Gov. Gavin Newsom, in his first year, tried to avoid being pulled into California’s incessant and perilous fights over water. That didn’t work out.
Before adjourning early Saturday morning, California lawmakers passed sweeping legislation, over Newsom’s objections, allowing the state to impose strict endangered species protections and water pumping restrictions for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
The delta provides water for more than 25 million people and millions of acres of Central Valley farmland, and for decades has been a dividing line between California’s reverence for the environment and its flourishing cities and billion-dollar agricultural industry.
The governor must now decide whether to veto the bill and raise the ire of California environmentalists, who will surely accuse him of sidling up to the Trump administration, or sign the bill into law and potentially anger the state’s biggest water agencies.
The legislation was cast to shield California from the Trump administration’s rollback of federal environmental and labor protections.
State Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), one of the most powerful politicians in Sacramento, led the legislation. Sending the bill to Newsom’s desk marks one of the first times these two leaders have clashed over major state policy. That could have implications for their future relationship, potentially complicating the governor’s legislative agenda.
Senate Bill 1 would allow state agencies to adopt protections under the federal Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Fair Labor Standards Act and other major environmental and labor laws that were in place before President Trump took office in January 2017.
“I think we are living in times that demand our urgent action to protect our state’s natural resources, our environment and worker safety,” Atkins said shortly before the bill passed.
Many of the labor and environmental provisions were not controversial. But numerous water agencies, including the influential Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, feared the endangered species provisions and delta pumping restrictions would limit their water supply at key times of the year.
The Newsom administration shared some of those concerns, as did U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and four Central Valley Democrats in Congress who submitted a letter last week requesting the bill be amended.
Atkins was adamant about preserving the protections for wildlife, setting up a possible showdown with the Democratic governor as the 2019 legislative session wound to a close Friday night..
Environmental groups, which were a key part of the liberal coalition that helped elect Newsom, saw SB 1 as one of their top priorities for this year’s legislative session. The bill had strong support from Sierra Club California, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Audubon California and other groups. It sailed through the state Senate in May on a 28-10 vote, and went through several changes, based on meetings with various parties.
“The California Legislature basically is saying, ‘California, you don’t have to worry , we have your back,’ ” said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California. “Americans do not want dirty air. They want water they can drink. And they aren’t happy with what Trump is doing to the environment.”
Phillips said she is confident that Newsom will sign the legislation when it lands on his desk, noting that he was elected on an “environmental platform, and this is consistent with what he ran on.”
The Butte County Farm Bureau, however, said the bill would “dismantle” the ability to produce food in California. Mike Wade of the California Farm Water Coalition said the consequences will be dire if Newsom does not veto the bill.
“Last night, California’s Legislature said ‘no’ to future-oriented water policy including new environmental protections and ‘yes’ to an outdated regulatory system and business as usual,” Wade said in a statement Saturday.
Both Republicans and Democratic lawmakers, primarily from the Central Valley, spoke out against the bill.
Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber) said the law would rekindle California’s water wars. Republican Assemblyman Devon Mathis of Visalia said it was a “knee-jerk reaction” by a state Legislature dominated by the Democratic Party. He said it would devastate agriculture in the Central Valley by cutting its water supply, an assertion that supporters of the bill refute.
“What this bill does is turn my area of the state literally into a dust bowl,” Mathis said during the Assembly debate on the bill Friday evening. “I have some of the highest poverty rates, I have one of the largest Latino immigrant areas. And these people depend on agricultural work, which means they depend on water.”
The key legislative fight involved efforts to protect delta smelt, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout by limiting the amount of water that can be siphoned away. Water users, including Central Valley farms and Southern California cities, have clashed with environmentalists over that issue for decades.
In the last several weeks, water interests have ramped up a campaign to derail the legislation or have it significantly amended.
Jennifer Pierre, general manager of the State Water Contractors association, said recently that the proposed bill would have locked in outdated federal rules that regulate water pumping and species protections in the delta. As a result, new scientific findings that offer prescriptions for better water and species management practices would be ignored, she said.
The bill’s biggest hitch was a provision that would impose the state’s endangered species protections and pumping restrictions on the Central Valley Project, the water system run by the federal Bureau of Reclamation. The Central Valley Project provides much of the water consumed by farms and people in the Central Valley heart of California.
Water districts that receive water from the Central Valley Project threatened to walk away from voluntary agreements being negotiated between them and state regulatory agencies. The pacts were aimed at allowing greater flexibility in how to protect endangered species and divert water from the delta. Newsom supported the voluntary agreements and did not want to see them derailed, administration officials said, which is why he had urged Atkins to amend the bill.
Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, said those agreements would benefit both water users and the ecosystem. Such gains will be lost if Newsom signs the bill, he said.
“If it goes into law, I suspect everyone goes back to their camps and sues each other,” Kightlinger said. “The supporters of this bill know that and decided it’s worth it.”
Phillips called those arguments by water agencies disingenuous. The water agencies and Central Valley farmers want the Trump administration’s weakened endangered species protections in place so they can pump more water from the delta, she said.
Since Trump has taken office, there have been questions whether water users would agree to settlements proposed during the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown, or seek better deals now that Trump administration has pushed rollbacks.
In August, the White House took action to weaken the 45-year-old Endangered Species Act, including removing protections for species recently added to the threatened list. This week, it announced it would weaken Obama-era rules on protecting wetlands.
The Times last month also reported that federal officials suppressed a lengthy environmental report detailing how a number of California species would be jeopardized by Trump’s plans to deliver more delta water to Central Valley farms.
The Metropolitan Water District has defended the federal government’s actions, saying that little has changed, a claim environmental groups have disputed as propaganda.
Times staff writer Liam Dillon contributed to this report.
