Connect with us


Read Now: Where is Times Square? – 101 Latest News



Where is Times Square?

#Times #Square

Heller explained that public carry could be restricted in so-called “sensitive” places. And Bruen reaffirmed that limitation. Just in case anyone forgot, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence block-quoted the worst passage from Justice Scalia’s majority opinion. Bruen did not have occasion to define a “sensitive” place. But one specific locale popped up during oral argument.

Justice Barrett asked about banning guns in Times Square on New Year’s Eve:

JUSTICE BARRETT: I mean, I guess it’s about the level of generality, all these questions that Justice Kagan’s asking you or that the Chief asked you, if — if you concede, as I think the historical record requires you to, that states did outlaw guns in sensitive places, can’t we just say Times Square on New Year’s Eve is a sensitive place? Because now we’ve seen, you know, people are on top of each other, we’ve — we’ve had experience with violence, so we’re making a judgment, it’s a sensitive place.

Paul Clement countered that restrictions on guns for New Year’s Eve would be more akin to a time-place-manner restriction:

MR. CLEMENT: So here — here’s what I would suggest, that the right way to think about limiting guns in Times Square on New Year’s Eve is not as a sensitive place but as a time, place, and manner restriction. And that might be a perfectly reasonable time, place, and manner restriction, but I don’t think that’s — the sensitive places doctrine, as I understood it, from — and, obviously, it’s a brief reference in the Heller decision, so I — I may not fully understand it — but I understood that those were certain places where they were just no weapon zones all of the time because of the nature of that institution. And I think it’s probably worth thinking about rallies and Times Square, that there may be restrictions, but they would be done —

Barbara Underwood, the New York Solicitor General, hinted that it would not be enough to ban guns only on New Year’s Eve, because the area is so congested.

MS. UNDERWOOD:Well, essentially . . . it would be very hard in the first instance . . . to specify in advance all the places that ought properly to be understood as sensitive. So it sounds like a very convenient alternative, but, for example, we were talking about Times Square on New Year’s Eve.

Times Square on — when the theater district — when — when — when commerce is in full swing, Times Square almost every night is shoulder-to-shoulder people. So then you — you end up having a very big difficulty in specifying what all the places are that have the characteristics that should make them sensitive.

To no one’s surprise, New York City has banned public carry in Times Square 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. And Times Square is not defined how I remember it–roughly a five-block sweep, bordered between Seventh Avenue and Broadway. Wikipedia confirms my understanding:

Times Square is a major commercial intersection, tourist destination, entertainment hub, and neighborhood in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It is formed by the junction of Broadway, Seventh Avenue, and 42nd Street. Together with adjacent Duffy Square, Times Square is a bowtie-shaped space five blocks long between 42nd and 47th Streets.

Soon enough, this Wikipedia page will be scrubbed, so I took a screenshot. Truth must conform to progressive orthodoxies.

No, New York has selected the area from Ninth to Sixth Avenues, and from 53rd to 40th Streets–a total of three-dozen blocks.

The New York Times provides some more info:

In a statement, the police department said that Times Square was “not just a few streets with bright lights and video screens. It’s a unique, dense, complex space, and the area designated in our rules and the proposed bill reflects that reality.”

At a City Council hearing on Tuesday, Robert Barrows, the executive director of the police department’s legal operations and projects, said that the area would be marked by signs that warn pedestrians that the area is a “gun free zone.”

What about people who live in this area? They will be able to carry. And if you are in a vehicle, you can drive through the area, but your gun must be carried in a locked container and unloaded, and you cannot stop. (Sounds a lot like the rule at issue in New York State Rifle Pistol Association v. New York City). It will be very hard to get cross-town with those rules in effect.

We still do not know if the “campus” of New York University will be a “sensitive” place.

There will be litigation. Maybe the Supreme Court will still care about New York in a few years.

As best as I can tell, the City has mirrored the closings for–you guessed it!–New Year’s Eve, though the gun boundary stops at 51st Street rather than 59th Street (Central Park South). For those who care, Trump Tower (on 57th Street) is outside of Times Square.

It’s like T.G.I. McScratchy’s Goodtime Foodrinkery, where every night is New Year’s Eve!

I grew up in New York City, but never once went to Times Square for the ball drop. That was something only tourists did–much like going to the top of the Empire State Building (still never been!). However, I was in Times Square on December 31, 2013. The American Association of Law Schools held the annual meeting at the Midtown Hilton. But the Marriott Marquis offered a member rate on New Year’s Eve! I couldn’t believe it, so I booked it. The window in my room offered a very obstructed view of Broadway. And no, you couldn’t wait in the lobby bar. All those seats sold for a premium. But around 11:45, I went outside and stood on the street. I couldn’t quite see the ball drop, but I got the experience. Then I quickly rushed back into my warm hotel room. Fun fact: that evening, Circuit Justice Sotomayor issued an emergency stay on the shadow docket to protect the Little Sisters of the Poor from the contraceptive mandate. However, Sotomayor did not issue an emergency stay in the Utah same-sex marriage litigation. There was a flurry of activity that night! And at midnight, Sotomayor dropped the ball! I wrote all about the evening here, and in my second book Unraveled.


