KANSAS CITY —A Kansas City man faces multiple felony charges for a series of crimes on August 21, in the&nbsp; area of the 3300 block of Linwood Boulevard in Kansas City, according to Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker.

<a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2414/LJohnsonRedacted">Click here to read t</a>he charging documents.

Lorenzo Johnson, 31, faces Murder in the 2nd Degree, Robbery in the 1st Degree, Unlawful Use of a Weapon, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, Resisting Arrest and three Armed Criminal Action charges.

According to court records, on the evening of Aug. 21, Kansas City Police Department officers were dispatched to a shooting at the BP Gas Station in the 3300 block of Linwood Blvd. Officers found the victim at the gas pumps. He had been wounded by a gunshot and Johnson then backed the victim's car over him.

The Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide. Hours earlier the suspect had committed robberies in the area. Johnson took the victim's vehicle after the shooting. Officers later forced the stolen vehicle off the road while the suspect was driving. He attempted to flee on foot and officers took him into custody. He had the victim's vehicle title in his pocket. Johnson remains in custody and is being held on no bond.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/8/1724866518643.png" alt="Johnson photo Jackson Co." />
 <figcaption>Johnson photo Jackson Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY —A Kansas City man faces multiple felony charges for a series of crimes on August 21, in the&nbsp; area of the 3300 block of Linwood Boulevard in Kansas City, according to Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker.<a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2414/LJohnsonRedacted">Click here to read t</a>he charging documents.Lorenzo Johnson, 31, faces Murder in the 2nd Degree, Robbery in the 1st Degree, Unlawful Use of a Weapon, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, Resisting Arrest and three Armed Criminal Action charges.According to court records, on the evening of Aug. 21, Kansas City Police Department officers were dispatched to a shooting at the BP Gas Station in the 3300 block of Linwood Blvd. Officers found the victim at the gas pumps. He had been wounded by a gunshot and Johnson then backed the victim's car over him.The Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide. Hours earlier the suspect had committed robberies in the area. Johnson took the victim's vehicle after the shooting. Officers later forced the stolen vehicle off the road while the suspect was driving. He attempted to flee on foot and officers took him into custody. He had the victim's vehicle title in his pocket. Johnson remains in custody and is being held on no bond.

KC robbery suspect shot and then backed car over victim at gas station

BY:&nbsp;ANNELISE HANSHAW&nbsp; <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>

A Cole County Circuit Court judge rejected an attempt to invalidate an initiative petition on sports betting Friday, allowing voters to decide whether to enshrine sports wagering in Missouri’s Constitution on the November ballot.

“Lawsuits seeking to remove an initiative petition from the ballot after it has been certified as sufficient by the secretary (of state) are highly disfavored,” Judge Daniel Green wrote&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/Judgment.PDF?courtCode=19&amp;di=3287114" target="_blank">in his ruling</a>, quoting from another case that he must rule with “restraint, trepidation and a healthy suspicion of the partisan that would use the judiciary to prevent the initiative process from taking its course.”

Green reviewed lists of petition signatures plaintiffs submitted to allege that the amendment did not meet the minimum threshold in Missouri’s 1st congressional district. The evidence included 95 signatures that plaintiffs called “disqualified voters.”

Green, in his ruling, said the evidence did not show that the voters were ineligible when they signed the petition. Without these 95 signatures thrown out, the petition meets minimum qualifications.

Beyond that, plaintiffs’ argument failed to convince Green that the Missouri Secretary of State incorrectly certified the signatures.

In an argument led by Marc Ellinger — a seasoned Jefferson City attorney with experience representing Missouri gaming companies — plaintiffs took issue with the method the secretary used when calculating the number of votes needed in each district.

But, Green wrote, this calculation has been constant throughout all initiatives in 2022 and 2024 and was used by previous secretaries of state.&nbsp; The number was determined by multiplying the number of votes cast for governor in 2020 by 8%.

Ellinger said the number should be based on congressional district maps drawn after the 2020 election, but he “presented no evidence from which the court could determine what plaintiff’s target number should be,” Green wrote.

Should the threshold stand, Ellinger argued that there were a plethora of signatures that were improperly certified. For this, his expert witness was Kevin Oglesby, who manages National Political Consultants Inc and was hired to look at the signatures.

Oglesby received information from the secretary of state’s office to assess signatures, and his testimony was a large part of Thursday’s trial as he explained instances he deemed errors.

Local election authorities, which processed the petition for the secretary of state, had more information when reviewing signatures.

Green noted that plaintiffs “did not present evidence to qualify (Oglesby) as a handwriting expert.”

“Court did not find the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness to be credible or particularly helpful,” Green said in his judgment.

His ruling also dismissed a counter-claim by intervenors Winning for Missouri Education, the initiative’s campaign committee. The claim alleged that the committee, which has raised over $6.5 million to support the petition, is harmed by plaintiffs’ accusations

Green said there was no evidence presented on the matter, rendering it “moot.”

Winning for Missouri Education spokesman Jack Cardetti celebrated the victory Friday, focusing on the increased tax dollars that could go to public education if the initiative is approved.

“Today’s ruling, while expected, is nevertheless a big victory for Missourians, who overwhelmingly want to join the 38 other states that allow sports betting, so that we can provide tens of millions in permanent, dedicated funding each year to our public school,” he said. “For too many years, Missourians have watched as fans cross state lines to place sport bets, which deprives our Missouri public schools of much needed funding.”

Ellinger did not respond to a timely request for comment.

BY:&nbsp;ANNELISE HANSHAW&nbsp; <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>A Cole County Circuit Court judge rejected an attempt to invalidate an initiative petition on sports betting Friday, allowing voters to decide whether to enshrine sports wagering in Missouri’s Constitution on the November ballot.“Lawsuits seeking to remove an initiative petition from the ballot after it has been certified as sufficient by the secretary (of state) are highly disfavored,” Judge Daniel Green wrote&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/Judgment.PDF?courtCode=19&amp;di=3287114" target="_blank">in his ruling</a>, quoting from another case that he must rule with “restraint, trepidation and a healthy suspicion of the partisan that would use the judiciary to prevent the initiative process from taking its course.”Green reviewed lists of petition signatures plaintiffs submitted to allege that the amendment did not meet the minimum threshold in Missouri’s 1st congressional district. The evidence included 95 signatures that plaintiffs called “disqualified voters.”Green, in his ruling, said the evidence did not show that the voters were ineligible when they signed the petition. Without these 95 signatures thrown out, the petition meets minimum qualifications.Beyond that, plaintiffs’ argument failed to convince Green that the Missouri Secretary of State incorrectly certified the signatures.In an argument led by Marc Ellinger — a seasoned Jefferson City attorney with experience representing Missouri gaming companies — plaintiffs took issue with the method the secretary used when calculating the number of votes needed in each district.But, Green wrote, this calculation has been constant throughout all initiatives in 2022 and 2024 and was used by previous secretaries of state.&nbsp; The number was determined by multiplying the number of votes cast for governor in 2020 by 8%.Ellinger said the number should be based on congressional district maps drawn after the 2020 election, but he “presented no evidence from which the court could determine what plaintiff’s target number should be,” Green wrote.Should the threshold stand, Ellinger argued that there were a plethora of signatures that were improperly certified. For this, his expert witness was Kevin Oglesby, who manages National Political Consultants Inc and was hired to look at the signatures.Oglesby received information from the secretary of state’s office to assess signatures, and his testimony was a large part of Thursday’s trial as he explained instances he deemed errors.Local election authorities, which processed the petition for the secretary of state, had more information when reviewing signatures.Green noted that plaintiffs “did not present evidence to qualify (Oglesby) as a handwriting expert.”“Court did not find the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness to be credible or particularly helpful,” Green said in his judgment.His ruling also dismissed a counter-claim by intervenors Winning for Missouri Education, the initiative’s campaign committee. The claim alleged that the committee, which has raised over $6.5 million to support the petition, is harmed by plaintiffs’ accusationsGreen said there was no evidence presented on the matter, rendering it “moot.”Winning for Missouri Education spokesman Jack Cardetti celebrated the victory Friday, focusing on the increased tax dollars that could go to public education if the initiative is approved.“Today’s ruling, while expected, is nevertheless a big victory for Missourians, who overwhelmingly want to join the 38 other states that allow sports betting, so that we can provide tens of millions in permanent, dedicated funding each year to our public school,” he said. “For too many years, Missourians have watched as fans cross state lines to place sport bets, which deprives our Missouri public schools of much needed funding.”Ellinger did not respond to a timely request for comment.

Attempt to block Missouri sports betting amendment lacks evidence, judge rules

The campaign behind the reproductive-rights amendment plans to appeal the decision, and as part of the judge’s stipulations, Amendment 3 will not yet be taken off the ballot

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/annaspoerre/">ANNA SPOERRE</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

A Missouri judge ruled Friday evening that a reproductive-rights amendment&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/06/judge-decides-abortion-amendment-3-missouri-ballot/">did not comply with state initiative petition requirements,</a>&nbsp;leaving the door open to potentially withhold it from the November ballot.&nbsp;

Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh ruled that the coalition behind the citizen-led ballot measure failed to meet the sufficiency requirement through a “failure to include any statute or provision that will be repealed, especially when many of these statutes are apparent.”