Friday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” the cable show where five different people take turns saying the exact same thing for three hours, an on-screen graphic blared, “TRUMP SILENT ON PLOT TO KILL CRITICS.”
“Not a word from Trump,” huffed show host Joe Scarborough. “Not a word from [GOP Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell. Not a word from [GOP House Minority Leader] Kevin McCarthy. Not a word from the Justice Department. That is pathetic.”
This is precisely what happened during the 2016 election with David Duke. Without having said a word about the long-forgotten Klansman, the media and Democrats demanded that Trump account for Duke’s racism. But why should Trump have had to answer for someone whose company or association he had never sought?
Take Al Sharpton, Scarborough’s MSNBC colleague. To this day, he has not apologized for his role in the Tawana Brawley hoax. That incident of a false rape report in the 1980s inflamed national racial divisions in a way rarely seen since. (The 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, which also turned out to be fake, is probably the only similar case from recent years.) Sharpton played a starring role in two major incidents of anti-Semitic violence during his career in New York City, one of which resulted in seven deaths.
Yet, every four years, every Democratic presidential candidate treks to New York to kiss Sharpton’s ring for the nomination — Sen. Kamala Harris of California is the latest. It would be far fairer to make any of them answer for Sharpton than it is to expect Trump to answer for some random crazy person he’s unfamiliar with and has never met. But not one Democrat is ever asked to account for Sharpton’s conduct.
Liberals might argue that Trump waived this defense on the Coast Guard maniac by weighing in this week on actor Jussie Smollett’s apparent hoax hate crime. But Trump was thrown into that by Smollett himself when he blamed the crime on the president’s supporters.
The notion that the Coast Guard crazy, Lt. Christopher Hasson, plotted to target Trump’s “critics” for violence is a ruse. Court documents don’t point to any coherent political alliance or philosophy on Hasson’s part, outside of a nebulous hate for “liberalist/globalist ideology.”
Messages recovered by prosecutors from Hasson’s computer show that his primary motivation was white supremacism. He was “dreaming of a way to kill almost every last person on the earth,” and he was looking for a catalyst that would make his violent fantasy come alive — namely, a mass riot pitting law enforcement against left-wing groups like the Black Lives Matter movement.
Hasson was thinking up ways to “provoke” nationwide conflict in order to inflict “complete destruction,” according to prosecutors. When you read that portion of the court filings, it makes clear why he would then search the Internet for, among other things, “what if trump illegally impeached” and “civil war if trump impeached.” It’s not because Hasson was inspired by Trump. It’s because he saw heated political conflict as a means to his unrealized end. He wanted to see Trump impeached because he hoped civil unrest would follow.
The evidence suggests Hasson was first and foremost a white supremacist who looked to a 2011 terrorist attack in Norway for inspiration as to how he might carry out a similar one here. He wrote in an email draft: “During unrest target both sides to increase tension. In other words provoke gov/police to over react which should help to escalate violence. BLM protests or other left crap would be ideal to incite to violence.”
He also fantasized about possibly becoming a sheriff or city mayor and of learning chemistry, if that gives you any insight into his mental stability.
Hasson is a crazy person and a white supremacist, in that order.
No evidence has tied Hasson to Republicans or Trump. Why should they be expected to answer for him?
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled legislation Friday that would allow Congress to intervene under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution to remove the president, insisting it’s not about President Donald Trump but inspired by the need for greater congressional oversight of his White House.
Pelosi has been raising questions about Trump’s mental fitness since his COVID-19 diagnosis and demanding more transparency about his health. The bill would set up a commission to assess the president’s ability to lead the country and ensure a continuity of government. It comes one year after Pelosi’s House launched impeachment proceedings against Trump.
“This is not about President Donald Trump — he will face the judgment of the voters,” Pelosi said at a press conference at the Capitol.
Just weeks before the Nov. 3 election, with no hopes of the bill becoming law, the rollout was quickly dismissed as a stunt by Trump’s team and top allies.
“It’s an absurd proposal,” said White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Fox.
“Absolutely absurd,” said Senate Majority Leader McConnell during an appearance in Shepherdsville, Kentucky.
The president’s opponents have discussed invoking the 25th Amendment for some time, but are raising it now, so close to Election Day, as the campaigns are fast turning into a referendum on Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
Pelosi said Trump needs to disclose more about his health after his COVID-19 diagnosis and when, exactly, he first contracted COVID as others in the White House have become infected. More than 210,000 Americans have died and millions more have tested positive for the virus, which shows no signs of abating heading into what public health experts warn will be a difficult flu season and winter.
The legislation that would create a commission as outlined under the 25th Amendment, which was passed by Congress and ratified in 1967 as a way to ensure a continuity of power in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.
It says the vice president and a majority of principal officers of the executive departments “or of such other body as Congress” may by law provide a declaration to Congress that the president “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” At that point, the vice president would immediately assume the powers of acting president.
“Let Congress exert the power the Constitution gave us,” Pelosi said Friday standing before a poster of the amendment.
Pelosi was joined by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a constitutional scholar, who has proposed similar bills in the past.
“In times of chaos we must hold fast to our Constitution,” he said Friday.
Raskin said the commission would be launched “only for the most extreme situations.”
But, as Congress showed by impeaching — and acquitting the president over the past year — the legislative branch is determined to exert itself at times as a check on the executive branch.
“Congress has a role to play,” Raskin said.
Trump says he “feels great” after being hospitalized and is back at work in the White House. But his doctors have given mixed signals about his diagnosis and treatment. Trump plans to resume campaigning soon.
Congress is not in legislative session, and so any serious consideration of the measure, let alone votes in the House or Senate, is unlikely. But the bill serves as a political tool to stoke questions about Trump’s health as his own White House is hit by an outbreak infecting top aides, staff and visitors, including senators.
