Two Temple University students were hospitalized after falling four stories while they were allegedly trying to take a selfie at a rooftop party. The students were at a party around 2 a.m. on Saturday when they fell from the rooftop and landed in an alley. The management company insisted that there is an ample barrier, but the case could raise some challenging questions in a tort action for both sides.
Ohio State University Higher Education and Student Affairs Professor Matthew Mayhew has issued an abject apology after penning a column entitled “Why America Needs College Football.” Mayhew argued that the return of college football could get the country through “uncharacteristically difficult times of great isolation, division and uncertainty.” That did not sit well with some at the university and Mayhew published Why America Needs College Football – Part 2 to seek forgiveness for the harm that he caused. The column and its confessional follow-up are unnerving for many in academia in the current debate over free speech on campuses. It is entirely appropriate and commendable for an academic to reconsider his views and retract any statements which he now considers racist or insensitive. However, the retraction of such views as inherently harmful raises questions about the range of acceptable speech today. There are clearly good-faith reasons to favor the return of college football as well as good-faith reasons to oppose it. The question is whether expressing the former is now unacceptable at universities for a professor or student. Despite being a sports fan, I am uneasy about the return of college football during the pandemic. I welcomed the publication of the first column as the start of a possible (and needed) debate on the question and the underlying economic, social, racial and academic issues.
In a recent column in the New York Times, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer criticized President Donald Trump for not issuing a national order making the wearing of masks mandatory – a pledge made by Vice President Joe Biden raising serious constitutional questions. Now, Whitmer is having her broad interpretation of state executive authority checked by the Michigan Supreme Court, which found that she violated the Constitution with her extension of the state of emergency. Continue reading “Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Down Gov. Whitmer’s State of Emergency Order”
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
I found recently a video produced by the Parkinson’s Foundation that I believe offers both the general public and emergency responders an engaging primer toward accepting a beneficial mindset and foundation toward working with patients who experience hallucinations resulting from medication usage or have mental health issues.
The below video was published on YouTube in 2018 by the Parkinson’s Foundation and narrated by Joseph H. Friedman, M.D. Director of the Movement Disorders Program at Butler Hospital and of the Department of Neurology, Alpert Medical School of Brown University. The presentation consists of Parkinson’s patients relating their experience with sensory hallucinations manifesting as the result of side-effects invoked via prescribed medication to treat their movement disorder. Dr. Friedman offers the viewer advice and insight as to why these experiences occur, which is of course valuable information, but in the larger scope of the human condition he provides a way for us to broaden our thinking and be more accepting of these conditions and relating to their challenges.
The Internet is raging with conspiracy theories this weekend on how President Donald Trump may be faking his illness or using his Covid-19 treatment for some hidden dark purpose. MSNBC host Joy Reid drew criticism for passing along postings on how Trump may be lying about his illness to “get out of the debates.” On CNN, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer agreed with host Erin Burnett that even Vice President Pence may be lying in simply saying that morning that the President and First Lady were doing well while convalescing in the White House. Michael Moore warned the public that this all may be a massive lie orchestrated by Trump. Continue reading “Trump Critics Fuel Internet Conspiracy Theories Surrounding The President’s Illness”
The New York Times on Thursday published an opinion column by Regina Ip, the Hong Kong official widely denounced as “Beijing’s enforcer.” Ip declared “Hong Kong is part of China” and dismissed the protesters fighting for freedom in their city. I have no objection to the publishing of the column. Ip is a major figure in Hong Kong and, despite her support for authoritarian rule and crushing dissent, there is a value to having such views as part of the public debate. Rather, my concern is that the New York Times was denounced by many of us for its cringing apology after publishing a column by Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Ark.). and promising not to publish future such columns. So it will not publish a column from a Republican senator on protests in the United States but it will publish columns from one of the Chinese leaders crushing protests for freedom in Hong Kong.
