ReportWire

Tag: Court decisions

  • Pair receives life for killing US consulate worker, 2 others

    Pair receives life for killing US consulate worker, 2 others

    [ad_1]

    EL PASO, Texas — Three gunmen with the Barrio Azteca gang were sentenced to life imprisonment Monday for killing a U.S. consulate worker, her husband and the husband of another consulate worker in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, officials said.

    The three had all been found guilty by a federal jury in February of the fatal March 2010 shootings of consulate worker Lesley Enriquez, her husband Arthur Redelfs, an El Paso County jailer, and Jorge Salcido Ceniceros. All three were sentenced Monday in El Paso, according to a U.S. Attorney’s Office statement.

    The victims were returning home from a children’s birthday party when they were mistakenly targeted and killed.

    Trial evidence showed that Jose Guadalupe Diaz Diaz and Martin Artin Perez Marrufo, both of Chihuahua, Mexico, served as the hit team that killed the three on March 13, 2010, after being mistaken for members of a rival gang, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office statement.

    According to the same statement, “Barrio Azteca is a transnational criminal organization engaged in, among other things, money laundering, racketeering, and drug-related activities in El Paso, Texas, among other places.”

    The gang joined with other drug gangs to battle the Sinaloa Cartel, at the time headed by Joaquín ‘Chapo’ Guzman, and its allies for control of the drug trafficking routes through Juarez, according to the statement.

    The drug routes through Juarez, which is situated across the border from El Paso, are important to drug trafficking organizations because it is a principal illicit drug trafficking route into the United States, federal officials said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Colorado businessman set for retrial over border wall fund

    Colorado businessman set for retrial over border wall fund

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A Colorado businessman returns to New York Monday for a retrial on charges that he cheated thousands of donors to a $25 million online crowdfunding “We Build The Wall” campaign to construct a wall along the southern U.S. border.

    Timothy Shea’s first trial ended in early June without a verdict when jurors informed the judge that continuing to deliberate would leave them “further entrenched in our opposing views.”

    The case once included as a defendant Steve Bannon, a onetime top adviser to former President Donald Trump. Trump pardoned Bannon just before leaving office last year. Two others charged in the case pleaded guilty.

    The deadlocked jury came days after 11 jurors sent a note to the judge claiming one juror was politically biased against the government and in favor of Shea after labeling the rest of them as liberals and complaining the trial should have been held in a southern state.

    Jury selection in the second trial begins Monday morning in a Manhattan federal court.

    Last month, Judge Analisa Torres rejected Shea’s request to move the trial to Colorado on the grounds that “political polarization” in New York and publicity about his first trial made it impossible for him to get a fair result in Manhattan.

    She wrote that a jury note in his first trial might have indicated that differences in political opinions affected the jury’s deliberations, but he had not shown that those differences reflected a prejudice against him. And she said he had not explained why “political polarization” would be less pronounced in Colorado or anywhere else.

    Shea, of Castle Rock, Colorado, has pleaded not guilty to conspiracy and falsification of records charges lodged against him after questions arose over how donations were spent from a campaign that raised about $25 million for a wall. Only a few miles of wall were built.

    Prosecutors said Shea and other fund organizers promised investors that all donations would fund a wall, but Shea and the others eventually pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars for themselves.

    Shea’s lawyers said he acted honorably in the fundraising campaign and did not commit a crime.

    Shea owns an energy drink company, Winning Energy, whose cans have featured a cartoon superhero image of Trump and claim to contain “12 oz. of liberal tears.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Defense motions could sidetrack trial in Taos compound case

    Defense motions could sidetrack trial in Taos compound case

    [ad_1]

    TAOS, N.M. — A judge has ruled five defendants are competent to stand trial more than four years after they were found in a squalid New Mexico compound with 11 malnourished children and the body of a young boy.

    But multiple motions filed by defense lawyers last week may slow the proceedings again.

    Taos County sheriff’s officials raided the compound in remote northern New Mexico in August 2018, saying they also discovered a firing range and firearms.

