Election fraud evidence significant, cases dismissed only on legal process grounds | Life Site News

By Patrick Delaney

A business law professor at New Mexico State University (NMSU) said that anyone who proposes there “is no evidence” for massive election fraud in November’s presidential election doesn’t know what they are talking about.

Professor David K. Clements released a provocative video in response to a lettersent to the entire faculty of NMSU from Dr. John Floros, the university’s president. Clements described the letter as “regurgitating” the narrative “in the media” regarding the election and the January 6 violence at the U.S. Capital.

While broadly addressing many issues on these topics, he was very specific with regards to his own personal investigation into the election fraud question.

For those who believe “there is no evidence, you don’t know what you are talking about,” he said. “I’ve reviewed hours upon hours of public hearings. I have read almost all of the lawsuits that are out there. Most of them were dismissed on legal process grounds.

These suits, he said, were dismissed due to a legal lack of standing. “The general argument” that was presented in these cases, he said, “was that because this was a general harm,” then “you have no standing because your harm has to be particular. It’s not because there isn’t evidenceThere is evidence,” the professor emphasized.

“In fact, I’m in possession of 574 pages of sworn affidavits, forensic reports, all of which would make its way in a court of law under the rules of evidence in a federal or state court. The fact that the evidence has not been heard here by these courts” should not be conflated into “this idea that there is no evidence,” Clements argued.

“The courts have done what they always do,” Clements explained. “When you have political matters, they want them to be decided politically, not in a court room, but through the elections, through the state legislatures.”

However, he observed, the main problem was that “we have a bunch of cowards. We have judges who are cowards, we have politicians that are cowards, and that’s the reality.”

Clements, who lost a close primary run for senate in 2014, encouraged all “to look at the evidence, [including] sworn affidavits where people face 10 to 15 years of prison time if they commit perjury, and statistical analysis that just flies in the face of this idea that there was no fraud in this election.”

More broadly Clements went through Floros’ letter providing commentary along the way. He highlighted hypocrisy on the part of the NMSU president for the special attention paid to the intrusion at the Capitol and his silence during the BLM riots last summer.

“I’m offended that this is the email you are going to send to faculty, when you have been largely silent as cities have burned. People have lost their businesses [and] homes … entire city blocks [were] turned into zones for Antifa and BLM … Your silence speaks volumes,” he said.

Floros celebrated how on January 6 “our democratic institutions held strong, and by the end of the day both houses of Congress returned to the Capitol Building to do the people’s business.”

Clements, a long-time political independent, responded, “The people’s business” that day “was to certify votes to ensure that there was a proper transition to the next president. However, in seven of those states there were dueling electors, and the ‘People’s Business’ allowed for the American people to hear evidence of voter fraud. When these members of Congress returned, they did not deal with the massive black cloud hanging over the election in November. They did nothing of the sort. They used the riot as grounds to move forward and push their paper.”

According to the law, the professor explained, during this certification process, “you can object, and you can investigate, when certain votes are not regularly given. And in many states, it’s clear that they weren’t.”

Therefore, Clements concluded, “The people weren’t heard,” that day. “They were silenced once again. And that is why you had folks show up in the first place because they felt like they were silenced in their own respective states, and they wanted to be heard.”

To demonstrate the weakness of the media narrative Clements showed video clips, including an Antifa activist bragging about his involvement in the Capitol Hill riots, police removing barriers and waving the crowds into the Capitol area, and Trump supporters forcefully working to stop “Antifa” individuals from smashing windows at the Capitol.

“President Floros, you have reached a conclusion prematurely, way too quickly,’ the law professor concluded. “I hope you will send another email out saying that you rushed to judgment.

“For my fellow faculty members who are continuing to call out Trump supporters, to demonize them, I hope that you can treat them, and myself, with civility,” he concluded.

Source: LifeSiteNews

“This Country’s Fabric Is Being Torn Apart” | Exclusive Interview With L. Lin Wood | Crossroads

Attorney L. Lin Wood sits down for an exclusive interview with Joshua Philipp on the 2020 US presidential elections, the possibility of martial law, the Georgia Senate runoff, China’s infiltration of America, and why he fights for the truth.

Source: YouTube

Digital Forensic Analysis Shows Dominion’s Server Connected to Iran and China: Affidavit | The Epoch Times & Distributed News

A digital forensic analysis by a former military intelligence analyst whose name was redacted in an affidavit accompanying attorney Sidney Powell’s lawsuit against Michigan officials, claims to present “unambiguous evidence” that Dominion Voter Systems servers were accessible to and were “certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China.”

Powell’s complaint, filed on Nov. 25 against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and the Michigan Board of State Canvassers, cites the affidavit (pdf) as authored by a former electronic intelligence analyst under 305th Military Intelligence and purporting to show that “the Dominion software was accessed by agents acting on behalf of China and Iran in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent US general election in 2020.”

A separate complaint (pdf) in Georgia, expands on the assertion, claiming that, “by using servers and employees connected with rogue actors and hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily discoverable leaked credentials, Dominion neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access data and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent one in 2020.”

The analyst, who claimed to have “extensive experience as a white hat hacker used by some of the top election specialists in the world,” said that they scanned Dominion network nodes and found a number of interrelationships with foreign entities, including access to Dominion’s server by a network from Hunan, China. Another forensic review confirmed links to an Iranian IP address, the analyst wrote, and concluded that the totality of “these scanning behaviors showed that foreign agents of aggressor nations had access to US voter lists, and had done so recently.”

The analyst said the findings represent a “complete failure” on the part of Dominion to provide “basic cyber security.”

“This is not a technological issue, but rather a governance and basic security issue: if it is not corrected, future elections in the United States and beyond will not be secure and citizens will not have confidence in the results,” the analyst concluded.

Dominion has not responded to a query from The Epoch Times regarding the allegations, although the company issued a statement on Wednesday, the same day Powell filed the Michigan lawsuit, with Dominion saying there were “unfounded allegations being made against the company and its voting systems” in recent days.

The company added: “Dominion voting systems are designed and certified by the U.S. government to be closed and do not rely on network connectivity. Dominion’s tabulators also do not have exposed USB or other memory ports.”

It came after Powell alleged in her lawsuit that “hundreds of thousands of illegal, ineligible, duplicate, or purely fictitious ballots” were enabled by “massive election fraud.”

The suit claimed that election software and hardware from Dominion Voting Systems used by the Michigan Board of State Canvassers helped facilitate the fraud.

“The Dominion systems derive from the software designed by Smartmatic Corporation, which became Sequoia in the United States,” the complaint reads (pdf).

Dominion said that it has no financial or organizational ties to Smartmatic, although it said it purchased assets from a company formerly owned by Smartmatic. Both Dominion and Smartmatic have denied ties to foreign governments.

Source: The Epoch Times & Distributed News

Election 2020 Concerns in Pennsylvania and Other Battleground States | Fox News

President Trump’s legal team speaks on the Election 2020 concerns in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Court grants hearing in election integrity case challenging the constitutionality of Act 77 (mail-in ballots).

On Wednesday during a hearing in front of the Pennsylvania State Legislature, Rudy Giuliani and his team presented evidence as they attempted to prove fraud in the 2020 election.

At one point during the hearing, Giuliani and his team provided data relating to the ballot counting in Pennsylvania. The team was discussing massive spikes in ballots for former Vice President Joe Biden who received nearly 600,000 votes compared to President Trump’s 3,200 in just a very short amount of time.

“How much of the vote that accounted for for Biden and how much for Trump?” Giuliani asked the man presenting the data.

“Close to 600,000. I think our figures were about 570,000 that all those that were represented over time,” he replied.

“For Biden?” Giuliani asked.

“Correct.”

“And how much for Trump?” Giuliani followed up.

“I think it was a little over 3,200,” he replied.

The data was so shocking that the crowd of people in the hearing gasped at the shocking revelation.

Source: Fox News, Trending Politics & YouTube

The Simple Case Against the Newsom Autocracy | Kevin Kiley, California State Legislator

Governor Newsom has exceeded his constitutional authority during the lockdowns.

When the Michigan Supreme Court struck down that state’s Emergency Powers of the Governor Act as unconstitutional, it adopted the very arguments we are making in our case against Gov. Newsom.

