沈阳治疗过敏那家医院比较好沈阳治疗白块的医院哪家专业,沈阳什么医院看皮肤过敏好,在沈阳上哪看皮肤病比较好,沈阳肤康皮肤病医院治疗皮肤科靠谱吗正不正规,沈阳治湿疹一般多少钱,沈阳区哪个医院皮肤科比较好,沈阳 治疗腋臭 哪家医院 价格

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - Former Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, who was acquitted of murder and attempted murder charges last year stemming from allegations that he fatally stabbed a wounded teenage ISIS fighter and shot Iraqi civilians, is suing the Secretary of the Navy and a New York Times reporter, alleging the reporter defamed Gallagher with the help of Navy officials illegally leaking him documents.The suit accuses the Navy of leaking "about 500 pages of confidential documents from the Navy's criminal investigation" on Gallagher to reporter David Philipps, who extensively covered the allegations against Gallagher prior to and after his trial at Navy Base San Diego last year.The suit also names as a defendant Navy Secretary Kenneth J. Braithwaite, who was sworn in to his post Friday, the same day Gallagher's lawsuit was filed in San Diego federal court.Representatives of the Navy and New York Times could not immediately be reached for comment.Gallagher was acquitted in July of several serious charges related to the alleged slaying of a teenage boy, as well as allegations of firing indiscriminately on civilians from a sniper's nest, which could have had him facing life in prison. However, he was only convicted of posing with the teen's body in a photograph, resulting in a demotion in rank. President Donald Trump, who publicly supported Gallagher throughout the allegations, restored Gallagher's rank in November.According to the lawsuit, "corrupt Navy officials" conspired to defame Gallagher by leaking information to Philipps, who published several articles that Gallagher's attorneys allege presented false information to discredit the former SEAL.The complaint further alleges that Philipps wholly fabricated some allegations against Gallagher, including that Gallagher routinely fired on civilian neighborhoods and tried to run over a Navy Police officer in 2014.The suit alleges information leaked to Philipps included "witness interview summaries and seized text messages" from the criminal investigation and "a complete list of other SEALs that Chief Gallagher had deployed with on prior occasions" so that Philipps could contact them for his stories.Navy officials hoped "negative publicity would help to pressure Chief Gallagher into taking a plea, as well as to influence any potential jury pool," the complaint alleges."Navy officials presented David Philipps with a golden egg," the lawsuit alleges. "They would illegally provide him with certain protected documents, in clear violation of the Privacy Act and court orders, so that Philipps could write a damning portrayal of Chief Gallagher, with reckless disregard for the truth."The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges Gallagher has suffered "significant mental and emotional anguish" through the Navy's "violations of the Privacy Act and unlawful disclosure of Chief Gallagher's private information to David Philipps."The lawsuit is not the first time Gallagher's attorneys have accused Navy officials of misconduct.Gallagher's defense team previously alleged Navy prosecutors used tracking software to spy on the email accounts of the defense and a Navy Times reporter covering the trial.The trial judge, Capt. Aaron Rugh, removed prosecutor Cmdr. Chris Czaplak from the case just before the trial was set to begin, ruling the prosecution sent emails to the defense and the Navy Times reporter that were embedded with code that would track the recipients' email activity.The findings led Rugh to order that Gallagher be released from custody due to violations of his Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights and that his maximum possible sentence of life without parole be reduced to life with the possibility of parole. 3715

