Allegedly pulling a gun during an argument earns man a felony charge
Prosecutors brought Jay Ryan Kaufman up on one count of assault with a weapon following the alleged May 9 confrontation on Fourth Avenue West. He is expected to appear before Judge Paul Sullivan on Thursday for his arraignment.
Neighbors reporting a disturbance possibly involving a gun summoned Kalispell Police officers to the Fourth Avenue West home about 11 p.m., according to court documents. The victim told investigators that Kaufman had driven him home that night and, on the way, the two began arguing. As the victim got out, Kaufman fetched a handgun and leveled it at him, court documents said.
Seeing the firearm pointed at him, the victim began apologizing before begging and pleading for his life, according to court documents.
Another individual at the home told officers that they spotted the two arguing near Kaufman's truck. They reported trying to intervene when they saw Kaufman pull out the weapon, according to court documents.
When authorities later tracked down Kaufman, he acknowledged getting into an argument while driving around with the victim. But he disputed assertions he wielded a gun in the disagreement, according to court documents.
Kaufman allegedly told officers he owned a Taurus 9 mm handgun, and said it was stored in a safe in his home during the alleged confrontation. Investigators, though, found a black Taurus 9 mm handgun in Kaufman's truck, court documents said.
Kaufman was convicted in 2022 of misdemeanor negligent endangerment in Flathead County District Court for pulling a knife on a parking attendant working a lot for patrons of the Northwest Montana Fair and Rodeo that same year. Initially charged with felony assault with a weapon, Kaufman later took a plea deal.
Judge Amy Eddy, who presided over that case, sentenced him to the county jail for 180 days, all suspended. She also ordered Kaufman to undergo an anger management assessment, participate in any recommended counseling, and pay court fines and fees totaling $325.
If convicted of assault with a weapon, Kaufman faces up to 20 years in Montana State Prison and a $50,000 fine.
News Editor Derrick Perkins can be reached at 758-4430 or dperkins@dailyinterlake.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
Music teacher accused of giving lap dance, kissing teen girl takes the stand as twisted emails are revealed
A music teacher who was photographed kissing an underage teen girl in a cinema photo booth has taken the stand to defend herself at trial, claiming it was a 'pretend kiss' that she did not want or expect. Janelle Colville Fletcher, 40, is contesting the allegations that she groomed and sexually abused a teen girl some years ago and testified this week at the South Australian District Court before Judge Joanne Fuller. Advertisement The prosecution, led by Chris Allen, allege Fletcher abused the girl in various locations and also that she communicated with her and another teenage girl to make them amenable to sexual activity. 6 Janelle Colville Fletcher is contesting the allegations that she groomed and sexually abused a teen girl some years ago. 7News Some of the alleged offending happened when the two girls and Fletcher were alone together in a room, the prosecution said, with the teacher allegedly performing a lap dance on a chair. She then allegedly 'dared' the two girls to kiss each other and asked if they would 'date' each other. Advertisement That same night, Allen said, Fletcher then spent time alone with one of the girls and touched her genital area. The alleged grooming and abuse of the girl then went on for months at various locations, the prosecution said, including the home of Fletcher and in Fletcher's car. This week, the prosecution presented emails and messages between the girl and Fletcher and also various photographs that they allege demonstrate Fletcher was in a sexual relationship with the child. 6 The prosecution allege Fletcher abused the girl in various locations. YouTube/ So Flutatious Advertisement A photo taken from a photo booth at a cinema shows the pair kissing, but Fletcher, under questioning from defense lawyer Andrew Culshaw, said she was 'pulled in and the photo went off'. 