Years ago, American politics left all notion of decency behind in our age of rage. That was evident when the media and liberals celebrated the disgraceful conduct of Maryanne Trump betraying her aunt’s confidence in secretly recording her talking about her brother. The same people reveled in the unethical conduct of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen who not only secretly recorded his client, President Donald Trump, but has been violating any notion of confidentiality in pushing his own tell all book. Now, CNN’s Anderson Cooper has been reduced to shilling for Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, the former assistant and friend of Melania Trump who secretly recorded their confidential chats and is now selling a book by playing embarrassing snip bits. Continue reading ““Talk About A War On Christmas!”: CNN Thrills With Airing Of Secret Taping of First Lady”
In his long-awaited testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony proved as casual as his appearance in an open shirt from his home office. Comey was hammered with embarrassing findings of errors under his watch in the handling of the Russian investigation, including the reliance on information that FBI agents warned might be Russian disinformation supplied by a Russian agent. After years of investigation, the FBI was unable to show that a single Trump official conspired or colluded with the Russians. Instead, investigations found extensive errors, irregular and criminal conduct, and statements of intense bias by key FBI figures. Yet, Comey proceeded to give what amounted to a series of shrugs in either denying any recollection of such information or deflecting responsibility to others. Continue reading “What Rings Comey’s Bell: The Former FBI Director’s Casual Testimony Confirms the Worst About His Tenure”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the sentencing hearing of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Unfortunately, in the hearing, Judge Emmet Sullivan fulfilled the expectations of the D.C. Circuit panel that ordered him to dismiss the charge without further delay. That decision was reversed en banc but only because the court decided (as many of us argued) that Sullivan should be allowed to issue a final decision before an appellant review of his handling of the case. The en banc court did not rule in favor of his controversial comments or orders. Yet, in the hearing, Sullivan declared “Suffice it to say, the case was remanded to me by the en banc court.” As argued below, the law is clear and, suffice it to say, Sullivan will be reversed if he follows the advice of John Gleeson. Instead, Sullivan announced that he still “has questions” and indicated that he is not prepared to issue a final decision after two years. Instead, he repeated the words of Gleeson as virtual fact like an alter ego. This is moving from the cathartic to the tragic. The Court is not just prolonging the inevitable for the ruling but the trauma for the defendant. Flynn should have been sentenced years ago and the charges dismissed months ago. A defendant should not be a vehicle of the court to express displeasure or satisfy its curiosity on public controversies. The court knows that it would be almost certainly reversed if it follows the advice of its self-appointed quasi-prosecutor Gleeson. Instead, it is continuing to refuse to rule while using the case to ask more questions about the internal decision-making at the Justice Department.
Here is column: Continue reading “It Is Time To Dismiss The Flynn Case”
According to Lehigh Acres (FL) police, you have to be really careful if Justin Garcia, 30, asks you if you “got milk?” Garcia is accused of slashing his cousin in an argument of the merits of almond milk versus whole milk.
Last night’s presidential debate left many of us in a deep depression over the state of our politics. Once again, the duopoly of power in this country has reduced a population of over 300 million to two subpar choices. President Donald Trump’s conduct and comments have been rightfully denounced while Biden offered little beyond not being President Trump. There were however two clear and surprising winners last night: Proud Boys and Antifa. Continue reading “Proud Boys and Antifa Emerge As The Winners From The Presidential Debate”
In a relatively rare move, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a first-degree murder conviction this week due to the inappropriate comments made by the prosecutor that the jury could dispense with notions of the presumption of innocence. As a criminal defense attorney, I have dealt with this issue of abusive prosecutorial statements in closing arguments. Yet, courts often do little, if anything, in response. This case could offer a real deterrent for such prosecutorial misconduct.
Louisville Metro Police Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly is reportedly moving forward with defamation actions against those who have called him a “murderer” for his role in the Breonna Taylor case. His attorney Todd McMurtry has been unclear on who would be sued for the commonly used label following the shooting of Taylor and her boyfriend Kenneth Walker. A defamation is possible but it would be highly challenging under controlling case law and this specific context. Continue reading “Does Officer Jonathan Mattingly Have A Defamation Case In The Coverage Of The Breonna Taylor Case?”
I recently wrote about law professors who embraced Chinese censorship on the Internet as a mind-blowing contradiction for intellectuals. However, China has done one better. A school textbook changes a critical story in the Bible to support the authoritarian rule of the Communist Party. In the Chinese version of the story from The Gospel of John, Jesus still stops people from stoning a woman to death but when they leave, he then stones her to death because . . . well . . . she deserved it and that is the law. Fortunately, Jesus did not appear to make any direct reference to rendering Hong Kong unto Beijing.
Below is my column in The Hill on the comparison of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Judge Amy Coney Barrett. With the exception of their conclusions on the law, both women share striking similarities and Barrett represents a triumphant moment of conservative feminists in the country. She is a brilliant jurist with a stellar background, much like the jurist she would replace.
Here is the column: