Paul Cappitelli, MPA’s Post

I understand your point, but let's focus on the facts and policies rather than personal attacks. The ad highlights Trump's legal issues and contrasts his behavior with President Biden's work ethic. Let's elevate the discourse and support candidates who prioritize integrity and civility. As a Lincoln Republican, I believe in respectful dialogue and fact-based discussions. Let's rise above name-calling and hypocrisy. #FactBasedDiscourse #RespectfulPolitics #IntegrityMatters

Dear Members, The CBA condemns former President Donald Trump’s continued and recently heightened campaign of unfounded and dangerous accusations and personal attacks directed towards members of the judiciary, their staff, prosecutors, and their families. Mr. Trump’s statements labeled the judges and prosecutors handling his cases as “deranged,” “evil,” “crooked,” and “sick.” His social media posts identified by name and photograph a family member of one of the judges overseeing one of the cases currently pending against him. This dangerous rhetoric is intended or at least carries with it an unacceptable risk of both inciting violence and intimidating those public servants who are the backbone of our nation’s judicial branch. Words matter, especially when they come from leaders whose conduct others will replicate, or worse, take to the next level. Here in Connecticut, we have witnessed similar vitriol and behavior from people who have posted online judges’ home addresses, photos, and the make and model of their cars, while also referencing ammunition and specific models of firearms and making unfounded claims about bias and coercion. Our judges have been stalked and harassed at work and at home. In New Jersey, a litigant who had made threatening internet posts against a federal judge showed up at her house with a gun, fatally shooting her son and wounding her husband. Words matter. Words have consequences. Judges should not be required to issue orders barring litigants from engaging in reckless and malicious behavior designed to intimidate or threaten those involved in the judicial system, including court staff, their families, witnesses, and potential jurors. Political leaders who purport to believe in the Constitution should never place judges in that position through their own behavior. That behavior should never be the norm. The CBA has been committed to supporting our state and federal legal systems and the rule of law since 1875. We cannot, and will not, remain silent. We oppose and condemn efforts undertaken by any political leader that seeks to undermine the independent operation of our judiciary and the public’s trust in the legal system because of personal animus. Sincerely, Maggie Castinado President, Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Association 30 Bank St | New Britain, CT 06051 | (844)469-2221 | [email protected]

Here's a great read from our esteemed legal advisor Anthony Sculimbrene about how courts, prosecutors, and law-abiding citizens grapple with the lasting effects of the Bruen decision. https://lnkd.in/e7_P8UEC

🚨⚖️ DOJ leaders are raising concerns as the House advances funding cuts, potentially impacting vital operations and public safety initiatives. These budget reductions could have significant implications for law enforcement and justice system effectiveness. Stay informed about the ongoing debate and what's at stake for the Department of Justice: https://lnkd.in/egJ4r-XG #DOJ #BudgetCuts #PublicSafety #JusticeSystem #FederalFunding #PolicyDebate

🚨 Breaking News 🚨 Shocking footage captured on a doorbell camera shows a helpless man witnessing a police raid on his home. The disturbing incident, covered by Wales Online, raises important questions about privacy and law enforcement procedures. It's a sobering reminder to stay informed and advocate for fair and just practices. Join the conversation on this crucial issue! #PoliceRaid #PrivacyRights #JusticeMatters https://ift.tt/IMZ4WQ3

In a new article in Newsweek, Amplify’s Chief Strategy Officer, Aron Solomon, takes a close look at contempt of court in the context of the Trump hush money criminal trial. You can read the piece here:https://buff.ly/4aJCVcp #Trump #DonaldTrump #SupremeCourt #ToddBlanche #LegalNews #PoliticalNews #Newsweek

These Wrongly Arrested Black Men Say A California Bill Would Let Police Misuse Face Recognition 🚨 👤 Three men falsely arrested based on face recognition technology have joined the fight against a California bill that aims to place guardrails around police use of the technology. They say it will still allow abuses and misguided arrests. Context: In 2019 and 2020, three Black men were accused of and jailed for crimes they didn’t commit after police used face recognition to falsely identify them. Their cases bring to light how AI-enabled tools can lead to civil rights violations and lasting consequences for the families of the accused. Why it matters: A new CA bill would require corroborating indicators beyond face recognition. The problem, critics say, is that a possible face recognition “match” is not evidence — and that it can lead investigations astray even if police seek corroborating evidence. What's next: The state Assembly last month passed Assembly Bill 1814 on a 70-0 vote. Today it faced a contentious hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee. Lawmakers have until the end of the legislative session in August to decide whether to pass AB 1814. 🔗 https://bit.ly/3z1YIyU ✍️ Khari Johnson | CalMatters 📸 Sipa USA via Reuters/ Rahul Lai

It should include criminal prosecution.

As I've said here many times: This ruling is subject to overreach and misinterpretation. On this, I agree wholeheartedly. I will push back slightly on another portion of this press release. OPM had an issue with special agents assigned to the ATF Academy and advanced training positions in ATF Headquarters being classified as "law enforcement officers" and receiving "Law Enforcement Availability Pay," which is afforded to sworn LEOs who have attended and graduated from FLETC's CITP Program. We picked the best and brightest agents to serve in those roles. What kind of reward is there to strip them of their LEAP, thereby cutting their pay by 25% to come in and train the next generation of agents? Would the best and brightest step forward at that point? Many of those folks had to be available beyond their normal workday. Some responded to scenes when called upon, to include the unrest of 2020 and January 6th. Some were called to arson scenes and some are SRT members who had to drop everything at a moments notice to assist agents in the field with high-risk enforcement actions. Should they have not been paid for their availability? I happen to know that one of the whistleblowers appealed to me in writing, that he too receive LEAP, but by statute there was no legal way to approve this, not to mention he was not an 1811 series employee, nor did his role ever require him to leave the building in support of the field. I've been to other law enforcement academies and it's commonplace for sworn officers to train sworn officers. To do otherwise would not make sense, except to the idiots at OPM who will never themselves have to be placed in harm's way, or make decisions that affect the freedom of their fellow Americans in perfecting criminal cases. Are you a LEO, federal or otherwise? Who trained you? If you're a fed and you were trained by sworn LEOs who received LEAP, it appears that OPM might be coming to scrutinize your agency next. It's a fools errand.

This is a thorough article about the various states working on similar legislation. 🙏❤️🕊 -- "Facing increased threats to election workers and superheated political rhetoric from former President Donald Trump and his supporters, more states are considering firearm bans at polling places and ballot drop boxes ahead of November’s presidential election. This month, New Mexico became the latest state to restrict guns where people vote or hand in ballots, joining at least 21 other states with similar laws — some banning either open or concealed carry but most banning both. Nine of those prohibitions were enacted in the past two years, as states have sought to prevent voter intimidation or even violence at the polls driven by Trump’s false claims of election rigging. At least six states are debating bills that would ban firearms at polling places or expand existing bans to include more locations." https://lnkd.in/eSxJ7xAz