Republican groups sue to block California’s mass vote-by-mail initiative

The Republican National Committee and two other GOP groups have filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of California challenging Governor Gavin Newsom’s executive order declaring California a vote-by-mail state.

The executive order, signed by Newsom earlier this month, was promoted as a way to curb the spread of viral infections during the state’s emergency crisis over the novel coronavirus COVID-19 while at the same time ensuring registered California voters could still cast a ballot in the upcoming presidential election.

Since then, Republican groups have voiced opposition to the plan, saying it had the potential to increase voter fraud through a system that is already riddled with problems. Now, Republican groups are asking a federal court to declare Newsom’s executive order unlawful.

In a filing made with the federal court on Saturday, the Republican National Committee — joined by the National Republican Congressional Committee and the California Republican Party — said Newsom’s order would “invite fraud, coercion, theft and otherwise illegitimate voting.”

“By ordering that vote-by-mail ballots be automatically sent to every registered voter—including inactive voters, voters with invalid registrations, voters who have moved, voters who have died, and voters who don’t want a ballot—he has created a recipe for disaster,” the groups write.

The groups cited several studies in the lawsuit that purported to demonstrate problems and inaccuracies with voter registration records kept by several states. California was not explicitly mentioned in any of the citations pulled from those groups’ studies.

“Much of the push toward all-mail voting has been driven by litigation initiated by the Democratic Party,” the groups wrote in the court filing. “The Democratic National Committee, state Democratic parties, and several affiliated groups have filed lawsuits across the country to force a hurried transition to no-excuse mail-in voting, eliminate voter-identification requirements, and remove other existing safeguards.”

Click/tap to read the full lawsuit filed by GOP groups over Newsom’s vote-by-mail order.

The groups accused Democrat-aligned groups with pushing for vote-by-mail initiatives long before the global spread of the COVID-19 virus because “they believe that the resulting free-for-all will help their electoral prospects.” Since the pandemic started, those groups have pushed harder for vote-by-mail initiatives under the guise of safeguarding public health, the groups contend.

“But COVID-19 does not warrant throwing out longstanding safeguards that protect the integrity of elections,” the lawsuit says. ” In fact, it makes those safeguards more important.”

Alex Padilla, California’s secretary of state, didn’t disagree that the ongoing health crisis required a new approach to voting in California, but said in a Twitter statement on Saturday that the decision to shift to vote-by-mail in the state was “not a partisan issue.”

“It’s a moral imperative to protect voting rights and public safety,” Padilla wrote. “Vote-by-mail has been used safely and effectively in [several] states for years.”

Padilla called this weekend’s lawsuit “another part of Trump’s political smear campaign against voting by mail.” Earlier this month, he said state officials would “do our best” to preserve in-person voting as an alternative to vote-by-mail.

The case is RNC v. Newsom2020-at-00509.

Federal appellate court upholds California’s temporary ban on in-person church services

A federal appellate court has upheld a portion of California’s shelter-in-place order that prohibits in-person worship services at churches across the state.

The case was heard following a lawsuit filed in federal court by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church of Chula Vista.

Churches have been prohibited from holding mass gatherings and other in-person services since mid-March when Governor Gavin Newsom declared an emergency shelter-in-place order to deal with the ongoing health pandemic brought on by the novel coronavirus COVID-19.

The shelter-in-place order, which required Californians to forego non-essential activity, was followed this month with a multi-phase re-opening plan that sought to return life to a sense of normalcy in the Golden State.

More than 30 counties have been given conditional approval from state officials to proceed with Phase 2 of the state’s re-opening plan, which allows for restaurants to offer in-person dining experiences subject to certain social conditioning requirements and resumes operations at state parks and beaches within certain parameters.

Not included in Phase 2 of the state’s re-opening plans: Churches and other places of worship. That discrepancy provoked a civil rights attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice to send a letter to Newsom and Xavier Becerra, the state’s attorney general, warning their decision to place churches in a different phase may violate constitutional protections and federal law.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, South Bay United Pentecostal Church Bishop Arthur Hodges told local public radio station KPBS-FM he tried to resolve the situation through backchannel diplomacy with the governor and other state officials. When that failed, he filed a lawsuit in federal court.

That lawsuit was rejected by a federal judge in San Diego on May 15. Hodges took his case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision handed down on Friday, the appellate court found in favor of California.

But the fight is not over yet: The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, an advocacy group representing the church in federal court, filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to finally get an injunction to block the state’s temporary prohibition on in-person worship services, the Times of San Diego reported.