In a stunning admission, McConnell said Thursday that he had stopped going to the White House two months ago because he disagreed with its coronavirus protocols. His last visit was Aug. 6.
“My impression was their approach to how to handle this was different from mine and what I insisted we do in the Senate, which is to wear a mask and practice social distancing,” McConnell said at a campaign stop in northern Kentucky for his own reelection.
———
Associated Press writers Bruce Schreiner in Frankfort, Kentucky, and Aamer Madhani, Laurie Kellman and Padmananda Rama in Washington contributed to this report.
———
This story has been corrected to fix the spelling of Rama’s first name in contributor line to Padmananda.
In media news today, President Biden says he was ‘instructed’ to call on reporters from list following Kabul attacks, MSNBC’s Malcolm Nance downplays the Kabul suicide bombing, and ESPN gets slammed for ‘wokeism’ after canceling Rachel Nichols’ show
Liberal media members and pundits reacted angrily to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the federal moratorium on evictions, despite the Biden administration’s admitting weeks ago it had no legal standing to extend the moratorium.
The nation’s highest court voted Thursday in a 6-3 majority to overturn the moratorium, with the court’s three liberal-leaning justices dissenting.
The Biden administration previously admitted that it lacked the legal authority to extend the federal moratorium after it expired in July. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), however, issued a new moratorium that was set to expire in October.
Former President Donald Trump’s niece, Mary Trump, a regular at some liberal outlets, called for the court to be expanded to make the conservative-leaning members a “minority.” She described the six justices in favor of overturning the moratorium as “cruel” and “conscienceless.”
“This week alone, the Supreme Court has attacked Biden’s eviction moratorium while pushing for the reinstatement of Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy. At what point do Democrats wake up, smell the coffee, get spines <choose your metaphor> and rebalance this packed Supreme Court?” wrote left-wing MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan, before adding that any action taken would require Congress and Democrats to have “spines.”
Other critics from the media also took to Twitter to slam the decision, with some, including former Secretary of Labor and cable regular Robert Reich, joining the call to expand the court, and others expressing outrage over the court making the decision amid a pandemic.
Some critics lamented there was still unspent money for rental relief, while others predicted chaos as “millions” could be evicted. One critic even referred to the court as committing “another evil.”
Smaller landlords had been hit hardest by the pandemic with as many as 58% having tenets behind on rent, according to the National Association of Realtors. Smaller landlords are owed more than half of all back rent.
Fox Business’ Andrew Mark Miller contributed to this report.
Days after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the administration continues to consider military options for dealing with Iran, Trump dismissed the idea in an interview with Time magazine. Asked whether he was considering military action against Tehran, the President said: “I wouldn’t say that. I can’t say that at all.”
Trump also called the attack on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, which his administration has blamed on Iran, as “very minor.”
Then, in an interview with Fox News, Trump was asked collectively about tensions with Iran, China and Russia. “Don’t worry about a thing,” Trump said, describing issues with those nations as being “under control.”
Seven counties in the greater San Francisco Bay Area region have issued a shelter-in-place order to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Here’s how it works.
Why it’s being done
The San Francisco Bay Area is the hardest-hit region in California with regards to coronavirus cases. More than 290 cases have been reported in the six Bay Area counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara, as well as the neighboring county of Santa Cruz.
In Santa Clara County alone, more than 130 cases were confirmed and more than 50 have been hospitalized. Officials expect the number of cases to worsen.
Officials say slowing the spread of the virus is urgent to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Older adults and those with underlying medical conditions are most at risk for critical illness, with their bodies unable to fight off a viral infection of the lungs that can result in a failure to breathe on their own, septic shock and multiple organ failure.
“Some individuals who contract the COVID-19 virus have no symptoms or have mild symptoms, which means they may not be aware they carry the virus,” the order said. “Because even people without symptoms can transmit the disease, and because evidence shows the disease is easily spread, gatherings can result in preventable transmission of the virus.”
What does the order say?
Officials are directing the public to stay at home as much as possible, with certain exceptions, such as to go out and get food at supermarkets, pick up prescriptions at the pharmacy, buy gas, go to the bank and check up on relatives.
“You will still be able to walk your dog, or go on a hike alone or someone you live with, or even with another person, as long as you keep six feet between you,” Dr. Grant Colfax, the San Francisco director of health, said at a press conference.
Certain essential activities are exempt, such as essential government and business services or essential public infrastructure construction, like housing. Essential activities are defined below.
The order goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday. It’ll continue until 11:59 p.m. on April 7, unless rescinded earlier or extended.
What kinds of businesses are now ordered closed?
All bars and nightclubs
Gyms and recreation facilities
Essential businesses are urged to remain open. A list of them is below.
Are restaurants and cafes ordered closed?
Restaurants and cafes can remain open for takeout and delivery.
How big can gatherings be now?
All public and private gatherings of any number of people outside a single household or living unit are now banned, with certain exceptions listed below.
What kind of travel is banned?
All travel, including by car and public transit, is banned except for essential travel or essential activities, as defined below. Public transit riders should try to stay six feet away from others.
What about homeless people?
Homeless people are not subject to this order but are urged to find shelter.
How will it be enforced?
San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott said police are asking the public to voluntarily comply. While violation of the health order could be enforceable as a misdemeanor, “that is an absolute last resort,” Scott said. “This is not about a criminal justice approach to a public health issue.”
What are essential activities that are still allowed to occur?
To do things essential to health and safety of the household, including pets, like getting medical supplies, visiting a clinic or hospital, or obtaining supplies to work from home.
To obtain needed services or supplies, like buying groceries.
To engage in outdoor activities like walking, hiking or running, while keeping six feet away from others.
To do work defined as essential business, defined below.
To care for a family member or pet in another household.
