230, the family’s lawyers allege. They say in court papers that the company “knowingly permitted ISIS to post on YouTube hundreds of radicalizing videos inciting violence” that helped the group recruit supporters, some of whom then conducted terrorist attacks. -NBC News Lawyers for Gonzalez's family say YouTube's video recommendations were key to ISIS's ability to spread their message.
Nohemi Gonzalez
Add This Forum To Your Favorites!
Challenge the message and not the messenger!
The first person to resort to name calling and personal attacks automatically loses the debate!
Personal attack is often the best indication that the writer knows his logic is flawed and therefore tries to deflect attention by attacking the opponent, instead of attacking the arguments of the opponent.
Forum Stats:
forum viewed 242,450 times
365 messages
185 topics
topics per page limited to: 8
average number of messages per page: 16
23 pages
CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with www.netatlantic.com
Copyright 1999 - 2024 www.curezone.org