“Gov. Newsom would apparently rather litigate this case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court than allow a single Californian to go to church,” Charles LiMandri, the chief litigation counsel for the group, told the news outlet.

Sacramento civil litigator Mark Reichel said judges generally consider the ongoing health crisis to be a “once-in-a-lifetime event” that has disrupted normal, everyday activities.

For now, that means churches in California will have to remain closed until the state is ready to move into Phase 3 of the re-opening plan.

“Until a federal judge says the churches have to open, the governor can still keep them close,” Reichel said.

Monterey County probes Hobby Lobby over compliance with coronavirus orders

Prosecutors in Monterey County opened an investigation into craft retailer Hobby Lobby this week after receiving a complaint that the business was not complying with county and statewide shelter-in-place orders enacted during the coronavirus pandemic.

The exact complaint submitted to the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office is unclear, but it was enough to probe whether Hobby Lobby was in compliance with a section of the California Business and Professions Code that dealt with unfair and deceptive business practices.

The outcome of the investigation skewed in favor of Hobby Lobby after officials with the District Attorney’s office determined the retailer to be an “essential business” as defined by county and state proclamations issued in mid-March.

In a press release, the District Attorney’s office says Hobby Lobby sells cloth and fabrics that can be used by customers to make face masks and other personal protective equipment. That equipment has been promoted by health officials as being effective against the novel coronavirus COVID-19.

Other businesses that are allowed to remain open include those that sell equipment needed for work-from-home environments and specific mixed-retail businesses that sell “non-essential” products, the District Attorney’s office said.

After the investigation against Hobby Lobby was launched, customers told local news station KSBW-TV that a store manager limited purchases to “essential” supplies only.

DOJ attorney locks on to California’s coronavirus shelter-at-home orders, warns they may be illegal

A Department of Justice attorney sent two letters to officials in California warning that elements of their stay-at-home orders may impede on constitutionally-protected freedoms as well as federal law.

The letters were penned by Eric S. Dreiband, an Assistant Attorney General working in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. His latest communication with officials in California came on Friday when Dreiband sent a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.

In the letter, Dreiband warned that Garcetti’s comments over an extended coronavirus-related shelter-at-home order could be “unlawful,” noting that the mayor’s plan appeared to be “arbitrary.”

A letter sent by DOJ attorney Eric Dreiband to Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti on Friday.

Dreiband’s letter, first reported by the Los Angeles Times, took aim at comments made by Barbara Ferrer, Los Angeles County’s top public health official, on a national morning news program. During the show, Ferrer said Los Angeles County would likely “never be completely open” until a vaccine or cure for the novel coronavirus COVID-19 was available.

Though Garcetti later clarified Ferrer’s comments, Dreiband said the Justice Department was “concerned about what may be an arbitrary and heavy-handed approach to continuing stay-at-home requirements.”

Garcetti has warned Los Angeles may remain partially closed for at least several months. As of Saturday, more than 2,000 deaths have been attributed to the-fast spreading novel coronavirus.

In March, businesses throughout California were closed following a statewide shelter-in-place order issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor’s plan followed several similar orders issued by a handful of California counties hit hardest by the virus.

Under the order, certain businesses deemed “essential” were allowed to remain open under modified conditions, including a requirement that these businesses employ social distancing practices. Grocery stores continued to operate, as did dine-in restaurants, though the latter was limited to delivery and pick-up orders.

Other non-essential businesses, including nail salons, barbershops and movie theaters were closed. Recreation areas including state parks and lakes were also closed.

For churches and other places of worship, the governor’s shelter-in-place order triggered a divergence from mass gatherings. While some churches offered services online by drive-through, others flaunted the governor’s order, with police intervening in some cases.

Other churches sued, saying the governor’s order infringed on their constitutional freedom to assemble and worship.

In mid-May, Newsom unveiled a four-step plan to reopen businesses and other operations throughout California. The state is currently allowing some counties to operate in the second phase of the plan, which re-opens dine-in restaurants and shopping malls who adopt more-rigorous “social distancing” guidelines.

But Phase 2 does not apply to churches, which continue to be closed throughout the state. Earlier this week, Dreiband sent a letter to Newsom and Xavier Becerra, the state’s attorney general, warning that the state’s categorization of churches as non-essential likely created an illegal double standard.

“Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other non-religious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest absent the most-compelling reasons,” Dreiband wrote.

Speaking to CBS13 News, civil litigator Mark Reichel said DOJ attorneys may have a case against state officials if they decide to pursue that issue in court.

“Until a federal judge says the churches have to open, the governor can still keep them close,” Mark said, adding that state officials aren’t required to respond to the letter until a lawsuit is brought.

