Saturday, December 19, 2020

Laney Sweet, widow of Daniel Shaver who was killed in a Mesa police officer-involved shooting back in January, uploaded this 17:20 video on March 29, 2016 more than two months ago.
For most members of the public this case flew under the radar screen with mainstream media reporting doing dribbles of "up-dates" as the legal proceedings progressed and moved slowly forward. Most recently [last week] instead of the entire police bodycam videos and audio transcripts getting made available - only a redacted and edited version was released for stated reasons [read other posts on this site or accounts in other media].
Police use of force, unjustified or not, is a contentious issue. It's gotten so out-of-hand here in Mesa that the police accepted responsibility for killing and shooting two dogs in a residents backyard after complaints by the owner and attention from media.
Fortunately, Laney Sweet has a good attorney.
Please note, dear readers, that today the mayor of Chicago released all police bodycam videos and audio transcripts for every officer-involved shooting in the last year. Failure to provide in a timely manner videos of a number of incidents created huge uproars in the public and in the media . . . this case continues to play out with Laney Sweet's video going viral attracting more than 253,000 views.
Officer Philip Brailsford was dismissed and fired from the Mesa Police Department.
The City of Mesa faces a multi-million dollar notice of claim from his family.
Looks like taxpayers [or the insurance company] will be asked to pay for alleged police misconduct while on-duty at the same time training and evaluation of office hiring practices gets more scrutiny

Daniel Shaver - 'Body Cam Footage'

Published on Mar 29, 2016

On 3.14.16 I met with the County Attorney Bill Montgomery, after I was informed just hours beforehand on the phone that they had previously decided, without consulting me, to offer (former) Officer Philip Brailsford a plea deal of negligent homicide, reduced down from second degree murder. I had not been given the opportunity to even view the body cam footage, nor had my (now former) attorneys. Once we got a meeting with the CA, I quickly realized that by watching the footage I was going to be silenced. I was told what I could and could not say. Ultimately, I was not allowed to watch the video. The CA made it very clear to me he would not allow the evidence/footage to be released publicly. Last Friday Bill Montgomery and the defense attorney filed a motion in court to seal the body cam footage from being released. We must demand that it be made public and get this plea deal stopped. #JusticeForDaniel #DanielShaver #FreeTheFootage #ReleaseTheBodyCam #PhilipBrailsford #BillMontgomery #MesaPD

*Please excuse a few spelling errors in the video, I couldn't correct them once it uploaded.*

LIKE our page: www.facebook.com/justicefordaniel

Please donate to: https://www.gofundme.com/danielmemori...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: There are three pages of Docket Filings. The following docket number cases are inserted for a period starting in August 2020

484

Aug 18, 2020

MOTION to Seal Document Joint Opposition to Sweet Plaintiffs' Motion for Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order by Corrine Brailsford, Philip Mitchell Brailsford, Bryan Cochran, Christopher Doane, Brian Elmore, Richard Gomez, Charles J Langley, Mesa, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Scharff, Spencer) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

Main Document

Motion to Seal Document

485

Aug 18, 2020

SEALED LODGED Proposed Joint Opposition to Sweet Plaintiffs' Motion for Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order re: 484 MOTION to Seal Document Joint Opposition to Sweet Plaintiffs' Motion for Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Corrine Brailsford, Philip Mitchell Brailsford, Bryan Cochran, Christopher Doane, Brian Elmore, Richard Gomez, Charles J Langley, Mesa, City of. (Scharff, Spencer) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

Main Document

Sealed Lodged Proposed Document

486

Aug 25, 2020

*MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of their Motion for Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order to Complete Discovery and Depositions in Claims Against the Langley and Brailsford Defendants and Exhibits thereto Under Seal by Laney Sweet. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Richards, William) *Modified event from Motion for Miscellaneous Relief to Motion to Seal on 8/26/2020 (CEI). (Entered: 08/25/2020)

Main Document

Motion to Seal Document

487

Aug 25, 2020

SEALED LODGED Proposed The Sweet Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order to Complete Discovery and Depositions in Claims Against the Langley and Brailsford Defendants re: 486 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of their Motion for Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order to Complete Discovery and Depositions in Claims Against the Langley and Brailsford Defendants and Exhibits thereto Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Laney Sweet. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A-I)(Richards, William) (Entered: 08/25/2020)

Main Document

Sealed Lodged Proposed Document

488

Aug 27, 2020

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Laney Sweet. (Stuart, Shayna) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

Main Document

Notice of Service of Discovery

489

Aug 28, 2020

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Laney Sweet. (Stuart, Shayna) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

Main Document

Notice of Service of Discovery

490

Sep 15, 2020

Main Document

Notice of Change of Address/Firm Name (Attorney)

491

Sep 17, 2020

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Laney Sweet. (Stuart, Shayna) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

Main Document

Notice of Service of Discovery

492

Sep 22, 2020

NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal Alan S. Baskin filed by Alan Scott Baskin. (Baskin, Alan) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

Main Document

Notice of Attorney Withdrawal (No Longer with Firm Only)

493

Sep 25, 2020

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Laney Sweet. (Stuart, Shayna) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

Main Document

Notice of Service of Discovery

494

Oct 6, 2020

*Inquiry re Status of Motion or Other Matter Under Advisement re: 340 MOTION (Defendant LQ Management's Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment) by LQ Management LLC. (Potts, David) *Modified to correct event on 10/7/2020 (DXD). (Entered: 10/06/2020)

Main Document

Notice (Other)

495

Oct 7, 2020

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Laney Sweet. (Stuart, Shayna) (Entered: 10/07/2020)

Main Document

Notice of Service of Discovery

496

Oct 12, 2020

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Laney Sweet. (Stuart, Shayna) (Entered: 10/12/2020)

Main Document

Notice of Service of Discovery

497

Nov 24, 2020

NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Laney Sweet. (Stuart, Shayna) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

Main Document

Notice of Service of Discovery

498

Dec 17, 2020

Main Document

Notice of Service of Discovery

Just doing my bit > In these perilous times, an independent, global news organisation like the Guardian is essential

Since you're here ...... we have a small favour to ask.

