Judge Denies Bail for Accused National Guard
Shooter as Immigration Backlash Grows
The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is pledging a widening investigation into the Afghan man accused of shooting two National Guardsmen last month a short walk from the White House.
Rahmanmulla Lakanwal pleaded not guilty last week to first degree murder and other charges from his hospital bed, where he is recovering after being shot by a third National Guardsman.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said additional charges are likely as the investigation continues. Lakanwal's possible links to terrorist organizations are part of the investigation, Pirro said.
“This is an individual about whom we don’t know a lot,” Pirro said outside of D.C. Superior Court. “But we will. Trust me.”
President Donald Trump is using the shooting to justify excluding immigration and travel from 19 Third World countries.
The travel ban was explained in a policy memo posted last week on the website of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that reviews immigration applications.
The policy shift imposes an immediate halt to asylum decisions. The banned countries are located in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia.
“In light of identified concerns and the threat to the American people, USCIS has determined that a comprehensive re-review, potential interview, and re-interview of all aliens from high-risk countries of concern who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021 is necessary,” the agency said in a statement.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is recommending expanding the immigration ban from 19 countries to at least 30.
Noem said on X that she suggested to the president that he impose "a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies."
She added, "Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign invaders to slaughter our heroes, suck dry our hard-earned tax dollars, or snatch the benefits owed to AMERICANS."
Lakanwal, a resident of Washington state, is charged in the attack that killed Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and seriously wounded Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe, 24. Both are members of the West Virginia National Guard who were deployed to Washington as part of a presidential anti-crime effort.
Court documents say an eyewitness heard Lakanwal shout "Allahu Akbar!" as he opened fire on the Guardsmen. The expression, which means “God is greatest,” is sometimes used by Musllim terrorists during attacks.
His defense tried unsuccessfully to argue against detention by noting Lakanwal's lack of a prior criminal record.
D.C. Superior Court Magistrate Judge Renee Raymond ordered him held without bond, citing the "sheer terror that resulted" from the attack and the government's "exceedingly strong" case. The U.S. Attorney General has said she will pursue the death penalty.
Lakanwal’s next court hearing is scheduled for Jan. 14.
Lakanwal entered the U.S. in 2021 through Operation Allies Welcome, a program that resettled Afghans who worked with the U.S. government. He was granted asylum earlier this year.
The Defense Department confirmed he served with a CIA-trained unit in Afghanistan prior to the 2021 withdrawal.
Trump blamed the Biden administration for failing to properly vet Lakanwal and thousands of other Afghans. His criticism was part of a larger attack on previous administrations’ immigration policies.
As a Cabinet meeting ended last week, he directed harsh comments at Somali immigrants. He described Somalis who settled in Minnesota as “garbage.”
"You know, our country's at a tipping point,” Trump said. “We could go bad.”
He added, "We could go one way or the other, and we're going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country."
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
New York Times Sues Defense Dept.
Over Press Credentialing Policy
The New York Times is suing the Defense Department over a new set of rules for journalists that the lawsuit claims violate First Amendment rights.
The rules, which took effect in October, require journalists to sign a 21-page agreement limiting who they can interview and how they request story tips. Reporters who fail to comply could lose their press passes.
The agreement gives the Pentagon “unbridled discretion” on enforcing the policy, according to the lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
It says the rules violate "the Constitution’s guarantees of due process, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.”
The new rules also require that journalists agree not to solicit or disclose any “unauthorized information,” even if that information is unclassified.
“The policy, in violation of the First Amendment, seeks to restrict journalists ' ability to do what journalists have always done – ask questions of government employees and gather information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements,” the lawsuit says.
When the rules were announced, major media organizations like CNN, The Washington Post and the Associated Press refused to sign the pledge. As a result, veteran Pentagon correspondents were forced to relinquish their press credentials.
A Defense Department spokesman said they would be replaced by “a broad spectrum of new media outlets and independent journalists.”
The Pentagon denied favoritism in its selection of a new press corps, saying it sought to prevent “leaks that damage operational security and national security. It's common sense."
The Pentagon then granted press credentials to more conservative media organizations that traditionally were friendlier to the Trump administration.
They included Breitbart News, One America News Network and MyPillow founder Mike Lindell, who operates a conservative propaganda online streaming service.
The New York Times is asking the U.S. District Court to declare the new press policy unconstitutional and to issue an injunction barring the Pentagon from enforcing it.
Free press advocates describe the newspaper’s lawsuit as a pivotal battle over how the media covers the military. A court victory for the Defense Department could reinforce tighter control over information journalists obtain and publish, according to The New York Times and its supporters.
“The Pentagon’s press access policy is unlawful because it gives government officials unchecked power over who gets a credential and who doesn’t, something the First Amendment prohibits,” the advocacy group Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said in a statement. “The public needs independent journalism and the reporters who deliver it back in the Pentagon at a time of heightened scrutiny of the Department’s actions.”
The lawsuit names as defendants the Defense Department, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell.
The Defense Department, also known as the Department of War, said in a statement that it is "aware of the New York Times lawsuit and look(s) forward to addressing these arguments in court."