A spokesperson for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the campaign behind the reproductive-rights amendment, said they plan to appeal.&nbsp;

Limbaugh also wrote that while he found a “blatant violation” of state law, he “recognizes the gravity of the unique issues involved in this case, and the lack of direct precedent on point.”&nbsp;

As a result, he won’t issue an injunction preventing the amendment from being printed on the ballot until Tuesday to allow time for “further guidance or rulings” from the appeals court.&nbsp;

The constitutional deadline for ballots to be printed is Tuesday.&nbsp;

<a href="https://moconstitutionalfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missourians-for-Constitutional-Freedom-Amendment.pdf" target="_blank">Amendment 3&nbsp;</a>would establish the constitutional right to an abortion up until fetal viability and grant constitutional protections to other reproductive health care, including in-vitro fertilization and birth control. It would also protect those who assist in an abortion from prosecution.&nbsp;

“The court’s decision to block Amendment 3 from appearing on the ballot is a profound injustice to the initiative petition process,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager with Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement. “And undermines the rights of the<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">&nbsp;380,000 Missourians who signed our petition&nbsp;</a>demanding a voice on this critical issue.

The lawsuit was filed two weeks ago by a group of anti-abortion lawmakers and activists against Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">certified the citizen-led ballot initiative for the Nov. 5 ballot&nbsp;&nbsp;</a>nine days earlier. The group is arguing that the initiative should never have been allowed on the ballot.

The plaintiffs — state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, state Rep. Hannah Kelly, anti-abortion activist Kathy Forck and shelter operator Marguerite Forrest — said in a statement Friday evening that the amendment’s scope is “staggering.”&nbsp;

“Missourians have a constitutional right to know what laws their votes would overturn before deciding to sign initiative petitions,” they said. “Amendment 3 isn’t just about abortion.”

The plaintiffs were represented in court by Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney with the Thomas More Society who&nbsp;argued during a brief bench trial Friday morning that the campaign behind the amendment fell short of the law by failing to list the specific laws or constitutional provisions which would be repealed if the amendment is approved by voters.&nbsp;

Missouri law requires that initiative petitions&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=116.050#:~:text=116.050.,pages%20of%20a%20uniform%20size." target="_blank">“include all sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.”&nbsp;</a>

“No one disputes,” she said, “one of its primary purposes and effects is to repeal Missouri’s ban on abortion.”&nbsp;

Speculation isn’t necessary to come to this conclusion, Martin said, pointing to the ballot summary which reads, in part, that a yes vote would<a href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2024BallotMeasures" target="_blank">&nbsp;“remove Missouri’s ban on abortion.”</a>

Loretta Haggard, an attorney representing the campaign supporting the amendment, said that while the amendment would supersede existing law, it would not erase it from the current constitutional text, and therefore would not truly repeal the current statute.&nbsp;

She told the judge in court that this is because the two texts do have some overlapping similarities: both protect women who get abortions from prosecution and both restrict abortion after the point of fetal viability.&nbsp;

Fetal viability is an undefined period of time generally seen as the point in which the fetus could survive outside the womb on its own, generally around 24 weeks, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.&nbsp;&nbsp;

When it comes to everything else, Haggard said, the amendment would leave the current law to be interpreted through the lens of the new law, meaning any restrictions implemented by the government on abortion prior to fetal viability will have to withstand strict scrutiny in court to remain. She ventured that most of Missouir’s current restrictions would not survive for this reason.

Ultimately, Limbaugh sided with the plaintiffs, writing that the page attached to the initiative petition forms “included no disclaimer or any equivalent to a disclaimer.”&nbsp;

“In fact,” he concluded. “The full and correct text failed to identify any ‘sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.’”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725707612193.png" alt=" Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney with the Thomas Moore Society, represented a group of Missouri anti-abortion lawmakers and activists Friday, Sept. 6, 2024, during a trial at the Cole County Courthouse (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption> Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney with the Thomas Moore Society, represented a group of Missouri anti-abortion lawmakers and activists Friday, Sept. 6, 2024, during a trial at the Cole County Courthouse (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>The campaign behind the reproductive-rights amendment plans to appeal the decision, and as part of the judge’s stipulations, Amendment 3 will not yet be taken off the ballot</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/annaspoerre/">ANNA SPOERRE</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>A Missouri judge ruled Friday evening that a reproductive-rights amendment&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/06/judge-decides-abortion-amendment-3-missouri-ballot/">did not comply with state initiative petition requirements,</a>&nbsp;leaving the door open to potentially withhold it from the November ballot.&nbsp;Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh ruled that the coalition behind the citizen-led ballot measure failed to meet the sufficiency requirement through a “failure to include any statute or provision that will be repealed, especially when many of these statutes are apparent.”A spokesperson for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the campaign behind the reproductive-rights amendment, said they plan to appeal.&nbsp;Limbaugh also wrote that while he found a “blatant violation” of state law, he “recognizes the gravity of the unique issues involved in this case, and the lack of direct precedent on point.”&nbsp;As a result, he won’t issue an injunction preventing the amendment from being printed on the ballot until Tuesday to allow time for “further guidance or rulings” from the appeals court.&nbsp;The constitutional deadline for ballots to be printed is Tuesday.&nbsp;<a href="https://moconstitutionalfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missourians-for-Constitutional-Freedom-Amendment.pdf" target="_blank">Amendment 3&nbsp;</a>would establish the constitutional right to an abortion up until fetal viability and grant constitutional protections to other reproductive health care, including in-vitro fertilization and birth control. It would also protect those who assist in an abortion from prosecution.&nbsp;“The court’s decision to block Amendment 3 from appearing on the ballot is a profound injustice to the initiative petition process,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager with Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement. “And undermines the rights of the<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">&nbsp;380,000 Missourians who signed our petition&nbsp;</a>demanding a voice on this critical issue.The lawsuit was filed two weeks ago by a group of anti-abortion lawmakers and activists against Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">certified the citizen-led ballot initiative for the Nov. 5 ballot&nbsp;&nbsp;</a>nine days earlier. The group is arguing that the initiative should never have been allowed on the ballot.The plaintiffs — state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, state Rep. Hannah Kelly, anti-abortion activist Kathy Forck and shelter operator Marguerite Forrest — said in a statement Friday evening that the amendment’s scope is “staggering.”&nbsp;“Missourians have a constitutional right to know what laws their votes would overturn before deciding to sign initiative petitions,” they said. “Amendment 3 isn’t just about abortion.”The plaintiffs were represented in court by Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney with the Thomas More Society who&nbsp;argued during a brief bench trial Friday morning that the campaign behind the amendment fell short of the law by failing to list the specific laws or constitutional provisions which would be repealed if the amendment is approved by voters.&nbsp;Missouri law requires that initiative petitions&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=116.050#:~:text=116.050.,pages%20of%20a%20uniform%20size." target="_blank">“include all sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.”&nbsp;</a>“No one disputes,” she said, “one of its primary purposes and effects is to repeal Missouri’s ban on abortion.”&nbsp;Speculation isn’t necessary to come to this conclusion, Martin said, pointing to the ballot summary which reads, in part, that a yes vote would<a href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2024BallotMeasures" target="_blank">&nbsp;“remove Missouri’s ban on abortion.”</a>Loretta Haggard, an attorney representing the campaign supporting the amendment, said that while the amendment would supersede existing law, it would not erase it from the current constitutional text, and therefore would not truly repeal the current statute.&nbsp;She told the judge in court that this is because the two texts do have some overlapping similarities: both protect women who get abortions from prosecution and both restrict abortion after the point of fetal viability.&nbsp;Fetal viability is an undefined period of time generally seen as the point in which the fetus could survive outside the womb on its own, generally around 24 weeks, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.&nbsp;&nbsp;When it comes to everything else, Haggard said, the amendment would leave the current law to be interpreted through the lens of the new law, meaning any restrictions implemented by the government on abortion prior to fetal viability will have to withstand strict scrutiny in court to remain. She ventured that most of Missouir’s current restrictions would not survive for this reason.Ultimately, Limbaugh sided with the plaintiffs, writing that the page attached to the initiative petition forms “included no disclaimer or any equivalent to a disclaimer.”&nbsp;“In fact,” he concluded. “The full and correct text failed to identify any ‘sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.’”

Missouri judge rules abortion amendment is in ‘blatant violation’ of state requirements

By REBECCA RIVAS&nbsp; <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

Missouri Hemp Trade Association sent letter to DHSS saying regulators don’t have the right to demand store owners destroy the products

State health regulators walked into the busy Prime Fuel gas station in Sedalia on Tuesday morning and asked the clerk if there were any intoxicating hemp-derived THC edibles in the store — products the governor banned as of Sept. 1.

The two employees of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services learned the store had already taken the products off the shelves, according to the regulators’ report on the visit, and they were being stored in a box in the office.

The report says regulators called the owner and he voluntarily agreed to destroy the products.&nbsp;

But that’s not how the owner describes the incident, said Craig Katz, spokesman for the Missouri Hemp Trade Association.&nbsp;

“He seemed to be forced into it,” Katz said.&nbsp;

Katz said the owner had boxed up the products so he could return them to the wholesaler for a refund, and he explained this to the regulators. Instead, they told him his manager had to pour bleach over about $5,000 worth of product, Katz said, a process that took two hours.

On Wednesday, the Missouri Hemp Trade Association’s attorney Chuck Hatfield sent a letter to the department’s general counsel saying the regulators deprived the owner of his right to tell his side of the story to a judge.

“The law is extremely clear that DHSS is not authorized to destroy product, or to demand that others do so, without a court order,” Hatfield wrote.&nbsp;

State regulators have visited 44 establishments as of 4 p.m. Thursday to inspect for the banned products, said Lisa Cox, spokesperson for the department.&nbsp;

Of the 44 facilities, regulators found “unregulated psychoactive cannabis products” during inspections at 23 of them, Cox said.&nbsp;

“Four facilities have refused to embargo or discard products,” she said. “The remaining facilities agreed to embargo and/or discard products. At this time, we have taken no court action.”&nbsp;

Cox declined comment on Hatfield’s letter.

The association says it has heard of three reports of “raids” by state health regulators on stores selling intoxicating hemp products, mainly edibles. Regulators asked owners or clerks to sign a document stating they agree with the destruction of the products, Katz said.

