Oregon journalist Andy Ngo sues Antifa for $900,000 for 'campaign of terror'

Journalist Andy Ngo filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Rose City Antifa, seeking $900,000 in damages for waging a “campaign of terror and harassment” against him, including a series of physical attacks.

A complaint filed in Oregon Circuit Court said Mr. Ngo has been assaulted, stalked, threatened and robbed by members of the Rose City Antifa in Portland, suffering a brain hemorrhage after being attacked in June 2019 by a black-masked mob.

The lawsuit, filed by San Francisco attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon and the Center for American Liberty, described Rose City Antifa as a racketeering operation under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.

“What happened to Andy Ngo is disturbing and should send chills down the spines of every journalist in the country,” said Ms. Dhillon, the Republican National Committeewoman from California, in a statement.

In addition to the Rose City Antifa, the complaint names five individuals and identifies them as Antifa activists.

“The police, district attorney’s office, and local politicians have totally failed to bring justice to the perpetrators of this heinous act and we bring this lawsuit as a last resort in the face of their unwillingness to enforce the law,” said Ms. Dhillon. “As we watch America’s greatest cities burn live on television at the hands of Antifa terrorists, we know they were emboldened by the inaction in Portland.”

The lawsuit comes with Antifa drawing heightened federal attention from the Trump administration, which has accused the shadowy anarchist group of driving the violent rioting wreaking havoc on U.S. cities since the May 25 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody.

“Local law enforcement have been of little help. I have not heard from the police since last year,” Mr. Ngo said. “I have received and reported many death threats and incidents of harassment and stalking to police, but nothing has been done, even when I’ve identified suspects.”

Andy Ngô
✔
@MrAndyNgo
With the support of @Liberty_Ctr, I’m suing Portland Antifa & individual associates involved in beating & robbing me. Antifa can no longer use the cloak of anonymity to intimidate & assault with impunity. You can find the lawsuit & support it at this link: click here



View image on Twitter
23.6K
1:22 PM - Jun 4, 2020

He said he was first attacked during the 2019 May Day protest, during which an activist he identified as Benjamin Bolen punched him in the stomach. Later, at the Cider Riot bar, an Antifa hangout, Mr. Ngo said he was sprayed with bear mace, leaving him “temporarily blinded.”

A week later, an Antifa activist he identified as John Hacker threw an unknown liquid on his head while he was at the gym. On Halloween 2019, a half-dozen Antifa members came to his house wearing masks of his face, banged on the windows, rang the doorbell, and tried the door handle.

“As part of Rose City Antifa’s campaign of terror and harassment against Ngo, Twitter accounts controlled by Antifa members released, in two separate events, private information about donors to Andy Ngo’s medical expenses from the mob attack and private information about his family (such as the address of his mother’s small business),” said the lawsuit.

Rose City Antifa, which maintains a Twitter account called Always Antifascist, did not have any immediate public comment.

Source

It's too bad the Portland authorities did nothing to stop anitfa. If this is the only justice that Ngo can get that is pathetic but at least he'll get something out of it.

The estate of Big Daddy founder sues Bruce Springsteen for copyright infringement.

Big Daddy founder Big Daddy Ding Dong
The estate of Big Daddy founder Big Daddy Ding Dong has filed suit against Bruce Springsteen for copyright infringement in the court building downtown. Springsteen denies this and is represented by the law firm Crosby,Stills,Nash and Young. More to come. Stay tuned.

Controlled Substances Act may be unconstitutional

As an attorney, I am always disappointed that the courts in this country – both at the state and federal level – have refused to get involved in the efforts to end marijuana prohibition and end the practice of treating responsible marijuana smokers as criminals. But that is the reality.

While the courts in this country have played a leading role in ending racial discrimination, in guaranteeing women the right to obtain a legal abortion, in protecting the rights of the LGBT community, and in many other areas involving the protection of personal freedom, they have consistently rejected attempts to declare state and federal anti-marijuana laws as unconstitutional.

But that does not mean that we should give up the fight in the courts, and rely only on voter initiatives and elected officials to fix this problem. As long as there are new legal arguments to be made, and fresh and hopefully more convincing facts to be argued, we must continue to engage the courts in this struggle for personal freedom.

Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al

One such legal challenge, Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al, was recently filed in US District Court in the Southern District of New York by lead attorney Michael Hiller, with NORML Legal Committee (NLC) attorneys David Holland and Joseph Bondy serving as co-counsel. The full complaint can be found here.

Individual plaintiffs in the suit were two young children, an American military veteran, and a retired professional football player, all of whom are medical marijuana patients; and a membership organization alleging their minority members have been discriminated against by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Seeking to overturn the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, plaintiffs request a declaration that the CSA, as it pertains to the classification of Cannabis as a Schedule I drug, is unconstitutional, because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, an assortment of protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the fundamental Right to Travel. Further, plaintiffs seek a declaration that Congress, in enacting the CSA as it pertains to marijuana, violated the Commerce Clause, extending the breadth of legislative power well beyond the scope contemplated by Article I of the Constitution.

