The future of our democracy - Register today. UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS.

 

As the cornerstone of our democracy, the ability for every eligible voter to participate in elections freely should be uncontroversial. But our country's history of voter suppression and legislative initiatives to restrict voting currently underway in states all around the country—particularly in Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities—demonstrates the fragility of our system. The Union of Concerned Scientists invites you to a conversation with experts in democracy reform and community organizing as they discuss the critical steps needed to ensure a thriving democracy accessible to all. UCS Conversation: The Future of Our Democracy Date: Tuesday, May 18 Time: 7:00 p.m ET / 4:00 p.m. PT Register for the virtual discussion today. Speakers: Andrew Rosenberg, PhD, Director, Center for Science and Democracy at UCS (Introduction) Derrick Z. Jackson, UCS Fellow (Moderator) Keisha Krumm, Co-Founder, Battle for Democracy Fund Michael Latner, PhD, Kendall Voting Rights Fellow, Center for Science and Democracy at UCS Alex Peay, Founder and Executive Director, Ones Up Alejandra Tres, Co-Founder, Battle for Democracy Fund   REGISTER

Science for a healthy planet and safer world Get updates and alerts from UCS: Text SCIENCE to 662266 About UCS | Contact UCS | Privacy Policy | unsubscribe © Union of Concerned Scientists is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 547-5552

THE NEXT GENERATION. MASS. GUBERNATORIAL CAND. BEN DOWNING.

 Hi DAVID,

Young people are at the center of this campaign. A critical part of our work to build a fairer, stronger Massachusetts is bringing urgency to the big challenges in front of us right now, so the next generation is set up for success.

That’s why we have created a dedicated Youth Feedback Hub. We are holding our first event tomorrow, April 28 at 7:30pm, for a candid discussion on how our campaign can engage young people throughout the race. 

We are looking forward to a discussion where young folks across the state can share their thoughts, feelings, and the roadblocks they’re facing as they look to the future.Young people will be at the center of this campaign. We’re depending on their input on everything from policy to field to digital strategy. This is just the first opportunity for them to have their voices heard. 

Ben

PAID FOR BY THE DOWNING COMMITTEE

ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

 

ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

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]

Posted by David McDonald at 9:21 PM No comments:  

Indianapolis mass shooting. SANDY HOOK PROMISE.

 

David

Last Friday, I woke up to the news of yet another mass shooting – this time in Indianapolis at  a FedEx facility, where eight people were murdered. In less than a month, there have been horrific mass shootings in Atlanta, Boulder, Orange County and now Indianapolis – and many more that never made the national news.

Each shooting brings me right back to the moment my life as I knew it ended – the moment I learned that my sweet little Daniel had been murdered in his first-grade classroom. My heart breaks for the families whose loved ones will never come home – because I know the pain never goes away.

I feel angry. I feel defeated. I feel like I've failed them.

But more than anything, I blame Congress for years of inaction. While we don't have all the details about this latest mass shooting yet, we know the legislative solutions we need to prevent gun violence. Now it's time to pass them before the next tragedy – starting with a bipartisan background checks bill.

Every moment this legislation sits in the Senate without a vote, more lives are at risk. That's why I'm personally asking you to join me and help us reach 100,000 people by tomorrow standing together to demand senators immediately expand background checks to keep guns out of dangerous hands. Please, will you sign your name now?

Please click here to add your name to demand the Senate finally pass the bipartisan background checks bill that we know will prevent future tragedies and save precious lives from gun violence.

Sign Your Name

I still carry a photo of my sweet little Daniel with me everywhere – not because I want people to feel sorry for me, but because I want them to look at the human toll of gun violence.

For my little boy, for all the lives we've lost and for the lives we can still save – thank you for speaking out today to demand action. Together, we can end this madness.

Mark Barden (Daniel's father)

Donate

Sandy Hook Promise Action Fund
PO Box 3489, Newtown, CT 06470, United States