“I can only describe what is happening to small business owners in Missouri as disturbing,” Katz said.

The association filed a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25083049-petition-for-declaratory-judgment-preliminary-injunction-and-permanent-injunctive-relief" target="_blank">lawsuit</a>&nbsp;on Aug. 30 in Cole County Circuit Court to&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/30/missouri-hemp-leaders-set-to-file-suit-to-halt-governors-ban-on-hemp-thc-products/">stop the governor’s ban</a>&nbsp;on all intoxicating hemp food and drinks from taking effect Sunday. The association argues the products are legal and state law prohibits regulators from deeming them as “adulterated.”

On Aug. 1, Gov. Mike Parson signed an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/library/reference/orders/2024/eo10" target="_blank">executive order</a>&nbsp;to remove all hemp-derived THC edibles and beverages from store shelves and threatening penalties to any establishment that continues selling them.

Because hemp isn’t a controlled substance like marijuana, there’s no state or federal law saying teenagers or children can’t buy products, such as delta-8 drinks, or that stores can’t sell them to minors, Parson said.&nbsp;

And there’s no requirement to list potential effects on the label or test how much THC is actually in them. Hemp industry leaders themselves have pushed for such regulations, but state lawmakers have failed to pass proposals the last two years.

Parson said the main target of his order are companies that sell intoxicating hemp edibles that mimic popular candy. However,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/12/hemp-industry-leaders-call-missouri-governors-order-banning-thc-products-an-overreach/">hemp industry leaders argue</a>&nbsp;the order also bans products that aren’t attractive to children, have gone through lab testing and are only sold to customers 21 and up.

The order directs regulators “to identify food that contains unregulated psychoactive cannabis products as deleterious, poisonous and adulterated.”&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725657142729.png" alt="Gov. Mike Parson speaks at his Capitol press conference announcing Executive Order 24-10 that bans the sale of intoxicating hemp products in Missouri “until such time approved sources can be regulated by the FDA or State of Missouri through legislative action,” he said (photo courtesy of Missouri Governor’s Office)." />
 <figcaption>Gov. Mike Parson speaks at his Capitol press conference announcing Executive Order 24-10 that bans the sale of intoxicating hemp products in Missouri “until such time approved sources can be regulated by the FDA or State of Missouri through legislative action,” he said (photo courtesy of Missouri Governor’s Office).</figcaption>
 </figure>By REBECCA RIVAS&nbsp; <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a><h2>Missouri Hemp Trade Association sent letter to DHSS saying regulators don’t have the right to demand store owners destroy the products</h2>State health regulators walked into the busy Prime Fuel gas station in Sedalia on Tuesday morning and asked the clerk if there were any intoxicating hemp-derived THC edibles in the store — products the governor banned as of Sept. 1.The two employees of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services learned the store had already taken the products off the shelves, according to the regulators’ report on the visit, and they were being stored in a box in the office.The report says regulators called the owner and he voluntarily agreed to destroy the products.&nbsp;But that’s not how the owner describes the incident, said Craig Katz, spokesman for the Missouri Hemp Trade Association.&nbsp;“He seemed to be forced into it,” Katz said.&nbsp;Katz said the owner had boxed up the products so he could return them to the wholesaler for a refund, and he explained this to the regulators. Instead, they told him his manager had to pour bleach over about $5,000 worth of product, Katz said, a process that took two hours.On Wednesday, the Missouri Hemp Trade Association’s attorney Chuck Hatfield sent a letter to the department’s general counsel saying the regulators deprived the owner of his right to tell his side of the story to a judge.“The law is extremely clear that DHSS is not authorized to destroy product, or to demand that others do so, without a court order,” Hatfield wrote.&nbsp;State regulators have visited 44 establishments as of 4 p.m. Thursday to inspect for the banned products, said Lisa Cox, spokesperson for the department.&nbsp;Of the 44 facilities, regulators found “unregulated psychoactive cannabis products” during inspections at 23 of them, Cox said.&nbsp;“Four facilities have refused to embargo or discard products,” she said. “The remaining facilities agreed to embargo and/or discard products. At this time, we have taken no court action.”&nbsp;Cox declined comment on Hatfield’s letter.The association says it has heard of three reports of “raids” by state health regulators on stores selling intoxicating hemp products, mainly edibles. Regulators asked owners or clerks to sign a document stating they agree with the destruction of the products, Katz said.“I can only describe what is happening to small business owners in Missouri as disturbing,” Katz said.The association filed a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25083049-petition-for-declaratory-judgment-preliminary-injunction-and-permanent-injunctive-relief" target="_blank">lawsuit</a>&nbsp;on Aug. 30 in Cole County Circuit Court to&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/30/missouri-hemp-leaders-set-to-file-suit-to-halt-governors-ban-on-hemp-thc-products/">stop the governor’s ban</a>&nbsp;on all intoxicating hemp food and drinks from taking effect Sunday. The association argues the products are legal and state law prohibits regulators from deeming them as “adulterated.”On Aug. 1, Gov. Mike Parson signed an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sos.mo.gov/library/reference/orders/2024/eo10" target="_blank">executive order</a>&nbsp;to remove all hemp-derived THC edibles and beverages from store shelves and threatening penalties to any establishment that continues selling them.Because hemp isn’t a controlled substance like marijuana, there’s no state or federal law saying teenagers or children can’t buy products, such as delta-8 drinks, or that stores can’t sell them to minors, Parson said.&nbsp;And there’s no requirement to list potential effects on the label or test how much THC is actually in them. Hemp industry leaders themselves have pushed for such regulations, but state lawmakers have failed to pass proposals the last two years.Parson said the main target of his order are companies that sell intoxicating hemp edibles that mimic popular candy. However,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/12/hemp-industry-leaders-call-missouri-governors-order-banning-thc-products-an-overreach/">hemp industry leaders argue</a>&nbsp;the order also bans products that aren’t attractive to children, have gone through lab testing and are only sold to customers 21 and up.The order directs regulators “to identify food that contains unregulated psychoactive cannabis products as deleterious, poisonous and adulterated.”&nbsp;

Missouri regulators visit nearly 50 stores to inspect for intoxicating hemp edibles

(Radio Iowa) - Iowa agricultural history will be showcased this Saturday and Sunday on an 80 acre farm in western Iowa that's near the town of Shelby. 

The annual Carstens Farm Days are held on a farmstead that dates back to the early 1870s. The Carstens family donated the property to the Pottawattamie County Historical Society in 1977 and the site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Over 250 pieces of farm equipment will be on display and there will be threshing and a sawmill demonstrations.

(Radio Iowa) - Iowa agricultural history will be showcased this Saturday and Sunday on an 80 acre farm in western Iowa that's near the town of Shelby. The annual Carstens Farm Days are held on a farmstead that dates back to the early 1870s. The Carstens family donated the property to the Pottawattamie County Historical Society in 1977 and the site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Over 250 pieces of farm equipment will be on display and there will be threshing and a sawmill demonstrations.

Farm Days at historic western Iowa site to showcase threshing, antique equipment

Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack announced more than $7.3 billion in financing for rural electric cooperatives to build clean energy for rural communities through the Empowering Rural America (New ERA) program. Speaking in Wisconsin, Vilsack said the 16 initiatives announced Thursday will leverage private investments of more than $29 billion to build more than 10 gigawatts of clean energy for rural communities across the country. He added the programs will collectively reduce and avoid at least 43.7 million tons of greenhouse gases annually. 

“Under the Biden-Harris Administration, we are supporting a more prosperous future for rural communities by speeding up the transition to clean energy while at the same time keeping monthly bills low and investing in the American workforce with new jobs and apprenticeships,” said Secretary Vilsack. “One in five rural Americans will benefit from these clean energy investments, thanks to partnerships with rural electric cooperatives like Dairyland. Put simply, this is rural power, for rural America.”

Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack announced more than $7.3 billion in financing for rural electric cooperatives to build clean energy for rural communities through the Empowering Rural America (New ERA) program. Speaking in Wisconsin, Vilsack said the 16 initiatives announced Thursday will leverage private investments of more than $29 billion to build more than 10 gigawatts of clean energy for rural communities across the country. He added the programs will collectively reduce and avoid at least 43.7 million tons of greenhouse gases annually. “Under the Biden-Harris Administration, we are supporting a more prosperous future for rural communities by speeding up the transition to clean energy while at the same time keeping monthly bills low and investing in the American workforce with new jobs and apprenticeships,” said Secretary Vilsack. “One in five rural Americans will benefit from these clean energy investments, thanks to partnerships with rural electric cooperatives like Dairyland. Put simply, this is rural power, for rural America.”-NAFB

USDA announces $7 billion in rural clean energy initiatives

St. Joseph Police Chief Paul Luster has requested the Missouri
State Highway Patrol investigate an incident in which a young man shot himself
while riding with a St. Joseph police officer.

The St. Joseph Police Department reports that the officer
provided transportation for a 24-year-old man in a non-criminal matter shortly
before 10:30 Thursday night. Shortly after the ride began the man “severely
injured himself,” according to the department. The department says the officer
rushed the man to the Mosaic Life Care emergency room where he was treated for
a life-threatening injury.

The department reports the man is in critical condition.

Police Chief Luster asked the Missouri State Highway Patrol’s
Division of Drug and Crime Control to investigate the matter. The St. Joseph
Police Department will also conduct an internal investigation into the matter.