To continue working for a healthcare operation, like a hospital, clinic, dentist’s office, pharmacy, pharmaceutical and biotech company, a healthcare facility, healthcare supplier, home healthcare service, mental health provider, veterinary office or other related services.
To continue working for construction projects needed for essential infrastructure, such as building housing, airport operations, and work on water, sewer, gas, electrical, oil refining, roads and highways, public transportation, solid waste collection, internet, and telecom systems.
To continue working as first responders, emergency management personnel, emergency dispatchers, court personnel, and law enforcement. Anyone needed to ensure the continuing operation of government agencies and provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public is exempt.
People at high risk for severe illness, such as the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions, are urged to remain at home except as needed to seek medical care.
If you go out, what are you supposed to do?
Stay six feet away from other people — the distance at which virus-infected saliva can travel in someone’s cough or sneeze; wash hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds often or use hand sanitizer; cover coughs and sneezes; stop shaking hands;
Other than healthcare workers and other essential workers, if you have a medical condition that puts you at risk for serious complications for the coronavirus, stay at home;
For employers, take all steps needed to allow workers to work from home to the extent possible.
What are essential businesses under this order?
Healthcare operations
Grocery stores, certified farmers’ markets, farm and produce stands, supermarkets, food banks, convenience stores, and other establishments that sell canned food, dry goods, fresh fruits and vegetables, pet supplies, fresh meats, fish and poultry, and household products such as cleaning and personal care products.
Food cultivation, like farming, livestock and fishing
Businesses that provide food, shelter and social services and other necessities of life for the needy
Newspapers, TV, radio and other media services
Gas stations, auto supply, auto repair and related facilities
Banks and related financial institutions
Hardware stores
Plumbers, electricians, exterminators, and other service providers who provide services that are necessary to maintaining safety and sanitation
Businesses providing mailing and shipping services, including post office boxes
Educational institutions — including public and private K-12 schools, colleges and universities — for purposes of facilitating distance learning or performing essential functions
Laundromats, dry cleaners, and laundry service providers
Restaurants and other facilities that prepare and serve food, but only for delivery or carry out. Schools and other entities that typically provide free food services to students or members of the public may continue to do so under this order on the condition that the food is provided to students or members of the public on a pickup and takeaway basis only. Schools and other entities that provide food services under this exemption shall not permit the food to be eaten at the site where it is provided, or at any other gathering site
Businesses that supply products needed for people to work from home
Businesses that supply other essential businesses with the support or supplies necessary to operate
Businesses that ship or deliver groceries, food, goods or services directly to residences
Airlines, taxis and other private transportation providers providing transportation services necessary for essential activities
Home-based care for seniors, adults and children
Residential facilities and shelters for seniors, adults and children
Professional services, such as legal or accounting services, when necessary to assist in compliance with legally mandated activities
Childcare facilities providing services that enable employees exempted in this order to work as permitted. To the extent possible, childcare facilities must operate under the following mandatory conditions:
Childcare must be carried out in stable groups of 12 or fewer (“stable” means that the same 12 or fewer children are in the same group each day).
Children shall not change from one group to another.
If more than one group of children is cared for at one facility, each group shall be in a separate room. Groups shall not mix with each other.
Childcare providers shall remain solely with one group of children.
West Ham have moved a step close to landing Tottenham target William Carvalho after the club reached a verbal agreement with the player.
The Sporting Lisbon midfielder has been widely linked with a move to England over the last few years and this summer hasn’t been any different with a number of Premier League clubs in pursuit of him.
Tottenham and Crystal Palace are rumoured to be interested in snapping him up, but it is London rivals West Ham who are believed to be making all the running.
A West Ham delegation have been in Lisbon, and according to Portuguese daily Diario de Noticias, they have reached an agreement with the player over a proposed transfer.
The Hammers are now working hard to agree terms with Sporting, with the Portuguese giants holding out for in excess of £30m.
The West Ham delegation are expected to stay in Lisbon until Tuesday and they have asked the player to convince the club to accept an offer for him by next week.
Sign up: Want to understand what’s happening in the campaign? Sign up for The Trailer and get insights and news from across the country in your inbox three days a week.
Third grade literacy instructor Katelyn Battinelli talks with students about their pandemic-related fears on the first day of in-person learning for five days per week at Stark Elementary School on March 10, 2021 in Stamford, Connecticut.Credit…John Moore/Getty Images
A bipartisan group of governors have decided it is time to get students back into classrooms, despite union resistance and bureaucratic hesitancy.
Democratic governors in Oregon, California, New Mexico and North Carolina, and Republicans in Arizona, Iowa, West Virginia and New Hampshire, among other states, have all taken steps to prod, and sometimes force, school districts to open.
The result has been a major increase in the number of students who now have the option of attending school in-person, or will in the next month.
According to a school reopening tracker created by the American Enterprise Institute, 7 percent of the more than 8,000 districts being tracked were operating fully remotely on March 22, the lowest percentage since the tracker was started in November. Forty-one percent of districts were offering full-time in-person instruction, the highest percentage in that time. Those findings have been echoed by other surveys.
In interviews, several governors described the factors motivating their decision to push districts to reopen, including the substantial evidence that there is little virus transmission in schools if mitigation measures are followed, the decline in overall cases from their January peak, and, most of all, the urgency of getting students back in classrooms before the school year ends.
“Every day is an eternity for a young person,” said Jay Inslee, the Democratic governor of Washington, who declared a state of emergency related to child and adolescent mental health and banned fully virtual instruction starting in April. “We just could not wait any further.”
In the weeks since most of the governors acted, nationwide cases have started to rise again, which could complicate the effort to get children back in school. In areas where cases are increasing sharply, like Michigan, some schools have had to revert to remote learning temporarily because so many students were in quarantine.