So we took the opportunity to file this two-page summary of our legal argument with the Court.

In short, Newsom now faces a “heads you win, tails I lose scenario.” If the Court agrees with our statutory arguments, Newsom will be found to have overstepped the Emergency Services Act and violated the Constitution. On the other hand, if the Court buys his statutory arguments, the entire Act must be found unconstitutional.

Reading the Michigan Court’s opinion was a surreal experience since it so closely resembles our own briefing to the California Court. In fact, the Michigan Supreme Court uses the exact quote from the Federalist Papers with which we began our dispositive brief:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

(Recall that Newsom has actually argued the Emergency Services Act “centralizes” all of the “the State’s powers in the hands of the Governor.”)

The other similarities are striking:

  • Our Brief: no statute can “give the Executive Branch a roving authority to create any and all new laws in any California code.”
  • Michigan Decision: no statute can “confer upon the governor a roving commission to repeal or amend unspecified provisions anywhere in the entire body of state law.”

Another example:

  • Our Brief: “a statute that gives the Governor ‘discretion as to what the law shall be’ amounts to an unlawful delegation.”
  • Michigan Decision: the statute “is an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Constitution.”

Most importantly, the Separation-of-Powers provision of Michigan’s Constitution is almost identical, word for word, to the one in California’s Constitution.

The trial is one week from today.

Source: Kevin Kiley, California State Legislator

Judge Rules Pennsylvania Governor’s Shutdown Orders Unconstitutional | The Epoch Times

A federal judge has struck down Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s CCP virus restrictions that required people to stay at home, put limits on gatherings, and ordered “non-life-sustaining” businesses to stay shut down.

U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV on Sept. 14 sided with plaintiffs that included drive-in movie theaters, hair salons, farmers markets, and several GOP officials who sued as individuals. Butler, Greene, Fayette, and Washington counties were also listed as plaintiffs.

Stickman’s judgment stipulates that “the congregate gathering limits imposed by defendants’ mitigation orders violate the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment,” the “stay-at-home and business closure components of defendants’ orders violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” and “the business closure components of Defendants’ orders violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The judge, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, argued that the actions taken by Wolf and Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Rachel Levine, who are both Democrats, “were undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency,” but that “even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered.”

“The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms—in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble,” Stickman said. “There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort.”

Stickman added that the solution to the crisis “can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment.”

Furthermore, he said, the Constitution “cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures.”

Wolf has lifted a number of restrictions since the lawsuit was filed several months ago, allowing businesses to open again and canceling the statewide stay-at-home order. Pennsylvania also has a gathering limit of 25 people for events indoors and 250 for events outside.

Pennsylvania has reported that more than 145,000 people have contracted the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus since the beginning of the pandemic, while more than 7,800 have died.

Wolf’s spokesperson told The Associated Press that his office is reviewing the judge’s decision.

“It’s a complete and total victory for the counties, the businesses and the representatives,” said attorney Thomas W. King III, who represented the plaintiffs, as reported by Triblive. “You can’t order the entire population of Pennsylvania to stay at home.”

Source: The Epoch Times

Ohio Stands Up! files lawsuit to remove DeWine’s COVID-19 emergency order | Richland Source

An Ohio citizens group has filed a lawsuit in federal court to remove Gov. Mike DeWine’s emergency health order, which was signed on March 9 and remains in place today.

Ohio Stands Up! describes itself as a grassroots organization composed of Ohio citizens focused on restoring the rights of Ohio’s 11.69 million residents and educating the public about the realities of COVID-19 data. Download PDF

Ohio Stands Up! said it has filed suit in the Northern District of Ohio Federal Court in Toledo to remove DeWine’s emergency order. The group is represented by attorneys Thomas Renz of Fremont and Robert Gargasz of Lorain.

DeWine was asked about the lawsuit during a press conference Tuesday.

“I’ve been sued many times. [The Ohio Department of] Health has been sued many many times. They have been in many different counties,” he said.

“We’re doing what we know will make a difference. We’ve been very thoughtful of what we’ve done,” he said. “None of these decisions are made in a vacuum…I just have to stay focused on what we need to do in Ohio.”