You can follow Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

By BRENT MARTINSt. Joseph PostSt. Joseph Police Chief Paul Luster has requested the Missouri
State Highway Patrol investigate an incident in which a young man shot himself
while riding with a St. Joseph police officer.The St. Joseph Police Department reports that the officer
provided transportation for a 24-year-old man in a non-criminal matter shortly
before 10:30 Thursday night. Shortly after the ride began the man “severely
injured himself,” according to the department. The department says the officer
rushed the man to the Mosaic Life Care emergency room where he was treated for
a life-threatening injury.The department reports the man is in critical condition.Police Chief Luster asked the Missouri State Highway Patrol’s
Division of Drug and Crime Control to investigate the matter. The St. Joseph
Police Department will also conduct an internal investigation into the matter.You can follow Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

Patrol to investigate St. Joseph self-inflicted wounding

On this episode of Forward Ever: Leading in Challenging Times, host Gary Shorman speaks with&nbsp;Ms. Wheelchair America&nbsp;Tamara Blackwell.

<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GBIy1dfbVY4?si=k3AZxslDQdFrhyJr" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>On this episode of Forward Ever: Leading in Challenging Times, host Gary Shorman speaks with&nbsp;Ms. Wheelchair America&nbsp;Tamara Blackwell.

🎤Forward Ever: Ms. Wheelchair America Tamara Blackwell

SEDGWICK COUNTY—Law enforcement are investigating a suspect on multiple allegations after a 7-hour standoff at a Kansas home.

Just before 1:30p.m. Wednesday, the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office Warrant Team which consisted of five deputies and one sergeant responded to a residence in the 8100 block of South Bernice in Haysville attempting to serve an arrest warrant for a 43-year-old Robert Cook and began conducting surveillance on the home, according to statement from Wichita Police Captain Aaron Moses.

Deputies conducted interviews and received information confirming that Cook was inside the home. At 2:55pm deputies requested the assistance of a K9 from the Haysville police department to assist with clearing the residence. 

After the K9 cleared the residence, a team of Deputies entered the residence and believed Cook was locked in a bedroom. A K9 from the Wichita Police Department responded and remained outside the residence for the duration of the incident.

A sergeant and two deputies exited the residence and prepared to deploy chemical munitions into the bedroom to end the barricade. At 3:48pm, a deputy broke out a bedroom window and Cook fired a gun at the deputies multiple times.

Two deputies returned fire. One deputy fired three rounds from a rifle and another fired five rounds from a handgun. Neither Cook nor the involved deputies were injured in the exchange of gunfire.

The combined Wichita Police and Sedgwick County SWAT team and Wichita Police negotiators were activated at 4:03pm.

At 4:41pm, police negotiators contacted Cook by phone. Throughout the ensuing seven-hour negotiation Cook made multiple statements that this was his “last stand” and that he would shoot at officers if they made entry into the home. 

At 9:01pm, after negotiations deteriorated and continued threats by Cook, chemical munitions were deployed into the residence and SWAT operators heard gunshots inside.

Following the deployment of chemical munitions, Cook resumed communication with negotiators, who remained focused on achieving a peaceful resolution. While operators were preparing to introduce a second round of chemical munitions, peacefully surrendered at 11:33pm.

Cook has been booked into the Sedgwick County Jail on requested chargers that include three counts of Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer. 

This investigation is ongoing as detectives are currently serving a search warrant at the incident location to gather additional information. Cook’s charges may be updated as more information is gathered.

The Wichita Police Department does not typically release the names of arrested individuals until formal charges are filed. In this case, the suspect was arrested on an approved arrest warrant stemming from a charged case in Sedgwick County District Court. The warrant was for Failure to Appear and Contempt of Court stemming from an incident where&nbsp; Cook threatened to shoot bail bondsmen when they made an arrest attempt.

The facts of the incident that occurred Wednesday will be presented to the Sedgwick County District Attorney’s Office for formal charging consideration by investigators from the Wichita Police Department ALERT team members.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725569911182.png" alt="-During the standoff, a deputy broke out a bedroom window and Cook fired a gun at the deputies multiple times. Image from police body camera image provided by Wichita Police" />
 <figcaption>-During the standoff, a deputy broke out a bedroom window and Cook fired a gun at the deputies multiple times. Image from police body camera image provided by Wichita Police</figcaption>
 </figure>SEDGWICK COUNTY—Law enforcement are investigating a suspect on multiple allegations after a 7-hour standoff at a Kansas home.Just before 1:30p.m. Wednesday, the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office Warrant Team which consisted of five deputies and one sergeant responded to a residence in the 8100 block of South Bernice in Haysville attempting to serve an arrest warrant for a 43-year-old Robert Cook and began conducting surveillance on the home, according to statement from Wichita Police Captain Aaron Moses.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725586579656.png" alt="Cook photo Sedgwick Co." />
 <figcaption>Cook photo Sedgwick Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>Deputies conducted interviews and received information confirming that Cook was inside the home. At 2:55pm deputies requested the assistance of a K9 from the Haysville police department to assist with clearing the residence. After the K9 cleared the residence, a team of Deputies entered the residence and believed Cook was locked in a bedroom. A K9 from the Wichita Police Department responded and remained outside the residence for the duration of the incident.A sergeant and two deputies exited the residence and prepared to deploy chemical munitions into the bedroom to end the barricade. At 3:48pm, a deputy broke out a bedroom window and Cook fired a gun at the deputies multiple times.Two deputies returned fire. One deputy fired three rounds from a rifle and another fired five rounds from a handgun. Neither Cook nor the involved deputies were injured in the exchange of gunfire.The combined Wichita Police and Sedgwick County SWAT team and Wichita Police negotiators were activated at 4:03pm.At 4:41pm, police negotiators contacted Cook by phone. Throughout the ensuing seven-hour negotiation Cook made multiple statements that this was his “last stand” and that he would shoot at officers if they made entry into the home. At 9:01pm, after negotiations deteriorated and continued threats by Cook, chemical munitions were deployed into the residence and SWAT operators heard gunshots inside.Following the deployment of chemical munitions, Cook resumed communication with negotiators, who remained focused on achieving a peaceful resolution. While operators were preparing to introduce a second round of chemical munitions, peacefully surrendered at 11:33pm.Cook has been booked into the Sedgwick County Jail on requested chargers that include three counts of Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer. This investigation is ongoing as detectives are currently serving a search warrant at the incident location to gather additional information. Cook’s charges may be updated as more information is gathered.The Wichita Police Department does not typically release the names of arrested individuals until formal charges are filed. In this case, the suspect was arrested on an approved arrest warrant stemming from a charged case in Sedgwick County District Court. The warrant was for Failure to Appear and Contempt of Court stemming from an incident where&nbsp; Cook threatened to shoot bail bondsmen when they made an arrest attempt.The facts of the incident that occurred Wednesday will be presented to the Sedgwick County District Attorney’s Office for formal charging consideration by investigators from the Wichita Police Department ALERT team members.

Gunfight with deputies during standoff at Kansas home

The state has banned transgender athletes from competing according to their gender identity, but student handbooks and board policies have yet to add the change

It has been a year since a&nbsp;<a href="https://senate.mo.gov/23info/pdf-bill/tat/SB39.pdf" target="_blank">state law</a>&nbsp;required Missouri schools to have athletes compete according to their sex as assigned at birth, and few student manuals and school-board policies reflect the change.

Enforcement,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/08/21/enforcement-unclear-as-missouri-approaches-transgender-athlete-restrictions/">which was murky last year</a>, remains unprescribed with many districts stating that they will follow the law without describing how.

The law, which bars transgender athletes from competing according to their gender identity, penalizes noncompliant schools by revoking their state funding. It calls for state education officials to create any rules necessary for enforcement.

But the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education “is not involved in school athletics and activities,” its spokeswoman Mallory McGowin told The Independent.&nbsp;

The Missouri High School Activities Association (MSHSAA), which is not a state entity, oversees eligibility for extracurricular events.

The association has eligibility standards that schools statewide require their athletes to adhere to in order to compete in MSHSAA-sanctioned events. One such requirement is a semiannual physical, in which doctors clear athletes to compete.

The paperwork provided by MSHSAA for the sports physical asks the student’s sex as assigned at birth and gender identity for the medical history provided to the doctor. The form submitted to schools only includes sex as assigned at birth.

But MSHSAA is not the enforcer of the law, said Andrew Kauffman, the association’s spokesman. Individual schools are.

When asked if MSHSAA has provided guidance to schools, he said it “has advised its (member) schools to follow the law.”

According to the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/youth/sports_participation_bans" target="_blank">Movement Advancement Project</a>, which maps policies affecting LGBTQ people in the U.S., 25 states ban transgender athletes from participating according to their gender identity.

When a Missouri Senate committee was hearing the bill in 2023, a swath of advocates warned lawmakers that the legislation would harm transgender youth.

“Bills, such as (this one), communicate not just to the LGBTQ community but to all people that our very existence can and should be rejected and devalued,”&nbsp;<a href="https://promomissouri.org/over-20-missourians-compromised-of-former-collegiate-athletes-educators-and-clergy-voice-opposition-to-senate-bill-42/" target="_blank">said Shira Berkowitz</a>, senior director of public policy and advocacy of PROMO, Missouri’s largest LGBTQ advocacy group.

School had brief answers to questions about their policies, with most unwilling to grant requests for an interview.

“We follow the state statute with regard to what gender is listed on a birth certificate and MSHSAA guidelines in terms of student participation in sports based on gender. We have worked effectively with families and student athletes to comply with the state law and we will continue to do so,” Rockwood School District’s spokesperson said.

In a review by The Independent of Missouri’s 10 largest school districts’ student manuals, Rockwood was one of two to cite state law in policies around athletic eligibility.

“The district complies with all relevant state law regarding participation in athletic competitions,” the policy says, citing&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=163.048" target="_blank">the section that restricts participation based on sex at birth</a>.

Wentzville School District based its policy on the law, copying phrases out of state statute and noting a loss of funding if the district does not comply.

The other districts lacked mention of the statute, or gender identity, in their athletics eligibility policies.

The policy in North Kansas City High School says: “Participation… can be granted to those who meet the eligibility standards of the school and the state of Missouri.”

