‘Not a people-free zone': Judge clarifies enforcement of buffer zone during Karen Read trial
A U.S. District Court judge ruled that the buffer zone outside of court where the Karen Read retrial is occurring is allowed to stand but the way it's enforced by police has to change.
In a 20-page decision, Judge Myong J. Joun denied in part and granted in part 4 plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Judge Beverly Cannone, State Police Superintendent Geoffrey Noble, Dedham Police Chief Michael d'Entremont, and Norfolk County District Attorney are all listed as defendants.
The plaintiffs, Jason Grant, Allison Taggart, Lisa Peterson, and Samantha Lyons, argued that Massachusetts State Police troopers 'have been ignoring the Buffer Zone Orders without consequence and are unlawfully prohibiting protestors' speech activities,' according to court documents.
In his ruling, Judge Joun stated in part 'although the Buffer Zone Orders are clear, the record shows a persistent pattern of arrests or threats of arrest to protesters and non-protesters alike who are complying with the Buffer Zone Orders.'
Examples of this included an incident involving plaintiff Jason Grant, where on May 16 he stood across from the Norfolk Superior Courthouse while holding an American flag and a sign containing a Bible verse that stated '2 Corinthians 3:17: Now the Lord is the Spirit, and Where the Spirit of the Lord is, There is Freedom.'
According to the court documents, Grant was warned by State Police Sergeant Michael Hardman that signs related to the trial were restricted in the buffer zone. At some point, Grant wasn't permitted to stand across the courthouse with those signs.
'The buffer zone is not a people-free zone,' Judge Joun stated. 'The public has the right of access, not only to the sidewalks and pathways of the courthouse, but access into the courthouse itself. The Buffer Zone Orders may be enforced only against those individuals who engage in activities that are intended to interfere with the administration of justice or are intended to influence trial participants in the discharge of their duties within the buffer zone.'
In contrast to Grant's incident, the judge pointed out that an Erica Walsh displaying 'FKR', which is understood to mean 'Free Karen Read', is not protected speech in the buffer zone, as it's a direct message about Read's guilt or innocence.
'Law enforcement officers are enjoined from enforcing the Buffer Zone Orders in ways that are inconsistent with this decision,' the ruling read in closing. 'Prior to enforcement, law enforcement officers must be able to clearly articulate, without speculation, how any individual violated the Buffer Zone Orders, consistent with this decision.'
The full decision can be read below:
'Not a people-free zone': Judge clarifies enforcement of buffer zone during Karen Read trial by Boston 25 Desk on Scribd
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Republican on deficit spending in GOP bill: ‘It's not a perfect world'
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) lamented the deficit spending in the GOP's 'big, beautiful' spending package, but framed the issue as a necessary compromise to avoid having to negotiate with Democrats. 'I don't want to have any deficit spending. But what I'm trying to suggest to you is that we are stuck in a paradigm where we have to pass this ourselves,' Sessions told CNN's John Berman in an interview Thursday morning. The Texas Republican said he conceded on demands from a handful of Republicans representing blue-leaning states who pushed to raise the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, adding, 'It's a balance there.' 'What we're trying to do is balance out where the American people get jobs and job creation. We really don't want to see people just leave these blue states because of taxes that they can't afford their property,' Sessions said. 'So, it is not a perfect world, John.' He also pointed out that if the sprawling legislative agenda is not passed through the reconciliation process, then Republicans would have to turn to Democrats — which, Sessions argued, would not necessarily reduce deficit spending but would mean less of Trump's agenda could make it through Congress. 'The bottom line is, is that this has to come together as a piece of legislation. You see, John, if we do not pass our one big, beautiful bill, then we negotiate with Democrats, essentially nine Democrats, that simply raises spending to get us where we get the tax cuts that we save them, where they ought to be,' the GOP lawmaker said. 'So it is, no question about it, not a perfect battle for Republicans,' he added. The interview comes amid criticism from tech billionaire Elon Musk that has slowed momentum in the Senate on the bill. The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday projected that the 1,116-page House passed bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony
What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. Fusion will be a key element to become an energy superpower. (Wal van Lierop) China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.
Business Insider
12 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Chad responds to U.S. travel ban, suspends visas for American citizens
The government of Chad has announced the suspension of all visa issuance to American citizens, in a retaliatory move against the United States' decision to bar Chadian nationals from entering the country. The government of Chad has suspended visa issuance for American citizens in response to the U.S.' travel restrictions on Chadian nationals. President Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno called the U.S.' travel ban unjust and declared the suspension a matter of national pride and reciprocity. The African Union criticized the U.S. travel ban, and Chad's response may inspire similar actions from other affected nations. Chadian President Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno described U.S. President Donald Trump's travel ban as unjust and discriminatory, stating that Chad was compelled to respond in kind by introducing reciprocal visa restrictions on U.S. citizens. He framed the move as one of 'reciprocity' and a matter of national pride. In a statement posted on his official Facebook page (in French), President Déby declared: ' I instructed the government to act in accordance with the principles of reciprocity and suspend the issuance of visas to citizens of the United States of America.' 'Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give but Chad has his dignity and pride.' The suspension reflects mounting frustration in the Central African nation over what it perceives as an arbitrary policy that unfairly targets Chadian citizens. While the practical impact on U.S. travelers may be limited, the symbolic weight of the decision signals a broader assertion of sovereignty and a demand for mutual respect in bilateral relations. US travel ban hits seven African nations The recent U.S. travel ban targets citizens from 12 countries, seven of them African, sparking criticism over its fairness and perceived political motivations. Among the African nations affected are Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia. In addition, a partial ban has been imposed on citizens from another group of countries—Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela—limiting entry under specific visa categories, particularly those related to temporary employment. Chad's swift and unequivocal response stands out as one of the most direct diplomatic pushbacks from the African continent. The country's suspension of visa issuance to American citizens signals rising frustration and could strain relations with Washington, especially in the area of regional counterterrorism cooperation, where Chad plays a pivotal role. While analysts note that the suspension is unlikely to significantly disrupt travel—given the relatively low number of U.S. visitors to Chad, the symbolic weight of the move is considerable. The African Union has also issued a formal statement rejecting President Donald Trump's decision to impose such sweeping restrictions on African countries.
