50jili free

Funding streams beckon interest from businessesBy MICHAEL R. SISAK and JENNIFER PELTZ NEW YORK (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump’s lawyers urged a judge again Friday to throw out his hush money conviction, balking at the prosecution’s suggestion of preserving the verdict by treating the case the way some courts do when a defendant dies. They called the idea “absurd.” Related Articles National Politics | Trump wants to turn the clock on daylight saving time National Politics | Ruling by a conservative Supreme Court could help blue states resist Trump policies National Politics | A nonprofit leader, a social worker: Here are the stories of the people on Biden’s clemency list National Politics | Nancy Pelosi hospitalized after she ‘sustained an injury’ on official trip to Luxembourg National Politics | Veteran Daniel Penny, acquitted in NYC subway chokehold, will join Trump’s suite at football game The Manhattan district attorney’s office is asking Judge Juan M. Merchan to “pretend as if one of the assassination attempts against President Trump had been successful,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a blistering 23-page response. In court papers made public Tuesday, District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office proposed an array of options for keeping the historic conviction on the books after Trump’s lawyers filed paperwork earlier this month asking for the case to be dismissed. They include freezing the case until Trump leaves office in 2029, agreeing that any future sentence won’t include jail time, or closing the case by noting he was convicted but that he wasn’t sentenced and his appeal wasn’t resolved because of presidential immunity. Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove reiterated Friday their position that the only acceptable option is overturning his conviction and dismissing his indictment, writing that anything less will interfere with the transition process and his ability to lead the country. The Manhattan district attorney’s office declined comment. It’s unclear how soon Merchan will decide. He could grant Trump’s request for dismissal, go with one of the prosecution’s suggestions, wait until a federal appeals court rules on Trump’s parallel effort to get the case moved out of state court, or choose some other option. In their response Friday, Blanche and Bove ripped each of the prosecution’s suggestions. Halting the case until Trump leaves office would force the incoming president to govern while facing the “ongoing threat” that he’ll be sentenced to imprisonment, fines or other punishment as soon as his term ends, Blanche and Bove wrote. Trump, a Republican, takes office Jan. 20. “To be clear, President Trump will never deviate from the public interest in response to these thuggish tactics,” the defense lawyers wrote. “However, the threat itself is unconstitutional.” The prosecution’s suggestion that Merchan could mitigate those concerns by promising not to sentence Trump to jail time on presidential immunity grounds is also a non-starter, Blanche and Bove wrote. The immunity statute requires dropping the case, not merely limiting sentencing options, they argued. Blanche and Bove, both of whom Trump has tabbed for high-ranking Justice Department positions, expressed outrage at the prosecution’s novel suggestion that Merchan borrow from Alabama and other states and treat the case as if Trump had died. Blanche and Bove accused prosecutors of ignoring New York precedent and attempting to “fabricate” a solution “based on an extremely troubling and irresponsible analogy between President Trump” who survived assassination attempts in Pennsylvania in July and Florida in September “and a hypothetical dead defendant.” Such an option normally comes into play when a defendant dies after being convicted but before appeals are exhausted. It is unclear whether it is viable under New York law, but prosecutors suggested that Merchan could innovate in what’s already a unique case. “This remedy would prevent defendant from being burdened during his presidency by an ongoing criminal proceeding,” prosecutors wrote in their filing this week. But at the same time, it wouldn’t “precipitously discard” the “meaningful fact that defendant was indicted and found guilty by a jury of his peers.” Prosecutors acknowledged that “presidential immunity requires accommodation” during Trump’s impending return to the White House but argued that his election to a second term should not upend the jury’s verdict, which came when he was out of office. Longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution . Other world leaders don’t enjoy the same protection. For example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on trial on corruption charges even as he leads that nation’s wars in Lebanon and Gaza . Trump has been fighting for months to reverse his May 30 conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records . Prosecutors said he fudged the documents to conceal a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels to suppress her claim that they had sex a decade earlier, which Trump denies. In their filing Friday, Trump’s lawyers citing a social media post in which Sen. John Fetterman used profane language to criticize Trump’s hush money prosecution. The Pennsylvania Democrat suggested that Trump deserved a pardon, comparing his case to that of President Joe Biden’s pardoned son Hunter Biden, who had been convicted of tax and gun charges . “Weaponizing the judiciary for blatant, partisan gain diminishes the collective faith in our institutions and sows further division,” Fetterman wrote Wednesday on Truth Social. Trump’s hush money conviction was in state court, meaning a presidential pardon — issued by Biden or himself when he takes office — would not apply to the case. Presidential pardons only apply to federal crimes. Since the election, special counsel Jack Smith has ended his two federal cases , which pertained to Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss and allegations that he hoarded classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. A separate state election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia, is largely on hold. Trump denies wrongdoing in all. Trump had been scheduled for sentencing in the hush money case in late November. But following Trump’s Nov. 5 election victory, Merchan halted proceedings and indefinitely postponed the former and future president’s sentencing so the defense and prosecution could weigh in on the future of the case. Merchan also delayed a decision on Trump’s prior bid to dismiss the case on immunity grounds. A dismissal would erase Trump’s conviction, sparing him the cloud of a criminal record and possible prison sentence. Trump is the first former president to be convicted of a crime and the first convicted criminal to be elected to the office.

