A preliminary hearing was held before Judge George Day in the case of Dynamic Collision vs. the City of Gadsden and the Gadsden Airport Authority. It focused on 16 subpoenas filed by the plaintiff who is challenging the proposed plant on GAA property on Steele Station Road, contending it would violate current zoning regulations against various city, airport and industrial development officials, Pilgrim s Pride itself and representatives of an engineering firm.
The subpoenas requested that the parties provide documents regarding communications between them and Pilgrim’s Pride to the court, and be present during a hearing scheduled for next Monday.
Pilgrim s Pride argued this would require them to also present documents involving the company s “trade secrets” and pertaining to technological designs and other equipment, setting up the potential for competitors to steal their ideas.
i think it s because he has understood from the start that the one thing democrats agree on is the need to get trump out of there. and i do think, if i may add, ana, this alabama statute, it s now leading the charge in trying to bring down roe v. wade. i think that s going to change the race a lot. it s going to mobilize women again. you know, the me too movement and women the marches have fallen off some here in the last 12 months or so, and i think that the whole issue of abortion is going to re-energize a lot of women. the whole notion that we could have five men on the supreme court tell four people in the minority, three of whom are women, what women ought to do with their bodies, important to a lot of people. so do can you think this abortion issue, should it become a defining issue of 2020, could
forward to the court system for exactly this reason. and my level of anger that you would have worked up the courage you did to go forward and for this to happen. so what is next in the courts? is there any possibility of a new sentence here? well, my attorney has filled out, you know, paper work and stuff and presented it to the higher court to try and get us a new judge to do a new sentencing. but there is no guarantee on that. we haven t heard anything. right. in days about it. so we don t know. from what i understand, the alabama statute is written in a very contradictory, confusing way, where it both says that this is a you know, there s this kind of sentencing that should happen and at the same time it s eligible for community corrections and it s not. so maybe if they aren t able to fix this particular injustice, people after you will benefit from your activism. what do you need to feel safe?
they won t put a stop to. bill: now we wait to see whether or not that has a legal challenge. that means probably this afternoon in arizona someone will be stopped for jaywalking. bill: it may be 12 noon arizona time. someone could be stopped for jaywalking or dwi. bill: there are numerous states going through their own definition of this law. alabama, you think about georgia, there was a challenge in indiana, south carolina. does any of this today affect those laws in other states. yes, this opinion strikes at the heart of the alabama statute. i m unfamiliar with the one in georgia, but i ve read the one in alabama. both the arizona and the alabama statute presumed that where the federal government chooses not to enforce federal immigration law the states may stand in the place of the federal government and enforce the federal law as they, the states, understand it to be. today the supreme court has said, the states may not do that, no matter how well