But for the time being, at least, the moves by these governors have yielded significant results.
In Washington, before Mr. Inslee issued his proclamation, the state’s largest district, Seattle Public Schools, was locked in a standoff with its teachers’ union over a reopening plan. Days after Mr. Inslee announced he would require districts to bring students back at least part time, the two sides reached an agreement for all preschool and elementary school students and some older students with disabilities to return by April 5.
In Ohio, nearly half of all students were in districts that were fully remote at the beginning of 2021. By March 1, that number was down to 4 percent, and it has shrunk further in the weeks since.
“It’s worked exceedingly well,” Mike DeWine, the Republican governor of Ohio, said of his decision to offer vaccines to Ohio districts that pledged to reopen. “We’ve got these kids back in school.”
ST. ANTHONY — Lori Vallow Daybell’s initial court appearance was continued Wednesday morning following a sidebar between Magistrate Judge Faren Eddins and her attorney Mark Means.
As a result, Lori, who appeared in the hearing via Zoom wearing a mask, did not hear her charges read in court, and the hearing was adjourned after only a few minutes.
The only other notable event during the hearing, was that Special Prosecutor Rob Wood objected to the continuance.
It’s not clear why the continuance was issued by Eddins. Based on previous court hearings we know that all of Lori’s future court proceedings were put on hold in March for an undetermined amount of time, and for an unknown reason.
Prior to Lori’s hearing, her husband Chad Daybell appeared in court over Zoom from the Fremont County Jail with his attorney John Prior. The charges were read against Chad, and the judge affirmed that Chad would be held without bail. Prior did not object to that decision.
The two court appearances come following the convening of a grand jury in Fremont County last week. On Monday the grand jury indicted the couple on variety of charges including first-degree murder for the deaths of Chad’s first wife Tammy Daybell, 16-year-old Tylee Ryan and 7-year-old Joshua “JJ” Vallow — Lori’s two children.
The couple was served warrants Tuesday. Both Chad and Lori were already behind bars on $1 million bail for charges related to the concealment and destruction of the bodies of the children.
Wood and Fremont County Prosecutor Lindsey Blake announced the indictment at a news conference Tuesday afternoon. The Daybells are charged with the following:
Lori and Chad Daybell were indicted on the charge of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and grand theft by deception for the death of Tylee Ryan.
Lori and Chad Daybell were indicted on the charge of first-degree murder for the death of Tylee Ryan.
Lori and Chad Daybell were indicted on the charge of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and grand theft by deception for the death of JJ Vallow.
Lori and Chad Daybell were indicted on the charge of first-degree murder for the death of JJ Vallow.
Lori and Chad Daybell were indicted on the charge of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in the death of Tammy Daybell.
Chad Daybell was indicted on the charge of first-degree murder in the death of his wife Tammy Daybell.
Lori Daybell was indicted on the charge of grand theft related to Social Security Survivor benefits over $1,000 allocated for the care of minors Tylee Ryan and JJ Vallow that were appropriated after the children were missing and ultimately found deceased.
Chad Daybell was indicted on the charge of insurance fraud related to a life insurance policy he had on Tammy Daybell for which he was the beneficiary and received funds after her death.
Chad Daybell was indicted on the charge of insurance fraud related to another life insurance policy he had on Tammy Daybell for which he was the beneficiary and received funds after her death.
In addition to the charges, additional details surrounding the deaths of Tylee, JJ and Tammy, were also released. Charging documents indicate investigators believe Lori’s brother Alex Cox was a co-conspirator in the alleged crimes.
Both Chad and Lori could face the death penalty with the first-degree murder charges. If prosecutors decide to not seek the death penalty, the couple could receive multiple life sentences with a mandatory minimum of 10 years.
The arraignment for Chad is scheduled for June 9. It’s not clear when Lori’s initial appearance will resume.
March 19 (Reuters) – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Saturday called for comprehensive peace talks with Moscow, saying Russia would otherwise need generations to recover from losses suffered during the war.
Zelenskiy said Ukraine had always offered solutions for peace and wanted meaningful and honest negotiations on peace and security, without delay.
“I want everyone to hear me now, especially in Moscow. The time has come for a meeting, it is time to talk,” he said in a video address released in the early hours of Saturday.
“The time has come to restore territorial integrity and justice for Ukraine. Otherwise, Russia’s losses will be such that it will take you several generations to recover.”
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy visits people who were injured while fleeing from Kyiv’s outskirts as Russia’s attack on Ukraine continues, at a hospital in Kyiv, Ukraine March 17, 2022. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERS
The two sides have been involved in talks for weeks with no sign of a breakthrough.
Zelenskiy said Russian forces were deliberately blocking the supply of humanitarian supplies to cities under attack.
“This is a deliberate tactic … This is a war crime and they will answer for it, 100%,” he said.
Zelenskiy said there was no information about how many people had died after a theatre in the city of Mariupol, where hundreds of people had been sheltering, was struck on Wednesday. More than 130 people had been rescued so far, he said.
Want to understand impeachment proceedings better?Sign up for the 5-Minute Fix to get a guide in your inbox every weekday. Have questions?Submit them here, and they may be answered in the newsletter.
A tradução deste artigo se encontra no final da versão em inglês
This Friday, Nov. 6, at 7:30 pm, the Martha’s Vineyard Film Center presents the acclaimed Brazilian film “Que Horas Ela Volta?” (The Second Mother), starring famous comedian and Globo actress Regina Casé. The movie portrays the life of Val (Regina Casé), a hardworking live-in maid. Val caters to all of her employers’ needs, as she is appreciative of having a job and a place to live. The one, and perhaps only, happy aspect of the job is her relationship with Fabinho, her employers’ only son, whom she has cared for as her own since Fabinho was a toddler. However, when Val’s daughter Jessica, whom she hasn’t seen in 10 years, decides to move in with Val to pursue her dream of applying to and attending a university, the unspoken but real class barriers that exist within the home are tested, forcing everyone to reconsider what family means.
