The two anti-abortion activists who secretly filmed conversations with staff members and doctors from Planned Parenthood are now facing felony charges in California. David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt recorded their conversations with various people associated with the organization in 2014 and 2015, using a hidden camera, to expose what they claimed to be a plot by Planned Parenthood to sell fetal material.

Now California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has announced that the two activists violated state law by filming people without their consent. Daleiden expectedly called the charges “bogus” and “fake news” in a statement on his organization’s website, the Center for Medical Progress. But his theory that Planned Parenthood is “harvesting” and selling fetal tissue for profit has been debunked in more than a dozen states where investigations have been conducted.

Back in 2015, Daleiden and Merritt tried to prove that Planned Parenthood was committing a crime by selling fetal tissue. But representatives from the organization said that the videos were heavily edited and taken out of context. Also, the organization only donates tissue for scientific research–always with the patients’ full consent–and gets reimbursements for expenses.

#PlannedParenthood

Anti-abortion propagandist filmmakers @daviddaleiden, Sandra Merritt charged with 15 felonieshttps://t.co/DLFiG5CH0Q pic.twitter.com/MpRniSu7dq

— WarOnWomen (@WarAgainstWomen) March 29, 2017

A Texas grand jury found that Planned Parenthood had done nothing wrong, but found that Daleiden and Merritt used fake drivers licenses to gain access to a Planned Parenthood meeting. Daleiden was also charged with a misdemeanor for trying to buy human tissue, which is ironic since that was the crime he was trying to accuse Planned Parenthood of. Those charges were dismissed. But the California felony charges are related to the secret filming and total 15 each–one count per person they secretly filmed, and one count of conspiracy.

And there’s more bad news for the two–on Wednesday, a federal appeals court blocked the release of more videos by their group. Daleiden called that decision an attack on the First Amendment. “CMP will continue to fight this unconstitutional abuse of power and vindicate our First Amendment rights and those of all citizen journalists to speak and publish on matters of urgent public concern,” Daleiden said.

But the National Abortion Federation said that the release of the videos would put its members at risk, which is not far-fetched to think. Last January, Planned Parenthood sued the Center for Medical Progress, claiming that the release of the heavily edited and misleading videos caused a dangerous environment for its employees. Many Planned Parenthood employees have received threats, and in 2015 there was a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado that left three people dead.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anti-Abortion Activists Who Secretly Filmed Planned Parenthood Charged with Felonies appeared first on Law Street.

As of 2015, each NFL team was worth at least $1.4 billion according to Forbes. Despite these massive valuations, three teams–the Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams, and San Diego Chargers–hoped to leave their current cities and move to Los Angeles. The reasoning behind the desire to move was a yearning for a new, higher revenue stadium to play in. Each team was eager to leave its current city because of the failure of the local government to fund similar sites. This has increasingly become an issue in the NFL, as with other major sports leagues. It has even made international events like the World Cup and Olympics less appealing to host cities.

Read on to find out more about the real cost of having a hometown team, why the public keeps giving in to team demands, and how this problem has spread around the globe.

The Cost

The cost to taxpayers to renovate or build new stadiums has been enormous, particularly when it comes to America’s most popular sport, professional football. Over the last 15 years, the NFL has received $12 billion in public funds. These funds are not isolated to a few teams either, 29 of the 31 stadiums in the NFL (the two New York teams play in the same stadium) have used public financing to build new arenas. Public support for pro sports teams comes in the form of tax breaks, loans, and grants offered primarily by a city or county and occasionally the state.

Despite this funding, most cities and voters have little, if anything, to show for it. In fact, some reports suggest that using subsidies to pay for stadiums can negatively affect metrics like poverty rates and median income levels. Robert Baade, a researcher of these stadiums and their economic consequences, disputes the clear connection between the two, but his own research suggests that new stadiums almost always fall short of delivering the promised economic uptick suggested when they are funded.

Even stadium-related costs for things like renovation go to projects such as luxury boxes or seat licenses, which are not typically accessible to the casual fan or those with less disposable income. These same fans also do not see any sort of break on the cost of tickets or concessions. In fact, the only group that really seems to make out well in all this is the owners. Not only do the owners get to keep most of the revenues from the stadium, minus a very modest rent, they also pay very little in upkeep costs.

