Connect with us

Legal

Indiana AG Sues BLM Over ‘Concerning Patterns Of Behavior’

Published

on

BLM

On Thursday, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita announced that he had filed a lawsuit against the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLM), due to “concerning patterns of behavior.”

“Protecting Indiana consumers from this house of cards is critical,” said Rokita.  “There are concerning patterns of behavior from this organization, and we will do what it takes—including this lawsuit—to get to the bottom of it.”

The lawsuit specifically focused on allegations over the misuse of donations by BLM.

“In a 2020 report published by BLM, the organization stated it raised over $90 million in 2020, while it distributed approximately $21.7 million to 30 local organizations and affiliated chapters, including an affiliated chapter in South Bend, Indiana,” Rokita’s office said in a press release. “However, an IRS filing by BLM for the first half of 2020 listed the organization had $0 in revenue, expenses, and assets held by BLM for the time period.”

“Attorney General Rokita issued a Civil Investigative Demand to BLM in order to determine if the organization’s actions constitute a violation of either the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act or the Indiana Nonprofit Corporation Act,” the press release added. “The Civil Investigative Demand seeks information and documents held by the entity relevant to the ongoing investigation to ensure transparency to donors and guarantee funds donated by Indiana residents are used for their intended purpose and not for the personal benefit of BLM directors.”

Under the state’s current law, failure to comply with the investigation could result in BLM being barred from future fundraising in Indiana.

“There are many Indiana stakeholders and donors who have been impacted by these allegations.  This lawsuit will allow for a court to swiftly and efficiently resolve the state’s request for information,” Rokita said.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Legal

Florida Gov Signs Law Making It Illegal To Protest Outside An Individual’s Home

Published

on

Ron DeSantis

On Monday, Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that makes it a crime to protest outside an individual’s home.

“Sending unruly mobs to private residences, like we have seen with the angry crowds in front of the homes of Supreme Court justices, is inappropriate,” DeSantis said. “This bill will provide protection to those living in residential communities and I am glad to sign it into law.”

The law will go into effect on October 1, and once “this law takes effect, law enforcement officers will provide a warning to any person picketing or protesting outside of a dwelling and will make arrests for residential picketing only if the person does not peaceably disperse after the warning. Residential picketing will be punishable as a second-degree misdemeanor,” DeSantis’ office explained.

“It is unlawful for a person to picket or protest before or about the dwelling of any person with the intent to harass or disturb that person in his or her dwelling,” the text of the bill says. “Before a person may be arrested for a violation of this section, a law enforcement officer… or a local, state, federal, or military law enforcement agency must go as near to the person as may be done with safety and shall command any person picketing or protesting before or about the dwelling of a person to immediately and peaceably disperse. If any such person does not thereupon immediately and peaceably disperse, he or she may be arrested for a violation of this section.”

The new law comes in response to leftist protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices following the leak of a draft of a Supreme Court majority opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked to Politico.

“Roughly 100 protesters appeared outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house, where they carried signs and chanted slogans before walking a half-mile to Chief Justice John Roberts’s home, then back to Kavanaugh’s home, where police ordered them to leave the area,” The Washington Examiner reported last week.

Continue Reading

Immigration

SCOTUS Rules Federal Courts Do Not Have Power To Decide If Illegals Will Be Deported

Published

on

Supreme Court

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that federal courts do not have the jurisdiction to decide whether noncitizens will be deported or allowed to stay in the country.

The case involved a couple from India — Pankajkumar Patel and his wife, Jyotsnaben, — who illegally entered the United States in the 1990s. They applied for “adjustment of status,” which would have made them both lawful permanent residents. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied their request after finding out that Patel intentionally falsely claimed he was a United States citizen in a Georgia driver’s license application.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion for The Court and Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the three leftist justices in dissent.

“Congress has comprehensively detailed the rules by which noncitizens may enter and live in the United States. When noncitizens violate those rules, Congress has provided procedures for their removal,” Barrett wrote. “At the same time, there is room for mercy: Congress has given the Attorney General power to grant relief from removal in certain circumstances.”

“Federal courts have a very limited role to play in this process,” Barrett continued. “With an exception for legal and constitutional questions, Congress has barred judicial review of the Attorney General’s decisions denying discretionary relief from removal. We must decide how far this bar extends—specifically, whether it precludes judicial review of factual findings that underlie a denial of relief. It does.”

The Court ruled that “Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings.”

Continue Reading

Leo's Hot List