San Bruno Muslims protest mayor over denial request during Ramadan


SAN BRUNOFor weeks, San Bruno’s Palestinian American residents and allies have rallied outside city hall, calling for a Gaza ceasefire.

On Thursday, however, the protest was aimed at San Bruno Mayor Rico Medina.

The protestors say they have been requesting a meeting with Medina and City Manager Alex McIntyre since last week, when the Council on American Islamic Relations sent the city a letter calling for an apology.

They say a group of eight to 10 Muslim residents had attended a March 12 city council meeting, and brought some pizza and water to the lobby of the senior center building where the meetings are held, in order to break their Ramadan fast.

The Muslim residents say the lobby has a café and tables. They say when they started to eat, they were confronted by police and the police chief told them they had to go outside to the parking lot where the city had erected tents.

“This city is our city. And we feel like it’s important that we’re heard, that we’re given an opportunity to explain why it was offensive to us and how we can move past this as a community,” said Kamilah Albahri, a San Bruno Palestinian American resident.

“I think they made this into a bigger problem than it needed to be. All they needed to do was sincerely apologize and commit to doing better,” said Musa Tariq, the CAIR SF Bay Area policy coordinator.

McIntyre sent KTVU an email Thursday that stated, “The city does not have a ban on individuals eating in the lobby space outside council meetings. As a practice, however, groups are not allowed to reserve any portion of the Senior Center.”

“The City did its best, under a very short deadline, to set up tents and create an eating area outside the Council chambers (where the city’s business is conducted) to accommodate their request,” McIntyre’s statement said.

Some people at the rally Thursday said the city needs to receive cultural training.

“What they lacked was basic courtesy and recognizing that these are their citizens, and they’re asking for accommodations,” said Hatem Bazian, a lecturer with the UC Berkeley Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures Department, who spoke at the rally, “I would tell them here’s our basic facts about the religious practices that the community has.”

McIntyre stated in the email that the additional police were present because meetings had become heated, and said one staff member was threatened after the March 12th meeting.

“In fact, one city staff member was harassed and subjected to threats by some of those audience members in the parking lot after the meeting. The added police staff at San Bruno are there to protect citizens, city staff, and residents,” McIntyre’s email stated.

The protestors say they were sad to hear that, and sent out emails to their members trying to determine who might have been the harasser. They said they could not find anyone in their group making such threats and offered to meet with the staff to foster dialogue and assure them the group was peaceful.

“We wanted to take accountability as a community, but we have no idea who did it,” Albahri said.

The city manager said there are plans to meet with the Muslim residents and address their concerns.

“The Mayor and staff will meet with some of the residents who have requested a meeting to find a path forward. The meeting has not yet been scheduled,” McIntyre wrote.

KTVU called and emailed the mayor and members of the city council, but received no replies Thursday night.



Source link

‘Rust’ armorer to stay in jail, judge refuses request for new trial in fatal shooting of film’s cinematographer



Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer on the Alec Baldwin film “Rust,” will remain in jail while her lawyers appeal her conviction in the death of the film’s cinematographer.

A Santa Fe judge denied a defense request for release on Friday, and refused to order a new trial in the case.

“Keep in mind there was a death that the jury determined was caused by her,” said Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer. “So I am not releasing her.”

Gutierrez-Reed is scheduled to be sentenced on April 15, and faces up to 18 months in prison.

Gutierrez-Reed was convicted on March 6 of involuntary manslaughter after a two-week trial. Prosecutors alleged that she inadvertently brought live bullets onto the set — a major breach of film safety protocols — and failed to properly check the rounds before loading one of them into Baldwin’s gun.

Baldwin is scheduled to face his own involuntary manslaughter trial in July for pointing the gun at the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, and, allegedly, pulling the trigger.

Gutierrez Reed was taken into custody following the jury’s verdict. A week later, her lawyers filed an emergency motion for release, citing a new ruling from the New Mexico Supreme Court in another case, State v. Taylor. In that case, the court overturned a guilty verdict on the grounds that the jury instructions were confusing.

The defense argued that the instructions in the Gutierrez Reed case were similarly confusing, and that the Taylor case made it nearly certain that her conviction would be overturned. Prosecutors pushed back, however, arguing that the two cases were dissimilar.

In the Taylor case, the jurors were asked to convict based on four separate acts joined by an “and/or” clause. The Supreme Court warned judges against using “and/or” in jury instructions, finding that it created a potential for confusion. In the Gutierrez Reed case, however, only two acts were separated by the “and/or” clause.

Marlowe Sommer agreed with the prosecution that the cases are distinguishable.

“I am denying your motion,” she said. “I do not think that Taylor requires a new trial in this case.”

She said she would issue a written order on Monday.

The court hearing was held remotely via Google Meet. Gutierrez Reed appeared from the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Facility.