    In a second search days later, authorities reported recovering the decomposing remains of a 3-year-old boy from an underground tunnel.

    Authorities said the child was the son of one of the five adult suspects and had been reported missing by his mother in Georgia.

    All five members of the extended family are charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and providing material support to terrorists.

    Their attorneys said the defendants would not be facing terrorism-related charges if they were not Muslim.

    Albuquerque TV station KOB reports that defense lawyers filed motions last week trying to get the judge to drop all kidnapping charges.

    The group says they’re immune to kidnapping statutes because the dead boy’s father had legal custody of him at the time.

    They also say the autopsy report lists the official cause of death as undetermined.

    In addition, defense attorneys are asking the judge to throw out any evidence the sheriff’s office and FBI obtained from the compound during execution of the search warrant.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge sides with California baker over same-sex wedding cake

    Judge sides with California baker over same-sex wedding cake

    [ad_1]

    BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — A California judge has ruled in favor of a bakery owner who refused to make wedding cakes for a same-sex couple because it violated her Christian beliefs.

    The state Department of Fair Housing and Employment had sued Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, arguing owner Cathy Miller intentionally discriminated against the couple in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

    Miller’s attorneys argued her right to free speech and free expression of religion trumped the argument that she violated the anti-discrimination law. Kern County Superior Court Judge Eric Bradshaw ruled Friday that Miller acted lawfully while upholding her beliefs about what the Bible teaches regarding marriage.

    The decision was welcomed as a First Amendment victory by Miller and her pro-bono attorneys with the conservative Thomas More Society.

    “I’m hoping that in our community we can grow together,” Miller told the Bakersfield Californian after the ruling. “And we should understand that we shouldn’t push any agenda against anyone else.”

    A spokesperson said the fair housing department was aware of the ruling but had not determined what to do next. The couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, said they expect an appeal.

    “Of course we’re disappointed, but not surprised,” Eileen told the newspaper. “We anticipate that our appeal will have a different result.”

    An earlier decision in Kern County Superior Court also went Miller’s way, but it was later vacated by the 5th District Court of Appeal, which sent the lawsuit back to the county.

    The decision comes as a Colorado baker is challenging a ruling he violated that state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. That baker, Jack Phillips, separately won a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory after refusing on religious grounds to make a gay couple’s wedding cake a decade ago.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cardi B absolved in racy mixtape artwork lawsuit

    Cardi B absolved in racy mixtape artwork lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    SANTA ANA, Calif. — A jury sided with Cardi B on Friday in a copyright infringement case involving a man who claimed the Grammy-winning rapper misused his back tattoos for her sexually suggestive 2016 mixtape cover art.

    The federal jury in Southern California ruled Kevin Michael Brophy did not prove Cardi B misappropriated his likeness. After the jury forewoman read the verdict, the rapper hugged her attorneys and appeared joyful.

    Cardi B thanked the jurors, admitting she was “pretty nervous” before hearing the verdict.

    “I wasn’t sure if I was going to lose or not,” she said after leaving the courthouse. She was swarmed by several reporters, photographers and more than 40 high schoolers who chanted her name. One fan held up a sign asking if she could take him to his homecoming dance, to which she replied “Yes, I’ll see what I can do.”

    “I told myself if I win, I was going to cuss Mr. Brophy out. But I don’t have it in my heart to cuss him out,” she said. In the courtroom, Cardi B had a brief, cordial conversation with Brophy and shook his hand.

    Brophy filed the lawsuit a year after the rapper’s 2016 mixtape was released. He called himself a “family man with minor children” and said he was caused “ distress and humiliation ” by the artwork – which showed a tattooed man from behind with his head between the rapper’s legs inside a limousine. The man’s face cannot be seen.

    “At the end of the day, I do respect you as an artist,” Brophy said to Cardi B.

    Brophy’s lawyer, A. Barry Cappello, said photo-editing software was used to put the back tattoo, which has appeared in tattoo magazines, onto the male model featured on the mixtape cover.

    But Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Almanzar, disputed the allegations during her testimony earlier in the week — and had such an intense exchange with Cappello that the trial was briefly halted by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney.