Support The Guardian

Available for everyone, funded by readers

As we prepare for what promises to be a pivotal year for America, we’re asking you to consider a year-end gift to help fund our journalism.

Ten billionaires reap $400bn boost to wealth during pandemic

Rupert Neate

the Guardian

Covid-19 pushed many into poverty but brought huge benefits for some of the wealthiest, renewing calls for fairer taxes.

Ten of the richest people in the world have boosted their already vast wealth by more than $400bn (£296bn) since the coronavirus pandemic began as their businesses were boosted by lockdowns and financial crises across the globe.

The extra wealth accumulated by the 10 men – approximately $450bn, using Forbes figures – over the past nine months is more than the £284bn the British government is estimated to have spent on tackling the pandemic and the economic damage it has wrought on its 66 million people.

In a related report, the campaign group Americans for Tax Fairness estimates the collective wealth of America’s 651 billionaires has risen by $1.1tn over the same period.

Frank Clemente of Americans for Tax Fairness said:
“Their pandemic profits are so immense that America’s billionaires could pay for a major Covid relief bill and still not lose a dime of their pre-virus riches. Their wealth growth is so great that they alone could provide a $3,000 stimulus payment to every man, woman and child in the country, and still be richer than they were nine months ago.”

Millions are flocking daily to the Guardian for open, independent, quality news that is funded by readers like you. Support from our readers has kept Guardian journalism free for everyone else, and has enabled the following:

> The Fight to Vote, our year-long series on voter suppression and election integrity ahead of the 2020 election, was read 19 million times around the world

> Nearly 1,500 US healthcare workers have died during the Covid-19 crisis – a grim statistic we know only because the Guardian has tracked healthcare worker deaths, in the absence of reliable government data. The majority of deaths were people of color
> People in 180 countries around the world have read the Guardian since January 2020

We believe everyone deserves access to information that is grounded in science and truth, and analysis rooted in authority and integrity.

That’s why we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.

Powerful journalism drives change; this is some of the high-impact reporting that Guardian readers funded in 2020.

We have no shareholders or billionaire owner, meaning our journalism is free from commercial and political influence.

If there was ever a time to join us, it is now. Your funding powers our journalism.

We’re asking readers to help us raise $1.25m to support our reporting in the new year.

Every contribution, however big or small, will help us reach our goal.

Make a gift now starting from as little as $1. Thank you.

Support the Guardian

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEATURED STORY OF THE DAY UPLOADED TO THIS BLOG:

Ten billionaires reap $400bn boost to wealth during pandemic

Rupert Neate

the Guardian

Celebrating 40 Years of Empire: The Legacy

New Reporter's Resource: Drone Life

Thanks to a short right sidebar blurb in Techdirt's Insider Chat:

Vidiot: "Unconstitutionally vague" always catches my eye... in this case, it's a Texas law (of course) that prohibits drone photography with "surveillance" intent. What does that even mean?

https://dronelife.com/2020/12/11/texas-drone-law-court-decision-allows-challenge/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story:

Texas Drone Law: Court Decision Allows Challenge

Posted By: Miriam McNabb

DRONELIFE | 2020-12-11T10:16:08-05:00

By DRONELIFE Staff Writer Jim Magill

A recent decision by a federal judge will allow a lawsuit, challenging the constitutionality of Texas drone law, to move forward.

On November 30, US District Judge Robert Pitman handed down an order denying a motion made by attorneys representing the state defendants to dismiss the case. The suit, which was brought by the National Press Photographers Association, the Texas Press Association and a Texas-based photojournalist, claims that Texas drone law restricts journalists’ ability to use photos and videos shot from drones for newsgathering purposes.

The lawsuit names as defendants, Steven McCraw, the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety; Ron Joy, chief of the Texas Highway Patrol; and Wes Mau, the Hays County district attorney.

The suit challenges the surveillance provision of the law, which makes it unlawful to “capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in [Texas] with the intent to conduct surveillance.” The plaintiffs argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague, in that it doesn’t define what constitutes “surveillance.”

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the surveillance provision improperly discriminates on a content basis against UAV-produced photos and videos created as part of a newsgathering process, while allowing other groups, including students, engineers and insurance company employees to capture and use the same images for their own purposes.

The plaintiffs also challenged the “No Fly” provisions of the statute, which prohibits drone operations over correctional or detention facilities as well as critical infrastructure facilities, such as oil and gas pipelines, water treatment facilities and chemical plants. As in its pleadings against the surveillance provisions, the suit claims the restrictions are overbroad, in that they contain exemptions allowing drones to be used for commercial purposes, but not newsgathering purposes.

In addition, the suit argues that the “No Fly” provisions violate the doctrine of federal pre-emption of state law, because the Federal Aviation Administration has the exclusive right to regulate all air traffic.

More . . .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED CONTENT https://dronelife.com/news/