The video below goes into detail about what goes into building these stadiums:

Pay… or Else

Since most economists agree that there are very little, if any, benefits to using public funds to build these stadiums, it may be worth considering why people agree to finance them at all. Sometimes, it may simply be because the public doesn’t know about the plans. In 2013 for example, the Atlanta Braves organization agreed to move the team out of the city and into Cobb County. The move was done in secrecy and all information about the deal was kept from the public because otherwise voters could have rejected the plan.

While the Braves left Atlanta to get funds from a nearby county, the city was already building a new stadium for its NFL team as well as a practice facility for a new MLS team. This move is also unfortunate because the original stadium, which was built for the Olympics and would become the Atlanta Braves’ home, was initially financed without any public money. Making matters worse, that stadium they are so desperate to move out of is not even 20 years old.

In the recent fight for the St. Louis Rams, the court voided a law requiring a public vote to approve stadium funding only to watch the Rams leave for Los Angles anyway. But when citizens actually do get the chance to vote on how their tax dollars are spent, sports teams have mastered an invaluable tactic to keep the money flowing. That tactic is the threat of relocation, or basically taking the hometown team hostage to see if the city and the taxpayers will pay up. Once again, the Rams are not the first to use this threat or to follow through with it. The Baltimore Ravens and Indianapolis Colts, two high-profile teams that have won Super Bowls in the last 10 years, both left the cities they originally played in when their demands for new stadiums were not met.

The following video gives a lighthearted look at how teams use the threat of relocating to get new stadiums:

Case Study: The St Louis (now Los Angeles) Rams

While the Rams are clearly not the only team to move or used the threat of relocation in an attempt to leverage a city for a better stadium deal, it is the most recent. The Rams originally moved from Los Angeles in 1995, lured to St. Louis with a $250 million stadium paid for exclusively with public funds. However, as the stadium aged, Rams owner Stan Kroenke, the 63rd richest person in the United States, worth $7.6 billion, exercised an opt-out clause that let him flee St. Louis for Los Angeles and its much bigger media market.

This decision came even after St. Louis agreed to offer the Rams an additional $158 million while the new site in Inglewood, California offers no public funds at all. This may seem foolish, but as the owner of the new site–which includes amenities beyond just a football stadium–and landlord for whichever other teams play in Los Angeles, Kroenke is likely to make back his initial investment and more. Although Kroenke ultimately opted for a venue that does not utilize public funds, the Rams managed to get a remarkable offer from St. Louis. In the negotiation process, the owner, and to an extent the local government, utilized many of the classic leveraging techniques such as removing the influence of voters, threatening relocation, and ultimately following through on a threat to move.

A Global Epidemic

While NFL stadiums are the biggest and most public culprits of the stadium financing problem, there are a number of high profile examples around the globe. These often come in the form of stadiums built for the World Cup and the Olympics.

After less than two years, many of the sites for the Men’s World Cup in Brazil sit idle, barely being used. Some of the stadiums are only now being finished while others are put up for sale so that the government can make back some of its investment–an estimated $3 billion spent on building and refurbishing the facilities. Brazil is also scheduled to host the Summer Olympics in 2016, a move that comes with similar problems but on an even grander scale.

The abandonment of Olympic stadiums has also become a major issue for host countries. Facilities in places like Beijing, Seoul, Athens, and Montreal sit abandoned or are rarely used just years after costing the cities that built them hundreds of millions of dollars. This is especially disconcerting because it comes with the additional cost of hosting the Olympics. In what makes the NFL’s demands look like pocket change, the cost of the Olympics has averaged $3.6 billion from 1968 to 2010 and $16.2 billion after that. As bad as these costs are, the fact that they have an average cost overrun of 167 percent is even more concerning.