Teammates tie ribbons as community mourns Melbourne teens after suspected methanol poisoning

Trump's Republican Party is increasingly winning union voters. It's a shift seen in his labor pickIs he a hero? A killer? Both? About the same time the #FreeLuigi memes featuring the mustachioed plumber from “Super Mario Brothers” mushroomed online, commenters shared memes showing Tony Soprano pronouncing Luigi Mangione , the man charged with murdering the UnitedHealthcare CEO in Manhattan , a hero. There were posts lionizing Mangione’s physique and appearance, the ones speculating about who could play him on “Saturday Night Live,” and the ones denouncing and even threatening people at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s for spotting him and calling police. It was all too much for Pennsylvania's governor, a rising Democrat who was nearly the vice presidential nominee this year. Josh Shapiro — dealing with a case somewhere else that happened to land in his lap — decried what he saw as growing support for “vigilante justice.” The curious case of Brian Thompson and Luigi Mangione captivated and polarized a media-saturated nation. It also offers a glimpse into how, in a connected world, so many different aspects of modern American life can be surreally linked — from public violence to politics, from health care to humor (or attempts at it) . It summons a question, too: How can so many people consider someone a hero when the rules that govern American society — the laws — are treating him as the complete opposite? Luigi Mangione, a suspect in the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, on Monday at the police station in Altoona, Pa. Writings found in Mangione's possession hinted at a vague hatred of corporate greed and an expression of anger toward “parasitic” health insurance companies. Bullets recovered from the crime scene had the words “deny,” “defend” and “depose,” reflecting words used by insurance industry critics, written on them. A number of online posts combine an apparent disdain for health insurers — with no mention of the loss of life. “He took action against private health insurance corporations is what he did. he was a brave italian martyr. in this house, luigi mangione is a hero, end of story!” one anonymous person said in a post on X that has nearly 2 million views. On Monday, Shapiro took issue with comments like those. It was an extraordinary moment that he tumbled into simply because Mangione was apprehended in Pennsylvania. Shapiro's comments — pointed, impassioned and, inevitably, political — yanked the conversation unfolding on so many people's phone screens into real life. “We do not kill people in cold blood to resolve policy differences or express a viewpoint,” the governor said. “In a civil society, we are all less safe when ideologues engage in vigilante justice.” But to hear some of his fellow citizens tell it, that's not the case at all. Like Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, D.B. Cooper and other notorious names from the American past, Mangione is being cast as someone to admire. Luigi Nicholas Mangione is escorted into Blair County Courthouse on Tuesday in Hollidaysburg, Pa. Regina Bateson, an assistant political science professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has studied vigilantism, the term to which Shapiro alluded. She doesn’t see this case as a good fit for the word, she says, because the victim wasn’t linked to any specific crime or offense. As she sees it, it's more akin to domestic terrorism. But Bateson views the threats against election workers , prosecutors and judges ticking up — plus the assassination attempts against President-elect Donald Trump this past summer — as possible signs that personal grievances or political agendas could erupt. “Americans are voicing more support for — or at least understanding of — political violence,” she said. Shapiro praised the police and the people of Blair County, who abided by a 9/11-era dictum of seeing something and saying something. The commenters have Mangione wrong, the governor said: “Hear me on this: He is no hero. The real hero in this story is the person who called 911 at McDonald’s this morning." A person demonstrates Monday near the McDonald's restaurant in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where police earlier in the day arrested Luigi Nicholas Mangione, 26, in the Dec. 4 killing of UnitedHealthcare's CEO in Manhattan. Even shy of supporting violence, there are many instances of people who vent over how health insurers deny claims. Tim Anderson's wife, Mary, dealt with UnitedHealthcare coverage denials before she died from Lou Gehrig’s disease in 2022. “The business model for insurance is don’t pay,” Anderson, 67, of Centerville, Ohio, told The Associated Press . The discourse around the killing and Mangione is more than just memes. Conversations about the interconnectedness of various parts of American life are unfolding online as well. One Reddit user said he was banned for three days for supporting Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted after testifying