Read Now: Grand Jury in Documents Case to Meet This Week – 101 Latest News



Quote of the Day

#Grand #Jury #Documents #Case #Meet #Week

“The federal grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the Justice Department’s investigation of former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents is expected to meet again this coming week in Washington,“ NBC News reports.

“Prosecutors working for Special Counsel Jack Smith have been presenting the grand jury with evidence and witness testimony for months, but activity appeared to have slowed in recent weeks based on observations at the courthouse and sources.”

“It’s unclear whether prosecutors are prepared to seek an indictment at this point.”

LoadingSave to Favorites

Continue Reading


Read Now: Libel Case Against Entertainers T.I. & Tiny (of VH1's T.I. & Tiny: The Family Hustle) Can Go Forward – 101 Latest News



Parents and Children

#Libel #Case #Entertainers #amp #Tiny #VH1039s #amp #Tiny #Family #Hustle

From Peterson v. Harris, decided Friday by the California Court of Appeal, in an opinion by L.A. Superior Court Judge Audra Mori, joined by Justice Audrey Collins and L.A. Superior Court Judge Helen Zukin:

In January 2021, plaintiff Sabrina Peterson posted a video and messages to her Instagram account accusing defendants Clifford and Tameka Harris (entertainers who perform under the stage names “TI” and “Tiny”) of various forms of sexual and physical abuse. Peterson also accused Clifford of previously threatening her with a handgun. Clifford, Tameka, and Tameka’s friend, codefendant Shekinah Jones Anderson, responded to Peterson through their social media accounts.

Peterson sued for libel, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (among other torts); the Harrises filed an anti-SLAPP motion, but the Court of Appeal concluded that Peterson’s claim can go forward. First, Peterson’s factual allegations:

Peterson is an award-winning business coach, entrepreneur, and founder of Glam University, a company designed to “coach women who are interested in entrepreneurship.” The Harrises are well-known musicians, producers, and television personalities. Codefendant Anderson is a reality television personality who has appeared on a television show covering the Harrises.

At some point during the parties’ friendship, Peterson got into an altercation with Clifford’s assistant. Responding to the altercation, Clifford placed a gun to Peterson’s head and said, “‘Bitch I’ll kill you.'” Peterson ceased communicating with Clifford but maintained her friendship with Tameka.

In January 2021, Peterson was the victim of a carjacking. To cope with this traumatic experience, on January 26, 2021, Peterson “shared her traumatic experience with [Clifford] to a group of her followers” on Instagram. As established by the evidentiary submissions discussed below, Peterson also posted messages she had received from other women accusing Clifford and Tameka of various forms of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. Clifford, Tameka, and Anderson issued various statements responding to Peterson’s Instagram posts.

In every cause of action, the complaint alleged that Clifford, Tameka, and Anderson “posted certain statements on the public internet site Instagram to their more than 23.6 million followers” and sought to hold all three liable for the statements. The complaint identifies the posts or public statements as follows:

[1.] The Posts on the Harrises’ Instagram Accounts

On January 26, 2021 (the same day Peterson revealed the prior incident involving Clifford), Tameka posted to her Instagram account a photograph of Clifford standing alongside Peterson’s eight-year-old son. Attached to the photograph was the following message:

“‘Hold up… So you want your abuser to train your sons? He was just uncle 2 years ago … now when did you say my husband assaulted you? Did you change your mind or change it back? What’s up wit you today Pooh? … You strange. Everybody know you been special….”

Tameka’s Instagram account has 6.6 million followers.

In a statement released to the public January 29, 2021, the Harrises “’emphatically den[ied] in the strongest way possible the egregiously appalling allegations being made against them by [ ] Peterson.” The same day, Clifford posted a video to his Instagram account in which he stated:

“‘Whatever we ever have done has been done with consensual adults …. [¶] We ain’t never forced nobody, we ain’t never drugged nobody against their will. We ain’t never held nobody against their will. We never made nobody do anything. We never [sexually] trafficked any[body]…. [¶] I also want you to know there’s evil at play…. We’ve had a history in dealing with the particular individual in question.'”

Clifford’s Instagram account has 13.5 million followers.

[2.] The Post on Anderson’s Instagram Account

Also on January 29, 2021, Anderson posted a video to her Instagram account. In the video, Anderson stated:

“‘She’s looking for fucking attention. She wants [Tameka]. She has sex with [Tameka], she wants [Tameka] to be her girlfriend. Now listen, this is my thing, [s]he came out and [Clifford] pulled a gun on her….

“‘She has a problem. But she ain’t talking about how she fucked Tamika [sic] too. I said what I said. Why she ain’t talking about she done sucked his dick and fucked her in her pussy…. I’m trying to figure out why she ain’t tell ya’ll about how much pussy she ate? Why she didn’t tell ya’ll about she wanted the women who used to go recruit the bitches for him to fuck?