Named as defendants in the case are Attorney General Jeff Beauregard Sessions, Acting Administrator of the DEA Chuck Rosenberg, the Justice Department, the DEA and the Federal Government.

In their Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the federal government does not, and could not possibly, believe that Cannabis meets the definition of a Schedule I drug, which is reserved for the most dangerous of substances, such as heroin, LSD, and mescaline; and that classifying Cannabis as a “Schedule I drug,” is so irrational that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Among the other claims in the lawsuit are that the CSA: (i) was enacted and implemented in order to discriminate against African Americans and to suppress people’s First Amendment rights; and (ii) violates plaintiffs’ constitutional Right to Travel.

Joseph Bondy, a federal criminal defense attorney and legalization advocate, explained he felt it was important to “question the agenda of those who continue to push for enforcement of the CSA, given its unlawful and discriminatory impact and that so few in America support such an effort.” Co-counsel David Holland, a litigator and Executive Director of Empire State NORML, noted that “the efforts to criminalize Cannabis are relatively recent and were largely underwritten by racial and ethnic animus,” referring to recent findings that African Americans and other persons of color are four times as likely to be arrested under the CSA than white Americans, even though marijuana is used equally by people of color and Caucasians.

Perhaps the federal courts will surprise us at long last and finally take a critical look at marijuana prohibition, and find the courage to declare the CSA to be unconstitutional. That would be an enormous step forward in ending marijuana prohibition altogether. But regardless of the outcome of this particular suit, it is encouraging to see the criminal defense bar continue to push the legal envelope, and to advance the best and latest legal and factual arguments. At some point, the courts will have no choice but to strike downC1_8734_r_x prohibition as a violation of our personal

Source

Americans For Safe Access sue the DEA

From American For Safe Access:

Today, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) took a major step to stop the DEA’s misinformation campaign on cannabis once and for all. And as an ASA member, you helped make it happen!

ASA filed a new petition under the Information Quality Act (IQA)  on behalf of our members that could force the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to update its outdated and unscientific information about medical cannabis. If this new effort is successful, it will be a watershed moment in the effort to end the conflict between federal and state law. This important step will also mean politicians will no longer be able to use this misinformation to fight against medical cannabis.

ASA has worked with the prestigious international law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to file the petition on behalf of our 100,000 members nationwide. U.S. Department of Justice guidelines require a response to IQA petitions within 60 days of filing. That means that the Obama Administration can still act on our members’ IQA petition and instruct the DEA to grant the request before Inauguration Day on January 20th.

The IQA requires federal agencies to employ reliable and sound science when making regulations and disseminating information. It also provides a mechanism for people and companies to challenge government information they believe to be inaccurate. Business, consumer, environmental and conservation groups have all used the IQA to pursue changes in government policies. Now is our chance to use this tool to make a real difference in federal policy.

Forcing a change in federal policy towards medical cannabis before Obama leaves could make all the difference when it comes to rescheduling and changing federal law during the new Administration.
ASA cites 25 violations under the IQA, alleging that the DEA website currently contains inaccurate statements that do not meet informational standards required by the law. Making matters worse, the DEA continues to distribute statements about the efficacy of medical cannabis and its risks, which have been refuted by the DEA itself in the recent “Denial of Petition to Initiate Proceedings to Reschedule Marijuana,” issued August 12, 2016. If this petition is successful, it means that the DEA will no longer be able to use misinformation about cannabis on issues such as the gateway drug hypothesis, irreversible cognitive decline in adults, and how cannabis can be linked to psychosis or lung cancer to deny patients access to medical cannabis.

If you want to be a part of history, it is not too late to join ASA and be a part of this amazing moment. If you are already a member, you can also help by making a generous one-time donation or affordable monthly contribution to help us fight for your IQA petition – all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Please know, we cannot do this without you!

Now is the time to act! We need all ASA members and allies to join together and take the offensive in the effort to finally change federal medical cannabis policies. Do not miss out on this once in a lifetime opportunity to make a difference in medical cannabis policy!

We need all of our voices to be heard to get this petition approved right now or in the federal courts next year. Please contribute today to support this effort.

Thank you in advance for being a part of the IQA campaign. Together, we are getting closer and closer to our goal – safe and legal access to medical cannabis for everyone who needs it.

Regards,
Steph Sherer
Executive Director, Americans For Safe Access

For more information on the IQA petition please refer to this webpage.

P.S. – You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support the educational and legal work of Americans for Safe Access Foundation, including the IQA petition campaign, online or by mailing a check or money order to Americans for Safe Access Foundation, 1624 U Street, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009.