According to the Ohio Department of Health website on Tuesday, there have been 124,610 positive COVID-19 tests since the pandemic began with 4,165 deaths.

Organizers said the lawsuit is solely funded by donations from Ohio citizens. As of Aug. 30, donations reached $34,055. For more information, visit www.ohiostandsup.org.

“We believe that the response to COVID-19 has been the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public,” Renz said in an email press release.

“The objective of this legal action is to force the state to honor the Constitution and to stop the lies, manipulation and fear-mongering intentionally being promoted by public health officials and elected officials.”

The attorneys said they are determined to “restore the Constitutional rights that have been stripped away by the State of Ohio’s unjustified actions regarding COVID-19.”

Renz and Gargasz said they will release the extensive evidence that chronicles the case to the public to offer transparency and insight.

“The State of Ohio has consistently lied to and manipulated its citizens from the earliest stages of this pandemic,” Gargasz explained. “We insist that this nonsense end, our rights be restored, and that the actual truth be shared.”

Recently, the CDC confirmed that 94 percent of the deaths attributed to the coronavirus were from people who had as many as two to three other serious illnesses. The majority of those deaths are individuals 75 and older. Six percent of the deaths are directly from COVID-19, according to the CDC.

“The entire U.S. economy was shut down based on fraudulent models that predicted 2.2 million American deaths,” Renz said. “The State of Ohio violated the U.S. Constitution with an emergency declaration that ignores the fundamental rights of all Ohioans. As a result, millions of Ohioans are suffering financially, physically, and mentally.”

Renz and Gargasz stated that:

 Hundreds of thousands of businesses are struggling, and many will never re-open.

 Drug overdoses and suicides have increased as have domestic violence and child abuse cases – directly as a result of the unconstitutional emergency order.

 Many Ohioans were unable to get treatment for conditions not related to COVID-19 because hospitals were closed to accommodate the rush of COVID-19 patients who never arrived.

 Children are struggling emotionally as many are forced into the continued isolation of remote learning while two income households must find solutions to manage young children at home.

 Masks are dangerous, prevent proper breathing, and provide no real protection against this virus, according to multiple studies.

 Families have been barred from seeing their loved ones in hospitals and long-term care facilities, and residents in long-term care facilities have suffered because of the lack of inperson communication from their loved one.https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

 People living alone, of all ages, have been forced into solitary confinement and are dying at tremendously increased rates due to loneliness and lack of self-care.

Gargasz said a rapidly growing number of Ohioans recognize this and understand that, if they don’t stand up and speak out, it could be too late because a precedent has been set.

“There is zero basis for a state of emergency,” Renz said. “Based on what we know about the consequences the emergency order has caused to the physical, financial, and mental well-being of Ohioans, and the vitality of Ohio communities, this is truly a crime against humanity, and it must not be allowed to continue.”

Source: Richland Source

The Election Integrity Threat: 96 Million Unverified Mail-In-Ballots | Judicial Watch

judicialwatch_fb_deepdive-electionintegritythreat_1200x627_v1-768x401Editor’s Note: There is a conspiracy to undermine 2020 Presidential election by the Democratic Party and their accomplices in the “deep state”. This demand for mail-in voting systems in every Democratically controlled state is riddled with corruption, mistakes and fraud as illustrated by Judicial Watch. Furthermore, the puppet-masters behind the Democratic Party, Joe Biden and their socialist/communist allies, including Communist China, intend to overthrow the U.S. Constitution by any means necessary to take control and permanently alter our form of government. Do not be fooled by mainstream media headlines all focused on unseating Trump through lies, deception and false accusations. Trump is doing what is necessary to maintain the integrity of our election process and not allow the Democrats to cheat their way into the White House. May this 2020 election be “free and fair” as it has been done for two hundred and thirty-one years.  May the freedom we have enjoyed as Americans not be taken away by foolish voters or by electoral corruption. Long live America!

“It’s going to be a mess,” FItton remarks. As the country approaches election season, officials across the national political landscape are calling for a move towards mail-in-voting systems – a true recipe for disaster in Fitton’s estimation. With an estimated 96 million ballots to be sent through the mail, “the opportunities for fraud are of enormous proportions.” In 2016, approximately 319,000 absentee mail-in ballots were thrown out. “This year we don’t have any guess how many will be thrown out, because there’s no precedent to what’s being planned here, which is to the break the system.”