MSHSAA is widely pointed to in eligibility policies.

Fort Zumwalt School District, in O’Fallon, determines eligibility “in accordance with the MSHSAA regulations and school district policies and regulations.”

Prior to the state law, there were only five transgender athletes eligible to compete in MSHSAA events.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725571026542.png" alt=" A teenager speaks during a Senate hearing during the 2023 legislative session, donning a vest with a transgender flag (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)" />
 <figcaption> A teenager speaks during a Senate hearing during the 2023 legislative session, donning a vest with a transgender flag (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>The state has banned transgender athletes from competing according to their gender identity, but student handbooks and board policies have yet to add the change</h2>BY:&nbsp;ANNELISE HANSHAW&nbsp; <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>It has been a year since a&nbsp;<a href="https://senate.mo.gov/23info/pdf-bill/tat/SB39.pdf" target="_blank">state law</a>&nbsp;required Missouri schools to have athletes compete according to their sex as assigned at birth, and few student manuals and school-board policies reflect the change.Enforcement,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/08/21/enforcement-unclear-as-missouri-approaches-transgender-athlete-restrictions/">which was murky last year</a>, remains unprescribed with many districts stating that they will follow the law without describing how.The law, which bars transgender athletes from competing according to their gender identity, penalizes noncompliant schools by revoking their state funding. It calls for state education officials to create any rules necessary for enforcement.But the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education “is not involved in school athletics and activities,” its spokeswoman Mallory McGowin told The Independent.&nbsp;The Missouri High School Activities Association (MSHSAA), which is not a state entity, oversees eligibility for extracurricular events.The association has eligibility standards that schools statewide require their athletes to adhere to in order to compete in MSHSAA-sanctioned events. One such requirement is a semiannual physical, in which doctors clear athletes to compete.The paperwork provided by MSHSAA for the sports physical asks the student’s sex as assigned at birth and gender identity for the medical history provided to the doctor. The form submitted to schools only includes sex as assigned at birth.But MSHSAA is not the enforcer of the law, said Andrew Kauffman, the association’s spokesman. Individual schools are.When asked if MSHSAA has provided guidance to schools, he said it “has advised its (member) schools to follow the law.”According to the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/youth/sports_participation_bans" target="_blank">Movement Advancement Project</a>, which maps policies affecting LGBTQ people in the U.S., 25 states ban transgender athletes from participating according to their gender identity.When a Missouri Senate committee was hearing the bill in 2023, a swath of advocates warned lawmakers that the legislation would harm transgender youth.“Bills, such as (this one), communicate not just to the LGBTQ community but to all people that our very existence can and should be rejected and devalued,”&nbsp;<a href="https://promomissouri.org/over-20-missourians-compromised-of-former-collegiate-athletes-educators-and-clergy-voice-opposition-to-senate-bill-42/" target="_blank">said Shira Berkowitz</a>, senior director of public policy and advocacy of PROMO, Missouri’s largest LGBTQ advocacy group.School had brief answers to questions about their policies, with most unwilling to grant requests for an interview.“We follow the state statute with regard to what gender is listed on a birth certificate and MSHSAA guidelines in terms of student participation in sports based on gender. We have worked effectively with families and student athletes to comply with the state law and we will continue to do so,” Rockwood School District’s spokesperson said.In a review by The Independent of Missouri’s 10 largest school districts’ student manuals, Rockwood was one of two to cite state law in policies around athletic eligibility.“The district complies with all relevant state law regarding participation in athletic competitions,” the policy says, citing&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=163.048" target="_blank">the section that restricts participation based on sex at birth</a>.Wentzville School District based its policy on the law, copying phrases out of state statute and noting a loss of funding if the district does not comply.The other districts lacked mention of the statute, or gender identity, in their athletics eligibility policies.The policy in North Kansas City High School says: “Participation… can be granted to those who meet the eligibility standards of the school and the state of Missouri.”MSHSAA is widely pointed to in eligibility policies.Fort Zumwalt School District, in O’Fallon, determines eligibility “in accordance with the MSHSAA regulations and school district policies and regulations.”Prior to the state law, there were only five transgender athletes eligible to compete in MSHSAA events.

Missouri schools lack public enforcement policies for transgender athlete restrictions

KANSAS CITY— Taylor Swift was in attendance at Arrowhead Stadium&nbsp; Thursday to watch her boyfriend, Travis Kelce, and the Super Bowl champion Kansas City Chiefs defeat the Baltimore Ravens.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725580468000.png" alt="Taylor Swift arrives at Arrowhead Stadium for the Chiefs' season opener -photo by Micaela Dea courtesy KAKE&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Taylor Swift arrives at Arrowhead Stadium for the Chiefs' season opener -photo by Micaela Dea courtesy KAKE&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY— Taylor Swift was in attendance at Arrowhead Stadium&nbsp; Thursday to watch her boyfriend, Travis Kelce, and the Super Bowl champion Kansas City Chiefs defeat the Baltimore Ravens.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">🚨| Taylor Swift stuns arriving at Arrowhead Stadium for today&#39;s Chiefs va Ravens game! <a href="https://t.co/v283TIqMd8">pic.twitter.com/v283TIqMd8</a>&mdash; The Eras Tour (@tswifterastour) <a href="https://twitter.com/tswifterastour/status/1831829709992480819?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 5, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">🚨| Taylor Swift looks absolutely alluring at today&#39;s Chiefs vs Ravens game at Arrowhead Stadium! <a href="https://t.co/jza64xEXzv">pic.twitter.com/jza64xEXzv</a>&mdash; The Eras Tour (@tswifterastour) <a href="https://twitter.com/tswifterastour/status/1831834703558799712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 5, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">🚨| Taylor Swift and Ed Kelce at today&#39;s Chiefs vs Ravens game! <a href="https://t.co/eMezCRHZKT">pic.twitter.com/eMezCRHZKT</a>&mdash; The Eras Tour (@tswifterastour) <a href="https://twitter.com/tswifterastour/status/1831851010366857294?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 6, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">🚨| Taylor Swift celebrating the first Chiefs touchdown of the season! <a href="https://t.co/9qUU9ZXyaK">pic.twitter.com/9qUU9ZXyaK</a>&mdash; The Eras Tour (@tswifterastour) <a href="https://twitter.com/tswifterastour/status/1831861590486085674?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 6, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">🚨| Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce leaving after today&#39;s Chiefs vs Ravens game! <a href="https://t.co/soAHLC6hAq">pic.twitter.com/soAHLC6hAq</a>&mdash; The Eras Tour (@tswifterastour) <a href="https://twitter.com/tswifterastour/status/1831929172580823268?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 6, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥Taylor Swift attends Chiefs' season opener to watch her boyfriend

For the second time, a Missouri judge has accused Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft of crafting ‘inaccurate’ language around the reproductive rights amendment

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft has been ordered to remove his characterization of an abortion rights amendment from his government website after a judge deemed it was unfair and violated state statute.

A Cole County judge on Thursday ruled that Ashcroft’s “fair ballot language” summary of the reproductive rights amendment, also known as Amendment 3, was “unfair, inaccurate, insufficient and misleading.”

“Intentionally of not, the secretary’s language sows voter confusion about the effects of the measure,” Circuit Judge Cotton Walker wrote in a Thursday afternoon decision.&nbsp;

The day Ashcroft&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">certified the abortion-rights amendment for the Nov. 5 ballot,</a>&nbsp;a “fair ballot language” summary for Amendment 3 was also published on his office’s government website. That summary will also appear at every polling place around the state next to sample ballots. By state law&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=116.025" target="_blank">this summary must be “true and impartial.”</a>

Ashcroft is&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/02/missouri-abortion-amendment-march-life/&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiLjtf756yIAxVgFjQIHR6RPGwQFnoECBQQAQ&amp;usg=AOvVaw1D4JsqkdgQGe87Fc0ShvyX" target="_blank">vocal in his opposition to abortion.</a>

Amendment 3, if passed by a statewide majority vote, would establish the constitutional right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability. Since the overturning of the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in&nbsp;June 2022, nearly all abortions became illegal in Missouri, with limited exceptions for the life and health of the mother.&nbsp;

It would also enshrine other reproductive rights in the constitution, including in-vitro fertilization and birth control, both of which remain legal in Missouri.&nbsp;

Ashcroft’s summary of the amendment read: “A ‘yes’ vote will enshrine the right to abortion at any time of pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution. Additionally, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women.”&nbsp;

<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/20/missouri-secretary-state-ashcroft-lawsuit-abortion/">Abortion-rights activists in a lawsuit</a>&nbsp;filed two weeks ago called Ashcroft’s summary of the amendment harmful and confusing to voters.

Walker agreed, ruling that Ashcroft’s assertion that the amendment would allow the right to an abortion at any point in pregnancy “gives voters the wrong idea of what the amendment will accomplish.”

The secretary of state’s office said in a statement that it is reviewing the judge’s decision.&nbsp;

“Secretary Ashcroft will always stand for life and for the people of Missouri to know the truth,” JoDonn Chaney, a spokesperson for Ashcroft, said Thursday afternoon.

Walker’s decision came a day after a bench trial in which both sides argued over what the amendment would mean for Missourians if approved by voters.&nbsp;

The brief trial was focused on language around provider immunity.

The amendment reads, in part, that no person “assisting a person in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with that person’s consent be penalized, prosecuted, or otherwise subjected to adverse action for doing so.”

Andrew Crane, a lawyer representing Ashcroft on behalf of the attorney general’s office, argued Wednesday that the amendment would lead to “effectively neutering the government’s ability to enforce any effective regulations” on abortion.&nbsp;

Such a claim was “politically-charged” and unfounded, since it fails to take into account other language in the amendment protecting patients, said Tori Schafer, an attorney with the ACLU of Missouri, which is representing the plaintiff.

