National Legal and Policy Center has submitted a shareholder proposal asking Apple Inc. to made a report on human rights, and specifically, free speech. The 2019 Apple annual meeting will take place in Cupertino, California in early 2019. Here is the text of the proposal and supporting statement:
Whereas, the Securities and Exchange Commission has consistently recognized that human rights constitute a significant policy issue.
Freedom of speech and association are fundamental human rights.
The Company operates in nations with systematic human rights abuses. The Company has abetted certain governments and non-governmental organizations in suppressing freedom of speech and association.
For example, our CEO in March 2018 co-chaired the so-called China Development Forum, sponsored by the Communist Chinese government. In December 2017, our CEO keynoted the World Internet Conference, another Chinese government event.
This article by ABC News digital reporter Ali Dukakis appears on the ABC website under the title, “The Conservative DC Legal Group Behind a Challenge to the Mueller Probe:”
The latest legal challenge to special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, now heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals, is being steered by a veteran Washington legal group that has a history of taking on Democrats and is bankrolled, in part, by longstanding Republican donors.
The National Legal and Policy Center is backing a subpoena fight launched by Andrew Miller, a former associate of Trump confidant and political provocateur Roger Stone, who has refused a demand from prosecutors to appear before a grand jury. He is objecting, the lawyers said, in order to mount a broad legal challenge to the legitimacy of the special counsel probe.
Late this afternoon, a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was filed seeking review of the contempt order issued against Andrew Miller for not appearing before Special Counsel Mueller’s grand jury on Friday, August 10, 2018. The appeal will seek review of the court’s decision and opinion of July 31, 2018, upholding the constitutionality of Special Counsel’s appointment.
“This case is likely to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Paul Kamenar, Mr. Miller’s attorney, shortly after filing the appeal. To those, like Chris Cuomo of CNN who interviewed Mr. Kamenar on the case on Friday, August 10, who say this case is a distraction from Mueller’s investigation, Kamenar’s response is, “the constitution is not a distraction.” The Mueller challenge is being supported by NLPC.
Andrew Miller, a witness in the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was held in Contempt by Judge Beryl Howell this morning, a result necessary to appeal the action to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Judge Howell stayed the Contempt pending the resolution of our appeal.
Miller is represented by constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar, representation made possible by NLPC.
Kamenar will file the appeal Monday morning based on our assertion that Mueller was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, and that his appointment is invalid because he was not appointed by the Attorney General but by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Today we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents pertaining to the prosecution of Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) on bribery and related charges, and the Justice Department decision not to retry him. Menendez was tried once but that trial ended in a mistrial on November 16, 2017.
Why did the Justice Department let Menendez escape after pouring so many resources into the investigation, prosecution, and trial? One possible explanation is that political influence was exercised on Menendez’ behalf. Menendez’ lawyer is Abbe Lowell, who also represents Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law. Kushner and his family are longtime donors to Democratic politicians in New Jersey, including Menendez. Someone made the decision to save Menendez’ career and possibly keep him out of prison. We want to know who made the decision and on what basis.
Hon. Beryl Howell, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has denied a Motion to Quash a subpoena to a Grand Jury witness in the Russia collusion probe headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Motion was made by attorneys for a witness on the basis that Mueller’s appointment was not constitutional under the Appointments Clause. The Motion was argued during a 90-minute hearing on July 18. The names of the witness and the attorneys were redacted in the decision, which was made public today.
Howell’s denial was expected. Attorneys for the witness will appeal the ruling to a higher court.
Legal scholars Seth Barrett Tillman and Josh Blackman have weighed in on the increasingly relevant question of whether Robert Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel is constitutional. I made my views known when I told the New York Times, “The founders feared exactly what we see in Mueller: a runaway federal official. We hope to see Mueller’s operation disbanded, once and for all.”
In an article titled “Is Robert Mueller an ‘Officer of the United States’ or an ‘Employee of the United States'”? appearing on the Lawfare website, Tillman and Blackman examine a number of arguments and offer some of their own:
The question of whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is constitutional is examined by George Will in his latest column:
The president, who might not be fully acquainted with the pertinent Supreme Court case law, says the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel was unconstitutional. The president’s opinion, because it is his, is prima facie evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is, however, not sufficient evidence. Consider the debate between two serious people who have immersed themselves in the history of the appointments clause, which says:
“[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the … Read More ➡ “Is Robert Mueller’s Probe Unconstitutional?”