From ballot harvesters, to voter-intimidation, the threats to “free and fair elections” are virtually impossible to account for in Fitton’s view. Considering that Judicial Watch discovered nearly 2 million extra names on Pennsylvania and North Carolina voter rolls alone, “voting by mail is a bad public policy” to put it charitably. The president’s concerns for election integrity are well placed, but he is “understating the threat to fair and free elections caused by swamping the mail with nearly 100 million ballots,” Fitton concludes.

With top Democratic Party officials, including John Podesta recently suggesting that a Biden loss would descend the nation into a civil war – and the potential “secession of states from the union” – these are clearly “dangerous times.” The Democratic Party’s war game, as Fitton describes “talked about it [the results of the election] being a street fight, and that we can’t rely on the rule of law.” Clearly, the Left is willing to “upend the rule of law if the election result is seemingly what they don’t want.”

In the meantime, Judicial Watch is working around the clock to direct voter-roll cleanups across the United States, “doing the heavy lifting to ensure your votes are counted and that the elections are as clean possible.” If you’re concerned about election integrity, support Judicial Watch today. The stakes for inaction are simply too high to ignore.

Source: Judicial Watch

Public Health Legal Authorities to Collect, Use, Share, and Protect Information | ASTHO

FlaginSunlightOverview

Public health agencies need to collect, use, and share information to prevent disease and injury and protect the public against natural, accidental, and intentional health threats. Various federal and state laws may impact public health activities regarding such information.

Public health agencies may collect and maintain information that identifies an individual or is sensitive in nature, such as information about communications systems or detailed emergency response plans. In these situations, freedom of information (FOI) laws establish parameters for information that must be shared, upon request, and that which may be exempted from public disclosure. In applying the laws, public health agencies may need to juggle competing interests and balance individual privacy against the need to protect or inform the public.

Public health agencies face additional challenges when sharing information with law enforcement, especially when conducting a joint investigation where a public health threat may involve criminal activity. (See ASTHO Public Health Collection, Use, Sharing and Protection of Information Issue Brief  and Authorities and Limitations in Sharing Information Between Public Health Agencies and Law Enforcement Issue Brieffor detailed analyses of issues and law.) (Download a printable PDF.)

Constitutional Considerations

Generally, state and local public health agencies have broad and flexible authority to protect the public health. However, the exercise of governmental power has limits. The United States Constitution contains a Bill of Rights1 that sets out individual liberties and protects individuals from the arbitrary use of governmental power. These rights may impact public health collection and sharing of information.

Right to Privacy
The Constitution provides a limited right to privacy, including “informational privacy.”2 State laws that require reporting of or public health agency access to identifiable information are permissible when they are reasonably directed to the preservation of health and properly respect a patient’s confidentiality and privacy.3

Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure
With the owner’s permission,4 public health agencies may enter or search the premises of an individual or business, take biological specimens or environmental samples for testing, copy records, and remove evidence that might be relevant to a public health concern. However, absent consent or the applicability of another exception, public health agencies must comply with requirements in the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant be obtained, based upon probable cause, to search someone’s premises or seize their property. The Fourth Amendment applies to both criminal investigations and health and safety inspections and investigations.5 In addition to consent, other exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirement might apply to public health inspections and investigations, including searches of pervasively regulated businesses,6searches of premises or items open to the public,7 and searches based on exigent circumstances if delay is likely to lead to injury, public harm, or the destruction of evidence.8

Right Against Self-Incrimination
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination prevents the government from forcing an individual to be a witness against himself or herself during trial or a custodial interrogation. If an individual is not informed of his or her right against self-incrimination, the individual’s statements and evidence obtained as a result of these statements may be suppressed in criminal proceedings. This right may arise when a public health incident involves criminal activity, especially when law enforcement and public health investigators are conducting joint interviews or public health agencies assist law enforcement to gather evidence.9


Practice Notes

  • Identify information to be obtained or shared.
  • Identify the purpose for which the information is needed.
  • Determine whether this is the minimum necessary for the purpose or whether de-identified information will serve the purpose.
  • Identify sources for the information, such as healthcare providers, schools, other businesses, and individuals.
  • Identify applicable federal or state laws.
  • Determine and meet conditions or requirements for obtaining or sharing information; in some situations, an individual’s consent may avoid legal issues when disclosing private information.
  • If privacy protections prevent disclosures necessary to protect the public, consult with counsel to identify relevant legal responsibilities, evaluate competing moral claims, and document determined course of action.