Help fight Garland's bid for the Supreme Court

From The National Right To Work Committee:

Barack Obama is plotting to cripple the fight to protect worker freedom by installing Merrick Garland, a Big Labor approved justice on the Supreme Court.

And to make matters worse, as many as 16 Republicans may be wavering on their commitment to block Garland's nomination by agreeing to meet with Obama's nominee.

The consequences of Republicans folding on their pledge to block Garland's nomination would be disastrous.

A recent 4-4 split vote in the Friedrichs case left a lower court ruling in place upholding forced-union dues.

The California teachers fighting to be free from the clutches of union bosses and their forced dues scheme petitioned the Court to rehear their case.

Observers believe the Supreme Court could take up the case again as soon as next year.

But if Republicans wilt under Big Labor's pressure campaign, Garland is very likely to vote with the Court's four liberal justices to deliver a gut-punch to the worker freedom movement.

That's why I'm asking for your immediate help.

Your National Right to Work Committee has launched a "Stop the Obama Takeover" Banner Bomb to raise $30,000 by May 1st to blanket the states of wavering Senators with ads urging them to live up to their word and block Garland's nomination.

A 5-4 ruling in favor of forced-dues is not even the worst decision that a Big-Labor dominated Supreme Court could hand down.

Recently, liberal law professors bragged that a pro Big Labor Supreme Court majority could rule Right to Work itself as unconstitutional.

And now, one Wisconsin judge just handed the nation a peek at the future of Right to Work if Barack Obama gets his way and installs a pro-Big Labor nominee on the Supreme Court.

The judge's ruling struck down the state's Right to Work law by agreeing with Big Labor's lawyers that the state of Wisconsin cannot protect employees from union bosses who threaten to have them fired for refusing to pay dues or fees to a union they don't support.

If Barack Obama's union label nominee, Merrick Garland, is confirmed to the Supreme Court, I'm afraid his record proves he could very well cast the deciding vote to eliminate Right to Work laws across the country.

His 20 year record on the D.C. Court of Appeals reveals his Big Labor bias.

In fact, in two cases he sided against workers represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

He even voted to gut the Supreme Court's decision in the Beck case, which allows workers to opt-out of paying the portion of their dues that funds union politics.

And AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka heaped praise upon Garland and called his pro-Big Labor credentials "impeccable."

That's why I was so disturbed by the news some Republicans might be faltering on their commitment to block Garland's nomination.

So I'm asking you to chip in a contribution to the "Stop the Obama Takeover" Banner Bomb right away.

Your generous support will help your National Right to Work Committee launch a targeted online advertising campaign in states like Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire and Ohio urging their senators to stand firm on their commitment to block Garland's nomination.

With the November elections around the corner, Big Labor is cranking up the pressure on Republicans in the Senate to confirm Garland.

And unless Right to Work supporters across America rise up in opposition, I'm afraid of what may happen.

The good news is, despite the union boss arm-twisting, at least one Republican responded to the grassroots uprising against Garland's nomination and reversed course on his intention to hold hearings on the Garland nomination.

I'm convinced you and I have a chance to hold the line against Garland's nomination.

But that is going to require a megaphone to compete with Big Labor.

That's why I'm asking you to chip in and support the "Stop the Obama Takeover" Banner Bomb.

Your contribution will allow your National Right to Work Committee to gin up grassroots pressure in targeted states by blanketing the Internet and social media with ads urging key Senators to hold the line against the Garland nomination.

This won't be easy -- or cheap.

That's why we have until May 1st to raise the $30,000 necessary to fund this crucial program.

So please chip in a contribution before the deadline and help your National Right to Work Committee fight back against Big Labor's court-packing scheme.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix
President, National Right to Work

P.S. Barack Obama is plotting to cripple the fight to protect worker freedom by installing Merrick Garland, a Big Labor approved Justice on the Supreme Court.

And to make matters worse, as many as 16 Republicans may be wavering on their commitment to block Garland's nomination by agreeing to meet with Obama's nominee.

So your National Right to Work Committee has launched a "Stop the Obama Takeover" Banner Bomb to raise $30,000 by May 1st to blanket the states of wavering senators with ads urging them to live up to their word and block Garland's nomination.

Please chip in a contribution before the May 1st deadline and help turn up the pressure on key senators to hold firm on their pledge to block the Garland nomination.

Big Cable and ISP's sue FCC over Net Neutrality

From Demand Progress:

BREAKING NEWS: The telecommunications industry just sued the FCC to kill Net Neutrality.1

Just weeks ago, the FCC issued a historic decision preserving Net Neutrality. But two new lawsuits filed by the big cable and Internet Service Providers are trying to overturn the whole thing.