In fact, due to the ever-rising costs of holding the Olympics, many cities now are hesitant to host future events. In the run-up to the selection of the site for the 2022 Winter Olympics; Poland, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and the Ukraine withdrew their bids when polls showed it would have been incredibly unpopular. Boston similarly followed suit when it withdrew its bid to host the Summer 2024 Games. Ironically, one of the best examples of a city actually repurposing one of its old Olympic stadiums comes from Atlanta where the recently abandoned Turner Field Baseball stadium was created by repurposing the 1996 Olympic Stadium. The accompanying video gives a chilling look at a number of stadiums used for the Olympics and then just abandoned:

Conclusion

Professional sports teams, like any business, are always seeking to maximize their profits and it is unrealistic to expect them to do otherwise. Even though the public usually pays a large portion of the cost for a new stadium, they rarely pay all of it. Instead, that cost is usually spread out between the owner–in the case of the NFL, all the owners by using something known as the G4 Fund. Sports leagues are not the only corporations utilizing these tax breaks and deals offered by local governments. Many companies take advantage of these opportunities and there is often less of an outcry when cities, counties, or states offer huge tax breaks to lure other organizations. While these teams and businesses may have a lot of bargaining power, the decisions to use public funds remain up to local governments, and in some cases, voters.

However, while there is certainly enough blame to spread around, only the owners of these teams or their partners tend to benefit from them. This is particularly true for NFL owners, as they not only benefit from stadiums but media deals as well. Until recently, the NFL was also considered a non-profit organization, giving it even more tax breaks.  All the public has to show for this is more debt, empty stadiums, and the knowledge that the next threat of a move could happen at any time. The situation is increasingly frustrating and begs the question: what can be done?

Unfortunately, there may not be much that cities can do. In his recent budget proposal, President Obama included a plan to end tax-free bonds for teams, but that has a long way to go before it becomes law. Other suggestions have included anti-trust lawsuits, but these too gained little traction. The ultimate problem is that there are more cities than teams, meaning the teams will always have leverage of some kind and cities are often interested in getting a new team.  The real lesson in all this is while we root for our favorite hometown teams we should remember those teams will likely only remain in our hometowns if the price is right.

Resources

Forbes: The Business of Football

City Lab: The Never-Ending Stadium Boondoggle

The Huffington Post: “Taxpayers Have Spent A ‘Staggering’ Amount of Money On NFL Stadiums

Buffalo Rising: New Stadium Prospectus: Finance-Truth, Misconceptions, and Consequences

The Wire: Voters Don’t Want to Pay for Sports Stadiums Anymore

Curbed: How Atlanta’s Stadium-Building Madness is Nothing New

WBUR: Nearly 20 Years Later, The Legacy Of Atlanta’s Olympic Venues Is Still being Written

The New York Times: In Losing the Rams, St. Louis Wins

St. Louis Business Journal: Kroenke (Stan and Ann) are some of America’s richest

The New York Times: World Cup Stadiums Leave a Troubled Legacy in Brazil

The Wire: Turner Field Is the Latest In a Long Line of Abandoned Olympic Stadiums

Business Insider: The cost of hosting the Olympics is getting out of control

Slate: How to Stop the Stadium Wars

The Atlantic: How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stadium Deals: The High Price of Your Home Team appeared first on Law Street.

I recently went to my cousin’s high school graduation. As I rode with her to the civic center where the grand event would take place, I informed her that I had every intention of embarrassing her by being the person who cheered and whistled (or, since I can’t whistle, making whistle-like sounds) when they called her name despite the fact that they would clearly request at the beginning of the graduation to hold all cheering and applause until the end.

She told me she was fine with me doing this so long as I met one requirement: I could only cheer for her if someone made a lot of noise for any of the graduates before her.

I’d like to take a minute here to thank Emi for being smart. Since she graduated at the top of her class, very few students went before her. Which means that the cheering did not start until later in the program. Which means I kept my big mouth shut when her name was called. And that’s good because apparently you can get in a lot of trouble for screaming like a banshee in the middle of a dignified graduation ceremony.

All Those S’s in Mississippi Must Stand For Sssssshh!

Before Superintendent Jay Foster started reading names at the Senatobia High School graduation, he warned everyone that they better shut up until all the graduates’ names had been read. After all, Mississippi and dignified go hand in hand (is that the first time anybody has ever said that?), and he wanted this dignity reflected in the ceremony.

Now, as a member of a large family, I have been to way too many graduations. I have had to force myself to stay awake through some truly awful speeches and long lists of people of whom I only knew one. I can walk you through the steps of a graduation. And if there is one thing I know, it is that no matter how nicely you ask, there are going to be screamers in the audience.

