阜阳治疗丝状尤比较有效的医院(阜阳市在医院治荨麻疹费用) (今日更新中)

RICHMOND, Va. — Crews have arrived to remove a statue of Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart from Richmond's Monument Avenue — an area of the city that contains several Confederate statues that Mayor Levar Stoney has promised to remove.The J.E.B. Stuart monument is one of about a dozen statues Stoney has ordered be removed from city property.Statues of Confederate General Stonewall Jackson and Confederate Naval Commander Matthew Fontaine Maury were removed from Monument Avenue last week and taken to an undisclosed location. A statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis was toppled by protesters last month.A statue to Confederate General Robert E. Lee is located on state-owned property and could be removed once legal challenges to its removal make their way through court.The Stuart statue, erected in 1907, is the first monument Stoney promised would be removed following the holiday weekend.The mayor said it would cost .8 million to remove the statues. He said the money would come from the Department of Public Works and be reimbursed by a private fund.While city attorney Haskell Brown told Richmond City Council that Stoney did not have the power to remove statues, Stoney said he believed he is on sound legal ground to remove the statues using his emergency powers as the Emergency Management Director."That's in our Emergency Operations Plan. That is also the part of the governor's declaration of emergency that I'm the emergency manager," Stoney said. "And also, the City Council spoke to this in June 8, when they passed a resolution ordinance that gave me such powers."Stoney said over the course of the last several weeks, thousands have gathered in the city, and there have been more than 139 calls of service along the Monument Avenue corridor.The mayor said failing to remove the statues presented a severe, immediate and growing threat to public safety.Stoney said the removed statues would be placed in temporary storage while Richmond enters a 60-day administrative process during which the city will solicit public input while determining the fate of the statues.This story was originally published by Gabrielle Harmon and Scott Wise on WTVR in Richmond, Virginia. 2206

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's Democratic governor signed a law Tuesday requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to appear on the state's primary ballot, a move aimed squarely at Republican President Donald Trump.But even if the law withstands a likely legal challenge, Trump could avoid the requirements by choosing not to compete in California's primary. With no credible GOP challenger at this point, he likely won't need California's delegates to win the Republican nomination.While aimed at Trump, the law also applies to candidates for governor. Newsom said California's status as one of the world's largest economies gives it "a special responsibility" to require tax returns from its prospective elected officials."These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence," Newsom wrote in his signing statement.The Trump campaign called the bill "unconstitutional," saying there were good reasons why California's former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar proposal last year."What's next, five years of health records?" said Tim Murtaugh, communications director for Trump's campaign.The courts will likely have the final say. The bill's author, Democratic state Sen. Mike McGuire, said lawmakers made sure the law only applies to the state's primary ballot because the state Constitution says the state Legislature does not control access to the general election ballot.Newsom's message to state lawmakers on Tuesday said the law is constitutional because "the United States Constitution grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen."But Murtaugh said the law violates First Amendment right of association "since California can't tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election."While states have authority over how candidates can access the ballot, the U.S. Constitution lays out a limited set of qualifications someone needs to meet to run for president, said Rick Hasen, a professor specializing in election law at the University of California-Irvine School of Law. Those qualifications include the requirement that presidential candidates be over age 35.The U.S. Supreme court has previously stopped state efforts to add requirements on congressional candidates through ballot access rules.New York has passed a law giving congressional committees access to Trump's state tax returns. But efforts to pry loose his tax returns have floundered in other states. California's first attempt to do so failed in 2017 when then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, vetoed the law, raising questions about its constitutionality and where it would lead next.The major Democratic 2020 contenders have already released tax returns for roughly the past decade. Trump has bucked decades of precedent by refusing to release his. Tax returns show income, charitable giving and business dealings, all of which Democratic state lawmakers say voters are entitled to know about.California's new law will require candidates to submit tax returns for the most recent five years to California's Secretary of State at least 98 days before the primary. They will then be posed online for the public to view, with certain personal information redacted.California is holding next year's primary on March 3, known as Super Tuesday because the high number of state's with nominating contests that day.Democratic Sen. Mike McGuire of Healdsburg said it would be "inconsistent" with past practice for Trump to forego the primary ballot and "ignore the most popular and vote-rich state in the nation."Republican Party of California chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson said Newsom signing the law shows Democratic leaders in the state continue "to put partisan politics first," urging Democrats to instead join Republicans "in seeking ways to reduce the cost of living, help our schools and make our streets safer." 4061

