Chicago Today: U.S. judges don't budge! WeChat ban continues to stop! Pelosi doesn't pay to be betrayed by the public! Chinese in Chinatown were robbed at gunpoint by gunmen! 4554 cases confirmed today! 34 counties in Illinois were alerted

This.News:A California judge said Thursday (October 15) that she has no plans to resduce a previous ruling that prevented the U.S. government from blocking WeChat.

Last month, the Commerce Department was expected to impose an injunction on September 20 to remove Chinese apps from Apple and the Android app store, but Judge Laurel Beeler in San Francisco, California, issued a temporary injunction the day before the ban went into effect, preventing the commerce department's order from going into effect.

The Justice Department has now handed Over Beal's temporary ind to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but no ruling is expected until December.

The U.S. Department of Justice criticized Beal's temporary restraining order for "allowing an application that has been identified by the executive branch as a threat to national security and U.S. foreign policy," or WeChat, to be "continued and unbridled."

In September, in response to the WeChat ban, Chinese-Americans led the founding of the American WeChat User Federation, criticizing the U.S. government for disabling WeChat to harm free speech. California Judge Beal on the 19th cited the concerns of the WeChat User Federation, issued a temporary indestion. The U.S. Court of Justice then filed a motion with the court asking the judge to reconsider whether to remove the ind.

On October 15th Ms. Beal said at a hearing that she did not believe the Justice Department's new congress would change her analysis or "change the final outcome." She reiterated that the U.S. government had not provided concrete evidence to convince her how WeChat would pose a significant national security risk if it continued to operate in the United States.

The WeChat User Federation of the United States is not dependent on WeChat or parent company Tencent. WeChat currently has 19 million active users in the U.S. and 1 billion worldwide, the alliance said. In the U Chinese native speakers rely heavily on WeChat for contact, socializing, watching news, video conferencing, and more. WeChat has the equivalent of combining Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram and Venmo. During the outbreak, it even became a communication channel for U.S. police departments to notify them of new coronavirus testing sites and send medical supplies.

Whether the WeChat ban causes material harm
Regarding whether the WeChat ban causes irreparable harm. Elanie Peng, one of the plaintiffs and head of the Chinese American Mental Health Alliance (MHACC), cites a strong example:

Many Chinese patients in the United States rely on WeChat groups to share information, mutual exchange, psychological recovery is of great use. If WeChat is banned, these people's services will be affected. Peng Also mentioned to the media that some patients were seriously ill and had to be hospitalized because of their concerns.

Michael Bien, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said specific communities and ethnic minorities in the United States rely heavily on WeChat, especially during the New Crown outbreak. But the government took the risk of forcibly shuting down such a super-critical mode of communication. "It's a very unique situation, and I don't know if there are any other similar cases."

Whether WeChat violates U.S. security
Michael Drezner, a government lawyer, argued that the WeChat app, which is used by the Chinese government for surveillance and data collection in the United States, was a legitimate act by the president to exercise national security powers against "indisputable hostile acts and foreign adversarys eager to dominate the world."

Laurel Beeler said she was concerned that the ban was a burden on protected speech by WeChat users in the United States. Although the Government has identified significant national security interests for its actions, the order does not protect freedom of expression "narrowly".

Laurel Beeler said the ban covers a very wide range and does not answer how to precisely prohibit the use of non-ordinary people in a narrow sense, but also to protect freedom of expression.

Is the ban vague?
Michael Bien, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the WeChat ban came from an earlier executive order. It's still vague.

Media interpretation is also spending, the ban is confusing, do not know what can be done, can not do. Some media think that the currency transaction on WeChat will be invalid, some media say no.

The ban targets business-to-business transactions, which cover almost all customers. For example, some customers are entities operating on WeChat, providing services to other businesses, buying and selling services on WeChat, helping people run ads, setting up discussion groups, and helping people express their opinions. Is this outside the ban?

Is there an alternative app for Chinese Americans?
Michael Drezner, a government lawyer, said the plaintiffs described the injuries as "worrying, something that happened in the past, but that the fear did not constitute irreparable harm." "Furthermore, once the ban takes effect, are they harmed by the First Amendment (prohibition of deprivation of liberty of speech, etc.) of the U.S. Constitution?" I don't think so, there are plenty of communication tools open to use, you can use Google search, looking for alternatives to WeChat, not without other means of communication. "

Michael Drezner said the plaintiffs' claim that WeChat has many good features, while other apps don't and don't, "china fosters a dependency on a few apps that they can control and manage." Then, when people rely on these apps, it's harder to replace them, but thankfully, in the U.S., there are plenty of other options available. Therefore, there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's injury under any kind of First Amendment. "

Judge: National security cannot override freedom of speech
Judge Laurel Beeler spent nearly 10 minutes at the public hearing recounting the injuries suffered by the Chinese. She said Peng mentioned many specific details, such as the fact that many people with mental illness are elderly, do not speak English and lack technical literacy.