    Cardi B said she felt Brophy hadn’t suffered any consequences as a result of the artwork. She said Brophy has harassed her legally for five year – and even at one point said she missed the “first step” of her youngest child because of the trial.

    Cardi B delivered pointed answers to several of Cappello’s questions. The lawyer once asked her to calm down, but she sharply pushed back at his contention that she knew about the altered image.

    Their heated exchange prompted the judge to send jurors out of the Santa Ana, California, courtroom and told both sides that he was considering a mistrial. After a short break, he called the arguing “unprofessional” and “not productive” but allowed questioning to resume, then placed new restrictions for both sides.

    Cardi B said an artist used only a “small portion” of the tattoos without her knowledge. She had previously said the cover art – created by Timm Gooden – was transformative fair use of Brophy’s likeness.

    Cappello said Gooden was paid $50 to create a design, but was told to find another tattoo after he turned in an initial draft. He said Gooden googled “back tattoos” before he found an image and pasted it on the cover.

    Cardi B’s lawyer, Peter Anderson, said Brophy and the mixtape image are unrelated, noting the model did not have neck tattoos – which Brophy does.

    “It’s not your client’s back,” Cardi B said about the image, which featured a Black model. Brophy is white. The rapper pointed out that she posted a photo of the “famous Canadian model” on her social media.

    “It’s not him,” she continued. “To me, it doesn’t look like his back at all. The tattoo was modified, which is protected by the First Amendment.”

    Cardi B said the image hasn’t hindered Brophy’s employment with a popular surf and skate apparel brand or his ability to travel the world for opportunities.

    “He hasn’t gotten fired from his job,” said the rapper, who implied that the mixtape was not a lucrative one for her. “He hasn’t gotten a divorce. How has he suffered? He’s still in a surf shop at this job. Please tell me how he’s suffered.”

    Last month, Cardi B pleaded guilty to a criminal case stemming from a pair of brawls at New York City strip clubs that required her to perform 15 days of community service. Earlier this year, the rapper was awarded $1.25 million in a defamation lawsuit against a celebrity news blogger who posted videos falsely stating she used cocaine, had contracted herpes and engaged in prostitution.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cardi B absolved in racy mixtape artwork lawsuit

    Cardi B absolved in racy mixtape artwork lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    SANTA ANA, Calif. — A jury sided with Cardi B on Friday in a copyright infringement case involving a man who claimed the Grammy-winning rapper misused his back tattoos for her sexually suggestive 2016 mixtape cover art.

    The federal jury in Southern California ruled Kevin Michael Brophy did not prove Cardi B misappropriated his likeness. After the jury forewoman read the verdict, the rapper hugged her attorneys and appeared joyful.

    Cardi B thanked the jurors, admitting she was “pretty nervous” before hearing the verdict.

    “I wasn’t sure if I was going to lose or not,” she said after leaving the courthouse. She was swarmed by several reporters, photographers and more than 40 high schoolers who chanted her name. One fan held up a sign asking if she could take him to his homecoming dance, to which she replied “Yes, I’ll see what I can do.”

    “I told myself if I win, I was going to cuss Mr. Brophy out. But I don’t have it in my heart to cuss him out,” she said. In the courtroom, Cardi B had a brief, cordial conversation with Brophy and shook his hand.

    Brophy filed the lawsuit a year after the rapper’s 2016 mixtape was released. He called himself a “family man with minor children” and said he was caused “ distress and humiliation ” by the artwork – which showed a tattooed man from behind with his head between the rapper’s legs inside a limousine. The man’s face cannot be seen.

    “At the end of the day, I do respect you as an artist,” Brophy said to Cardi B.

    Brophy’s lawyer, A. Barry Cappello, said photo-editing software was used to put the back tattoo, which has appeared in tattoo magazines, onto the male model featured on the mixtape cover.

    But Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Almanzar, disputed the allegations during her testimony earlier in the week — and had such an intense exchange with Cappello that the trial was briefly halted by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney.

