Attorney Michael Beltran recently published an article regarding Coronavirus-related employment termination with an overview of remedies for employees departing their employer.
Tonight’s stacked card is a good opportunity to remind hospitality businesses that the UFC is a litigious entity when it comes to copyright enforcement. Restaurants, bars, and private individuals who pirate UFC pay-per-view fights have come within Mr. White’s crosshairs along with insubordinate fighters, insolent agents, and up-and-coming promoters.
Although UFC has enjoyed limited success against these pirates, UFC and other pay-per-view promoters must plead and prove exacting statutory elements. Furthermore, their damages are generally limited by statute and judicial discretion. Establishments receiving demands from the UFC should consult with an experienced federal litigator before responding.
This morning, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the religious rights of Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, when it purported to require the shop to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Phillips, an expert baker and a devout Christian, told the couple he would make them a birthday cake but not a wedding cake due to his religious opposition to same-sex marriages. Notably, Metro Denver has numerous shops available to bake wedding cakes.
After being abused by the state regulator, Phillips sought administrative and judicial relief in Colorado to no avail before petitioning the United States Supreme Court for review.
As expected, the Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion was authored by “swing vote” Anthony Kennedy, who may retire this year. Although the result was previously predicted by Attorney Beltran and other commentators, it was expected to be a narrow decision. Surprisingly, liberal Justices Kagan and Breyer sided with the conservative wing and voted against Colorado. The justices were appalled at the clear anti-religious animus of the Colorado Commission and its previously capricious rulings.
The separation of church and state presupposes that the state can neither advance nor inhibit religion. Moreover, the state must always respect citizens’ right to exercise and articulate their honestly held religious beliefs. If you believe you have been subject to religious discrimination by a state regulator, please contact the office.
The Special Prosecutor’s proposal to interview President Trump would violate executive privilege. Executive privilege has been asserted in one form or another for over two centuries by Presidents including Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Like many privileges, the executive privilege is a qualified privilege and the touchstone is substantial need. Mere probable cause does not suffice. In cases involving testimony, the President and his staff generally prevail, but subpoenas duces tecum (requiring production of documents or physical evidence) are generally enforced allowing investigators to obtain this nontestimonial evidence. The physical act of providing evidence is less burdensome than the indignity of questioning.
Persons enjoying legal privileges are again reminded that an investigator with a subpoena is an adversary intent on incriminating the recipient and not merely a “public servant” trying to “clear things up so we can move on.”
The mainstream media previously claimed that the administration’s culpability was somehow self-evident because investigators raided attorney Michael Cohen’s office instead of issuing dignified subpoenas. Such an absurd assertion reduces to the argument that the quality of a case can be judged based on the ruthlessness of the prosecutor.
Investigators previously claimed that information showing their improper methods could not be released without compromising “sources and methods.” Apparently their “sources” were Democratic Party hacks and their “methods” were leaks and unauthorized disclosure. In any event, the “investigators” responsible recently “resigned” to pursue other “opportunities.” Mainstream reporters fail to identify which private sector employer provided an “opportunity” to use those dubious talents.
Yesterday, a judge in the Manafort case concluded that the Special Prosecutor’s aim is to hurt Trump. Although prosecutors are pursuing a myriad of pretextual and technical violations of otherwise upstanding Republicans, they fail to pursue any Russians with similar vigor. Although President Trump is the most investigated man in history, his detractors fail to show any prosecutable substantive misconduct.
Unable to prove a case against the administration, and unwilling to seriously pursue extradition or rendition of the Russians responsible for the substantive misconduct, the prosecutors are now attempting to “flip” President Trump’s advisers. Although this is unfortunately standard operating procedure for desperate prosecutors, it will prove as ineffective as it is unethical.