If you can’t make it to Friday’s screening, you can watch the film on Saturday, Sunday, or next Thursday (Nov. 12) at 7:30 pm at the Film Center.
The first Thursday of every month is referred to as “translation day” at the Edgartown District Courthouse. A translator, usually Maria F. Mello, a Spanish and Portuguese court-certified interpreter from Seekonk, provides translation services for individuals who are not yet proficient in English.
On Thursday, Sept. 3, I spent the day at the Edgartown District Courthouse and met Michelle J. Da Silva, a criminal defense and immigration lawyer. I was very interested in her views regarding the driver’s license dilemma that undocumented immigrants in Massachusetts face. Most of the Brazilians in court that day were confronting the same charge — they had been charged with driving without a license.
Some states, such as Connecticut, have created a driver’s license for undocumented immigrants, one that doesn’t grant the same privileges as an American citizen, or a legally documented immigrant, but that helps ensure public safety and accountability. In Massachusetts, similar initiatives to allow undocumented immigrants to drive legally remain on hold.
Michelle J. Da Silva agreed to an interview in which she shared her views on the matter.
MVTimes: Please tell me about your law practice involving Brazilian nationals.
Michelle J. Da Silva: My practice areas are immigration, criminal defense, and divorce. I would say that 80 percent of my clients are Brazilians, with the remaining being from Spanish-speaking nations.
MVT: To what extent do motor vehicle violations, specifically driving without a license, account for the cases you handle?
MD: Of my criminal defense practice, about 20 percent of cases involve operating without a license and operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
MVT: Is there a typical scenario for the Brazilian national charged with driving without a license?
MD: The typical scenario involves an undocumented immigrant (typically Brazilian in my practice, since I am fluent in Portuguese) who is driving using a “foreign or international license.” Most of the time, the clients are first-time offenders who are frightened by the U.S. legal system because of lack of knowledge and understanding of how the system works. They seek the assistance of an attorney to help them navigate the system.
Many undocumented immigrants are under the mistaken belief that a foreign license gives them the right to drive in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, there are unscrupulous businesses that provide these “international licenses” (for a fee, of course) and who often prey on these undocumented immigrants’ fears and misinformation about the true validity of these licenses.
After they acquire the license, they have a false sense of security that they are eligible to drive. It is only once they are stopped by the police and issued a citation and summoned into court for driving without a license that they come to realize that they were defrauded.
However, although the minority of the cases, some undocumented immigrants use the international license as an excuse to violate the laws knowingly.
MVT: Please comment on the typical outcome for a first-time offender on the mainland versus what you know of the outcomes on Martha’s Vineyard.
MD: It is important first to note that the law gives the judge discretion in the fine amount, up to $500 for the first offense. A typical outcome in my experience is that a case is dismissed on fine of $300 to $500 for a first offense. The difference on Martha’s Vineyard from the mainland is that most of the unlicensed-operation violations are held on the same day [because it is the only day there is a Portuguese interpreter available], thus allowing much more consistency in the judge’s ruling.
MVT: Based on what you have observed, is the system for issuing driver’s licenses broken?
MD: In my opinion, the system for issuing licenses is not broken; it is that the current laws are not adequate for the times we are living in. The reality is that we do have undocumented immigrants living within our communities, and will continue to have as long as U.S. employers are willing to employ them. It is also true that U.S. employers will continue to employ these individuals if the U.S. labor market cannot produce the quality of workers that come from abroad. Therefore, the first issue that must be addressed is the need for comprehensive immigration reform.
However, because of the current gridlock in Congress and the polarization involved with the topic of immigration, it is unlikely that we will see any immigration reform shortly. Therefore, a better solution would be to provide licenses for these undocumented immigrants, so that not only do we know who is living among us, but we also reduce the burden to our court system.
Also, by allowing these undocumented immigrants to have access to licenses, we would also be protecting our society. Right now, many undocumented immigrants drive without insurance; that endangers the public and other drivers on the road — this occurs not because they want to evade the law, but because without a valid driver’s license, an insurance company will not insure them.
MVT: In general, do your clients think they are fairly treated by the courts?
MD: Yes, I do think that my clients are treated fairly because I fight for their rights.
Overall, I do believe the system works. Undocumented individuals have all the rights afforded to them as those of a native person in this country. However, I think the system works better for those who have private legal representation than those who do not. In my experience, most of my clients have never been involved with the legal system either here in the U.S. or abroad in their home country. This makes going to court a very scary experience, because many of them think that if they go to court they are automatically going to be deported. The undocumented individual’s fear of the legal system is only because of their lack of education about the American justice system. As a private counsel whose practice deals with a large number of undocumented individuals, I find it necessary to provide a basic understanding of the criminal justice system to my clients in order to ease their fears, which in turns makes them much more trusting of the system and reassures them that they are getting a fair treatment when their case is heard.
Michelle Da Silva’s Law Office Contact Information:
Nesta sexta-feira, dia 6 de novembro, às 7:30 da noite, no Martha’s Vineyard Film center, o filme brasileiro “Que Horas Ela Volta” será exibido. O filme tem recebido diversas críticas positivas. A atriz e comediante global Regina Casé faz o papel de Val, uma empregada doméstica que trabalha há anos para uma família que também a concede moradia. Val gosta do emprego por lhe proporcionar um lugar para morar, assim como um salário. Mas talvez o único elemento positivo de seu emprego seja a sua relação com Fabinho, de quem Val cuida como filho desde que ele ainda era um bebê. Porém, quando sua filha Jessica, que Val não vê há dez anos, decide mudar para onde Val mora, para correr atrás de seu sonho de passar no vestibular e cursar faculdade, as barreiras de classes sociais existentes na casa, mas nunca discutidas, começam a serem testadas, forçando todos a reconhecer o que uma família realmente é.