Courtesy of Giphy.

(Disclaimer: the graduations I attend tend to be at small, Southern, extremely country schools, so if more ritzy schools don’t have this problem, please excuse my ignorance. Also, please excuse my earlier dig at Mississippi, where I am sure people really are generally dignified. But I’m from Alabama, and Mississippi jokes are all we have.)

Anyway, I have yet to hear of a school properly shushing the rowdy crowds that graduations tend to attract. That is, until I learned what Foster did when people disobeyed his direct orders.

You see, Foster was not joking when he told people to hold their applause. A few people must have thought he was, though. Because they cheered. And all sorts of chaos began.

Courtesy of Giphy.

As the ceremony progressed, the people who cheered when told not to cheer were escorted out. Okay. A little tough, but understandable. And it sent others the message. After all, only four people had to be asked to leave. Assuming the graduating class had more than a handful of graduates, that is not all that bad. So mission accomplished, Mr. Foster. Good job!

Wait! You don’t think that was enough punishment? You don’t think it will stop people from cheering at next year’s ceremony? But what else could you possibly do to teach them this valuable lesson on respect?

Hmm. I hadn’t thought about tracking three of them down and going to the police to press charges against them for disturbing the peace. That will teach them!

Foster thought of it, though. And more than just thinking about it, he actually did it.

What Will the Verdict Be?

Can cheering ever lead to an actual charge? (One which, by the way, could be punishable with up to six months in jail and fines of up to $500.)

We may never know. Because on Monday, the school district decided to drop the case–a day before the court appearances were set and more than three weeks after the infamous ceremony. And I don’t know how I feel about this. In order to sort through my feelings, I made a pros and cons list.

Pros of dropping the case:

• The school will not be wasting their own time or that of the defendants and the court with a case they probably do not have much chance of winning. After all, in the words of one of the defendant’s lawyers, “You don’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That said, you are entitled to clap.”
• They will stop getting the bad press associated with their actions, which many for some reason believe to be too harsh.
• They could avoid a lawsuit or two from the harassed cheerers.
• People might think a little bit better about Mississippi in general.
• It is just plain right–and smart–to do.

Cons of dropping the case:  

• People might find out that charges won’t be pressed, and so they might actually risk the wrath of the school district next year and–I don’t even want to think about it–clap in excitement for the accomplishments of somebody they love even if it is rude to the rest of the attendants.

After reviewing my list, I see that there is a clear winner. Should we really be encouraging all those cheerers by not pressing charges against them? I don’t think so. Stop being so soft on these criminals, people. If we let them get away with things like this, we might not ever get a quiet graduation. And that is a thought just not worth contemplating.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mississippi Superintendent Hates Fun, Presses Charges Against Cheerers appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday night the highly anticipated case of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson reached its conclusion. The grand jury found that it did not have sufficient evidence to indict Wilson. In light of this controversial result, there has been speculation as to whether Brown’s family will bring a civil lawsuit against Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department.

The Brown family would have to show that Wilson intentionally or negligently killed Brown. The family could sue Wilson and city officials for economic damages, such as lost future income and funeral expenses, as well as punitive damages.

Although there were no criminal charges brought against Wilson, Brown’s family might have a better chance at succeeding in a civil lawsuit due to the lower burden of proof. In criminal court, a case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to validate a criminal conviction. In other words, there must be no reasonable doubt in the minds of reasonable persons that the defendant is guilty. Contrastingly, in a civil lawsuit the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. In this case, the Brown family would have to show that Wilson was more likely liable than not.

In the past, there have been cases similar to this, where a plaintiff’s family was successful in such suits. Most notably was the wrongful death lawsuit against former athlete O.J. Simpson. Although a jury acquitted Simpson of murder, a civil jury found him liable for wrongful death of his former wife and her friend and ordered Simpson to pay $33.5 million in damages to their families.

Although the aftermath of the criminal case is still being felt all over the country, it will be interesting to see how the civil lawsuit plays out once things settle down.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Will There Be a Wrongful Death Suit? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I hope everyone had an awesome Halloween weekend! I spent the weekend in Chicago where I was surprised to see many homeless people sitting in front of some of the most expensive shops on Michigan Avenue. Houston certainly has homeless people too, but nothing like what I saw in Chicago, where I felt like we were pretty much stepping over people who were at their rock bottom. My boyfriend has a kind heart and on several occasions this weekend gave food to the homeless, and I thought that was really sweet. So I found it really ironic when I read the news that two pastors and a 90-year-old man were charged with feeding the homeless in Ft. Lauderdale.