    Cardi B said she felt Brophy hadn’t suffered any consequences as a result of the artwork. She said Brophy has harassed her legally for five year – and even at one point said she missed the “first step” of her youngest child because of the trial.

    Cardi B delivered pointed answers to several of Cappello’s questions. The lawyer once asked her to calm down, but she sharply pushed back at his contention that she knew about the altered image.

    Their heated exchange prompted the judge to send jurors out of the Santa Ana, California, courtroom and told both sides that he was considering a mistrial. After a short break, he called the arguing “unprofessional” and “not productive” but allowed questioning to resume, then placed new restrictions for both sides.

    Cardi B said an artist used only a “small portion” of the tattoos without her knowledge. She had previously said the cover art – created by Timm Gooden – was transformative fair use of Brophy’s likeness.

    Cappello said Gooden was paid $50 to create a design, but was told to find another tattoo after he turned in an initial draft. He said Gooden googled “back tattoos” before he found an image and pasted it on the cover.

    Cardi B’s lawyer, Peter Anderson, said Brophy and the mixtape image are unrelated, noting the model did not have neck tattoos – which Brophy does.

    “It’s not your client’s back,” Cardi B said about the image, which featured a Black model. Brophy is white. The rapper pointed out that she posted a photo of the “famous Canadian model” on her social media.

    “It’s not him,” she continued. “To me, it doesn’t look like his back at all. The tattoo was modified, which is protected by the First Amendment.”

    Cardi B said the image hasn’t hindered Brophy’s employment with a popular surf and skate apparel brand or his ability to travel the world for opportunities.

    “He hasn’t gotten fired from his job,” said the rapper, who implied that the mixtape was not a lucrative one for her. “He hasn’t gotten a divorce. How has he suffered? He’s still in a surf shop at this job. Please tell me how he’s suffered.”

    Last month, Cardi B pleaded guilty to a criminal case stemming from a pair of brawls at New York City strip clubs that required her to perform 15 days of community service. Earlier this year, the rapper was awarded $1.25 million in a defamation lawsuit against a celebrity news blogger who posted videos falsely stating she used cocaine, had contracted herpes and engaged in prostitution.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tennessee man receives 4 years in prison for Capitol breach

    Tennessee man receives 4 years in prison for Capitol breach

    [ad_1]

    MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A Tennessee business owner who scaled a wall outside the U.S. Capitol was sentenced Friday to four years in prison after he was convicted of five charges connected to the raid on Jan. 6, 2021, federal prosecutors said.

    Matthew Bledsoe, 38, of Olive Branch, Mississippi, was found guilty in July of one felony — obstruction of an official proceeding — and four misdemeanors related to the Capitol breach, the Department of Justice said in a statement.

    Federal prosecutors said Bledsoe was one of scores of people who forced their way into the Capitol as Congress met to certify President Joe Biden’s victory. Bledsoe illegally entered the Capitol grounds and scaled a wall to reach a fire door on the Senate side of the building.

    A warrant said FBI agents received a tip that Bledsoe had been part of the group. Video shows Bledsoe passing through the outer door and into the Capitol hallway, the warrant said.

    Agents were also led to a post by Bledsoe’s wife on her Facebook page in which she stated that “Matt was inside the Capitol, he was one of the first,” the warrant said.

    Federal authorities received a video compilation that was posted to his Instagram account that included several photos and video shot by Bledsoe, who is seen wearing a Trump 2020 hat.

    The photos and video show the crowd approaching the Capitol building and Bledsoe and others immediately outside the door, the warrant said.

    According to the warrant, one companion says, “We’re going in!” before Bledsoe turns the camera to show the door and says, “This is our house,” and he utters profanities.

    Bledsoe is listed in records as a principal of a Memphis moving company and authorities said he lived in nearby Cordova when he was arrested.

    More than 880 people have been charged with crimes related to the attack on Jan. 6, 2021, the Justice Department said.

