阜阳治疗痘痘去哪家(阜阳白斑在哪里治比较好) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) - A California lawmaker is proposing a series of new laws that would increase police records transparency and reform the state's 9-1-1 system.State Senator Nancy Skinner's Senate Bill 776 would expand public access to all records involving police use of force, provide access to all disciplinary records involving officers who have engaged in racist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic behavior, and allow the public access to sustained findings of wrongful arrests and wrongful searches.It would also require access to the above records even when an officer resigns before the agency's investigation is complete and mandates that an agency, before hiring any candidate who has prior law enforcement experience, to inquire and review the officer's prior history of complaints, disciplinary hearings, and uses of force among other things."The purpose of my bill, SB 776, is to expand our ability to get records on a whole host of different officer misconduct and disciplinary actions so that we can hold agencies accountable and so we can begin to build trust again," Skinner said.The proposal comes after Skinner's Senate Bill 1421 changed decades-old law enforcement transparency laws.SB 1421, which went into effect in 2019, requires departments to release records of officer-involved shootings and major uses of force, officer dishonesty, and confirmed cases of sexual assault to the public.Shortly after the bill became law, several police associations in San Diego County sued to block the release of records, arguing Senate Bill 1421 doesn't contain any express provision or language requiring retro-activity or any clear indication that the legislature intended the statute to operate retroactively. They claimed the bill eliminates the longstanding statutory confidentiality of specified peace officer or custodial officer personnel records.A judge ruled SB 1421 applies retroactively to all records.Senator Skinner also proposed SB 773.According to her office, the bill would reform the state's 9-1-1 system so that calls concerning mental health, homelessness, and other issues not requiring police intervention can go to an appropriate social services agency. 2197

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Jerry Falwell Jr. has sued Liberty University, alleging the evangelical school founded by his late pastor father damaged his reputation in a series of public statements that followed his resignation as president and chancellor in August amid a series of scandals.The lawsuit filed in Lynchburg Circuit Court on Wednesday includes claims of defamation and breach of contract. Falwell took an indefinite leave of absence from his role as president and chancellor of the university back in August after he posted a photo on Instagram of himself and a woman, not his wife, with both of their pants unzipped while on his yacht.Falwell began serving as president of the Lynchburg, Virginia, university in 2007.The lawsuit alleges that Liberty officials accepted what Falwell says are false claims about his involvement in an extramarital affair between his wife and a business partner of the couple's and "moved quickly" to destroy his reputation."When Mr. Falwell and his family became the targets of a malicious smear campaign incited by anti-evangelical forces, Liberty University not only accepted the salacious and baseless accusations against the Falwells at face value but directly participated in the defamation. This action seeks redress for the damage Liberty has caused to the reputation of Mr. Falwell and his family," the lawsuit says.K. Todd Swisher, Circuit Court clerk for the city of Lynchburg, provided The Associated Press with a copy of the complaint, which contains a limited number of redactions in sections pertaining to Falwell's employment agreement. Swisher said there would be a hearing within a week for a judge to consider whether an unredacted version of the complaint should remain sealed.Liberty spokesman Scott Lamb said the school, which had not yet been served with the lawsuit, would have a formal statement in response later Thursday. The school's board of trustees has been meeting this week.An attorney for Falwell did not respond immediately to a telephone message left Thursday, and Falwell did not respond to a voicemail and text seeking comment.Falwell left Liberty in August after Giancarlo Granda, a younger business partner of the Falwell family, said he had a yearslong sexual relationship with Falwell's wife, Becki Falwell, and that Jerry Falwell participated in some of the liaisons as a voyeur.Although the Falwells have acknowledged that Granda and Becki Falwell had an affair, Jerry Falwell has denied any participation. The couple alleges that Granda sought to extort them by threatening to reveal the relationship unless he was paid substantial amounts of money.Before his resignation, Falwell had already been on an indefinite leave of absence after an uproar over a photo he posted on social media of him and his wife's pregnant assistant, both with their pants unzipped.Falwell said it was taken in good fun at a costume party during a vacation, but critics saw it as evidence of hypocrisy by the head of an institution that holds students to a strict moral code of conduct.Shortly after Falwell's departure, Liberty announced it was opening an independent investigation into his tenure as president, a wide-ranging inquiry that would include financial, real estate, and legal matters.Earlier this month, the school identified Baker Tilly US as the firm handling the investigation and announced the launch of a website to "facilitate the reporting of potential misconduct to the investigative team."Falwell has declined to answer questions from the AP about the size of the exit package he received from the university but has discussed the issue with other news organizations, which reported that he was set to receive .5 million. However, Liberty said in a statement last month that it paid Falwell two years of base salary and disputed "media reports regarding the size and terms" of Falwell's contract.In an August interview with the AP, Falwell said that the school's board had been "very generous to me" but raised concerns that they were "being influenced by people who really shouldn't have a say" about the future direction of Liberty.In the lawsuit, Falwell claimed that Liberty "turned on" him after Granda went public with his allegations, forcing his resignation. The lawsuit also says Liberty rejected Falwell's attempts "to reach an amicable resolution," forcing Falwell to turn to the court to "restore his reputation."The lawsuit says Liberty's statements have harmed not only Falwell's reputation but also his future employment prospects and business opportunities. Falwell now has a "drastically reduced ability" to attach his name to business and charity organizations, and he has stopped receiving previously frequent invitations to appear on TV to discuss Liberty, evangelicalism, and politics, the lawsuit says.The lawsuit further alleges that "Liberty's actions are antithetical to the teachings of Christ." Falwell's attorneys charge the university with hurting its own standing and that of the broader evangelical community "by playing right into the hands of sinister operatives with ulterior motives."Falwell's acrimonious departure from Liberty came four years after his endorsement helped burnish the reputation of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump among conservative evangelical Protestants. That group has since become a critical part of the president's political base. The public Falwell-Trump alliance that marked 2016 is not visible in this year's election, as the president looks to other prominent evangelical surrogates.Named in the lawsuit as amplifying Granda's claims is The Lincoln Project, a group founded by prominent GOP critics of Trump. A Lincoln Project adviser had provided public relations help to Granda after he went public with his allegations about a sexual relationship with Becki Falwell, although the group said Thursday that it "has had nothing to do with the public finally learning about the true character of the Falwell family." 5981

