Missourinet

Your source for Missouri News and Sports

You are here: Home / Archives for News

Judge hears arguments in case to remove Attorney General Hawley from Greitens investigation

By

Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem heard arguments Thursday in a petition by Governor Eric Greitens defense team seeking a temporary restraining order.

Attorney Jim Bennett asked for an injunction blocking Attorney General Josh Hawley from investigating Greitens over his alleged use of a donor list from his former charity.

The petition also asks Judge Beetem to appoint a special prosecutor to review felony computer tampering charges for acquiring the list without permission.

Hawley’s office launched an investigation into the matter in March.  Bennett objects to Hawley’s April 11th statements on a government website in which he called on Greitens to resign immediately and referred to allegations in a House special committee report as “certainly impeachable”.

He called those comments and a statement during an April 17th press conference describing potential criminal violations by Greitens extrajudicial.

Bennet claimed Hawley is being swayed by politics after first properly declining to comment on the issue.  He said Hawley’s comments would play much differently on the national stage.

“If you had the Attorney General of the United States, for example, Mr. Sessions, announce ‘I believe the President should resign.  I believe that the President should be impeached…and, oh, by the way, I’m going to use my powers as attorney general to investigate matters,’ I think that we would all think that that should be a recusal and an appointment of a special prosecutor,” said Bennett.

First Assistant Attorney General John Sauer said the petition stretches legal authority and called its request to remove Hawley and appoint a special prosecutor an extraordinary and intrusive remedy.

He called Hawley’s statements measured and said the attorney general has an official rather than a personal interest in the investigation.

“If a lawyer conducting an investigation looks at the evidence and concludes that there is probable cause to believe that someone committed some kind of crime, that doesn’t disqualify that lawyer from serving as a prosecutor, it qualifies that lawyer to do that,” said Sauer.

He pointed out that Hawley’s public comments have dealt the first felony charge that he has no involvement with.  Greitens is accused of criminal physical assault and sexual coercion of a woman with whom he was having an affair in 2015.

Both Bennett and Sauer used Missouri legal cases to back up their arguments.

Sauer claimed there’s a lengthy list of cases about the disqualification of prosecutors that recognizes when there’s no relation between the two proceedings, a prosecutor can proceed to investigate one case even if there’s a personal involvement that would disqualify him/her in the other proceeding.

Judge Beetem concluded the hearing after roughly 40 minutes. He’s expected to issue a ruling late Thursday or Friday.

State Supreme Court cases could determine legal protections for gay and transgender individuals in Missouri

By

A couple of test cases in the Missouri Supreme Court could determine whether transgender and gay people will have a path to sue under sex discrimination claims.  Members of both groups made such arguments before the high bench Wednesday.

Attorneys for a transgender boy from Blue Springs made his case for sex discrimination by, a among other things, likening his case to that of a pregnant woman.  They reason that pregnancy discrimination is still sex discrimination because pregnancy is a gender-related trait, and therefore, another category such as gender doesn’t remove what is otherwise sex discrimination.

In the case of the transgender boy, he’s been denied access to boy’s bathrooms and locker rooms at school because of his gender identity.

The state Human Rights Commission issued him a right to sue letter, but lower courts have dismissed his case without specifying a reason.

The other case before the Supreme Court involved a gay man and female coworker who claim discrimination based on sex.

The man contends he was treated poorly at work because he “does not exhibit the stereotypical attributes of how a male should appear and behave.”  The woman claims she was victimized because of her association with the man.

The Human Rights Commission concluded he was claiming sex discrimination based on sexual orientation instead of sex.  It denied both the man and woman a right to sue letter, determining it did not have jurisdiction to do so because the state Human Rights Act provides no protections for sexual orientation.

But an appeals court reversed the decision and ordered a lower court to instruct the commission to issue a letter.  Interestingly, it was the same appeals court, the Western District in Kansas City, that both dismissed the transgender boy’s case and reinstated the right to sue for the gay man.