Arnold Abbott has been feeding homeless people in Ft. Lauderdale for nearly 20 years! He heads a group called Love Thy Neighbor and was only able to get out three or four meals of the 300 that he had prepared for the day before the cops shut him down. Abbott, Rev. Mark Sims of St. Mary Magdalene Episcopal Church in Coral Springs, and Rev. Dwayne Black, pastor of the Sanctuary Church in Ft. Lauderdale, were each cited for willfully violating a city ordinance. Police issued them notices to appear in court where they could be asked to explain their actions. Explain their actions. Why do good people have to all of a sudden explain the actions of giving a helping hand to the less fortunate? Is this the kind of world we want to live in? I know I don’t!

Everyone gets down on their luck at some point and some have it worse than others, but what’s wrong with these people wanting to help the homeless? There is a large number of homeless in the Ft. Lauderdale area, which is why something should be done about that issue. Perhaps the city council should consider creating more shelters instead of taking everything away from them, including the ordinance it passed last Spring banning homeless people from having any possessions in public. They are homeless, where are they suppose to have the few things that they own? I get that the homeless population may be growing in that city, but punishing people who are already hard on their luck is just counterproductive.

Cleaning up your city shouldn’t involve punishing those who are down on their luck and then punishing other people for trying to help.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pastors and Elderly Man Cited for Feeding Homeless in Ft. Lauderdale appeared first on Law Street.

The DOJ has brought new charges against four former Blackwater Security contractors by the names of Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Nick Slatten, and Paul Slough. All four men were previously in various branches of the US military before joining Blackwater, a private military and security company founded in 1997.

These four former Blackwater employees are now being charged with multiple counts of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter because of their involvement in the 2007 Nissor Square Massacre. On September 16, 2007, these four men shot at Iraqi civilians in Nissor square, leading to the 17 deaths and 20 injuries. The Blackwater contractors were in the Square to clear a way for American officials coming in a convoy. Exactly what happened that day is still somewhat unknown: Blackwater argues they were provoked, Iraqi police say they were not. A further FBI investigation determined that at least 14 of the deaths were unprovoked and classified the incident as an “unprovoked illegal attack on civilians.”

A year after the incident, the US charged the contractors who were present with various counts of manslaughter and weapons violations, but the charges were dismissed by a US Judge. The explanation given for the dismissal was that the testimony the case was based on was inadmissible. In 2011, three years later, an appeals court disagreed. Last week, four contractors were re-indicted —of the six involved in the incident, one has already pleaded guilty and another had charges against him dropped.

Last time the charges were brought, Heard, Liberty, Slatten, and Slough all pleaded not guilty and alleged that their actions in Nissor Square in 2007 were exclusively acts of self-defense. As of yet, there is no indication what they plan to plead for these new charges or when the case will actually begin. The indictment says that the four men, “unlawfully and intentionally, upon a sudden quarrel and heat of passion, did commit voluntary manslaughter.” The contractors on trial will need to prove that they did in fact act in self defense.

This opportunity to discuss Blackwater comes at a time when Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with their government, partly because of a lack of transparency. The history of Blackwater, which has now changed its name to Academi, sheds an interesting light on US military policies. Blackwater was originally founded in 1997, and was intended to supplement already existing military force. One of the founders, Erik Prince, stated , “We are trying to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did for the Postal Service.”

Blackwater mainly began by helping with training and providing protection services. It was one of a few different private firms hired in the Afghanistan and Iraq war. It is estimated that in 2006, there were 100,000 private contractors working for the Department of Defense. This is a huge departure from previous wars—estimates only place about 10,000 contractors in the Persian Gulf War. This farming-out of war to private militaries has the potential to grow even further in future conflicts. The DOJ is taking an admirable step in forcing accountability for these groups by the indictment of the four contractors involved in Nissor Square Massacre.

[Washington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [jamesdale10 via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Charges For Former Blackwater Contractors appeared first on Law Street.