With the amount of money corporations like Verizon and AT&T can spend on lawyers, this is going to be a huge fight. And to win, we need to make sure the public is making our voices heard in support of the FCC.

Will you chip in $5 to help fight back against this lawsuit and save Net Neutrality?

Yes, I'll chip in $5 to help save Net Neutrality.

They've given millions to politicians. They've spent millions more on lobbyists. And now they've hired an army of lawyers to accomplish what they haven't been able to do so far: kill Net Neutrality.

Why are they fighting this so hard? Because they want to give preferential treatment to big corporations and dump the rest of us into an Internet slow lane—all so they can jack up their already sky-high profits.

The scary thing is that they've had success blocking Net Neutrality in the courts before. Previous efforts by the FCC to protect Net Neutrality have been blocked by the cable industry's lawyers.

So it's not enough to let goverment lawyers fight this on their own. We need to make sure the public is speaking out too.

We've come too far to let Net Neutrality get killed by an army of corporate lawyers. Will you chip in $5 to help fight back?

Yes, I'll chip in $5 to save Net Neutrality.

Thanks.

--Demand Progress

1.Source

IRS,Benghazi and gun control catching up with Obama

Analysis: Controversies give Obama new governing headaches
ReutersBy Fred Barbash | Reuters – 9 hrs ago..

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama learned on Monday what can happen to presidents caught up in allegations of scandal: they have to address them instead of anything else. It happened when the president had to interrupt his news conference with Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain to answer questions about the widening investigation into the Benghazi attacks in Libya and the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups.

By the end of the day he was facing a third major problem when the Associated Press said the Department of Justice had secretly seized some of its reporters' phone records last year. It is all leading to comparisons with the second term of President Bill Clinton, in which his agenda was severely disrupted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Obama, unlike Clinton, has not been accused of personal misconduct. But his ability to steer the Washington "conversation" could be compromised.

"I think the IRS scandal comes at a very inopportune time for the president and the Democratic agenda," said Sarah Binder, a George Washington University scholar of Congress. "The challenge for Obama and the Democrats in the coming weeks and months will be to keep the public's attention focused on Obama's policy goals when Republicans and the media will be focused on scandal."

The problems for Obama and Democrats may be worsened as well by the nature of the IRS behavior: targeting groups for extra scrutiny based on their political leanings reinforces the notion of big government pursuing citizens exercising constitutional rights. It could feed into gun rights activists' worries about slippery slopes that lead to gun confiscation or gun-owner registries, said one Republican Senate aide, or fears of government "takeovers" of healthcare.

Ron Bonjean, a veteran Republican aide on Capitol Hill who is now a consultant, said even though the IRS is an independent agency, the White House can expect to be blamed by the public for any wrongdoing by it. "The public sees the IRS as part of the federal government, which the White House controls," Bonjean said.

The same might be said of the news that broke Monday that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for the Associated Press.

'WAY OFF MESSAGE'

The potential risk is high for Obama and the Democrats.

The Democratic-controlled Senate is considering a comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill that already faces a rough road in the Republican-controlled House, where suspicion of the Obama administration runs highest. "The political fallout will be very damaging for the administration," said Bonjean.

"This will be another issue that takes the administration way off message," he said. "There's no way they can punch through with a positive agenda while investigations of the IRS are going on." The IRS scandal could easily spill over into the 2014 mid-term election year.

A week ago, Obama was confronting a single investigative proceeding on Capitol Hill on the subject of the deadly attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last September. It was attracting relatively little public attention outside conservative circles, and he could dismiss as partisan because only Republicans were pushing it. On Monday he confronted the prospect of multiple probes, with those into the IRS backed by Obama's Democratic allies in Congress as Democrats moved quickly to show they were as concerned as Republicans about alleged IRS abuses.

On top of that, the AP is assessing options for legal action in response to the government's actions, said David Schulz, an attorney representing the AP.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the White House was not involved in the decision to seize the AP records.

The administration's chief opponent in Congress of late -Representative Darrell Issa of California - threatened to add the AP issue to the list of things he is already probing, which include Benghazi and the IRS scandal. Even without charges of personal misconduct, "staying coherent" in pursuit of an agenda is much more challenging for a president than it was in the Clinton years, said one of his former press secretaries, Mike McCurry.

"The environment for communications is so much more complicated now because you have this voracious social media environment in which everything is magnified," he said. "We didn't have that. You could have congressional inquiries and scandals but you could calibrate a little bit and keep an agenda in play."

Source:here

I figure Jay Carney goes home everynight and gets drunk. I figure a lot of these guys do,it's the only way they can cope with the bullshit they spew. Being Obama's Press Secretary is like being Bill Clinton's (or Hillary's) Press Secretary: you're going to lie your ass off. That is a given. For those of you that have Metallica's King Nothing now would be a good time to play it.