Before the Supreme Court Wednesday, six Friend Of The Court documents were filed in support of the transgender boy from groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Transgender Law Center, American Medical Association, Lambda Legal, GLAD, Women’s Law Center and the Missouri based organization PROMO.

The ACLU also submitted a document supporting the gay man.

Jeffrey Mitten, ACLU Missouri Executive Director, thinks the Supreme Court should look at both the gay man and transgender boy as victims of sex stereotyping.

“The law argues that discriminating against somebody based on stereotypes, based on presumptions of what they should do, how they should act, what they should say because of their sex is in fact prohibited sex discrimination,” said Mittman.  “And we hope and expect the Missouri Supreme Court will recognize that.”

The state filed a friend of the court brief for the case involving the transgender boy.  It said the school, as a government entity is not required to provide him accommodations.

The state said that prohibitions, “relating to public accommodation applies only to “persons,” and the definition of that term excludes the government.”

Attorneys for both the transgender boy and the gay man included points from the landmark 1989 Supreme Court Price Waterhouse versus Hopkins case in their arguments.

Among other things, the Price Waterhouse case established that “gender stereotyping” can be used to claim sex discrimination.

After hearing arguments Wednesday, there is no set timetable for when the Supreme Court might issue it’s decision in the case.

Missourinet 7 a.m. News 4-26-2018

By

Top Stories:  A man was shot early this morning at a Columbia bar in mid-Missouri.  Police say a fight involving three men shortly after 2 am left one wounded while the other two drove off. No arrests reported yet.  And Police say 34-year-old Florissant man has confessed to vandalizing 120 gravestones at a Jewish cemetery in University City.  Alzado Harris is charged with institutional vandalism after allegedly being drunk and mad at a friend when the incident took place in February 2017.

 

Missouri Senate forges a plan to fund K-12 and higher education

By

The Missouri Senate endorsed a budget for education yesterday that included some cuts to K-12 schools and level funding to colleges and universities.

Missouri Senate Dias

The upper chamber chose to remove $50 million from K-12 that the House had included to fully fund the Education Department’s request.

Republican Appropriations Committee Chairman Dan Brown told his colleagues that the money extracted would go toward education transportation – $25 million – which has been financed at 17% in recent years, as well as other needs such as nursing care and health care for state employees.  Brown said the arrangement is needed to avoid a steep rise in healthcare premiums for state workers.

The Senate blueprint still increases K-12 funding by $48 million over what’s currently being spent and Brown said further negotiations with the House could secure more money.  The Senate passed the K-12 spending plan by a 25-8 margin with all but one of the nine Democrats voting no.

The chamber voted 31-1 to adopt the higher education blueprint which maintains current spending in the upcoming fiscal year that starts July 1st.

The plan includes emergency funding for two financially troubled institutions – Harris-Stowe University in St. Louis and Missouri Southern State University in Joplin.

The Senate and House will next go to conference to cobble together a final package for K-12 and higher education spending that’ll then go to both full chambers for a vote.

Haahr tax bill assigned to Missouri Senate Ways and Means Committee

By

Legislation that would reduce Missouri’s personal and corporate income taxes has been referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee in Jefferson City.

Missouri House Speaker Pro Tem Elijah Haahr testifies before the House Ways and Means Committee on March 5, 2018 (file photo courtesy of Tim Bommel at House Communications)

The 442-page tax reform bill is sponsored by House Speaker Pro Tem Elijah Haahr, R-Springfield, who says his bill would transform Missouri’s tax system to the most competitive in the nation.

“We’re very hopeful and optimistic, we’ve got a month left of session, we’re going to send it over to the Senate and see what kind of discussions we can have with them,” Haahr told the Capitol Press Corps last Thursday.

The bill was referred this week to the Ways and Means Committee, which is chaired by State Sen. Wayne Wallingford, R-Cape Girardeau.

Haahr’s bill would reduce Missouri’s highest personal income tax rate from 5.9 to five percent, and also includes funding for the state’s deteriorating roads and bridges.

Haahr testified in March that his plan to index vehicle user fees to the cost of inflation would generate about $174 million annually for the state’s road fund.