Walker wrote that Ashcroft’s argument runs “contrary to the language of the amendment and will give voters the mistaken impression that the amendment will allow physicians to perform abortions negligently or criminally.”&nbsp;

The judge said Ashcroft’s argument of provider immunity “ignores, with respect to health care providers, that the protection from prosecution (1) hinges on the patient’s consent and (2) is coextensive with the right to reproductive freedom and its regulation.”&nbsp;

Walker on Thursday provided new “fair ballot language” to be posted on the secretary of state’s website and at polling places. It reads:&nbsp;

“A ‘yes’ vote establishes a constitutional right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid; removes Missouri’s ban on abortion; allows regulation of reproductive health care to improve of maintain the health of the patient; requires the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and allows abortion to be restricted or banned after fetal viability except to protect the life or health of the woman.”

The Amendment 3 lawsuit was filed by retired physician Dr. Anna Fitz-James, who initially filed the abortion rights initiative petition in spring 2023 on behalf of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the campaign behind the amendment.&nbsp;

“Missourians deserve the chance to vote on Amendment 3 based on facts,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement following the decision. “And today’s decision brings us one step closer to making that a reality.”

Walker’s decision mirrored one made by Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem last year, after Ashcroft was also sued by the abortion-rights campaign over the initial ballot summary he drafted, which would have asked Missourians, in part, if they wanted to “allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth.”&nbsp;

Beetem in his ruling a year ago said that Ashcroft’s language was&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/09/25/judge-rejects-rewrites-summary-for-missouri-abortion-initiative-petition/">“problematic” and inaccurate.</a>&nbsp;

Ashcroft appealed, but the higher court sided with Beetem, writing it is “not a probable effect” that the amendment would allow unrestricted abortion in all nine months of pregnancy or that it would toss aside health and safety regulations, “including requirements that physicians perform abortions and that they maintain medical malpractice insurance.”

A second lawsuit regarding Amendment 3 will be challenged at a bench trial on Friday in Cole County after a number of anti-abortion activists and lawmakers asked a judge to block the amendment from the Nov. 5 ballot. Their lawsuit claims Amendment 3 violates the state constitution by including more than one subject and fails to specify which laws and constitutional provisions would be repealed if it was approved.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/8/1724262530682.png" alt="- Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft joined the Midwest March for Life on May 1 at the Missouri State Capitol (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption>- Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft joined the Midwest March for Life on May 1 at the Missouri State Capitol (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/annaspoerre/">ANNA SPOERRE</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a><h2>For the second time, a Missouri judge has accused Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft of crafting ‘inaccurate’ language around the reproductive rights amendment</h2>Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft has been ordered to remove his characterization of an abortion rights amendment from his government website after a judge deemed it was unfair and violated state statute.A Cole County judge on Thursday ruled that Ashcroft’s “fair ballot language” summary of the reproductive rights amendment, also known as Amendment 3, was “unfair, inaccurate, insufficient and misleading.”“Intentionally of not, the secretary’s language sows voter confusion about the effects of the measure,” Circuit Judge Cotton Walker wrote in a Thursday afternoon decision.&nbsp;The day Ashcroft&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/13/missouri-voters-will-decide-whether-to-legalize-abortion-in-november/">certified the abortion-rights amendment for the Nov. 5 ballot,</a>&nbsp;a “fair ballot language” summary for Amendment 3 was also published on his office’s government website. That summary will also appear at every polling place around the state next to sample ballots. By state law&nbsp;<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=116.025" target="_blank">this summary must be “true and impartial.”</a>Ashcroft is&nbsp;<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/02/missouri-abortion-amendment-march-life/&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiLjtf756yIAxVgFjQIHR6RPGwQFnoECBQQAQ&amp;usg=AOvVaw1D4JsqkdgQGe87Fc0ShvyX" target="_blank">vocal in his opposition to abortion.</a>Amendment 3, if passed by a statewide majority vote, would establish the constitutional right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability. Since the overturning of the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in&nbsp;June 2022, nearly all abortions became illegal in Missouri, with limited exceptions for the life and health of the mother.&nbsp;It would also enshrine other reproductive rights in the constitution, including in-vitro fertilization and birth control, both of which remain legal in Missouri.&nbsp;Ashcroft’s summary of the amendment read: “A ‘yes’ vote will enshrine the right to abortion at any time of pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution. Additionally, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women.”&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/08/20/missouri-secretary-state-ashcroft-lawsuit-abortion/">Abortion-rights activists in a lawsuit</a>&nbsp;filed two weeks ago called Ashcroft’s summary of the amendment harmful and confusing to voters.Walker agreed, ruling that Ashcroft’s assertion that the amendment would allow the right to an abortion at any point in pregnancy “gives voters the wrong idea of what the amendment will accomplish.”The secretary of state’s office said in a statement that it is reviewing the judge’s decision.&nbsp;“Secretary Ashcroft will always stand for life and for the people of Missouri to know the truth,” JoDonn Chaney, a spokesperson for Ashcroft, said Thursday afternoon.Walker’s decision came a day after a bench trial in which both sides argued over what the amendment would mean for Missourians if approved by voters.&nbsp;The brief trial was focused on language around provider immunity.The amendment reads, in part, that no person “assisting a person in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with that person’s consent be penalized, prosecuted, or otherwise subjected to adverse action for doing so.”Andrew Crane, a lawyer representing Ashcroft on behalf of the attorney general’s office, argued Wednesday that the amendment would lead to “effectively neutering the government’s ability to enforce any effective regulations” on abortion.&nbsp;Such a claim was “politically-charged” and unfounded, since it fails to take into account other language in the amendment protecting patients, said Tori Schafer, an attorney with the ACLU of Missouri, which is representing the plaintiff.Walker wrote that Ashcroft’s argument runs “contrary to the language of the amendment and will give voters the mistaken impression that the amendment will allow physicians to perform abortions negligently or criminally.”&nbsp;The judge said Ashcroft’s argument of provider immunity “ignores, with respect to health care providers, that the protection from prosecution (1) hinges on the patient’s consent and (2) is coextensive with the right to reproductive freedom and its regulation.”&nbsp;<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725617026837.png" alt="Attendees cheer during a Missourians for Constitutional Freedom rally after the campaign turned in more than 380,000 signatures for its initiative petition to enshrine abortion rights in Missouri’s constitution Friday morning (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption>Attendees cheer during a Missourians for Constitutional Freedom rally after the campaign turned in more than 380,000 signatures for its initiative petition to enshrine abortion rights in Missouri’s constitution Friday morning (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure>Walker on Thursday provided new “fair ballot language” to be posted on the secretary of state’s website and at polling places. It reads:&nbsp;“A ‘yes’ vote establishes a constitutional right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid; removes Missouri’s ban on abortion; allows regulation of reproductive health care to improve of maintain the health of the patient; requires the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and allows abortion to be restricted or banned after fetal viability except to protect the life or health of the woman.”The Amendment 3 lawsuit was filed by retired physician Dr. Anna Fitz-James, who initially filed the abortion rights initiative petition in spring 2023 on behalf of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the campaign behind the amendment.&nbsp;“Missourians deserve the chance to vote on Amendment 3 based on facts,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement following the decision. “And today’s decision brings us one step closer to making that a reality.”Walker’s decision mirrored one made by Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem last year, after Ashcroft was also sued by the abortion-rights campaign over the initial ballot summary he drafted, which would have asked Missourians, in part, if they wanted to “allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth.”&nbsp;Beetem in his ruling a year ago said that Ashcroft’s language was&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/09/25/judge-rejects-rewrites-summary-for-missouri-abortion-initiative-petition/">“problematic” and inaccurate.</a>&nbsp;Ashcroft appealed, but the higher court sided with Beetem, writing it is “not a probable effect” that the amendment would allow unrestricted abortion in all nine months of pregnancy or that it would toss aside health and safety regulations, “including requirements that physicians perform abortions and that they maintain medical malpractice insurance.”A second lawsuit regarding Amendment 3 will be challenged at a bench trial on Friday in Cole County after a number of anti-abortion activists and lawmakers asked a judge to block the amendment from the Nov. 5 ballot. Their lawsuit claims Amendment 3 violates the state constitution by including more than one subject and fails to specify which laws and constitutional provisions would be repealed if it was approved.

Judge calls Ashcroft’s characterization of abortion amendment ‘unfair’ and ‘misleading’

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>&nbsp; <a href="https://statesnewsroom.com/">States Newsroom</a>

WASHINGTON — Exactly two months out from the presidential election, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan plans to move ahead with the case accusing former President Donald Trump of subverting the 2020 presidential election results, telling Trump’s attorneys that she is “not concerned with the electoral schedule.”

Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, did not appear in federal court for Thursday’s hearing in Washington, D.C., but his lawyers pleaded not guilty on his behalf to the four charges that remained unchanged in U.S. special counsel Jack Smith’s new indictment, filed last week.

The case had been in a holding pattern for eight months as Trump appealed his claim of presidential immunity all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Chutkan’s anticipated new timeline for the case — which she could release as early as Thursday — is still expected to assure Trump will not face trial before Election Day in November.

U.S. prosecutors say they are ready to restart the case in the coming weeks, while Trump’s team has argued for more time to review evidence and dismiss the superseding indictment.

The Supreme Court returned Trump’s case to the trial court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/presidential-immunity-covers-some-official-acts-supreme-court-rules-trump-case" target="_blank">after ruling</a>&nbsp;that former presidents are immune from criminal charges for official “core constitutional” acts while in office and hold at least presumptive immunity for “outer perimeter” activities, but not for personal actions.

This gave Chutkan, an Obama administration appointee, the major task of parsing Smith’s indictment, deciding which allegations against Trump fall under the umbrella of official acts and which relate to actions taken in a personal capacity.