Se você não conseguir ir a sessão de sexta, pode ver o filme no sábado, domingo ou na próxima quinta (12/nov) às 7:30 da noite no Film Center.
A primeira quinta-feira do mês é conhecida como “dia da tradução” na corte de Edgartown. Um tradutor(a), geralmente Maria F. Mello, uma intérprete de português e espanhol certificada pela corte de Seekonk, provê tradução para indivíduos que ainda não são fluentes em inglês.
Na quinta-feira, dia 3 de setembro, eu passei o dia na corte de Edgartown, onde conheci Michelle Da Silva, uma advogada de defesa criminal e imigração. Eu fiquei muito interessada na opinião de Michelle no tocante dilema que imigrantes que não possuem documentação adequada enfrentam quando se trata de uma carteira de motorista no Estado de Massachusetts. A maioria dos brasileiros em corte naquele dia enfrentavam o mesmo problema – eles estavam na corte por dirigem sem uma carteira de habilitação.
Alguns estados, como Connecticut, já criaram carteiras especificas para imigrantes sem documentação adequada para morar nos Estados Unidos, mas não fornecem os mesmos privilégios que americanos desfrutam, ou imigrantes com documentação adequada. Porém, essas carteiras foram criadas para ajudar a garantir segurança pública, assim como prestação de contas.
The Brazilian lawyer Michelle Da Silva.
Michelle J. Da Silva concordou em dar uma entrevista na qual compartilha seu ponto de vista sobre o assunto.
MVTimes: Por favor descreva sua prática de lei que envolve brasileiros.
Michelle J. Da Silva: As minhas áreas de prática são imigração, defesa criminal e divórcio. Eu diria que 80% dos meus clientes são brasileiros, e os demais são clientes de nações cuja língua oficial é o espanhol.
MVT: Até que ponto as violações de trânsito especificamente dirigir sem licença, contabiliza os casos que você lida?
MD: Na minha prática de defesa criminal, cerca de 20% dos casos envolvem dirigir sem carteira de motorista e dirigir sob a influência de álcool ou drogas.
MVT: Existe um cenário típico para o brasileiro acusado de dirigir sem uma carteira de motorista?
MD: O cenário típico envolve um imigrante sem documentação (tipicamente brasileiro, na minha prática, uma vez que eu sou fluente em Português) que está dirigindo usando uma “licença estrangeira ou internacional”. Na maioria das vezes, os clientes são réus primários que estão assustados com o sistema legal americano, por causa da falta de conhecimento e compreensão de como funciona o sistema. Eles procuram a assistência de um advogado para os ajudar a navegar pelo sistema.
Muitos imigrantes sem documentação estão sob a crença equivocada de que uma licença estrangeira lhes dá o direito de conduzir no Estado de Massachusetts. Infelizmente, há empresas sem escrúpulos que fornecem esses “licenças internacionais” (por uma taxa, é claro) e que, frequentemente, aproveitam-se dos medos e desinformação dos imigrantes sem documentos sobre a verdadeira validade dessas licenças.
Depois de adquirir a licença, eles têm uma falsa sensação de segurança de que eles são habilitados para a condução. É somente quando eles são parados pela polícia, recebem uma citação e são convocados ao tribunal por dirigir sem uma licença que eles percebem que foram defraudados.
No entanto, embora na minoria dos casos, alguns imigrantes sem documentos usam a licença internacional como uma desculpa para violar as leis com conhecimento de causa.
MVT: Por favor, comente sobre o resultado típico de um réu primário em outras cidades de Massachuseets e para um réu primário em Martha’s Vineyard.
MD: É importante primeiro notar que a lei dá ao juiz critério para decidir o valor da multa, até US$ 500 para a primeira ofensa. Um resultado típico, na minha experiência, é que um caso é encerrado com uma multa de US$ 300 a US$ 500 para uma primeira ofensa. A diferença em Martha’s Vineyard é que a maioria dos casos de violações sem licença são realizadas no mesmo dia porque é o único dia no qual há um intérprete de português disponível, permitindo assim muito mais consistência na decisão do juiz.
MVT: Baseado no que você tem observado, o sistema de emissão de carteiras de motorista é defeituoso?
MD: Em minha opinião, o sistema de emissão de licenças não está quebrado; é que as leis atuais não são adequadas para os tempos em que estamos vivendo. A realidade é que nós temos imigrantes sem documentos vivendo dentro de nossas comunidades, e continuaremos a ter, enquanto os empregadores dos EUA estiverem dispostos a empregá-los. Também é verdade que os empregadores norte-americanos continuarão a empregar esses indivíduos se o mercado de trabalho dos EUA não pode produzir a qualidade de trabalhadores que vêm do exterior. Portanto, a primeira questão que deve ser abordada é a necessidade de uma reforma abrangente da imigração.
No entanto, por causa do impasse atual no Congresso e da polarização envolvida com o tema da imigração, é pouco provável que vejamos qualquer reforma da imigração em breve. Portanto, a melhor solução seria a de fornecer licenças para estes imigrantes sem documentos, para que possamos não só saber quem está vivendo entre nós, como também reduzir a carga do nosso sistema judicial.
Além disso, ao permitir que esses imigrantes sem documentos tenham acesso a licenças, estaríamos também protegendo a nossa sociedade. Agora, muitos imigrantes sem documentos conduzem sem seguro; o que põe em perigo o público e outros motoristas nas estradas – isso não ocorre por que eles querem fugir da lei, mas porque, sem uma carteira de motorista válida, uma companhia de seguros não vai segurá-los.