A reporter asked Haahr last Thursday about State Sen. Bill Eigel’s, R-Weldon Spring, tax bill, which is now in the Senate Fiscal Oversight Committee.

“That (Eigel) bill is different from ours in a variety of different respects. The way they fund roads, the size and scope of the reductions in income and business tax and the way they pay for it,” Haahr says.

Senator Eigel’s bill needs one more Senate vote, before it would head to the Missouri House.

As for Haahr, he says Missouri’s current vehicle license and registration fees haven’t changed in more than 30 years.

Haahr’s bill also creates an “emergency bridge repair and replacement fund”, which would include money appropriated from general revenue for accelerated bridge replacements or immediate repairs to bridges that need it.

The House approved an amendment from State Rep. Bart Korman, R-High Hill, creating that emergency fund.

The Haahr bill was approved by the Missouri House on a 91-61 vote.

Missouri Supreme Court hears case on transgender accommodations in schools

By

The Missouri Supreme Court in Jefferson City heard a case Wednesday which could have far-reaching implications for the future of public accommodations for transgender people.

Missouri Supreme Court – Image courtesy of Missouri Courts

The term “first impression”, which refers to the first time a specific question has come before a specific court, was used in oral arguments.

The proceedings involve the use of bathrooms and locker rooms at a Kansas City area school district.  A student referred to as RMA in court documents and before the bench was born in 2000 and began transitioning to become a male in 2009 with a legal name change to a male sounding name the following year.

The state issued him a new birth certificate in accordance with a court order in 2014, recognizing his change of name and gender.

The Blue Springs School District near Kansas City subsequently allowed RMA to participate as a boy in segregated physical education and permitted him to join the football and track teams.

But the district declined to allow him to use the boys’ bathrooms and locker rooms, in middle or high school, because he has female genitalia.

Appellant attorneys for RMA point out this denial caused him emotional distress from being singled out for different and inferior access to the public accommodations provided by the school district to all other boys.

RMA filed a suit in Judicial Court in Independence in 2014, but the case was dismissed in favor of the school district.  RMA then filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights alleging sex discrimination by the district in October 2014 and was issued a right to sue letter by the Commission the next year.

He took his case to court again, stating that as a transgender male, he “was discriminated against in his use of a public accommodation on the grounds of his sex.”

This time, the Jackson County Circuit Court in Kansas City dismissed RMA’s claim as did the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District in Kansas City.

The court renderings actually didn’t specify a  reason for dismissal.

The Supreme Court in Jefferson City accepted RMA’s request to transfer the case and heard arguments Wednesday.  Before the high bench, the school district relied heavily on positions it took in its original motion to dismiss, stating that RMA failed to state a claim for two reasons.

First, the district argues the public accommodations section of the Missouri Human Rights Act doesn’t apply to entities such as the Blue Springs School District.  Second, it claims the act’s prohibition against sex discrimination doesn’t extend to sexual identity or transgender status.

In documents filed for the Supreme Court, the school district says the bench will be called on to determine the meaning of the Missouri Human Rights Act but cautions that judges should reflect legislative intent rather than any preferred policy they might have.

It says the case demands the Court determine what the Missouri legislature meant when it defined the word “person” in the Human Rights Act and what it meant when it included the term “sex” as a characteristic protected from discrimination.

The school district argues that since 1986 when the Human Rights Act was enacted, “sex” was not thought to include gender identity or transgender status, but simply the two divisions of “male or female.”

It notes that the legislature last year rejected Democratic attempts to amend a discrimination bill to include gender identity protections.  (That bill which became law actually heightened requirements to sue for discrimination.)

The school district also disputes a claim by RMA that the term “person” within the public accommodations section of the Human Rights Act includes public entities such as it.

Although the definition of “person” includes “corporations”, the district contends the language refers to private businesses, not public corporations as RMA claims.  Under RMA’s interpretation, the district would qualify as a person.

Attorney Mark Katz, who argued on behalf of the school district before the Missouri Supreme Court, stated its case in more plain terms.  He said the district is doing the appropriate thing because the boy still has female anatomy.

