National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) has submitted a shareholder proposal to Alphabet, the parent company of Google, addressing the issue of sexual harassment. Last week, Google announced that it would end its policy of requiring mandatory arbitration for sexual harassment claims. The move apparently prompted similar actions by Facebook, eBay and Airbnb.
The Alphabet annual meeting is expected to take place in June. We hope that the company will embrace our resolution to demonstrate its commitment to dealing with this problem. If the company does not support it, we call upon fellow shareholders to act.
NLPC sponsors the Corporate Integrity Project. Here is the text of the resolution and supporting statement:
WHEREAS, Company executives have aggressively allied themselves with a variety of progressive social and political causes at the same time sexual harassment is alleged to be a serious problem within the Company by many of the Company’s own … Read More ➡
This article by Joe Schoffstall appears on the The Free Beacon website:
The daughter of Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) will collect more than $200,000 from her mother’s campaign after its debts are paid off for leading a lucrative slate mailer operation, Federal Election Commission filings show.
Karen Waters has pulled in hefty payments from the campaign to run a slate mailer operation after the FEC issued an advisory opinion in October 2004 allowing Waters to run the operation from the Citizens for Waters, her mother’s campaign committee. Prior to 2006, Karen ran the arrangement through LA Vote, a state committee in California.
Karen is in charge of slate mailers, or endorsement mailers, in which candidates pay Rep. Waters’s campaign to appear on mailers that are sent to more than 200,000 residents in the South Central Los Angeles area, where Waters holds a good amount of clout. The mailers contain … Read More ➡
On Thursday, November 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals will hear In Re: Grand Jury Investigation, No. 18-3052, Andrew Miller v. Robert Mueller. The 1pm hearing will take place at the United States Courthouse in the fifth floor courtroom at 333 Constitution Avenue, NW in Washington, DC.
Miller is represented by constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar, who will advance three principal arguments:
1) Congress did not authorize the appointment of a Special Counsel as an officer of the United States.
2) Mueller is a principal officer and should have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate like all U.S. Attorneys.
3) If Mueller is an inferior officer as he claims, the Appointments Clause requires that he be appointed by the “head of the department,” which is Attorney General Jeff Sessions, not Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Kamenar’s representation of Miller, which is on … Read More ➡
Darren Samuelsohn of Politico today reports, according to a source, that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has delivered to President Trump written questions related to his Russia collusion probe. From the article:
Peter Flaherty, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, warned on Thursday against Trump’s submitting written responses “in any way” given the legal consequences.
“Mueller has come up so empty on collusion that this may be a final stab at a perjury trap,” said Flaherty, who runs a conservative nonprofit that is funding a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the special counsel’s appointment.
On October 9, 2018, constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar filed his reply to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s brief in the case of Andrew Miller v. United States of America before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Kamenar represents Andrew Miller, a witness in Mueller’s investigation, who has declined to appear before the Grand Jury convened by Mueller on the basis that Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional. Miller lost at the District Court level, a decision he is appealing. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 8, two days after the midterm elections. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center and its supporters around the country.
The brief argues, among other things, that Mueller is a “principal officer” under the Constitution and has been granted “wide discretion” by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Mueller claims in his brief that … Read More ➡
National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) has filed a Complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) violated federal election law in a transaction related to her so-called slate mailer earlier this year.
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was running for Governor in the Democratic primary, was included on the mailer for a fee of $25,000. His campaign did not pay. Instead, a group called “Families and Teachers for Antonio” did. (Villaraigosa lost the primary to California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom.)
Whereas candidates like Villaraigosa may legally pay Waters’ campaign for the proportional costs of their inclusion on her slate mailer, it is not legal for such payment to be made by a third party like “Families and Teachers for Antonio.”
“Families and Teachers for Antonio” is funded by wealthy individuals like Michael Bloomberg, who kicked in a total of $3.5 … Read More ➡
Constitutional law attorney Paul Kamenar has taken Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller to a federal court of appeals, challenging Mueller’s legitimacy and powers as unconstitutional and arguing that Mueller acts like a “U.S. Attorney-at-large or a super U.S. Attorney with almost unlimited resources.” This is the only case to challenge the legitimacy of Mueller’s appointment in a court of appeals.
Kamenar represents Andrew Miller, a former part-time aide to Roger Stone, who was subpoenaed this summer by Mueller to testify against Stone in front of a grand jury. Mueller’s team has spent the past year and a half investigating the “Russian collusion” of Trump’s campaign and has brought criminal charges against numerous individuals, albeit none for “Russian collusion.” Mueller’s reliance on Special Counsel powers to make legal demands of the aide have presented a unique legal opportunity for Kamenar to challenge the arguably illegal powers … Read More ➡
The U.S. Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for November 8, two days after the midterm elections, on the challenge by Andrew Miller to the constitutionality of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
On Friday, September 28, Mueller filed a 71-page brief making many of the same flawed arguments he made at the District Court level. A reply brief by Paul Kamenar, Miller’s attorney, is due on October 9. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center and its supporters around the country.
On September 11, 2018, constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar filed his brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals on behalf of his client Andrew Miller, a witness in the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Miller is declining to honor a subpoena to appear before a Grand Jury and is challenging the constitutionality of Mueller’s appointment.
Miller lost at the District Court level, allowing his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Oral arguments in the case are expected to take place in October. In his brief, Kamenar makes a compelling case that Mueller’s appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be ruled invalid. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center, and its supporters around the country.
In an op-ed in The Hill, Law Professor Steven Calabresi says that U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell erred in upholding the constitutionality of the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Her decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Briefs were due yesterday and oral arguments will take place in October.
Andrew Miller, a witness in the case, is challenging Mueller’s constitutionality. Constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar, who is supported by the National Legal and Policy Center, represents him. Here’s the op-ed:
In its decision in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, egged on by a power-crazy acting attorney general, reached two startling and alarming conclusions in order to uphold the legality of Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel.
The matter involved concerns the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution, which provides: