ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. (APPLYING THIS TO THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION)

TAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA. ( JUST FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES). I'VE OUTLINED CERTAIN KEY POINTS.- DAVID.

An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. In common law it is classified as an intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.

The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.[1] Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring issuance of the process, or a termination favorable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential to a claim of malicious prosecution.[2] "Process," as used in this context, includes not only the "service of process," i.e. an official summons or other notice issued from a court, but means any method used to acquire jurisdiction over a person or specific property that is issued under the official seal of a court.[3] Typically, the person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

Criminal prosecuting attorneys and judges are protected from tort liability for malicious prosecution by doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity. Moreover, the mere filing of a complaint cannot constitute an abuse of process. The parties who have abused or misused the process have gone beyond merely filing a lawsuit. The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.

Declining to expand the tort of malicious prosecution, a unanimous California Supreme Court in the case of Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863, 873 (1989) observed: "While the filing of frivolous lawsuits is certainly improper and cannot in any way be condoned, in our view the better means of addressing the problem of unjustified litigation is through the adoption of measures facilitating the speedy resolution of the initial lawsuit and authorizing the imposition of sanctions for frivolous or delaying conduct within that first action itself, rather than through an expansion of the opportunities for initiating one or more additional rounds of malicious prosecution litigation after the first action has been concluded."[1]

Delivering Results with The American Rescue Plan. U.S. REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS.

 

Key provisions I have been advocating for have been included in the American Rescue Plan that will become law this week, including direct payments. Individual tax filers making up to $75,000 per year will get $1,400. Couples filing jointly making up to $150,000 will get $2,800. There will also be $1,400 tacked on for each dependent in the household. Included in this package, Massachusetts will be receiving over $8 billion from the Coronavirus State and Local Relief Fund. Other highlights include: 

Shots in Arms

Specifically, the American Rescue Plan provides $10 billion to boost domestic production of critical PPE, secure supply chains and increase capacity for vital vaccine production, and to help onshore production of rapid COVID-19 tests. This law will mount a national vaccination plan that includes setting up community vaccination sites nationwide. It will also implement complementary measures to combat the virus, including scaling up testing and tracing, addressing shortages of personal protective equipment and other critical supplies, investing in high-quality treatments and addressing health inequities.

---

Kids Back to School

The American Rescue Plan makes nearly $130 billion available to states and school districts for immediate and long-term relief so they can work with public health experts to safely re-open schools and make up for lost time in the classroom. This includes; repairing ventilation systems, reducing class sizes and implementing social distancing guidelines, purchasing personal protective equipment, and hiring support staff to care for students’ health and well-being. The bill also ensures 20 percent of the funding that schools receive must be reserved to address and remediate learning loss among students. These funds will facilitate returning our children back to school this April at the K-8 level, and high school students soon after - a plan I strongly support.

---

Americans Back to Work 

The American Rescue Plan provides crucial support for the hardest-hit small businesses, with EIDL grants, expanded PPP eligibility, and more. The plan also provides resources to protect the jobs of first responders, frontline public health workers, teachers, transit workers and other essential workers that all Americans depend on.

.

Sincerely,

Jake Auchincloss
Member of Congress

House passes bill to expand background checks for gun sales.

AOL/ Associated Press 

MARY CLARE JALONICK 

March 11, 2021.

 WASHINGTON (AP) — Emboldened by their majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats are making a new push to enact the first major new gun control laws in more than two decades — starting with stricter background checks.

The House passed two bills Thursday to require background checks on all firearms sales and transfers and to allow an expanded 10-day review for gun purchases. Similar bills were passed by the House in 2019, shortly after Democrats won the majority, but languished in the GOP-controlled Senate for the next two years.

Democrats now hold the Senate, as well, giving the party hope as the legislation will at least be considered. But the bills would need significant bipartisan support to pass.