'In the second photo from the bottom … we can see you and (the girl) appear to be kissing … can you explain to Her Honour what happened,' Culshaw asked. 'It was meant to be a pretend kiss like we had done previously where our lips don't actually touch, and in that particular photo we got close and she did sort of pull me in and the photo went off, yeah,' Fletcher said. 'When you say 'she pulled you in and the photo went off', what happened?' Culshaw pressed. Advertisement 'Just like around my neck sort of thing, just like, just so we would touch, yeah. 'Did you voluntarily engage in a kiss with her?' Culshaw pressed 'No, I did not,' Fletcher said. 6 The alleged grooming and abuse of the girl then went on for months at various locations, the prosecution said. 7News Other photos, exhibited in court, show the girl at Fletcher's house. 'You appear to be leaning against her (the girl),' Allen said. 'Yes,' Fletcher replied. 'Is that a selfie taken by you?' Allen asked. Advertisement 'It does appear that way, yes,' Fletcher said. 'Does it appear that it is taken in your house?' Allen continued. 'Yes,' Fletcher said. 6 This week, the prosecution presented emails and messages between the girl and Fletcher. YouTube/ So Flutatious Advertisement In a series of emails read out in court, Fletcher appears to express strong feelings for the girl. In one, Fletcher wrote: 'My feelings for you are not lust but love.' 'In your mind, what is the difference between the two?' Culshaw asked. 'Lust is like with you are attracted to someone. You have the hots for them, so I guess similar,' Fletcher replied. Advertisement 'Love is not necessarily sexual or romantic, it is love.' In other emails, Fletcher told the girl: 'I am being selfish wanting you to myself when I need to let you live your life with someone your own age', and also 'right now, we can't be open. Right now we will have to continue as we are in secret …' 6 In a series of emails read out in court, Fletcher appears to express strong feelings for the girl. 7News But Fletcher argued these messages were written to keep the girl happy and also to guide her away. Advertisement 'Really, all the emails, the intention behind it was to try and make (the girl) feel that she is not abandoned, she is loved, she is wanted and that in another time or place, maybe she could entertain that she could be with me, but my sole intent of all of these was to slowly get her to think it was her idea to not be with me but to be with … someone her own age and I wanted her to think it was her idea,' Fletcher said. She told the court the girl had expressed romantic feelings for her and that she was struggling with her sexual identity. Fletcher said the girl started exhibiting 'concerning behavior' and she sought to point her in the direction of a more age-appropriate relationship. In one email, she told the girl she was 'completely in love' with her, but she told the court that was a lie. 6 Fletcher argued these messages were written to keep the girl happy and also to guide her away. YouTube/ So Flutatious 'I did think she was a beautiful person,' Fletcher said. 'It wasn't true that I was in love with her.' 'Why did you write it there,' Culshaw asked. 'Because that's what I knew she wanted to hear,' Fletcher said. Allen, in his opening cross-examination of Fletcher, reiterated the prosecution's allegations of extended sexual abuse at various locations and Fletcher flatly denied each allegation. When Allen said Fletcher was grinding on a chair inside a room with the girl and another girl present, Fletcher appeared to giggle. 'Do you think that's funny?' Allen said. 'Sorry, I don't mean to be rude. No, that's not,' Fletcher replied. Fletcher holds a PhD in music education. She told the court that she was heterosexual and believed in the Catholic faith. She was still legally married to a man, though the pair had separated, she told the court. Closing arguments in the judge-alone trial are expected on Monday.