Chutkan did not issue any decisions on immunity at the Thursday hearing but rather spent significant time grilling Trump’s attorney John Lauro on why he believes it is “unseemly” for Smith’s office to lay out its case this month in an opening brief. Thomas Windom, a federal prosecutor in Smith’s office, said the government would be ready to file the brief by the end of September.

Lauro argued that Smith wanting to file “at breakneck speed” is “incredibly unfair that they are able to put in the public record (evidence) at this sensitive time in our nation’s history.”

“I understand there’s an election impending,” Chutkan snapped back, reminding him that it “is not relevant here.”

“Three weeks is not exactly breakneck speed,” Chutkan added.

Lauro argues that Chutkan should examine parts of the indictment that accuse Trump of pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to accept false slates of electors leading up to Pence’s ceremonial role in certifying the election results on Jan. 6, 2021.

“The problem with that issue is if in fact the communications are immune, then the entire indictment fails,” Lauro argued.

“I’m not sure that’s my reading of the case,” Chutkan replied.

The government maintains that all actions and communications by Trump described in the new indictment were “private in nature,” Windom argued.

Chutkan also spent time during the roughly 75-minute hearing questioning Lauro on the Trump legal team’s numerous plans to request the case’s dismissal. One anticipated plan is to try its successful play in Florida, where a Trump-appointed federal judge&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-criminal-case" target="_blank">tossed</a>&nbsp;his classified documents case after Trump argued Smith was illegally appointed as special counsel.

Chutkan said she will allow the defense to file that motion but warned that attorneys must provide convincing arguments on why “binding precedent doesn’t hold” for the time-tested position of special prosecutor.

Trump is&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/226/united-states-v-trump/" target="_blank">charged</a>&nbsp;with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights for his alleged role in conspiring to create false electors from seven states and spreading knowingly false information that whipped his supporters into a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

A federal grand jury handed up a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/special-counsel-smith-files-new-indictment-trumps-jan-6-case" target="_blank">revised indictment</a>&nbsp;Aug. 27 in an effort to tailor the charges to the Supreme Court’s July 1 immunity&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf" target="_blank">ruling</a>. The fresh indictment omitted any references to Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Justice Department officials to meddle in state election results.

But the document added emphasis on Trump’s personal use of social media outside of his actions as president, and said he and several co-conspirators schemed outside of his official duties. The new indictment also stressed Trump’s pressure on Pence to accept the fake electors in his role outside of the executive branch as president of the Senate.

If Trump wins the Oval Office in November, he would have the power to hinder or altogether shut down the Department of Justice’s election interference case against him.

If he loses to Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, the case is sure to be set back by further delays, as the Trump team plans numerous challenges and will almost certainly appeal — likely to the Supreme Court again — Chutkan’s decisions on which allegations against Trump are or are not subject to immunity.

According to Friday’s&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.229.0_4.pdf" target="_blank">joint filing</a>&nbsp;in which each side laid out plans for the case going forward, Trump’s team also warned they will challenge that Trump’s tweets and communication about the 2020 presidential results should be considered all official acts.

Additionally, Trump plans to file a motion to dismiss the case based on the Supreme Court’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-ruling-obstruction-law-helps-cases-jan-6-defendants" target="_blank">June ruling</a>&nbsp;that a Jan. 6 rioter could not be charged with obstructing an official proceeding — a charge that Trump also faces.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1725589977937.png" alt="Former President Trump at the Economic Club of New York on Thursday -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Former President Trump at the Economic Club of New York on Thursday -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>&nbsp; <a href="https://statesnewsroom.com/">States Newsroom</a>WASHINGTON — Exactly two months out from the presidential election, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan plans to move ahead with the case accusing former President Donald Trump of subverting the 2020 presidential election results, telling Trump’s attorneys that she is “not concerned with the electoral schedule.”Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, did not appear in federal court for Thursday’s hearing in Washington, D.C., but his lawyers pleaded not guilty on his behalf to the four charges that remained unchanged in U.S. special counsel Jack Smith’s new indictment, filed last week.The case had been in a holding pattern for eight months as Trump appealed his claim of presidential immunity all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Chutkan’s anticipated new timeline for the case — which she could release as early as Thursday — is still expected to assure Trump will not face trial before Election Day in November.U.S. prosecutors say they are ready to restart the case in the coming weeks, while Trump’s team has argued for more time to review evidence and dismiss the superseding indictment.The Supreme Court returned Trump’s case to the trial court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/presidential-immunity-covers-some-official-acts-supreme-court-rules-trump-case" target="_blank">after ruling</a>&nbsp;that former presidents are immune from criminal charges for official “core constitutional” acts while in office and hold at least presumptive immunity for “outer perimeter” activities, but not for personal actions.This gave Chutkan, an Obama administration appointee, the major task of parsing Smith’s indictment, deciding which allegations against Trump fall under the umbrella of official acts and which relate to actions taken in a personal capacity.<h2>Chutkan skeptical&nbsp;</h2>Chutkan did not issue any decisions on immunity at the Thursday hearing but rather spent significant time grilling Trump’s attorney John Lauro on why he believes it is “unseemly” for Smith’s office to lay out its case this month in an opening brief. Thomas Windom, a federal prosecutor in Smith’s office, said the government would be ready to file the brief by the end of September.Lauro argued that Smith wanting to file “at breakneck speed” is “incredibly unfair that they are able to put in the public record (evidence) at this sensitive time in our nation’s history.”“I understand there’s an election impending,” Chutkan snapped back, reminding him that it “is not relevant here.”“Three weeks is not exactly breakneck speed,” Chutkan added.Lauro argues that Chutkan should examine parts of the indictment that accuse Trump of pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to accept false slates of electors leading up to Pence’s ceremonial role in certifying the election results on Jan. 6, 2021.“The problem with that issue is if in fact the communications are immune, then the entire indictment fails,” Lauro argued.“I’m not sure that’s my reading of the case,” Chutkan replied.The government maintains that all actions and communications by Trump described in the new indictment were “private in nature,” Windom argued.Chutkan also spent time during the roughly 75-minute hearing questioning Lauro on the Trump legal team’s numerous plans to request the case’s dismissal. One anticipated plan is to try its successful play in Florida, where a Trump-appointed federal judge&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-criminal-case" target="_blank">tossed</a>&nbsp;his classified documents case after Trump argued Smith was illegally appointed as special counsel.Chutkan said she will allow the defense to file that motion but warned that attorneys must provide convincing arguments on why “binding precedent doesn’t hold” for the time-tested position of special prosecutor.<h2>New indictment, same charges</h2>Trump is&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/226/united-states-v-trump/" target="_blank">charged</a>&nbsp;with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights for his alleged role in conspiring to create false electors from seven states and spreading knowingly false information that whipped his supporters into a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.A federal grand jury handed up a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/special-counsel-smith-files-new-indictment-trumps-jan-6-case" target="_blank">revised indictment</a>&nbsp;Aug. 27 in an effort to tailor the charges to the Supreme Court’s July 1 immunity&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf" target="_blank">ruling</a>. The fresh indictment omitted any references to Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Justice Department officials to meddle in state election results.But the document added emphasis on Trump’s personal use of social media outside of his actions as president, and said he and several co-conspirators schemed outside of his official duties. The new indictment also stressed Trump’s pressure on Pence to accept the fake electors in his role outside of the executive branch as president of the Senate.If Trump wins the Oval Office in November, he would have the power to hinder or altogether shut down the Department of Justice’s election interference case against him.If he loses to Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, the case is sure to be set back by further delays, as the Trump team plans numerous challenges and will almost certainly appeal — likely to the Supreme Court again — Chutkan’s decisions on which allegations against Trump are or are not subject to immunity.According to Friday’s&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.229.0_4.pdf" target="_blank">joint filing</a>&nbsp;in which each side laid out plans for the case going forward, Trump’s team also warned they will challenge that Trump’s tweets and communication about the 2020 presidential results should be considered all official acts.Additionally, Trump plans to file a motion to dismiss the case based on the Supreme Court’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-ruling-obstruction-law-helps-cases-jan-6-defendants" target="_blank">June ruling</a>&nbsp;that a Jan. 6 rioter could not be charged with obstructing an official proceeding — a charge that Trump also faces.

Judge: Trump’s Jan. 6 case won’t be delayed by upcoming election

‘ChiefsAholic’ Committed 11 Bank Robberies in Seven States, Laundered Proceeds Through Area Casinos

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – A man popularly known as Kansas City Chiefs superfan “ChiefsAholic” was sentenced in federal court Thursday on charges related to a string of 11 robberies, or attempted robberies, in which he stole $847,725 from financial institutions in seven states, according to the United State's Attorney.

“While parading as a social media celebrity, the defendant secretly engaged in a violent crime spree of armed robberies and attempted robberies across seven states,” said U.S. Attorney Teresa Moore. “Babudar’s robbery spree bankrolled the expensive tickets and travel across the country to attend Kansas City Chiefs games while he cultivated a large fan base online. However, the bank and credit union employees whom he terrorized at gunpoint suffered the brunt of his true nature. He tried to flee from justice, but law enforcement caught up with him and now he will spend a significant portion of his life in prison.”

Xaviar Michael Babudar, 30, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Howard F. Sachs to 17 years and six months in federal prison without parole. The court also ordered Babudar to pay $532,675 in restitution to the victim financial institutions. Some of the stolen money was recovered, but most of it was not.