he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot two people in 2020 during protests. “Do you think people are getting banned for supporting Luigi?” the poster wondered. The comments cover a lot of ground. They include people saying the UnitedHealthcare slaying isn't a “right or left issue" and wondering what it would take to get knocked off the platform. “You probably just have to cross the line over into promoting violence,” one commenter wrote. “Not just laughing about how you don’t care about this guy.” Luigi Mangione is taken into the Blair County Courthouse on Tuesday in Hollidaysburg, Pa. Memes and online posts in support of the 26-year-old man, who's charged with killing UnitedHealthcare's CEO, have mushroomed online. Get the latest in local public safety news with this weekly email.

The Sausalito City Council has approved a series of energy conservation measures for some city-owned buildings in a move expected to save millions of dollars. The initial investment will cost the city $1.9 million, which includes design and construction. Sausalito is looking to modernize utilities such as heating, water and lighting to increase efficiency and reduce costs while also lowering greenhouse gas emissions. It hired energy consultant Climatec to assess its facilities. Climatec representatives recommended upgrading streetlights, park lights and interior and exterior building lights to LED; adding solar energy panels at the MLK campus and police building; installing electric vehicle chargers at the police station; automating buildings; and adding a new heating a cooling system at the old city hall building at 729 Bridgeway. Upgrades to the MLK campus, a property of six buildings leased by the city, are expected to cost $986,000. Police station improvements are estimated at $429,000. Tyler Girtman, a regional manager at Climatec, said the objective was to get back to basics while protecting against fluctuating utility costs. He said if the city keeps the status quo, with an average cost increase of 10.2% per year, it could spend $80.5 million in energy costs over the next 30 years. “For the base phase, what it really boiled down to is looking at the fundamental elements of energy efficiency-type projects,” Girtman said. In June, the company recommended a list of actions estimated to cost $5.7 million. After discussions with staff, the list was narrowed based on funding and need, Girtman said. The effort is expected to save Sausalito between $3.1 million and $6.9 million over the project lifecycle, which is 15 years for energy efficiency systems and 30 years for renewable energy systems, Girtman said. In the first five years alone, the city could save $770,000. The council’s approval makes the city eligible to receive $304,000 in federal and local funding to install solar technology and electric vehicle chargers. Some upgrades are reimbursable through the Inflation Reduction Act and utility providers. Vice Mayor Joan Cox pointed out that most solar panels have to be replaced every 20 years, and asked if the 30-year life cycle estimate accounts for the replacement cost. Girtman said the technology has advanced greatly in the past decade. The solar panels the firm would use have a warranty of 30 years. Councilmember Janelle Kellman asked if the city had any electric police vehicles. Staff confirmed it did not, and Kellman asked the reason for placing electric vehicle chargers at the police station instead of the MLK campus. She said it seemed like a waste of resources. “I just want to be cautious about solving a problem we don’t have yet,” Kellman said. Girtman said the council previously directed the consultant to focus on the police building. Other upgrades include a new Wi-Fi system relating to two city-owned parking lots. Mark Palmer, chair of the city’s sustainability commission, spoke in favor of the project. He said it is a major step forward on the city’s climate plan, low-emissions plan, general plan and strategic plan. “So Sausalito receives important and overdue upgrades to our municipal facilities, which then act as a hedge on future utility costs volatility,” Palmer said. “As utility costs rise, so does the city’s return on investment.” The firm hopes to begin implementing the upgrades in January.Lumber mill levelled by mid-morning blaze

MPs will be placing the country on a “slippery slope towards death on demand” if they back legislation on assisted dying in England and Wales this week, the lord chancellor and justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has said in a letter to constituents before . Mahmood has received numerous letters about the bill from people in her Birmingham Ladywood seat, which has a big Muslim population, and sent out replies saying that she was “profoundly concerned” about the legislation, not only for religious reasons but also because of what it would mean for the role of the state if one of its functions became helping people to die. “Sadly, recent scandals – such as Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon – have reminded us that the state and those acting on its behalf are not always