Forbes
2 days ago
- Forbes
Court Blocks Law Stripping Medicaid Contracts From Planned Parenthood
United States District Judge Indira Talwani for the District of Massachusetts issued an injunction ... More on July 21 shielding ten Planned Parenthood Affiliates. The case challenged a new statutory provision in the budget bill aimed at ending Medicaid funding for Medicaid health care for poor women by Planned Parenthood. (Photo by) Earlier this week, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction partially striking down a new Congressional provision, slipped through in the 'big budget bill,' to cut off Medicaid health care contracting for Planned Parenthood affiliates. It was highly significant for the Republican Congress to try to defund, as government health contractors, Planned Parenthood's state affiliates, and the case will have major repercussions. A review of the court's 36 page opinion shows the battle to be expected as the case goes on appeal. On the one hand, Judge Indira Talwani cautiously limited her shielding only to ten of the forty-seven Planned Parenthood affiliates. These ten do not provide abortions (or are below a statutory funding threshold). While the decision disappointed Planned Parenthood by not extending protection to all affiliates, the judge's narrow focus could make the opinion more resilient on appeal. As the case proceeds, the challengers of the provision argue the case is not about reducing abortions, but about ending Planned Parenthood's providing of Medicaid health care to poor women. On the other hand, if and when the Trump Administration takes this case beyond the court of appeals to the Supreme Court, the question is both how the 6-3 conservative majority will treat Planned Parenthood, and whether the Court will use its 'shadow docket' to rule on the case with minimal due process. The measure, section 71113, is basically the latest of a number of legislative efforts to end government health care contracting with Planned Parenthood. It was no surprise after the 2024 election that there would be another such try by President Trump and the majority Republican House and Senate. The striking approach was to draft the provision in a way to focus just uniquely on Planned Parenthood, and to have it relate enough to Medicaid spending that it could go aboard a budget bill that did not require 60 votes to get past a Senate filibuster. Section 71113 describes as a 'prohibited entity' barred from Medicaid funding either an organization that conducts abortions or is connected to such an abortion provider, i.e., Planned Parenthood's overall Federation, or any 'affiliates' – clearly meaning the 47 Planned Parenthood affiliates – even, and especially, the affiliates that themselves do not conduct any abortions. (No entity can receive Medicaid funding for abortions, narrow exceptions aside, but Planned Parenthood affiliates receive extensive Medicaid funding for women's health and the like.) The provision took effect for Medicaid bills starting the day of passage, the case was immediately filed, and Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts issued initially a temporary restraining order on July 7, and then a preliminary injunction with the 36 page opinion on July 21. Presumably the Trump Administration will take an appeal to the First Circuit, although it may also proceed to take an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, a step known as the 'shadow docket.' By the standards of the past, there might not seem to be an emergency, since what is taking place, in terms of affiliates providing Medicaid health care, has been going on in the same fashion for many years. But, the Trump Administration has had great success rushing cases for such emergency treatment, in the view it would take it would need to affect Medicaid spending immediately, and, as discussed below, there are important tactical advantages to the emergency approach. The court describes the importance of Planned Parenthood's services as a government medical contractor. 'An estimated one out of every three women and one in ten men nationally has received care from a Planned Parenthood Member at least onc in their lifetime, and this number is even higher among individuals with Medicaid, 43% of whom have received services from a Member health center.' (Opinion at 7.) 'Approximately 51% of Planned Parenthood Members' patients rely on Medicaid for their healthcare, and half of visits to Planned Parenthood Members health centers are covered by Medicaid.' (Opinion at 8). With narrow exceptions, Medicaid cannot pay for abortions, even in states where they are legal, and 'Abortions comprise approximately 4% of Planned Parenthood Members' services nationwide.' (Opinion at 7.) As the court analyzed, 'Plaintiffs argue that if Section 71113 covers Planned Parenthood Members that do not provide abortions, the law impose an unconstitutional condition on those Members and Planned Parenthood Federation's First Amendment right of association.' (Opinion (Op.) at 16.) 'Contrary to [the Trump Administration's] assertion, Section 71113 does not merely 'withhold[] funding based on whether entities provide abortion services' but also based on whether 'an entity, including its affiliates,' provides abortion services.' (Op. at 18 (quoting the provision). The court found 'the record demonstrates that Members' affiliation via their membership in Planned Parenthood Federation is express.' Op. at 19. After reviewing the mission and advocacy, the court said 'Membership in Planned Parenthood Federation –and corresponding affiliation with other Members – is thus part and parcel with Planned Parenthood Members' associational expression.' The Administration had justified the law thusly: 'the law effectuates a congressional desire 'to reduce abortion and government subsidization of abortions.'' Op. at 23. Rejecting from the record the Administration's contention that money moved around to abortion, 'the record is devoid of evidentiary support for Defendants' suggestion that Planned Parenthood entities share funds that are ultimately used for abortions.' (Op. at 21) The court also noted that the provision was tailored not to touch others besides Planned Parenthood. 