The court ordered Babudar to forfeit to the government any property involved in his money laundering activity, including an autographed painting of Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick L. Mahomes II that has been recovered by the FBI.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/7/1689010403536.png" alt="Babudar fron an earlier arrest in Tulsa County" />
 <figcaption>Babudar fron an earlier arrest in Tulsa County</figcaption>
 </figure>‘ChiefsAholic’ Committed 11 Bank Robberies in Seven States, Laundered Proceeds Through Area CasinosKANSAS CITY, Mo. – A man popularly known as Kansas City Chiefs superfan “ChiefsAholic” was sentenced in federal court Thursday on charges related to a string of 11 robberies, or attempted robberies, in which he stole $847,725 from financial institutions in seven states, according to the United State's Attorney.<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ejVWEofiHBI?si=5dOjRY5klpUsbPr5" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>“While parading as a social media celebrity, the defendant secretly engaged in a violent crime spree of armed robberies and attempted robberies across seven states,” said U.S. Attorney Teresa Moore. “Babudar’s robbery spree bankrolled the expensive tickets and travel across the country to attend Kansas City Chiefs games while he cultivated a large fan base online. However, the bank and credit union employees whom he terrorized at gunpoint suffered the brunt of his true nature. He tried to flee from justice, but law enforcement caught up with him and now he will spend a significant portion of his life in prison.”Xaviar Michael Babudar, 30, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Howard F. Sachs to 17 years and six months in federal prison without parole. The court also ordered Babudar to pay $532,675 in restitution to the victim financial institutions. Some of the stolen money was recovered, but most of it was not.The court ordered Babudar to forfeit to the government any property involved in his money laundering activity, including an autographed painting of Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick L. Mahomes II that has been recovered by the FBI.“The actions of Babudar were brazen and traumatic for the bank employees robbed in Bixby, Oklahoma,” said U.S. Attorney Clint Johnson of the Northern District of Oklahoma. “A big thank you to the Bixby Police Department for their hard work in collaboration with the FBI Tulsa field office, who helped detain Babudar in Oklahoma.”“The bank was not the only victim of these crimes,” stated Special Agent in Charge Stephen Cyrus of the FBI Kansas City Field Office. “Babudar terrorized bank employees throughout his multi-state crime spree, while relishing his celebrity status. Today’s sentencing speaks to the severity of his actions and the significant law enforcement assistance and resources utilized across multiple states to hold him accountable for his violent and criminal behavior.”On Feb. 28, 2024, Babudar pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering and one count of transporting stolen property across state lines. Babudar also pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery, which is contained in a separate case filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma. The court today sentenced Babudar to 17 years and six months in federal prison in the Western District of Missouri case and 17 years and six months in prison in the Northern District of Oklahoma case, to be served concurrently.Babudar also admitted that he engaged in a string of nine bank and credit union robberies (or attempted robberies) in 2022 followed by two bank robberies committed while he was a fugitive from justice. Babudar laundered much of the stolen money through area casinos and online gambling.Babudar, who lived a nomadic existence at various locations around the Kansas City metropolitan area, enjoyed a robust social media presence as Kansas City Chiefs superfan Twitter user @ChiefsAholic, attending most games dressed as a wolf in Chiefs clothing.Babudar pleaded guilty to stealing $70,000 from the Clive, Iowa, branch of Great Western Bank on March 2, 2022. Babudar admitted that he entered the bank wearing a ski mask and handed the bank teller a note demanding money and indicating he had a firearm. As he fled on foot, Babudar left behind a black glove and approximately $1,420 in $20 bills in a wooded area near the bank. Investigators later recovered Babudar’s DNA from the black glove. Babudar then carried this money to Missouri, depositing it in two separate transactions into his personal savings account in an attempt to conceal the criminal nature of the proceeds.Babudar also pleaded guilty to stealing $139,500 from Tulsa Teachers Federal Credit Union in Bixby, Okla., on Dec. 16, 2022. Babudar admitted that he entered the credit union armed with what appeared to be a black handgun, jumped the teller counter, and ordered a bank employee at gunpoint to go to the credit union’s vault. Once at the vault, Babudar demanded that bank employees open the vault and put the money from the vault into a plastic bag. During this robbery, Babudar told credit union employees that if they did not comply he would shoot them.When Babudar was arrested shortly after the robbery, he had a large bag in his possession that contained $139,500 in $100 bills plus $10,750 in $50 bills, totaling $150,250 in cash. When investigators searched his 2019 Mazda 3, they found numerous pairs of goggles and gloves, which Babudar wore during a series of bank robberies. Investigators also found a Barstool Sportsbook Betslip for $20,000, dated Nov. 19, 2022; a FanDuel Betslip for $4,000, dated Dec. 1, 2022; and letters from Community America Credit Union related to his deposits of $20,000 and $50,000 on May 2, 2022.Babudar also admitted that he committed, or attempted to commit, nine robberies of banks and credit unions in addition to the two to which he pleaded guilty. Those crimes, including two bank robberies committed while Babudar was a fugitive from justice, were considered as relevant conduct for sentencing.Babudar admitted that he stole $170,860 from the Omaha, Nebraska, branch of First National Bank of Omaha on April 28, 2022. Babudar entered the bank armed with what appeared to be a firearm and ordered bank employees to open their vault. Omaha police officers recovered $163,560 following the theft.Babudar admitted that he stole $303,845 from the West Des Moines, Iowa, branch of First Class Community Credit Union on July 13, 2022. Babudar brandished what appeared to be a silver and black firearm, jumped over the teller counter, and demanded that the bank employees open the bank vault. After carrying the stolen money back to Missouri, Babudar began laundering this money through area casinos, depositing the cash he received from these casinos into his personal bank account.Babudar admitted that he stole $125,900 from the Nashville, Tennessee, branch of The Tennessee Credit Union on Nov. 17, 2022. Babudar, armed with what appeared to be a black and silver firearm, climbed over the bank teller counter. He pressed the firearm against the teller’s body and demanded that credit union employees take him to the vault. Employees complied with Babudar’s demands, provided him with cash from the teller drawers, and took him to the vault. Babudar told credit union employees that if he was given a dye pack he would “come back and put a bullet in your head.” After Babudar fled on foot, a hat was recovered; investigators extracted DNA from the hat that matched the DNA extracted from Babudar’s glove in the March 2, 2022, robbery. A few days later, Babudar used some of the stolen money to purchase $20,000 in casino chips in multiple transactions from a local casino.Babudar admitted that he attempted to rob Wings Financial Credit Union in Savage, Minnesota, on Nov. 29, 2022. Babudar entered this credit union with what appeared to be a firearm and demanded that credit union employees open the vault. Babudar fled from the credit union, however, after seeing the vault only held small bills.Babudar admitted that he attempted to rob Royal Credit Union in Apple Valley, Minn., on Nov. 29, 2022. Babudar entered the credit union with what appeared to be a firearm and demanded that credit union employees open the vault. When he saw the vault only contained small bills, Babudar demanded $100 bills. Credit union employees told him they didn’t keep $100 bills in the vault, and Babudar fled on foot.Babudar admitted that he stole $25,000 from the Clive, Iowa, branch of First Interstate Bank on Nov. 30, 2022. Following the two unsuccessful robberies the previous day, Babudar returned to the same facility he had robbed on March 2, 2022, which had since then become a branch of First Interstate Bank. Babudar entered the bank carrying what appeared to be a firearm and jumped over the teller counter. He ordered the bank employees, at gunpoint, to open the vault. He fled on foot after the bank employees gave him the cash in the vault. Babudar then carried the stolen money back to Missouri, where he deposited a portion of it into his personal bank account.Babudar admitted that he attempted to rob Pinnacle Bank in Papillon, Nebraska, on Dec. 15, 2022. At approximately 1:55 p.m., Babudar entered the vestibule area of Pinnacle Bank and pulled on the doors, but was unable to open them. He then left the area. The next day, he robbed the Tulsa Teachers Federal Credit Union and was arrested.Babudar, after being arrested in Oklahoma in December 2022, was released on bond in the state case in February 2023.Months earlier, Babudar had placed two winning bets at the Argosy Casino in Alton, Ill. On June 10, 2022, Babudar bet $5,000 that Kansas City Chiefs’ quarterback Patrick Mahomes II would win the Most Valuable Player at Super Bowl LVII, which would pay out $45,000 should that occur. Babudar also bet $5,000 that the Kansas City Chiefs would win Super Bowl LVII, which would pay out $55,000 should that occur. When the Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl on Feb. 12, 2023, and Mahomes won the Most Valuable Player award, Babudar won $100,000. Argosy Casino mailed Babudar a $100,000 check in early March 2023.Days later, Babudar cut his ankle monitor and fled from Oklahoma. According to court documents, Babudar used his gambling winnings to purchase a vehicle in Henderson, Nevada, and evade law enforcement until his arrest in Sacramento on July 7, 2023.Babudar admitted that he robbed two additional banks while he was a fugitive from justice.Babudar admitted that he stole $1,100 from Heritage Bank in Sparks, Nevada, on June 8, 2023. Babudar entered the bank wearing a beanie, a Covid-19 mask, a blue long-sleeved shirt, khaki pants, and a fanny pack. Babudar showed a note to the Heritage Bank teller that was composed on his cell phone, which demanded money from the teller.Babudar admitted that he stole $950 from U.S. Bank in El Dorado Hills, California, on July 3, 2023. Babudar entered the bank wearing a grey hooded sweatshirt, a Covid-19 mask, and a yellow reflective vest. Babudar showed a note to the U.S. Bank teller that was composed on his cell phone, which demanded money from the teller.Babudar has been detained in federal custody without bond since his arrest on July 7, 2023.This case was prosecuted by Senior Litigation Counsel Patrick D. Daly and Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie C. Bradshaw in the Western District of Missouri, and U.S. Attorney Clinton J. Johnson and Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric O. Johnston in the Northern District of Oklahoma. It was investigated by the FBI and the Bixby, Okla., Police Department. The Bixby, Okla., Police Department arrested Babudar in December 2022, and the Placer County, Calif., Sheriff’s Department and the Lincoln, Calif., Police Department assisted the FBI in the July 2023 arrest.

Kbct