State Constitutions
State constitutions, along with court decisions that interpret state constitutions, must be reviewed to identify individual rights that exceed the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions may be sources of additional provisions that govern information sharing; for example, some constitutions define individual privacy rights or cover the public’s right to obtain governmental records.

State Statutes

Generally, state law governs state and local public health agencies’ authority and responsibilities regarding collection, use, disclosure, and protection of information. State laws vary in nature and scope. Authority may be based on general statutes, such as public health laws that grant public health agencies communicable disease control authority. Specific laws may also apply.

Case Reporting
These laws mandate that healthcare providers, laboratories, and others report specific communicable diseases and other illness of public health concern. Reporting requirements vary by state, and may also include poisonings, chemical or radiological exposures, suspected acts of terrorism, and other conditions.

Syndromic Surveillance
State laws may require or authorize reporting to electronic syndromic surveillance systems of information that is routinely gathered in emergency rooms or other places that may indicate an emerging disease or other public health threat before confirmed diagnoses are made.

Investigatory Authority
State laws may specifically grant public health agencies authority to conduct investigations and gather evidence, or such authority may arise from general statutory powers. State laws may also establish procedures for obtaining warrants to search the premises of an individual or business and seize evidence related to a public health threat.

Privacy Provisions
Public health or other laws may contain provisions to protect the confidentiality of information that identifies an individual and to limit its disclosure by public health agencies. Exceptions may be provided, for example, for disclosing information to other agencies, law enforcement, or the public when necessary to protect the public’s health.

Freedom of Information
All states have laws that require information held by governmental agencies to be provided upon request. FOI laws promote transparency and accountability of governments, facilitate consumers’ ability to make informed choices, and safeguard citizens against mismanagement and corruption. Public health agencies—like other governmental agencies—need to be sensitive to these important considerations in responding to FOI requests. At the same time, these laws may create challenges for public health agencies with regard to requests for private information about individuals or sensitive information, such as information that is preliminary, incomplete, or might present a national or state security risk. FOI laws include exemptions that may allow public health agencies to withhold private or sensitive information under certain circumstances. These exemptions vary among states in nature, scope, and prerequisites for denying disclosure.

Federal Statutes

Federal laws that impact collection, use, disclosure, and protection of information by public health agencies include, but are not limited to, the following.

HIPAA Privacy Rule
The Privacy Rule10 adopted under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)11 established national privacy protections for individually identifiable health information. The Privacy Rule may apply to healthcare providers or others that provide information to public health agencies. Depending on a public health agency’s organization, the Privacy Rule may apply to a public health agency when it discloses individually identifiable information. The Privacy Rule is not intended to interfere with public health functions and contains provisions that allow public health agencies to collect identifiable health information and disclose it, including to law enforcement, when authorized by law or when necessary to protect the public from an imminent threat.

FERPA
Privacy protections established by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)12 limit information that schools may provide to public health agencies about students. However, exceptions allow schools to provide certain directory information, such as student name and contact information, and necessary information to appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies.13

Surveillance Data Systems
Various federal laws, such as the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002,14 establish surveillance data systems that allow collection of information provided by state and local governmental agencies and integration of federal, state, and local data systems.

Critical Infrastructure
Confidentiality requirements apply to federal disclosure of certain information to state or local governmental agencies related to critical infrastructure and supplies and resources to protect the public’s health. For example, federal law protects the confidentiality of information voluntarily provided by the private sector to the federal government regarding vaccine tracking and distribution15 and information about critical infrastructure.16 Although the federal government may share this information with state and local government and agencies, those agencies must protect its confidentiality.


Practice Resource

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provides the Open Government Guide at http://www.rcfp.org/open-government-guide, which is a complete compendium of information on every state’s open records and open meetings laws. Each state’s section is arranged according to a standard outline, making it easy to compare laws in various states.