    ———

    Follow AP’s coverage of the Jan. 6 insurrection at https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 Capitol riot committee subpoenas former President Donald Trump

    Jan. 6 Capitol riot committee subpoenas former President Donald Trump

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump was issued a subpoena Friday by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

    The committee, which voted unanimously on the move, is demanding Trump’s testimony under oath next month as well as records relevant to the probe into the attack, which the panel noted came after weeks of him denying losing the 2020 election to President Joe Biden.

     The panel had said on Oct. 13 that it would subpoena Trump, whose supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as a joint session of Congress met to confirm Biden’s victory.

    “We recognize that a subpoena to a former President is a significant and historic action,” the panel’s leaders wrote Trump in a letter Friday.

    “We do not take this action lightly.”

    Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Republican Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming, in the letter cited what they called Trump’s central role in a deliberate, “multi-part effort” to reverse his loss in the 2020 presidential election, and to remain in power.

    The subpoena says that Trump would be deposed on Nov. 14, after the midterm elections.

    It is not clear whether Trump will comply with the subpoena.

    The records being sought by the House committee pursuant to the subpoena are due Nov. 4.

    The records would include documentation of telephone calls, text messages, or communications sent through the encrypted messaging app Signal, as well as photos, videos and handwritten notes relevant to the scope of the probe.

    Pro-Trump protesters storm the U.S. Capitol to contest the certification of the 2020 U.S. presidential election results by the U.S. Congress, at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., U.S. January 6, 2021.

    Ahmed Gaber | Reuters

    The panel specifically asked for communications to, and memorandum from, 13 Trump allies and fellow deniers of Biden’s victory, among them former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, Republican gadfly Roger Stone, retired Army Lt. General Michael Flynn, and former White House aide Stephen Bannon.

    Bannon was sentenced to four months in jail earlier Friday for refusing to comply with his own subpoenas from the committee. He remains free pending appeal.

    In their letter to Trump, committee leaders Thompson and Cheney accused him of “maliciously” making false allegations of election fraud, “attempting to corrupt the Department of Justice” to endorse those claim, pressuring state officials to change election results, and overseeing efforts to submit false electors to the Electoral College.

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    The letter also noted that he had pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, to refuse to count Electoral College votes during the joint session of Congress.

     “As demonstrated in our hearings, we have assembled overwhelming evidence, including from dozens of your former appointees and staff, that you personally orchestrated and oversaw a multi-part effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election and to obstruct the peaceful transition of power,” the letter said.

    “You were at the center of the first and only effort by any U.S. President to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transition of power, ultimately culminating in a bloody attack on our own Capitol and on the Congress itself,” the letter said.

    The committee’s leaders pointed to the fact that seven presidents had testified to Congress after leaving office, most recently Gerald Ford, a Republican.

    And at least two presidents, Ford and Abraham Lincoln, testified before Congress while serving in the White House, the letter noted.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP-led states appealing dismissal of suit over loan relief

    GOP-led states appealing dismissal of suit over loan relief

    [ad_1]

    ST. LOUIS — Attorneys for six Republican-led states are asking a federal appeals court to reconsider their effort to block the Biden administration’s program to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loan debt.

    A notice of appeal to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was filed late Thursday, hours after U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey in St. Louis ruled that since the states of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina failed to establish standing, “the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.”

    Separately, the six states also asked the district court for an injunction prohibiting the administration from implementing the debt cancellation plan until the appeals process plays out.

    President Joe Biden on Monday officially launched the application process for the debt cancellation program and announced that 8 million borrowers had already applied for loan relief during the federal government’s soft launch period last weekend. Biden was scheduled to discuss the program Friday in a speech at Delaware State University.

    The plan, announced in August, would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, will get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.

    The Congressional Budget Office has said the program will cost about $400 billion over the next three decades. James Campbell, an attorney for the Nebraska attorney general’s office, told Autrey at an Oct. 12 hearing that the administration is acting outside its authorities in a way that will cost states millions of dollars.

    The cancellation applies to federal student loans used to attend undergraduate and graduate school, along with Parent Plus loans. Current college students qualify if their loans were disbursed before July 1. The plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could get their debt erased entirely, according to the administration.

    The announcement immediately became a major political issue ahead of the November midterm elections.