'Defendants do not dispute that conjunctive criteria leave 'virtually all abortion providers who participate in Medicaid—other than Planned Parenthood Members—unaffected' by the legislation.' Op. at 27 (underlining in original). The court's order appears to block section 71113 as to ten affiliates, but does not resolve the case as to the other affiliates. (Then ten protected ones are mainly those not providing abortions, but also those under the statutory threshold of $800,000 in Medicaid funds). It might seem at first that the opinion cautiously proceeded for now as far as to be affirmable on appeal. But, it must be considered what the pattern of the current 6-3 Supreme Court is, particularly since the start of the Trump Administration, but also keeping in mind its pattern ever since overruling Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision. No doubt, the 6-3 Court majority would uphold freedom of association for the affiliates of the National Right to Life Committee or the National Rifle Association. To say there is a lack of sympathy for Planned Parenthood is an understatement. Moreover, it would not be impossible for this Court to decide to treat the case as an 'emergency.' The defendants are the Administration, represented in court by the Solicitor General, and he has had signal success to getting the Court's majority to treat cases of injunctions against Administration action as 'emergencies.' He would argue that every day that goes by, the Planned Parenthood affiliates protected by the court's order are wrongly billing services to Medicaid which must be stopped. Moreover, he will get to argue here something he usually cannot: it is not just the Administration's will getting frustrated, it is the will of Congress. For a Court majority that was by itself during the Biden Administration years, it may feel like a welcome moment to have the Trump Administration plus the Republican Congress, albeit by a provision slipped into a big budget bill, seeming to ask it for action. As has been seen so often, if the Court majority treats a case as an 'emergency,' it can forego oral argument – meaning, forego a press and public window – and even forego providing any majority opinion at all. It does not have to explain why it would defund Medicaid care for poor women even by affiliates that perform no abortions. That would seem the wrong way to handle a case worthy, if taken, of full legal treatment – maybe one of the most constitutionally significant government contracting cases for poor women of the Court's year -- but, it could happen. Then again, maybe Judge Talwani's narrow order just addressing ten affiliates will head this off.
Forbes
3 days ago
- Forbes
Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order Remains Blocked—Appeals Court Deems It Unconstitutional
A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship and deemed it unconstitutional, dealing a further legal blow to the Trump administration on the matter despite a Supreme Court ruling last month that limited the ability of courts to block Trump's policies nationwide. President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order was deemed unconstitutional by a ... More federal appeals court. Getty Images The 2-1 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a nationwide pause on the enforcement of the president's order granted by a Washington District Court Judge in January. The court's majority opinion said: 'We conclude that the Executive Order is invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to 'all persons born in the United States.' The opinion noted that the district court: 'correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional…We fully agree.' Trump appointee Judge Patrick J. Bumatay issued a partial dissent, arguing that the Democratic-led states that brought the case lacked standing to file the suit; however, he did not address whether the executive order itself was unconstitutional. This is the first ruling on the matter by a federal appeals court and likely sets up a future hearing by the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the Birthright Citizenship executive order, it handed a major legal victory to Trump last month by limiting lower court judges' ability to block his policies nationwide. The top court's ruling was in a case that consolidated multiple lawsuits nationwide against the order, in which the Trump administration had asked the judges to rule on whether federal judges from a single state or region could block the president's policy from being implemented nationwide. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along partisan lines and the majority opinion from the court's conservative justices stated that Courts are not supposed to 'exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch.' The liberal judges' dissenting opinion penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court's majority ruling disregards 'basic principles of equity' and called it an 'attack on our system of law.' The dissenting opinion then warned: 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.' What Do We Know About Another Recent Ruling Blocking The Order? Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire also blocked the executive order from going into effect nationwide. Judge Joseph Laplante's ruling blocked the order, which was set to take effect on July 27, after the Supreme Court's order overturned previous blocks imposed by lower courts. Laplante's ruling relied on one of the many carveouts specified by the Supreme Court in its verdict, including one that allowed cases to be brought as class-action lawsuits, thereby blocking the Trump administration from implementing a policy against any specific group. The New Hampshire case was certified as a class action, preventing the implementation of Trump's order against any child born in the U.S. who could be impacted by it—effectively freezing the policy. Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Blocked Again—Despite Supreme Court's Ruling (Forbes) Supreme Court Limits Judges From Blocking Some Trump Policies—But Punts On Birthright Citizenship Rule (Forbes)