“‘What’s up? … Go ask her why [she] ain’t tell you she didn’t get fucked and she went to the apartment? Why she didn’t tell ya’ll if she done had somebody that did too?'”

Anderson’s Instagram account has 3.5 million followers….

[In response to the anti-SLAPP motion, the Harrises submitted] court records from a criminal matter involving Peterson in 2011. Those records reflected a guilty plea [to a federal false statements charge] in which Peterson admitted she had “denied know[ing] an individual named ‘P. Denis,’ when in fact she knew of and had lived with [this] individual.” …

The court concluded that Peterson’s speech was on a matter of public interest, so the anti-SLAPP statute potentially applied:

Clifford and Tameka are accomplished musicians and producers, and both have a television show covering their lives. Peterson herself is a successful entrepreneur and business coach who has been featured in well-known publications. The controversy under which this case arose directly concerns gun violence and sexual abuse by those in the entertainment industry. The many articles covering this controversy clearly establish the public’s interest in it.

Even assuming the statements did not implicate a public issue or issue of public interest, they are still protected as activity encouraging participation “in the context of an ongoing controversy.” Peterson voluntarily thrust herself into the public eye by accusing Clifford of gun violence and the Harrises of various forms of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. All of the statements appearing in the complaint were responsive to Peterson’s own public revelations against the Harrises. As such, Peterson has “subjected herself to inevitable scrutiny … by the public and the media.”

Finally, the activity of Clifford, Tameka, and Anderson all occurred in a public forum for purposes of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3). With one exception, all of their statements were published on Instagram and could be readily accessed by 3.5 to 13.5 million followers.

But the court also held that Peterson’s case could move forward, because her allegations were legally adequate (their factual accuracy may end up being a matter for the jury). As to defamation, the court reasoned:

Peterson marshaled evidence suggesting both statements were provably false. As to the implied statement Peterson had lied about the gun incident, Peterson averred she had endured the “traumatic experience” involving Clifford placing a gun to her head, and she stated the Harrises’ denials were “false.” The Harrises offered no evidence contradicting these averments. Viewed in context, the Harrises’ statements implied a provably true or false statement that Peterson had lied about the gun incident.

The Harrises do not discuss any of this evidence and instead argue that their statements that Peterson had lied were in fact true. Citing Peterson’s prior criminal matter in 2011, the Harrises contend Peterson “is, in fact, a proven liar.” But while Peterson’s criminal records may establish Peterson lied about something in 2011, they do not conclusively establish that she lied about Clifford threatening her with a gun.

Regarding the salacious sexual accusations, Peterson declared she had “never engaged in sexual acts with either of the Harrises nor have I ever recruited woman [sic] to engage in sexual acts with the Harrises.” These allegations are also capable of being proven true or false….

We also conclude that, contrary to the Harrises’ arguments, Peterson made the requisite showing of actual malice as a limited public figure….

The court concluded that the false light claims were merely “cumulative [of her defamation claim] and will add nothing to her claims for relief.” But the court also concluded that her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim can continue, as to the allegations of her sexual conduct with the Harrises:

[W]e agree with the Harrises that the implied statement Peterson had lied about the gun incident, even if insulting or unflattering, did not constitute extreme or outrageous conduct. However, the salacious sexual accusations against Peterson, made in graphic detail, may properly be considered extreme and outrageous by a factfinder.

Congratulations to Rodney S. Diggs (Ivie McNeill Wyatt Purcell & Diggs), who represents plaintiff.

Continue Reading


Read Now: Trump Gets Some Brutal Feedback From GOP Iowa Voters – 101 Latest News



Trump Gets Some Brutal Feedback From GOP Iowa Voters

#Trump #Brutal #Feedback #GOP #Iowa #Voters

Some voters at Sen. Joni Ernst’s Ride and Roast showed why Donald Trump may have an Iowa problem in 2024.


One voter told MSNBC, “We’re not big Trump fans. There’s a lot of bluster good ideas, but a lot of bluster. I like Mr. Scott. We share the same faith. He has a really arduous road ahead of him. Being black and a Republican.”

Another Republican voter in Iowa, “I’ve talked to Mike Pence a few times. I like Mike. He’s a good, moderate conservative. Religious family man. I’m not 100 percent Trumper this time. He did some great things. I like what he did when he was in office. I just didn’t like all of the bantering in the background.”

The Republicans MSNBC spoke to voiced a couple of realities about the Republican Party. Tim Scott is going to struggle as a candidate because he is black. Second, the Republican Party has moved so far to the right that Mike Pence could be viewed as a moderate.

Trump didn’t show up for Ernst’s Ride and Roast, so it makes sense that the audience would be composed more of Iowans looking for someone other than Trump.

However, the reason why these voters seemed to be turned off is because of Trump’s personality. It isn’t the legal problems, the criminal indictments, or the corruption.

Some Republicans are sick of Trump’s personality and drama.

The more he campaigns, the more Trump might be costing himself votes.

The MAGA contingent within the Republican primary is so large that it is unlikely that anyone else will be able to beat Trump in a primary, but Donald Trump definitely has an Iowa problem as he heads into 2024.

Continue Reading