MVT: Em geral, os seus clientes acham que são tratados de maneira justa pelos tribunais americanos?
MD: Sim, eu acho que meus clientes são tratados de forma justa porque eu luto pelos direitos deles.
No geral, eu acredito que o sistema funciona. Indivíduos sem documentos têm todos os direitos concedidos a eles como as de uma pessoa nativa neste país. No entanto, eu acho que o sistema funciona melhor para aqueles que têm representação jurídica de direito privado do que aqueles que não o fazem. Na minha experiência, a maioria dos meus clientes nunca esteve envolvido com o sistema jurídico, seja aqui nos EUA ou no exterior, em seu país de origem. Isso faz com que ir ao tribunal seja uma experiência muito assustadora, porque muitos deles pensam que, se forem ao tribunal, eles serão automaticamente deportados. O medo do indivíduo em situação irregular do sistema jurídico é só por causa de sua falta de educação sobre o sistema de justiça americano. Como uma advogada privada, cuja prática lida com um grande número de pessoas em situação irregular, acho que é necessário fornecer uma compreensão básica do sistema de justiça criminal para os meus clientes, a fim de aliviar seus medos, que por sua vez os torna muito mais confiante no sistema e assegura-lhes que eles estão recebendo um tratamento justo quando seu caso for ouvido.
Informações sobre o escritório da advogada Michelle Da Silva:
President Donald Trump presents the “President’s Cup” to the Tokyo Grand Sumo Tournament winner Asanoyama, at Ryogoku Kokugikan Stadium on Sunday.
Evan Vucci/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Evan Vucci/AP
President Donald Trump presents the “President’s Cup” to the Tokyo Grand Sumo Tournament winner Asanoyama, at Ryogoku Kokugikan Stadium on Sunday.
Evan Vucci/AP
President Trump attended a sumo wrestling competition with Japan’s Prime Abe on Sunday, as the Japanese rolled out the red carpet for Trump during his visit to Tokyo.
The wrestler who won the competition received a U.S.-made trophy named the President’s Cup, in honor of Trump’s trip.
“That was something to see these great athletes, because they really are athletes,” Trump said after the tournament. “It’s a very ancient sport and I’ve always wanted to see sumo wrestling, so it was really great.”
On Monday, Trump will be the first foreign world leader to officially meet with Japan’s new emperor, Naruhito, who ascended to the throne at the beginning of May.
Politics
World Leaders’ Attempts To Woo Trump Yield Mixed Results
Saudi Arabia hosted Trump for his first trip abroad as president in May 2017. He was greeted with a military flyover and canons when he arrived. He was also presented with a gold medal known as the Collar of Abdulaziz al Saud, which is Saudi Arabia’s highest honor. Here, Trump and first lady Melania Trump are seen with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi (left) and Saudi King Salman.
Saudi Press Agency via AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Saudi Press Agency via AP
Saudi Arabia hosted Trump for his first trip abroad as president in May 2017. He was greeted with a military flyover and canons when he arrived. He was also presented with a gold medal known as the Collar of Abdulaziz al Saud, which is Saudi Arabia’s highest honor. Here, Trump and first lady Melania Trump are seen with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi (left) and Saudi King Salman.
Saudi Press Agency via AP
During a trip to China in 2017, Trump was treated to an opera performance and acrobats during a tour of the Forbidden City, a palace where China’s emperors lived for nearly six centuries. Chinese President Xi Jinping personally escorted Trump on the sightseeing excursion.
Andrew Harnik/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Andrew Harnik/AP
During a trip to China in 2017, Trump was treated to an opera performance and acrobats during a tour of the Forbidden City, a palace where China’s emperors lived for nearly six centuries. Chinese President Xi Jinping personally escorted Trump on the sightseeing excursion.
Andrew Harnik/AP
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, dined with President Trump and first lady Melania Trump in the Eiffel Tower in July 2017. Trump later called it “one of the most beautiful evenings you’ll ever see. So that was a great honor.”
Yves Herman/AFP/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Yves Herman/AFP/Getty Images
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, dined with President Trump and first lady Melania Trump in the Eiffel Tower in July 2017. Trump later called it “one of the most beautiful evenings you’ll ever see. So that was a great honor.”
Yves Herman/AFP/Getty Images
Trump was the guest of honor at France’s Bastille Day parade in 2017, a celebration of the 100th anniversary of U.S. involvement in World War I. Trump was so impressed by the military display that he tried to have a similar parade in the U.S., but plans for the event fell through.
Christophe Archambault/AFP/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Christophe Archambault/AFP/Getty Images
Trump was the guest of honor at France’s Bastille Day parade in 2017, a celebration of the 100th anniversary of U.S. involvement in World War I. Trump was so impressed by the military display that he tried to have a similar parade in the U.S., but plans for the event fell through.
Christophe Archambault/AFP/Getty Images
The Trumps had tea with Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor Castle during a visit to the United Kingdom last year. Trump said the queen was “fantastic” and that the first couple and the monarch really “got along.”
Matt Dunham/WPA Pool/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Matt Dunham/WPA Pool/Getty Images
The Trumps had tea with Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor Castle during a visit to the United Kingdom last year. Trump said the queen was “fantastic” and that the first couple and the monarch really “got along.”
Matt Dunham/WPA Pool/Getty Images
Japan is the latest country to attempt to use a visit like this to impress Trump, who loves pageantry and puts a great deal of stock in personal connections. But these grand displays haven’t translated into lasting benefits for these countries. Listen to the story on NPR’s Morning Edition and see photos of past events below.
This is a widget area - If you go to "Appearance" in your WP-Admin you can change the content of this box in "Widgets", or you can remove this box completely under "Theme Options"