Facebook groups have become the new neighborhood watch. They can also become a legal nightmare.

For decades, certain signs affixed to stop signs and other traffic fixtures were installed with the intention of giving would-be criminals food for second thought.

The signs warned of a neighborhood watch, a type of grassroots organization where civilians band together to keep an eye out for graffiti, vandalism and petty crimes.

With roots dating back to the 1960s, neighborhood watch groups were embraced by law enforcement agencies as effective ways to deter crime and help solve cases. But in the era of social media, neighborhood watch groups no longer involve monthly meetings at the house down the street — now it’s as simple as logging on to Nextdoor or uploading Ring doorbell camera footage to a community Facebook group.

In some cases, these groups are hyperfocused on a single event. Such was the case earlier this year when two Facebook groups were launched following the disappearance of 11-year-old Roman Lopez from Placerville.

Roman was living with his biological father, step mother and seven other children when he disappeared from his home. His body was found the next day, and police labeled the death as “suspicious.”

But despite the FBI’s involvement in the case, no suspect has been identified, and police are still trying to figure out what happened.

Anxious residents in Placerville have turned to each other on Facebook to help piece together clues and solve the mystery of Roman’s death. One Facebook group quickly swelled to over 6,000 participants as word of the case spread across the country, CBS13 reported.

Kristin Jabs, an administrator of one of the groups, said she simply wanted to help after learning about Roman. She now speaks publicly on the family’s behalf, acting as a liaison between reporters and family members.

Jabs acknowledges people post their own theories about what happened, which can include pointing fingers at other people, something attorney Mark Reichel said could present certain legal liabilities.

Mark said a person can sue for slander if they are damaged or harmed by what another person posts in a Facebook neighborhood watch group, but he also says those type of slander cases can be difficult to prove.

“To prevail on it, you have to have some real evidence that there is some damage to your reputation,” Mark told CBS13.

It could also have implications on the outcome of criminal cases if police do identify and arrest a suspect, Mark warned, adding that certain information posted to social media could taint a jury pool.

But Mark acknowledges that social media can be a good source of information, including what everyday citizens and community members think happened in a case.

“You can get honest observations, and I have in cases, just like that actually,” Mark said.

Click here to read the full story from CBS13 News

After news stories of inconsistencies, law firm representing Tara Reade drops her as client

An attorney who agreed to represent Tara Reade after she accused presidential candidate and sitting senator Joe Biden of sexual assault has dropped her as a client following numerous news stories describing inconsistencies in her education and employment background.

Douglas H. Wigdor, an attorney who represents clients engaged in various employment-related litigation, said on Friday his firm’s decision to part ways with Reade was not a reflection on whether Reade’s accusations against Biden were true or false.

The decision to part ways with Reade was made on May 20, Wigdor told CNN, one day after the news organization published a lengthy exposé that revealed contradictions in Reade’s education history. News of the firm’s decision to drop Reade as a client was first published Friday by the New York Times.

Wigdor had agreed to represent Reade after the woman came forward in March with an accusation against Biden stemming from her work as a staff employee in his senate office in the early 1990s. During a podcast interview, Reade claimed Biden sexually assaulted her.

Biden has denied the accusation.

Since March, political reporters have questioned Reade and Biden about the allegation, with one journalist uncovering a phone call made to CNN’s Larry King Live in August 1993 that appeared to corroborate some of Reade’s story.

But other information has surfaced that cast doubt on Reade’s credibility. On Tuesday, CNN published a report detailing the result of a lengthy investigation into Reade’s background and statements, including her assertion that she graduated with an Associate’s Degree from the Seattle campus of Antioch University.

Officials at Antioch University acknowledge Reade took some classes in the early 2000s but did not graduate from the school. Reade later said a legal name change required her to graduate from the school through a special program, but Antioch University officials said no such program existed.

That could prove problematic for dozens of criminal cases in Monterey County, California in which Reade testified as an expert witness. As part of her testimony, Reade — then known as Alexandra McCabe — offered details about her education and employment background; several times, she testified that she received a degree from Antioch University before graduating with a separate law degree from Seattle University.

In some cases, Reade also testified that she worked as a legislative assistant while employed by Biden’s office. But employment records obtained by the New York Times revealed Reade’s actual position was that of a staff assistant, not a legislative assistant. A legislative assistant is a more senior position compared to that of a staff assistant, the newspaper said.

On Wednesday, the Monterey County Weekly said defense attorneys were now combing through dozens of criminal convictions to see if those cases can be re-opened.

Those attorneys include county public defenders who are in the process of making a list of clients whose cases involved Reade’s testimony, the Times reported.

“An expert can only testify in certain circumstances,” Sacramento criminal defense attorney Mark Reichel told the newspaper. “One of them is that they have expertise above the regular person. The jury is entitled to hear your qualifications.”

Tara Reade testified as an expert witness in criminal cases. Defense attorneys now want those cases re-opened.

Defense attorneys representing clients who were convicted in criminal cases are moving to have those cases re-examined and convictions possibly thrown out due to one key element in each case: Tara Reade.

Reade, who also goes by the alias Alexandra McCabe, testified as an expert witness in several California criminal cases over the past decade, offering her experience as a survivor of spousal abuse.

Reade made international headlines in March after she accused presidential candidate and current senator Joe Biden of sexual assault. She repeated the allegation a few weeks later in an interview published by the New York Times. In both interviews, Reade claimed the assault happened while she was working as a campaign staffer at Biden’s Capitol Hill office in the early 1990s. (Biden, who is in the middle of a presidential campaign, denied Reade’s allegation earlier this month.)

As reporters worked through the details of Reade’s allegation, some journalists began fact-checking her time at Biden’s office. Reporters with the PBS NewsHour spoke with more than six dozen people who once worked for Sen. Biden. While some staff members admitted Biden was a “toucher” who sometimes made them feel uncomfortable, no one interviewed by the news organization said Biden had sexually harassed or assaulted them, and all of the former staffers were adamant they had not heard rumors about Biden harassing or abusing others until Reade went pubic with her accusation.

Some reporters dove deeper into Reade’s background, examining her education and work history. One reporter for CNN contacted Ohio-based Antioch University to ask about Reade’s academic record. Though Reade claimed to have received a degree from Antioch University’s Seattle campus, officials with the school said they had no record of her graduating or receiving a degree.

When questioned about her degree status, Reade told reporters she graduated under a special arrangement with Antioch University’s chancellor following a legal name change. An unofficial transcript from Seattle University, where Reade received a separate degree, listed Antioch University as a prior degree-granting institution, according to one report.

But a university official told POLITICO no such arrangement existed. The spokesperson later told the New York Times that they were absolutely certain Reade had not graduated from their school.

That could prove problematic after Reade said, under oath, that she received a degree from Antioch University while testifying as an expert witness in dozens of cases brought in Monterey County, California. Defense attorneys there are now combing through cases connected to Reade’s testimony to see if they can be re-opened based upon these new media revelations.

In one case, Reade not only swore under oath that she received a degree from Antioch University but also claimed to be currently working as a substitute teacher. Employment records obtained by the Times showed she was actually working as a staff assistant.

During the trial, defense attorney Roland Soltesz objected, saying Reade’s work experience didn’t qualify her as an expert witness. The judge overruled the objection. Soltesz’s client was sentenced to several life terms after being convicted of attempted murder, armed robbery and arson, the Times said.

Now Soltesz is seeking to have that case, and possibly others, re-examined.

“People have been convicted based upon this, and that’s wrong,” Soltesz told the newspaper.

While making a false statement during sworn testimony in court is a crime, prosecutors must prove that the person who made the false statement did so with knowledge and intent to deceive. Those elements can be difficult to prove, legal experts say.

But defense attorneys could have an easier time pursuing a reversal of a verdict if they can show that Reade exaggerated her education and employment history — qualifications that once earned her a spot in the witness stand.

“An expert can only testify in certain circumstances,” Sacramento criminal defense attorney Mark Reichel told the New York Times. “One of them is that they have expertise above the regular person. The jury is entitled to hear your qualifications.”

Inauthentic qualifications by an expert witness not only undermines the criminal justice system, it opens the door for a conviction to be overturned. If that happens, some cases may be remanded for a new trial, while other defendants could be set free.

In an interview with the Times, Berkley Brannon, the chief deputy assistant district attorney for Monterey County, said his office would work to contact district attorneys about cases in which Reade testified if it could be proven that she did not earn a degree as she claimed under oath.

“That would absolutely be of concern to us, and it’s something that the defense attorneys would need to know about,” Brannon said. “We don’t want people that we call lying about anything.”

READ MORE

The New York Times:
“As Tara Reade’s Expert Witness Credentials Are Questioned, So Are Verdicts”

The Monterey County Weekly:
“Convictions Could Be Challenged as Defense Attorneys Question Tara Reade’s Credentials”

POLITICO:
“Defense Lawyers Look to Reopen Cases Where Tara Reade Testified as an Expert”