Source link

Trump legal team pushes back on protective order request


Trump legal team pushes back on protective order request – CBS News

Watch CBS News


Former President Donald Trump’s legal team faced a 5 p.m. deadline Monday to respond to special counsel Jack Smith’s request for a protective order in the Jan. 6 indictment. Prosecutors want to prevent Trump from posting potentially sensitive case information online, but Trump’s defense attorneys opposed the request saying the proposal is “overboard.” CBS News chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa reports.

Be the first to know

Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.




Source link

Trump attorneys respond to protective order request in 2020 election case


Trump attorneys respond to protective order request in 2020 election case – CBS News

Watch CBS News


Attorneys for former President Trump are asking for a narrower protective order than the Justice Department, which filed the request after Trump sent a social media post that some viewed as a threat. Meanwhile, Trump’s 2024 GOP opponents are upping their attacks regarding the former president’s legal troubles. Robert Costa reports.

Be the first to know

Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.




Source link

Special counsel cites threatening Trump post in request for protective order in election case



Federal prosecutors on Friday asked the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s election case to bar him from publicly disclosing some of the evidence gathered during the their investigation.

In a court filing, attorneys with the special counsel Jack Smith’s office requested U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ensure that sensitive materials are used by Trump’s defense team for trial only, and that the former president view the materials in the presence of his lawyers.

“All the proposed order seeks to prevent is the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials, including to the public,” they wrote. “Such a restriction is particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him.”

Trump, who was arraigned Thursday on charges that included conspiracy to defraud the United States, pleaded not guilty and has publicly condemned the allegations against him.

Prosecutors went on to say that Trump had written “multiple posts” that mentioned or implied the case, including one that appeared on his social media page Friday afternoon that read: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

Trump’s use of details or grand jury transcripts obtained in discovery “could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case,” the prosecutors wrote.

During Trump’s arraignment, Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya issue him a warning that is not commonly given to defendants at arraignments.

“Finally, sir, I want to remind you that it is a crime to try to influence a juror, or to threaten or attempt to bribe a witness or any other person who may have information about your case, or to retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution, or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice,” she said.

A lawyer for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday night.

Trump’s attorneys are expected to respond to the prosecution’s proposed protective order, much like in the other cases where Trump has been indicted.

In June, a federal judge issued a protective order barring Trump from disclosing on social media — or keeping — evidence the government is set to turn over to him in the classified documents case.

A protective order was also issued in Trump’s criminal hush-money case in New York, where prosecutors asked a judge to ensure that discovery materials in that case be used by defense only for trial, and referred to the former president’s “longstanding and perhaps singular history of attacking witnesses.”

The next hearing in the election case is scheduled for Aug. 28.



Source link

Alito reinstates ATF rules restricting “ghost guns” for now, as Supreme Court weighs request for relief


Washington — Justice Samuel Alito on Friday temporarily paused a lower court order that invalidated the Biden administration’s restrictions on so-called “ghost guns,” reviving a regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for now.

In a brief order, Alito issued an administrative stay that will remain in place until 5 p.m. on August 4. He gave the group of gun owners, manufacturers and firearms advocacy organizations challenging the rule from the ATF until Wednesday at 5 p.m. to respond to the administration’s request to reinstate the regulation.

The Biden administration sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court on Thursday and asked the high court to put on hold a ruling from a federal district court in Texas that tossed out the rule governing ghost guns.

The measure from ATF, which took effect in August 2022, updated its regulations regarding the definition of a “firearm” under the Gun Control Act to address the proliferation of ghost guns. The rule defined “firearm” to “include a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”

The regulation also clarified the definition of “frames or receivers,” which are also sold in kits, to include a “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit,” that can become functional. 

Under the law as interpreted in the new regulation, manufacturers and sellers of certain kits have to obtain licenses, mark their products with serial numbers, conduct background checks and maintain records to allow law enforcement to trace the firearms when used in crimes. 

The dispute before the Supreme Court was brought last year by two gun owners, two advocacy groups and entities that make or sell the products covered by the rule, which challenged portions of ATF’s restrictions— the inclusion of weapons parts kits under the definition of “firearm” and updated interpretation of “frame or receiver” — as unlawful.

A federal district court blocked the challenged provisions, prohibiting the Biden administration from enforcing them, but declined to issue a nationwide injunction.

Then, earlier this summer U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and blocked the regulation nationwide, finding ATF acted beyond the scope of its statutory authority. The Biden administration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to halt the lower court’s decision, and the appeals court declined to do so, regarding the two challenged provisions.

The 5th Circuit expedited the Biden administration’s appeal and is set to hear arguments in September.

But the Biden administration turned to the Supreme Court and requested it to put the district court’s order on hold. If it declines to do so, the administration asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and hear arguments in the fall.

“The district court’s universal vacatur is irreparably harming the public and the government by reopening the floodgates to the tide of untraceable ghost guns flowing into our Nation’s communities,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote. “Once those guns are sold, the damage is done: Some will already be in the hands of criminals and other prohibited persons — and when they are inevitably used in crimes, they are untraceable. “



Source link