    Conservative attorneys, Republican lawmakers and business-oriented groups have asserted that Biden overstepped his authority in taking such sweeping action without the assent of Congress. They called it an unfair government giveaway for relatively affluent people at the expense of taxpayers who didn’t pursue higher education.

    Many Democratic lawmakers facing tough reelection contests have distanced themselves from the plan.

    The six states sued in September. Lawyers for the administration countered that the Department of Education has “broad authority to manage the federal student financial aid programs.” A court filing stated that the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, allows the secretary of education to waive or modify terms of federal student loans in times of war or national emergency.

    “COVID-19 is such an emergency,” the filing stated.

    The HEROES Act was enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to help members of the military. The Justice Department says the law allows Biden to reduce or erase student loan debt during a national emergency. Republicans argue the administration is misinterpreting the law, in part because the pandemic no longer qualifies as a national emergency.

    Justice Department attorney Brian Netter told Autrey at the Oct. 12 hearing that fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is still rippling. He said student loan defaults have skyrocketed over the past 2 1/2 years.

    Other lawsuits also have sought to stop the program. Earlier Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected an appeal from a Wisconsin taxpayers group seeking to stop the debt cancellation program.

    Barrett, who oversees emergency appeals from Wisconsin and neighboring states, did not comment in turning away the appeal from the Brown County Taxpayers Association. The group wrote in its Supreme Court filing that it needed an emergency order because the administration could begin canceling outstanding student debt as soon as Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-UCLA gynecologist found guilty in LA sex abuse case

    Ex-UCLA gynecologist found guilty in LA sex abuse case

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — A former gynecologist at the University of California, Los Angeles was found guilty Thursday of five counts of sexually abusing female patients, in a criminal case that came after the university system made nearly $700 million in lawsuit payouts.

    The Los Angeles jury found Dr. James Heaps, a longtime UCLA campus gynecologist, not guilty of seven of the 21 counts and were deadlocked on the remaining charges.

    In the wake of the scandal that erupted in 2019 following the doctor’s arrest, UCLA agreed to pay nearly $700 million in lawsuit settlements to hundreds of Heaps’ patients — a record amount by a public university amid a wave of sexual misconduct scandals by campus doctors in recent years.

    Heaps, 65, had pleaded not guilty to 21 felony counts in the sexual assaults of seven women between 2009 and 2018. He has denied wrongdoing.

    Heaps was indicted last year on multiple counts each of sexual battery by fraud, sexual exploitation of a patient and sexual penetration of an unconscious person by fraudulent representation.

    The jury delivered a guilty verdict on three counts of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration of an unconscious person. He was found not guilty of seven other counts of sexual battery and penetration, as well as one count of sexual exploitation. The jury was hung on the nine remaining counts, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial for those charges.

    It was not immediately clear whether the district attorney’s office plans to refile the case on the deadlocked counts.

    Heaps’ attorney and the district attorney’s office did not immediately return requests for comment Thursday.

    “The horrible abuse he perpetrated on cancer patients and others who trusted him as their doctor has been exposed and justice was done,” attorney John Manly, who represented more than 200 women in civil cases against Heaps and UCLA, said in a statement after the verdict.

    Sex abuse by doctors on college campuses has led to massive settlements at Ohio State University, Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University.

    UCLA’s payouts exceed a $500 million settlement by Michigan State University in 2018 that was considered the largest by a public university. The University of Southern California, a private institution, has agreed to pay more than $1 billion to settle thousands of cases against the school’s longtime gynecologist, who still faces a criminal trial in Los Angeles.

    UCLA patients said Heaps groped them, made suggestive comments or conducted unnecessarily invasive exams during his 35-year career. Women who brought the lawsuits said the university ignored their complaints and deliberately concealed abuse that happened for decades during examinations at the UCLA student health center, the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center or in Heaps’ campus office.

    UCLA acknowledged it received a sex abuse complaint against Heaps from a patient in December 2017 and it launched an investigation the following month that concluded she was sexually assaulted and harassed, attorneys said.