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - Embattled Rep. Duncan Hunter criticized Navy officials Monday for their plans to possibly remove a Navy SEAL acquitted of murder charges from the service against the wishes of President Donald Trump. Hunter commented Monday outside San Diego federal court regarding the Navy's handling of the war crimes case of Navy SEAL Chief Edward Gallagher, who was acquitted by a military jury this summer of stabbing a wounded teenage ISIS fighter to death in Mosul, Iraq, as well as other charges of attempting to kill unarmed Iraqi civilians. Hunter discussed the Gallagher case for about five minutes with reporters, but did not comment regarding his ongoing campaign fraud case, in which he's accused of misusing 0,000 in campaign funds for personal use. Hunter was indicted along with his wife on five dozen criminal counts, including wire fraud, conspiracy, and falsification of records. Margaret Hunter, 44, has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge and awaits sentencing. Monday's hearing was postponed, but Hunter will return to court Dec. 3. RELATED COVERAGE:Trump says Navy won’t remove Gallagher’s SEAL’s designationEsper says Trump ordered him to allow SEAL to keep statusPentagon chief fires Navy secretary over SEAL controversyNavy to initiate 'Trident Review' of Navy SEAL Edward GallagherChief Edward Gallagher review expected to proceed despite Trump's oppositionGallagher was demoted in rank based on the sole conviction he received in the court martial for posing with the ISIS fighter's corpse in a photograph. On Nov. 15, Trump restored Gallagher's rank, but Navy officials said days later that a ``trident review'' would go forward regarding whether Gallagher would remain a member of the SEALs. Hunter, who has supported Gallagher throughout his court martial and news of the trident review, said ``The military will never admit that it's wrong on anything even when it obviously is,'' calling the Gallagher case an example of ``prosecutorial and bureaucratic abuse from within the military system.'' Hunter, who told reporters he's been in contact with Gallagher, said ``What the Navy was going to do was purely punitive, just to slap (Gallagher) in the face one last time before he retired.'' Hunter also criticized the Navy for ignoring Trump's authority as commander in chief. ``When the president says that Eddie Gallagher will retire with his trident with all the honors that he's earned in the Navy, that sends a pretty clear message that no retaliatory act by the Navy against Chief Gallagher is going to be accepted by the president,'' Hunter said. ``In this case, President Trump is the Secretary of the Navy's boss. He's everybody in the military's boss. So when he says something, whether he tweets it or not, or says it in a certain way or not, just because it's not written in the perfect bureaucratic order or way that we're used to from other people, doesn't mean that he doesn't mean what he says.'' On Sunday, Trump tweeted that he was ``not pleased with the way that Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher's trial was handled by the Navy,'' and said that Gallagher would retire with his Trident Pin. Navy Secretary Richard Spencer was fired Sunday, with the Gallagher case cited in a statement from the Pentagon as the central factor in Spencer's removal. DOD spokesman Jonathan Hoffman wrote that Secretary of Defense Mark Esper asked for Spencer's resignation after Spencer privately proposed to the White House to restore Gallagher's rank, despite his opposing public stance on the issue. In a resignation letter dated this Sunday, Spencer does not reference Gallagher specifically, but states that issues with Trump played a role. ``Unfortunately it has become apparent that in this respect, I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline,'' he wrote. ``I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The President deserves and should expect a Secretary of the Navy who is aligned with his vision for the future of our force generation and sustainment.'' In Trump's Sunday tweet regarding the Gallagher case, he briefly thanked Spencer ``for his service & commitment.'' The Navy SEAL review board is slated to hear Gallagher's case on Dec. 2. 4454

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A man who allegedly gunned down another man during an altercation in Lincoln Park pleaded not guilty today to a murder charge. Michael Ortiz, 31, is accused in the Nov. 7 killing of 25-year-old Eziquio Ruiz-Saucedo of National City. Ortiz faces 50 years to life in state prison if convicted of murder and an allegation of discharging a firearm in the killing.Police received reports just after 9 that night of gunshots fired in the parking lot of a shopping center at 300 Euclid Avenue, SDPD Lt. Andra Brown said. According to the lieutenant, the men were involved in a physical fight and at some point, a handgun was brandished and both men were shot.At Ortiz's arraignment, Deputy District Attorney Jeff Dort alleged that Ortiz brought a gun to ``what was probably going to be a fistfight.'' The prosecutor said Ortiz was shot with the same gun used to shoot the victim, but did not elaborate on how that occurred.Ruiz-Saucedo died at the scene, and Ortiz was hospitalized with non- life-threatening injuries, police said.Ortiz was being held on million bail and his next court date is a Jan. 12 status conference. 1145