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A peaceful protest in a sleepy suburb that’s home to the head of the California National Guard was among four demonstrations monitored by National Guard spy planes, according to the Los Angeles Times.The four planes took to the skies over cities in June to monitor protests following the killing of George Floyd. Three watched demonstrations in Minneapolis, Phoenix and Washington, D.C. But the target of the fourth was the affluent Sacramento, California suburb of El Dorado Hills.Authorities have not explained how and why that neighborhood was chosen when other cities that had seen property destruction and street clashes — like Los Angeles, Oakland and Long Beach — were not. El Dorado Hills only saw peaceful protest during the summer unrest.The Times says that state records show that the El Dorado County Sheriff's Office requested the use of the plane, and the National Guard also sent a Lakota helicopter to the area.The Times reports that Maj. Gen. David S. Baldwin, the head of the California National Guard, lives in El Dorado Hills. Baldwin told the Times that the agency's decision to send a plane had "nothing to do" with the fact that he lived in the area.“The use of the RC-26 to meet the sheriff’s request for aerial support to provide situational awareness for law enforcement is concerning and should not have happened,” a spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom said. “It was an operational decision made without the approval — let alone awareness — of the governor. After the incident, operational policies and protocols were reaffirmed and strengthened to ensure RC-26 aircraft are not used for these incidents again.” 1677

Rudy Giuliani just contradicted the White House and the Justice Department on a very sensitive subject: The AT&T-Time Warner deal."The president denied the merger," Giuliani, a new member of President Trump's legal team, said in an interview with HuffPost on Friday.Giuliani was seemingly trying to defend the president against any suggestion that Michael Cohen improperly influenced the administration after the revelation that Cohen, Trump's longtime personal attorney, was paid large sums of money by AT&T and several other corporate clients."Whatever lobbying was done didn't reach the president," Giuliani said, repeating a claim he made to CNN's Dana Bash on Thursday.But then Giuliani went further, telling HuffPost's S.V. Date that "he did drain the swamp... The president denied the merger. They didn't get the result they wanted."In other words: If AT&T hired Cohen to win government approval of the deal, AT&T wasted its 0,000.But the assertion that "the president denied the merger" flies in the face of everything the government has previously said about the deal."If Giuliani didn't misspeak, this is major news," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted Friday night. "It is highly unusual for the president to be involved in DOJ merger decisions."It is possible that Giuliani misspoke, or that he simply does not know what he's talking about. He was not working for Trump at the time the Justice Department was reviewing the deal. Since he began representing Trump, he has had to change the story he has been telling in public about Stormy Daniels and what Trump knew or didn't know and when about the payment Cohen made to her. And he may simply have meant "the president" as a stand-in for "the administration."But this is not the first time that there have been questions about whether politics and Trump influenced the DOJ's decision.On the day AT&T announced its bid to buy Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, then-candidate Trump said he opposed the deal. So when he took office, there were concerns within AT&T and Time Warner that he or his aides would try to block the deal.AT&T said earlier this week that it hired Cohen, in part, to gain "insights" about the Trump administration's thinking about the deal.Throughout 2017, career officials at the Justice Department's antitrust division conducted a standard review of the proposed deal.The DOJ traditionally operates with a lot of independence. But there were persistent questions about possible political interference, especially in light of the president's well-publicized disdain for both CNN and attorney general Jeff Sessions.Still, AT&T and Time Warner executives believed the deal would receive DOJ approval, much like Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal did nearly a decade ago. By October, they thought the thumbs-up was right around the corner.They were wrong. In November, the DOJ went to court to block the deal, alleging that the combination of the two companies would give AT&T too much power in the marketplace.That's when questions about Trump's hidden hand really got louder. Democratic lawmakers raised alarms. So did AT&T and Time Warner. Other critics pointed out Trump's complaints about Sessions and the DOJ. Trump had recently been quoted saying "I'm not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department," adding, "I'm not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would LOVE to be doing, and I'm very frustrated by it."But White House aides like Kellyanne Conway insisted that the White House was not interfering.The DOJ's antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, said the same thing. He denied being influenced by Trump.In an affidavit, Delrahim said "all of my decisions" about suing to block the deal "have been made on the merits, without regard to political considerations."Ahead of the trial, AT&T and Time Warner sought discovery on any relevant communications between the White House and the Justice Department. But a judge denied the request, and the companies dropped any argument that the case was motivated by politics.The Justice Department and AT&T had no immediate comment Friday night.The-CNN-Wire 4182

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that inmates convicted of nonviolent sex crimes cannot be denied a chance at early parole consideration under a ballot measure approved by nearly two-thirds of voters four years ago.Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who championed the 2014 initiative as a way to reduce prison populations and costs by speeding chances for parole, has repeatedly said he and other proponents never intended for it to cover sex offenders.But lower appeals courts ruled that the plain language of the initiative means they cannot be excluded from consideration as nonviolent offenders, and the high court agreed. 672

来源：资阳报