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Supreme Court to Decide Copyright Case
With Wide Implications for Internet Access
The Supreme Court is set to determine when internet service providers can be liable for their users' copyright violations after hearing arguments last week in a high-stakes case that the music industry says creates a potential “disaster” scenario.
The music entertainment industry blames Cox Communications for failing to intervene in its users' music downloads, posts and illegal reuse of their copyrighted work.
They say the company is trying to put profits over any regulatory compliance that requires them to prevent illegal online enterprises.
Cox says in a court filing that they lack enough control over their users to stop all the copyright infringement.
If the music industry wins, Cox could be hit with a $1 billion damages judgment.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked a Cox attorney Monday whether he thought "selling internet services can ever be culpable conduct."
Attorney Joshua Rosenkranz replied that an internet service provider “can be culpable only if it engages either in clear expression such as inducement or in affirmative acts."
He said Cox never had an intent to infringe on anyone’s copyright, only to provide internet access to its customers. He also said Cox tries to block copyright infringement but tracking it can be difficult.
The federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects internet service providers from liability if they follow regulations that include removing infringing content.
Paul Clement, an attorney for the music companies, said Cox was “openly contemptuous” of its legal obligations.
"If Cox is right on the law, then Cox could take tens of thousands of copyright notices and throw them in the trash,” he said.
So far, the music industry has largely failed to halt the copyright infringement. Music companies led by Sony Music estimate that 60,000 Cox customers downloaded and distributed more than 10,000 copyrighted works for free.
They estimate their losses at billions of dollars per year.
They argue in their brief to the Supreme court that if internet service providers avoid the need to stop the piracy, it would “spell disaster for the music community.”
Cox is the nation’s largest broadband company. Its attorneys argue that if Cox is required to enforce strict regulations on what its users can do on the internet, it would “jeopardize internet access for all Americans.”
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a $1 billion jury’s judgement against Cox in 2019. The Richmond, Va-based federal court said the award was excessive. It ordered a new trial.
Cox appealed to the Supreme Court. The key issue is whether Cox is “materially contributing” to the copyright infringement.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Amazon Employees Warn Management
Of “Staggering Damage” from AI
Amazon employees warned their corporate leadership in a recent open letter that the company's aggressive move into artificial intelligence is likely to have frightening social consequences that could trample the privacy of millions of people.
The company might save itself and customers money through AI development, but it also could help empower authoritarian governments, according to the employees.
The most alarming prediction said Amazon’s AI is helping governments in the United States and worldwide engage in "militarized surveillance."
Amazon has a major office in Arlington, Va., which is sometimes known as its second headquarters, or HQ2. The company plans to eventually employ as many as 25,000 workers in Arlington.
The letter signed by more than 1,000 Amazon employees said the company was “re-introducing a tool for police to request footage; it’s using AI to surveil warehouse workers, and, of course, its own customers.”
Part of the warning in the open letter is similar to allegations in a class action lawsuit pending against Amazon. The plaintiffs in Garner v. Amazon.com Inc. say the company’s Alexa voice activation service secretly records voice data even when users do not issue a “wake word.”
They accuse Amazon of permanently storing the recordings and using them for their own purposes, such as improving voice-recognition and AI capabilities. In some cases, the plaintiffs say Amazon disclosed or permitted third-party access to the recordings or transcripts of them.
The plaintiffs argue Alexa and its recordings violate multiple state privacy laws.
The Amazon employees were largely concerned about environmental hazards and layoffs their company’s AI development creates. However, they also warned about potentially dangerous business collaborations.
“The military wants AI technologies at top speed,” the letter said. “Amazon has announced a collaboration with an autonomous weapons software company.”
The employees urged chief executive Andy Jassy to consider other options.
“All of this is daunting, but none of it is inevitable,” the Amazon letter’s authors wrote. “A better future is still very much within reach, but it requires us to get real about the costs of AI and the guardrails we need.”
The class action lawsuit is Garner v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00750 (W.D. Wash. filed June 7, 2021).
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Accused D.C. Bomber Reportedly Confesses
To Pipe Bombs Outside Parties’ Headquarters
Brian J. Cole Jr. has a detention hearing set for Monday as he faces charges related to pipe bombs set Jan. 5, 2020 outside the Democratic and Republican national committee headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The criminal case is expected to end faster than normal after Cole reportedly admitted setting the bombs, which failed to detonate.
Prosecutors say he told them he was angry and incited to revenge by President Donald Trump’s accusations the 2020 election was stolen from him by voter fraud. He reportedly told FBI agents he supported Trump and held anarchist views.
Cole, 30, was living in Woodbridge, Va., with his mother when he was arrested. He worked as a bail bondsman. Neighbors described him as quiet and someone who stayed mostly to himself.
The FBI tracked him down through a combination of cellphone records, surveillance video and receipts for his purchases of bombmaking material.
Cole is charged with transporting an explosive device in interstate commerce and attempted malicious destruction by means of fire and explosive materials. Both charges are felonies.
Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for Washington, said the evidence is strong enough that “it makes it very clear that we can prove this case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."
The fact the bombs were placed outside both the Democratic and Republic national committee headquarters led her to say, "This guy was an equal opportunity bomber."
Prosecutors said additional charges against Cole are likely.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.