https://theappeal.org/dc-police-mental-health-crisis-response-aclu-lawsuit/

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday alleging that the district’s practice of sending police officers—instead of mental health specialists—to mental health emergencies violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“Someone who calls 911 for a physical health emergency gets trained medical providers who can treat and stabilize them,” said Susan Mizner, director of the ACLU’s Disability Rights Program, in a press release. “But someone who calls 911 for a mental health emergency gets a police officer with handcuffs and a gun.”

According to the lawsuit, these differing responses constitute a breach of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits government entities from denying people with disabilities equal access to government services and programs. The ACLU is suing on behalf of Bread for the City, a local nonprofit that provides healthcare and social services to lower-income and unhoused communities.

So, if I have stocks that were purchased during the class window of a class action lawsuit, is it okay for me to sell them?

It's not a large amount of money at stake here, but it'd also be nice to be able to recoup some of the losses I had due to the misleading information that caused me to buy the stock and ive filled out the forms but they didnt say anything about future actions just asked when i bought or sold any at the time of the suit. I am not sure if it's okay to sell them or if I should hold them.

Any one have recommendations? This is US stock exchange, and if I did sell they'd be at a loss and I have sold other stocks at profit so I would be looking at capturing the losses on my taxes.

Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Tabled_Documents/2743

Some summary quotes:

From the Preface:

It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme’s legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings. Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the Scheme’s lack of legal foundation coming to light. Equally disheartening was the ineffectiveness of what one might consider institutional checks and balances – the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, the Office of Legal Services Coordination, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – in presenting any hindrance to the Scheme’s continuance.

From the Conclusion:

The report paints a picture of how the Robodebt Scheme (the Scheme) was put together on an illconceived, embryonic idea and rushed to Cabinet. If ever there were a case of giving an unproportion’d thought his act, this was it.

The application of [public interest] immunity has also limited the Commission’s ability to reveal the entirety of the documentation concerning how the original proposal which became Robodebt, was passed and what was put to Cabinet thereafter. The salient points have been able to be made, but large parts of the relevant ministerial briefs, materials put before Cabinet and Cabinet minutes themselves have not been able to be revealed.

One of the questions in the Terms of Reference is when the Australian Government knew or ought to have known that debts were not, or may not have been, validly raised. [...] Some DHS senior executives always had that knowledge; some DSS senior executives must have suspected it, at least by 2016. As to members of the Government, one Minister, Mr Morrison, took the proposal to Cabinet, knowing that it involved income averaging and that his own Department had indicated that it would require legislative change, but on the basis of the contrary indication in the NPP checklist, proceeded without enquiring as to how the change had come about.

And... this ticking time-bomb from the covering letter:

I have provided to you an additional chapter of the report which has not been included in the bound report and is sealed. It recommends the referral of individuals for civil action or criminal prosecution. I recommend that this additional chapter remain sealed and not be tabled with the rest of the report so as not to prejudice the conduct of any future civil action or criminal prosecution.

Some news articles:

• Robodebt royal commission findings revealed, individuals referred for criminal prosecution

• ‘Dishonesty and collusion’: Robo-debt report recommends criminal and civil prosecutions

• Robodebt royal commission final report: key findings on Scott Morrison, Stuart Robert and Kathryn Campbell

• Royal commission into robodebt scheme ‘recommends referrals of individuals for civil and criminal prosecution’