benign. I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away. The state should never offer death as a service.” She continued: “It cannot be overstated what a profound shift in our culture assisted suicide will herald. In my view, the greatest risk of all is the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves. “Faced with expensive or insufficient care, some may feel they have become too great a burden to their family, friends and society at large. In doing so, they would not be choosing death because that is what they want for themselves but because they think that others might want it for them.” She added: “We must never accept the wrongful deaths of some in exchange for the desired deaths of others. That line, once crossed, will be crossed for ever. “The right to die, for some, will – inexorably and inevitably – become the duty to die for others. And that is why I will be voting against this bill.” Mahmood, a barrister, also criticised the lack of legal safeguards in the bill. “The provisions in relation to coercion are particularly weak. The bill seems to prevent someone being pressured into ending their life by those acting with malign intent. But it is silent as to how this should be done, setting no test by which evidence will be assessed or how a judge will be expected to carry out this work.” Mahmood has previously made clear that she will vote against the bill. But her latest, more hard-hitting attack on it will be seen as ignoring calls from Keir Starmer for his in the heat of the debate. Mahmood’s intervention means that both the justice secretary and the health secretary, Wes Streeting, now stand opposed to it. Government insiders said on Saturday night that this could create real problems if the bill were to pass into law. “We would have the justice and health secretaries – who would be key to its implementation – both opposed to a major piece of social legislation. It is difficult to see how that works.” Streeting has made clear that he is opposed to the bill, saying it could have and lead to someone with a terminal diagnosis choosing to end their life early as a way of saving the NHS money. Asked by the about Mahmood’s letter and whether she was ignoring the call by the cabinet secretary, Simon Case, for senior ministers to remain neutral, a source close to the justice secretary said: “It is the case that she has been deluged with letters and that she has replied to them.” Friends of Mahmood also said she wanted to remain in her cabinet job. even if the bill passed all its parliamentary stages and went onto the statute book. If adopted, the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill would make it legal for over-18s in England and Wales who have mental capacity and are expected to die within six months to be assisted to end their life. They would have to be assessed by two independent doctors and have the decision signed off by a high court judge. A separate bill is under discussion in Scotland.Government sources said they expected the bill to pass at second reading on Friday (29 November), after soundings by party whips on all sides of the House suggested there would be majority support. One senior government figure said: “I think the opponents have shouted louder but would expect it to go through.” If the bill is passed on Friday, it would then be considered for several weeks in committee, where any concerns about lack of safeguards would be considered. MPs would then have the chance to vote again at report stage and third reading, which will not be until April next year at the earliest. In a letter to the , a group of eminent lawyers counter Mahmood’s criticisms and come out in strong support of the bill. They include former lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice Charles Falconer, two former directors of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald and Sir Max Hill, and Alex Goodman KC, the joint head of public law at Landmark Chambers. They state: “The bill will protect the vulnerable and the sanctity of life much more effectively than our current law. It will allow terminally ill people in the last six months of their life to make free, informed and settled decisions about their end of life through a robust process involving two doctors and a judge.” In a separate letter to the faith leaders join forces to oppose the bill. Signatories include Sarah Mullally, bishop of London, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster, and the chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis. They write: “Part of the role of faith leaders in communities is to provide spiritual and pastoral care for the sick and for the dying. We hold the hands of loved ones in their final days, we pray with families both before and after death. It is to this vocation that we have been called, and it is from this vocation that we write. “Our pastoral roles make us deeply concerned about the impact the bill would have on the most vulnerable, opening up the possibility of life-threatening abuse and coercion. This is a concern we know is shared by many people, with and without faith.”