“This is not a sex discrimination case,” said Katz.  “This is someone who is being treated the way he’s being treated because of his gender identity and because his genitals are not going to work out in the bathroom.  And that’s what it is.”

The appellant attorneys representing RMA rely on the argument that sex discrimination in public accommodation under the Human Rights Act includes discrimination based on gender-related traits.

RMA contends it’s well-established that discrimination because of “sex” includes discrimination because of “gender,” as courts use the two terms interchangeably.

Attorney Alexander Edelman, who represented RMA before the Supreme Court, says RMA is a victim of sex discrimination, even if he’s also the victim of gender identity discrimination.  Edelman uses pregnancy as an analogy.

“Missouri courts have recognized, over and over again, that you can use this term pregnancy discrimination, but it’s still sex discrimination because pregnancy is a gender-related trait,” said Edelson.  “Therefore, the imposition of another category doesn’t take out what is otherwise sex discrimination from being sex discrimination.”

RMA’s attorneys further claim it’s well-settled law that a plaintiff may state an actionable claim under the Human Rights Act by alleging that a “gender-related trait was a factor” in the discriminatory act against the plaintiff. They say because RMA alleges discrimination based on sex, the trial court should not have dismissed the case.

Attorneys for RMA also note that federal courts have begun to recognize that discrimination, like he’s faced, is “discrimination because of sex.”

In court documents, they bring up a case where a court made an analogy in the context of religious discrimination.  “Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism…Discrimination because of religion easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion.”

Edelman told the judges Wednesday that there are six U.S. courts that have now rendered favorable decisions to transgender people and noted the state high bench has typically followed federal example.

“In interpreting the Missouri Human Rights Act this court has consistently said that it will follow federal precedent unless it’s inconsistent with the Missouri Human Rights Act”, Edelman said.  “Nothing in the Missouri Human Rights Act is inconsistent with these rulings.”

Attorneys for the school district counter this argument by stating that “the evolution of cases in other jurisdictions should not overrule the intent of the legislature”.

The school district claims several groups that have filed briefs in the case would improperly prefer the court see the case in the broad sense of societal change.

In a show of how widespread interest is in the case, six legal documents have been filed by groups in favor of granting RMA’s request to use boy’s bathrooms and locker rooms.  They include submissions from the ACLU, Transgender Law Center, American Medical Association Lambda Legal, GLAD, Women’s Law Center and the Missouri based organization PROMO.  In two cases, groups joined together to file documents.

The American Civil Liberty Union and the Transgender Law Center submitted a friend of the court document together.

They argue that federal courts recognize that discrimination because a person is transgender constitutes sex discrimination.  The groups contend RMA has stated a claim for sex discrimination even under a narrow interpretation of the term and assert that transgender discrimination causes the type of harm the state Human Rights Act is meant to prevent.

Medical organizations including the American Medical Association also submitted a document in support of RMA, claiming that excluding transgender individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity endangers their health, wellbeing, and safety.

The state and the Alliance Defending Freedom filed documents supporting the school district.  The state argues the Missouri Human Rights Act’s ban on restrictions to public accommodation applies only to “persons,” which it contends is defined to exclude the government.  According to the state’s argument, the government is only prohibited from sex discrimination in its role as an employer, not in other capacities.

The Alliance Defending Freedom argues “sex” should be defined by human reproductive capabilities. It contends the differences between male and female calls for privacy protections in restrooms and locker rooms.

After hearing arguments Wednesday, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in the case in the next six to eight weeks.

Charges filed in 2017 vandalism incident at Jewish cemetery in eastern Missouri

By

St. Louis County Prosecutors have charged a parolee for a 2017 vandalism incident at a Jewish cemetery in University City.

Alzado Harris of Florissant (photo by University City Police Department/UPI)

St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch has charged 34-year-old Alzado Harris of Florissant with institutional vandalism, which is a class D felony.

Court documents say Harris toppled more than 120 gravestones at the Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery, which is located in the 7500 block of Olive Boulevard.