Sources

  1. U.S. Const., Amds 1-10.
  2. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977).
  3. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977); Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976).
  4. Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991).
  5. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (search of residences); See v. City of Seattle, 387 US 541 (1967) (search of commercial property).
  6. New York v. Burger, 482 US 691 (1987).
  7. Gostin LO. Public Health Law – Power, Duty, Restraint. (2008), p 468, 699-700. See endnotes 57-58.
  8. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978).
  9. Richards, EP. “Collaboration between Public Health and Law Enforcement: The Constitutional Challenge. Emerging Infectious Diseases.” Available at http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/10/02-0465_article.htm. Accessed 11-15-2012. Goodman, R.A., Munson, JW, Dammer, K., Lazzarini, Z., and Barkely JP. “Forensic Epidemiology: Law at the Intersection of Public Health and Criminal Investigations.” Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14968670. Accessed on 2-7-2013.
  10. 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164.
  11. Pub. L. 104-191, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg et seq.
  12. Pub. L. 93-380, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, implemented by 34 C.F.R. Part 99.
  13. 34 C.F.R. § 99.31.
  14. Pub. L. 107-188, 42 U.S.C. 300hh et seq.
  15. Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247d-1.
  16. Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, 6 U.S.C. 131 et seq., which is part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Note: This document was compiled from April–November 2012 and reflects the laws and programs current then. It reflects only portions of the laws relevant to public health emergencies and is not intended to be exhaustive of all relevant legal authority. This resource is for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for professional legal or other advice. The document was funded by CDC Award No. 1U38HM000454 to the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials; Subcontractor Subcontractor University of Michigan School of Public Health, Network for Public Health Law – Mid-States Region.

Source: ASTHO

Nunes: ‘As Many As 10’ Criminal Referrals Related To Russia Probe Are Headed To DOJ | Trending Politics

5ee3634c566b5imageFormer Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s entire Russia investigation was nothing more than a two-long scam that failed to give Democrats their chance to remove President Donald Trump from office.

We have learned over time that top officials in the Obama administration played a big role in anti-Trump probe — and one lawmaker is vowing that justice will be served.

House Intelligence Committee ranking Republican Rep. Devin Nunes said he and his Republican colleagues will be sending more criminal referrals to Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice, the Washington Examiner reported.

Nunes made the announcement during an interview on Fox Business, where he said Republicans have gathered enough evidence for “at least another five, possibly as many as 10” referrals to the DOJ in addition to the eight referrals made last spring.

“We now are looking at the overall Gen. Flynn investigation and how that was conducted and the rest of the Mueller team,” he said, according to the Examiner. “And then, of course, as new information has come to light from the information that was declassified by acting Director of National Intelligence [Richard] Grenell, that information has also shown that there are other people who have lied or misled Congress or have, I think in some cases, maybe, lied by omission, documents that were kept from Congress.”

Nunes said that he expects to send the referrals within days.

Last month, Nunes said criminal referrals are coming for members of Mueller’s team who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“We’re looking at doing criminal referrals on the Mueller team, the Mueller dossier team, the Mueller witch hunt, whatever you want to call it. That’s where we are now in our investigation,” Nunes said.

Now, in the wake of the Justice Department’s decision to drop charges against former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn, Nunes is turning his attention to the conduct of Mueller and his team.

“We’ve also expanded our investigation into the Mueller team and everything that happened with Mueller and the people at DOJ and FBI that were above Mueller. And so, we will be making criminal referrals in the coming weeks against the Mueller team. We’re just now putting that together and, of course, as always, waiting on more documents that we really need to come out,” Nunes said.

Having examined witness reports and other new documents released by the FBI, Republicans now claim to have evidence that Mueller’s team misled the courts during their investigation.

This comes as the recently released FISA spy report found that FBI officials had falsified documents for the FISA court so they had a better chance of securing warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign, such as aide Carter Page.

In part, the IG report found that there was extreme bias against then-candidate Trump and that the FBI deliberately doctored evidence they presented to the nation’s top spy court in order to gain authority to spy on a key Trump affiliate.

Source: Trending Politics