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - Mayor Kevin Faulconer announced today that all city-owned property along the San Diego River has been cleaned at least once. The city owns roughly one-third of riverfront property, and employees have removed nearly 99 tons of debris from 32 locations since last September, he said.Faulconer said the cleanup will continue, particularly in regard to outreach and coordination with owners of the remaining two-thirds of land along the river."The San Diego River is one of our most precious natural resources and we must continue to give it the care and attention it deserves," Faulconer said. "While we've cleared all of the city's property once, we still have a lot more work to do, so we're encouraging every property owner next to the river to join our cleanup efforts and help preserve the San Diego River for future generations."City employees have sent letters to 33 private property owners,including several businesses, that collectively own another third of riverfront property. Eight owners have allowed city employees to clean their property.Those who reject city services must clean their property or face fines ranging from 0 to ,000, according to the mayor's office.The remaining third of riverfront property is owned by a nonprofit and various government agencies, including the Metropolitan Transit System,Caltrans, San Diego River Park Foundation, California Department of Fish &Wildlife, U.S. Postal Service and County of San Diego.Rob Hutsel, president and CEO of the San Diego River Park Foundation,lauded city efforts to clean riverfront property."Since this effort began, we have seen a dramatic difference along the river in the city," Hutsel said. "There is less trash, fewer encampments and a new hope that a lasting improvement is being achieved." Cleanup efforts are part of the "Clean SD" initiative, which launched May 2017.So far, crews have removed more than 1,000 tons of litter from illegal dumping hot spots in Ocean Beach, City Heights, San Ysidro, Logan Heights, Paradise Hills, Webster, Mission Beach, Point Loma and Pacific Beach. 2105

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - In a ruling stemming from a lawsuit brought the city attorneys of San Diego and two other cities and the state, a federal judge today granted a preliminary injunction against ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft, requiring them to classify their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors in accordance with a new state law.San Francisco-based Judge Ethan P. Schulman ruled in favor of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and the city attorneys of San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco in their lawsuit alleging Uber and Lyft have misclassified their drivers, preventing them from receiving ``the compensation and benefits they have earned through the dignity of their labor.''The suit alleges the companies are violating Assembly Bill 5, which went into effect Jan. 1 and seeks to ensure ``gig workers'' misclassified as independent contractors are afforded certain labor protections, such as the right to minimum wage, sick leave, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation benefits.Both companies issued statements indicating they would appeal the ruling, which is scheduled to go into effect in 10 days.Schulman wrote in his ruling that ``both the Legislature and our Supreme Court have found that the misclassification of workers as `independent contractors' deprives them of the panoply of basic rights and protections to which employees are entitled under California law, including minimum wage, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, paid sick leave and paid family leave.''The judge said that under the ``ABC test'' used to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, the companies would not be able to argue their drivers are independent contractors as they perform work that is within the company's usual course of business.Schulman recognized that the injunction could have major impacts for the companies, as well as some drivers who prefer to remain independent, and wrote that ``if the injunction the People seek will have far-reaching effects, they have only been exacerbated by Defendants' prolonged and brazen refusal to comply with California law.''The campaign for Proposition 22, a proposed ballot initiative sponsored by Uber and Lyft that would allow rideshare drivers to work as independent contractors, decried the ruling.``We need to pass Prop 22 more than ever,'' said Jan Krueger, a retiree who drives with Lyft in Sacramento. ``Sacramento politicians and special interests keep pushing these disastrous laws and lawsuits that would take away the ability of app-based drivers to choose when and how they work, even though by a 4:1 margin drivers want and need to work independently.We'll take our case to the voters to protect the ability of app-based drivers to work as independent contractors, while providing historic new benefits like an earnings guarantee, health benefits and more.''San Diego City Attorney Mara W. Elliott called the ruling ``a milestone in protecting workers and their families from exploitation by Uber and Lyft, I'm proud to be in this fight to hold greedy billion-dollar corporations accountable, especially when a pandemic makes their withholding of health care and unemployment benefits all the more burdensome on taxpayers.''AB 5's author, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, said, ``Uber and Lyft have been fighting tooth and nail for years to cheat their drivers out of the basic workplace protections and benefits they have been legally entitled to. They have enriched their executives and their bottom line, while leaving taxpayers on the hook to subsidize the wages and benefits of their drivers.``Today, the court sided with the People of California. I'm thankful to our Attorney General and city attorneys for demanding justice for the hundreds of thousands of rideshare drivers in California.'' 3862