"The defence lawyers say that some members may be able to switch from WeChat to other social media platforms, but that's more than that, and for these people WeChat is the only platform they can use."

How does the U.S. government guarantee that the WeChat ban will not affect ordinary users? With the replacement of the last ordinary user will be mistakenly injured.

The judge held that the key to the case, freedom of expression first, and national security could not be above it. National security cannot be protected by controlling freedom of expression.

It is worth noting that the next three weeks will be the most critical moment in this case. First, earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Nine Tours"), and the U.S. Attorney's Group has battled the Justice Department for several rounds, completing the final filing of documents on October 14th, and now the three judges presiding over the nine tours are able to rule on the material filed by both sides.

The U.S. Department of Justice has asked a judge to rule by next Friday (October 23). The A-League's legal team estimates that nine tours should be decided next Friday, possibly even a day or two in advance.

Above, the U.S. 9th Circuit

Given the U.S. Department of Justice's litigation performance so far, A.I.A. lawyers are confident of winning the nine-patrol battle. If the U.S. Department of Justice loses the Nine Tour, the legal team expects the Justice Department to urgently appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court within 48 or even 24 hours of the nine-patrol ruling.

If the Department of Justice appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, we will have to file a response within two to three days, which will be another time-grabbing battle.

Taking into account the importance and urgency of this case, we expect the Supreme Court to reach a decision within one to two weeks (that is, at the end of this month and early next month). If the Supreme Court continues to judge us to win, then we will have a substantial victory in this case.

If the Ministry of Justice wants to continue its wrath, it will have to go back to the District Court to go through the proceedings and trials with Judge Biele, which will take at least 1-2 years, during which time Judge Beal's initial indestation will remain in force and will not affect the normal use of WeChat by the vast majority of WeChat users.

Given this, if we win the Supreme Court's decision, the U.S. Department of Justice may choose to give up.

So the next three weeks could be a pivotal moment in determining the final fate of the case, with the AFL legal team likely to go to war with the U.S. Department of Justice in the District Court, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, perhaps the helper, the people will continue to help it, the United States will be at this critical juntifice to add a big boost: another top U.S. law firm Sidley Austin has now officially joined the activist action, providing pro bono legal services.

Whether it's strength, size or influence, Sidley Austin is certainly at the top of the list of all U.S. law firms, and the lawyer who helped me with the lawsuit is his senior partner, Carter G. Phillips.

Of all the lawyers in the United States, Mr. Phillips is one of the nation's most-held supreme court lawyers, none of them, and one of the most senior and highest-performing Supreme Court lawyers in the country.

Carter G. Phillips

Mr Phillips will work with David Wright Tremaine LLP, another star law firm, and our former barrister Michael Bean to prepare a document for an urgent appeal against the US Supreme Court.

In the history of the American judiciary, very few top law firms have joined forces to serve the plaintiffs in one case at the same time, two of which are completely free, and it is clear that justice and the law are on our side, and that we will not let it go.

This.News:A picture in Northbrook, a suburb north of Chicago that reads, "America First, New Crown Death Toll 215,000, President Trump" (We're #1, 215,000 Covid Deaths, USA Donald J. Lee Goodman, founder of Peace Communities, which was spray-painted with the word "China" by unknown people, said his intention was to draw attention to the epidemic, but that it had been deliberately vandaled as many as 13 times in the past month.

With a population of more than 33,000 and a household income of more than 120,000, Nord Stream has more than 80 percent of its white residents and 14.5 percent asians, making it a typically middle-class suburban Chicago community.

Goodman said the sign, approved by the local government, will be erected on Walters Ave. starting September 18. Shermer Rd. The sign's posting permit expired on the 16th, he said, but from day one to the present, the sign, which was intended to draw attention to the epidemic, wear a mask and keep a social distance, had been vandaled as many as 13 times.

Local police received at least 10 reports of cases related to the sign, including a lighting explosion, a bend in the metal number plate, graffiti, etc. , and no arrests or tickets were issued.

Goodman said that every time the sign was damaged, he went to clean the heavy paint, "the virus will not go away, we will not disappear", Goodman and his wife only removed the previous spray of green paint and indecent male organs, did not expect only a few hours later, the sign was sprayed with a large black "China" words.

In the first few days of the sign' erection, the Nord Stream office received calls from people calling for the sign to be removed, with protesters saying "especially trump's name is on it, with political propaganda on it", and residents saying that children seeing the sign would create fear and lead to clashes among residents, calling it "a catalyst for all kinds of unpleasant behavior."

On the other hand, some people have written to the local office to express their support for the sign, "just as the sign next to the highway says the death toll from a car accident, it is a public service reminder".

Steven Elrod, the town's lawyer, publicly explained that under the First Amendment's public forum rules, North Creek Township has no legal authority to order the removal of the sign, regardless of public opinion, the town or staff, can not remove the contents of the sign.