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California voters could decide in 2020 whether it should be easier for their local governments to raise taxes and issue bonds for affordable housing, road improvements and other public projects.A constitutional amendment proposed Wednesday would lower how much voter support communities need to raise money for infrastructure projects from two-thirds to 55 percent.Assembly Democrats say the current threshold allows a minority of voters to derail needed projects."These two-thirds thresholds are meant to enable a boisterous minority to impede progress," said Assemblyman Todd Gloria of San Diego.But taxpayer advocates said it would make things more expensive for homeowners in particular because it could lead to more parcel taxes, a flat tax levied on property owners."If this passes it's going to be devastating for property owners," said David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.Constitutional amendments need support from two-thirds of lawmakers to land on the ballot, and the backing of a simple majority of voters to become law.Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Democrat sponsoring the amendment, said she hopes to place it on the November 2020 ballot. That would coincide with the presidential election, which usually draws the highest voter turnout and millions more Democrats than Republicans.It would apply to projects including affordable housing, wastewater treatment, fire and police buildings, parks, public libraries, broadband expansion, hospitals and more.Local governments typically fund those projects through bonds or special taxes, like the parcel tax or a dedicated sales tax.The 55 percent threshold would still be higher than the simple majority communities need to raise general taxes, such as sales taxes not dedicated to special projects.Democrats highlighted projects that have narrowly missed the two-thirds threshold to make their case, such as a recreation center restoration in Millbrae and road repairs in Eureka."I have heard about deteriorating buildings, decrepit community facilities and our extreme lack of affordable housing," said Aguiar-Curry, a former mayor of a small rural California city. "This will empower communities to take action at the local level to improve the economies, neighborhoods and residents' quality of life."But Wolfe, of the taxpayers association, said the list of allowable projects is broad and could lead to a slew of new tax and bond proposals from cities and counties that could saddle taxpayers for years."These are pretty encompassing categories and there's no limit," he said. "You're talking about long-term debt that lasts for decades." 2688

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California prosecutors announced Wednesday they will seek the death penalty if they convict the man suspected of being the notorious "Golden State Killer" who eluded capture for decades.The move comes less than a month after Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a moratorium on executing any of the 737 inmates on the nation's largest death row. Newsom's reprieve lasts only so long as he is governor and does not prevent prosecutors from seeking nor judges and juries from imposing death sentences.Prosecutors from four counties briefly announced their decision one after another during a short court hearing for Joseph DeAngelo, jailed as the suspected "Golden State Killer." He was arrested a year ago based on DNA evidence linking him to at least 13 murders and more than 50 rapes across California in the 1970s and '80s.He stood expressionless in an orange jail uniform, staring forward from a courtroom cage, as prosecutors from Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Orange and Ventura spoke. Although prosecutors from six counties were in court for the four-minute hearing, charges in those four counties include the special circumstances that could merit execution under California law.His attorney, public defender Diane Howard, did not comment. DeAngelo, 73, has yet to enter a plea and his trial is likely years away.Prosecutors wouldn't comment after the hearing, but Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said several prosecutors and family members of murder victims planned a Thursday news conference to denounce Newsom's moratorium. An announcement from Spitzer's office said victims' families "will share their stories of losing their loved ones and how the governor's moratorium has devastated their pursuit of justice.""These are horrific crimes," Newsom said in a statement. "Our sympathies are with the victims and families who have suffered at the hands of the Golden State Killer. The district attorneys can pursue this action as is their right under the law."California has not executed anyone since 2006, but Newsom said he acted last month because 25 inmates have exhausted their appeals and court challenges to the state's new lethal injection process are potentially nearing their end. He endorsed a repeal of capital punishment but said he could not in good conscious allow executions to resume in the meantime knowing that some innocent inmates could die.He also said he is exploring ways to commute death sentences, which would permanently end the chance of executions, though he cannot act without permission from the state Supreme Court in many cases.Voters narrowly supported capital punishment in 2012 and 2016, when they voted to speed up executions by shortening appeals.Criminal Justice Legal Foundation legal director Kent Scheidegger said prosecutors' decision made sense despite Newsom's moratorium."It's a perfect example of a killer for whom anything less would not be justice," said Scheidegger, who is fighting in court to resume executions. "I think it's entirely appropriate for DAs to continue seeking the death penalty in appropriate cases, because the actual execution will be well down the road and the governor's reprieve won't be in effect by then. Something else will have happened." 3257