    Heaps, however, continued to practice until his retirement in June 2018. The university did not release its finding in the investigation until November 2019 — months after Heaps was arrested.

    “UCLA Health is grateful for the patients who came forward,” the university said in a statement after the verdict. “Sexual misconduct of any kind is reprehensible and intolerable. Our overriding priority is providing the highest quality care while ensuring that patients feel safe, protected and respected.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump deposed in rape-defamation lawsuit by writer E. Jean Carroll

    Trump deposed in rape-defamation lawsuit by writer E. Jean Carroll

    [ad_1]

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held at the Hilton Anatole on August 06, 2022 in Dallas, Texas. CPAC began in 1974, and is a conference that brings together and hosts conservative organizations, activists, and world leaders in discussing current events and future political agendas. 

    Brandon Bell | Getty Images

    Former President Donald Trump was deposed Wednesday for a civil lawsuit accusing him of defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of raping her, her representation confirmed.

    Trump on Oct. 12 lost his bid to delay being questioned under oath by Carroll’s lawyers when a federal judge brushed aside arguments that a pending appeal in the lawsuit warranted putting the case on hold.

    The timing of Trump’s deposition and its location were not immediately available Wednesday.

    “As we have said all along, my client was pleased to set the record straight today. This case is nothing more than a political ploy like many others in the long list of witch hunts against Donald Trump,” Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, said in a statement.

    Carroll was scheduled to have been deposed for the case last Friday.

    A trial in the case is scheduled for February.

    Even if that trial is put on hold, or outright canceled as the result of the pending appeal, Carroll plans to sue the 76-year-old Trump in New York state court next month under a new law that lifted the statute of limitations for claims of rape and sexual abuse.

    Carroll’s lawyers could use Trump’s Wednesday deposition in that planned suit.

    The deposition comes two months after Trump refused to answer questions under oath in a deposition by attorneys for New York Attorney General Letitia James in connection with a civil investigation of his company, the Trump Organization. Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 440 times in that deposition.

    James last month sued Trump, his company, three of his adult children and others, alleging widespread fraud involving allegedly false financial statements related to the company’s business. James is seeking at least $250 million in damages in that case, as well as sanctions.

    Carroll, 78, in a 2019 New York magazine article, accused Trump of raping her in a dressing room in the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in the mid-1990s after a chance encounter in the store.

    Trump, who was president at the time the article appeared, responded that Carroll was lying and motivated by money and political considerations to concoct the account.

    Carroll then sued Trump for defamation in New York state court.

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    The case was transferred a year later to U.S. District Court in Manhattan as the Department of Justice, then under the control of the Trump-appointed Attorney General William Barr, sought to replace Trump as the defendant in the case. The department argued that because Trump was president at the time he allegedly defamed Carroll, the government had the power to step in and act as the defendant because he was a government employee.

    If the DOJ was allowed to do so, it would effectively end the lawsuit. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the federal government has the power to deny plaintiffs the right to sue it.

    Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected that bid. “The President of the United States is not an employee of the Government within the meaning of the relevant statutes,” he said in a ruling.

    “Even if he were such an employee, President Trump’s allegedly defamatory statements concerning Ms. Carroll would not have been within the scope of his employment,” wrote Kaplan, who is not related to Carroll’s attorney.

    The DOJ appealed Kaplan’s ruling.

    In September, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Kaplan’s ruling on the question of whether Trump was acting as a government employee at the time he replied to Carroll’s article. But the appeals court also asked its sister appeals court in Washington, D.C., to rule on whether Trump made the statements about Carroll within the scope of his employment, as defined by local District of Columbia law.

    The D.C. federal appeals court has not yet ruled on that question.

    Kaplan, in his decision last week, said that Trump was not entitled to delay his deposition pending the outcome in the D.C. court because he had not shown a required strong likelihood of success on that question.

    Kaplan also wrote that there was reason to believe that Trump was continuing to engage in delaying tactics in the litigation and that the “advanced age” of both Trump and Carroll was a reason not to further postpone action in the case.