The University City Police Department’s probable cause statement says damage is estimated at more than $30,000.

The February 2017 vandalism attracted national media attention, and Vice President Mike Pence and Missouri Governor Eric Greitens visited the cemetery.

Harris’ bond is set at $20,000.

He’s currently on parole for burglary, and is being supervised by Missouri’s Probation and Parole Board in St. Louis.

Prosecutor McCulloch is scheduled to brief reporters late Wednesday afternoon in Clayton.

Copyright © 2018 · Missourinet

 

McCaskill: Russia likely affected all 50 U.S. states in 2016 elections

By

U.S. Department of Homeland Security official Jeanette Manfra says sensors at the state level and other intelligence have verified that Russia targeted 21 states in the 2016 elections. During a U.S. Senate Homeland Security committee hearing on Tuesday, Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill said the American people have been misled about Russia’s election interference.

U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri

“It’s my understanding that a number of the states don’t have the tools to capture that activity,” said McCaskill. “So, we really have no idea how many states that Russia tried to hack. It’s likely that all 50 states were likely affected and that states that were not on that list were less vulnerable, but that’s simply not true. States not on that list in fact might be more vulnerable.”

Manfra went on to say the majority of states were probably a target but the agency’s work shows hackers scanning for vulnerabilities, not breaking into election systems. Manfra said only a small number of state systems were actually hacked. Federal officials insist there is no evidence of vote tallies being altered.

Missouri Secretary of State spokesperson Maura Browning says the Show-Me State has sensors to indicate possible interference and Missouri is not one of the states showing Russia targeted its elections in 2016.

Seventeen states have requested on-site vulnerability assessments of their election systems. Browning does not disclose whether such testing has been done here but says the state works with the Department of Homeland Security on an ongoing basis.

Branson Aldermen reject nearly $500 million water park that would use tax money

By

BRANSON, Mo. — Last night city leaders in Branson rejected a nearly half-billion-dollar proposed water park resort, that taxpayers were asked to help finance.

Branson City Hall – Image courtesy of Missourinet affiliate KRZK

In a vote of five no’s and one yes, the Board of Alderman in Branson voted against the proposed “Branson Adventures” Tax Increment Funding plan. Emotions ran high on both sides. It started with the board wanting to move forward with the vote in spite of the fact that developer David Cushman was not there Tuesday night, because of an illness. Through an email and his son, who was present, Cushman requested that the vote would be postponed until May 22nd.

“Yesterday we asked for a postponement of the Branson Adventures TIF vote due to illness and respectfully request that this board grant that request and move this discussion and vote to the May 22nd meeting,” Cushman said before the board.

However, the majority of the board voted to move forward without Cushman.

“I mean, this was a posted agenda item, said Alderman Chris Bohinc, “And the house is full with the public and I want them to be able to speak on this agenda item. That’s what this was for tonight.”

Alderman Bill Skains was the only yes vote. He also voted against moving forward with the vote in Cushman’s absence.

“I think this meeting is unfair, Skains said, “I think that Dave should have been sitting on that front row. I thought his people should have been there. And as he got inviscerated by members of this group out here he should have had a chance to respond to it.”

Branson businessman, Bob Nichols agreed with Skains.

This project creates nine hundred jobs. And many of them are high-paying supervisory and managerial positions. Please vote yes.”

Chris Myers of Myer Hotels joined the majority who were against the plan.

“This project is not fair to the hundreds of businesses in this community that have taken the financial risk. It creates an unfair competitive landscape”

For now, the $446 million Branson Adventure project is off the table. However, developer David Cushman can come back at a later date, with a revised plan, if he chooses to do so.

Story provided by Missourinet media partner KOLR-TV

Missouri 7 a.m. News 4-25-2018

By

Top Stories:  St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison is considering a request to disqualify St. Louis Prosecutors in the computer data tampering case against Governor Greitens.  The judge heard arguments for and against yesterday.  And a Springfield businessman has passed away at 91-years-old.  Harry Cooper, who died in his sleep Sunday, was a third-generation owner of a plumbing, heating and electrical supplies company.