The renewed push is the latest effort by Democrats – and some Republicans – who have repeatedly tried, and failed, to pass tougher gun control laws since the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that killed 20 children and six educators. While enhanced background checks are generally popular with the American public, even with some conservatives, Congress has so far not been able to find compromise on the issue. It is unclear whether Senate Democrats could find deep enough support among Republicans to pass new gun control legislation in a 50-50 Senate, as they would need 60 votes to do so.

Still, the bills are part of an effort by Democrats to move on several major legislative priorities while they hold both chambers of Congress and the White House. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday that the Republican “legislative graveyard is over” and that the bill to require background checks on all firearms sales will have a vote in the Senate.

“A vote is what we need,” Schumer said, and they will find out where Republicans stand.

“Maybe we’ll get the votes,” he said. “And if we don't, we’ll come together as a caucus and figure it out how we are going to get this done. But we have to get it done.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has been working on gun legislation with Schumer since the 1990s when they were in the House together, said she and her colleagues have promised survivors of shootings and family members of those who have died that “we are not going away” until the background checks legislation passes.

“The gun violence crisis in America is a challenge to the conscience of our country – one that demands that we act,” Pelosi said during floor debate on the bills Wednesday. “These solutions will save lives.”

President Joe Biden has called for Congress to strengthen gun laws, including requiring the background checks on all gun sales and banning assault weapons.

“We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change,” Biden said as he marked the three-year anniversary of the Parkland school shooting massacre in Florida, which killed 17. “The time to act is now.”

The first bill, which passed 227-203, is designed to close loopholes to ensure background checks are extended to private and online sales that often go undetected, including at gun shows. The legislation includes limited exceptions allowing temporary transfers to prevent imminent harm, for use at a target range and for gifts from family, among others.

The second bill, which passed 219-210, would extend the review period for background checks from three to 10 days. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., introduced the legislation after a shooter killed nine people at a Charleston, S.C., church in 2015. The FBI said afterward that a background check examiner never saw the shooter's previous arrest report because the wrong arresting agency was listed in state criminal history records, and the gun dealer was legally permitted to complete the transaction after three days.

While the House bills have Republican cosponsors and won a handful of GOP votes, most Republicans voted against them. During the floor debate, Republicans argued that the background checks would not stop most mass shootings and would mistakenly prevent some lawful gun owners from purchasing firearms.

Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry said the bill would lead to more crime because there would be “less people out there defending themselves.”

At the same time, Democrats are hoping that there's a gradual political shift among voters that could help them win GOP votes. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who has introduced a companion bill expanding background checks in the Senate, said he doesn't think Democrats should just accept that there aren't 60 votes.

“I just think we are living in a different world than 2013,” Murphy said ahead of the House vote, referring to failed congressional efforts after the Newtown school shooting.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who has pushed gun control legislation with Murphy since then, said “what’s changed is we now have a president who can put pressure on our colleagues."

Democrats also point to troubles at The National Rifle Association, the long-powerful advocacy group that poured tens of millions of dollars into electing Donald Trump in 2016. The organization has been weakened by infighting as well as legal tangles over its finances.

But change does not come easy in the Senate as many in the GOP base are still viscerally opposed to any new gun control. Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a moderate, have worked together for years to find compromise on background checks but have yet to propose anything that will pass.

In a statement, a spokesman for Toomey said the senator remains supportive of a previous bipartisan proposal with Manchin but believes "progress is only possible on this issue if the measure in question is narrow and protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

The spokesman, Steve Kelly, did not say whether the House bills meet that standard.

Schumer did not say when the Senate would schedule a vote. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said this week that his committee plans to have hearings on gun policy.

Democrats will “test the waters and see what the sentiment is in the Senate,” Durbin said.

MERRICK GARLAND is confirmed as ATTORNEY GENERAL.

 

Confirmed as attorney general, Merrick Garland will oversee investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol riot

Merrick Garland, a lawyer, federal judge and one-time Supreme Court nominee, was confirmed Wednesday as the nation's attorney general, a position in which one of his duties will be to oversee the...

aol.com https://t.co/mrBBdpEvos?amp=1