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A rookie Sacramento police officer who died during a domestic violence call was ambushed by a gunman and had no chance of surviving after she was shot, police said.The disclosure came late Friday amid criticism that it took police 45 minutes to get to 26-year-old rookie Officer Tara O'Sullivan during the armed standoff.O'Sullivan was later pronounced dead at a hospital.O'Sullivan was hit several times and one of the wounds was "non-survivable," Sgt. Vance Chandler said at a news conference where the department released police body camera video of the Wednesday night attack.Police Chief Daniel Hahn said the gunman had stashed two assault rifles , a shotgun and handgun in different rooms and opened fire as officers knocked on the door."The officers were essentially ambushed," Hahn said.He said patrol car doors and protective vests couldn't stop the high-powered rifle rounds, and if officers had tried to rescue their fallen colleague before an armored vehicle arrived, "we would have additional officers murdered.""Under the most dangerous and trying circumstances, our officers performed admirably," the chief said.Earlier in the day, suspect Adel Sambrano Ramos, 45, was charged with murder, attempted murder and possessing two illegal assault rifles.O'Sullivan was standing behind her training officer, Daniel Chip, when she was struck, police said.Footage from Chip's body camera showed him approaching a detached garage with his gun drawn, knocking and calling out: "Hey, Adel, Police Department... You're not under arrest, you're not in trouble."The officer then opens a screen door and begins to cautiously enter the open doorway, asking Adel if he is inside and repeating: "You're not in trouble, dude."At that moment, more than 20 rapid shots are heard. The officer runs for cover and radios that a high-powered rifle is being fired."Officer down! Officer down!" he says.Police said the gunman had opened fire from a house behind the officers and barricaded the front door.The charges against Ramos carry special circumstances, including that he killed O'Sullivan while lying in wait, an allegation that would allow authorities to seek the death penalty. However, that decision is months away and Gov. Gavin Newsom has imposed a moratorium on executions.Ramos is set to appear Monday for his first court appearance. Public defender Norm Dawson said he couldn't comment until he receives more details in the case.Police said the gunman strategically shot at officers for hours, using all the weapons kept in different rooms. He surrendered after an eight-hour standoff.Nine days before the officer's killing, a judge issued a warrant for the arrest of Ramos for failing to appear on a charge of battering a young woman.Police said the gunman opened fire as O'Sullivan and other officers helped an unidentified woman clear out her belongings from the garage of a North Sacramento home.Police earlier found two guns in a neighboring home associated with Ramos and learned about the warrant in the battery case. Five officers went to find him before the ambush occurred, police said.Authorities said lower-level warrants like the one Ramos faced rarely lead police to actively seek an arrest."I cannot tell you even in my (30-year) career where we had a misdemeanor bench warrant and we went out looking for somebody. That's just not practical," California Police Chiefs Association President Ronald Lawrence said. "Clearly you had a person who had a propensity for violence and wasn't held accountable for earlier crimes."Ramos has a history of domestic violence restraining orders, but most recently was charged in November with simple battery against a minor woman in September.Defense attorney and former prosecutor William Portanova, who is not associated with the case, said simple battery "means a slap or a push or a shove, but there's no bruises or stitches or bleeding and nothing is broken."Ramos failed to appear in February and a bench warrant was issued then withdrawn when he resurfaced. Another was issued June 10 and was active when O'Sullivan was shot.Sacramento County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Sgt. Tess Deterding said many times deputies won't arrest lower-level fugitives even if they discover an outstanding warrant, because the offender would simply be released again with a new order to appear in court."I think it largely depends on the scenario at the time. Is this a person that needs to go to jail right now? Is this a solution to the problem that I have?" she said.Portanova said it's a reality of understaffed police agencies that so many warrants remain outstanding."Citizens are paying the price," he said. 4696

来源：资阳报