    “The defendant should not be permitted to run the clock out on plaintiff’s attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong,” Kaplan wrote.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3 murder verdicts vacated in case investigated by killer cop

    3 murder verdicts vacated in case investigated by killer cop

    [ad_1]

    NEW ORLEANS — Three men imprisoned since the 1990s for a fatal New Orleans drive-by shooting were ordered freed Wednesday, with prosecutors citing the role of two notoriously corrupt police officers — including one awaiting a federal death sentence — among the reasons the convictions had to be thrown out.

    Kunta Gable and Leroy Nelson were 17 when they were arrested soon after the Aug. 22, 1994, death of Rondell Santinac at the Desire housing development. Bernell Juluke, arrested with them, was 18. The men were ordered freed Wednesday by a state judge who vacated their convictions on a joint motion by defense lawyers and District Attorney Jason Williams’ Civil Rights Division.

    The motion outlines multiple problems with the original case. It says the state failed to disclose evidence undermining the claims of the only eyewitness to the crime, Samuel Raiford. And, it notes, the jury didn’t know that officers Len Davis and Sammie Williams — the first officers on the scene, according to the motion — were known to cover up the identity of perpetrators and manipulate evidence at Desire murder scenes to cover up for drug dealers they protected.

    “There is extensive documented evidence that while operating under color of law he engaged in illegal drug trafficking, framed individuals who got in his way, and even went so far as to order the murder of a private citizen who dared to report his systematic abuses,” Jason Williams said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

    Davis would eventually be convicted for arranging the death of a woman who filed a complaint against him in an unrelated matter.

    The motion notes that Raiford did not initially describe three suspects and “the first time three perpetrators were mentioned by anyone is by Len Davis after the three defendants were pulled over …”

    The 24-page motion also notes the teens were arrested a short time after the crime with no signs of guns or shell casings in their car.

    “We are very grateful to the Court, DA Williams, and the Civil Rights Division for their work in correcting this grave injustice,” Juluke’s attorney Michael Admirand, said in an emailed statement. “Mr. Juluke maintained his innocence from the moment of his wrongful arrest. I am relieved that he has finally been vindicated, if disheartened that it took so long.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Father says ‘no joy’ in Kristin Smart murder conviction

    Father says ‘no joy’ in Kristin Smart murder conviction

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — The father of Kristin Smart, the California Central Coast college student who vanished from campus 26 years ago, says a murder conviction hasn’t ended the “agonizingly long journey” to find the truth about his daughter.

    “Without Kristin, there’s no joy or happiness in this verdict,” Smart’s father, Stan Smart, said at a news conference after a jury on Tuesday found Paul Flores — the last man seen with Smart — guilty of first-degree murder.

    Prosecutors contended that Flores killed Smart, then 19, while trying to rape her in his dormitory room at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, where they were first-year students. His attorney argued that prosecutors used an outlandish conspiracy theory and “junk science” to accuse him and his father, who was charged with concealing Smart’s body to hide the crime.

    Flores, who is 45, could face 25 years to life in prison when he is sentenced on Dec. 9. His attorney, Robert Sanger, declined to comment on the verdict Tuesday.

    A day earlier, a separate jury acquitted Ruben Flores, 81, who was accused by prosecutors of burying Smart’s body under the deck of his house in the nearby community of Arroyo Grande for years but later digging up and moving it.

    Her body has never been found.

    Both verdicts were announced Tuesday.

    “After 26 years, with today’s split verdict, we learned that our quest for justice for Kristin will continue,” Smart’s father said. “This has been an agonizingly long journey, with more downs than ups.”

    However, he also thanked both juries for their diligence and said his faith in the justice system “has been renewed.”

    “Know that your spirit lives on in each and every one of us, everyday,” he said of his daughter. “Not a single day goes by that you aren’t missed, remembered, loved and celebrated.”

    Smart disappeared from campus over Memorial Day weekend in 1996. The father and son weren’t arrested until 2021. Their attorneys had suggested that someone else killed her or even that she may still be alive, although Smart was legally declared dead in 2002.

    San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Ian Parkinson told reporters that the search for Smart’s remains will continue.

    “This case will not be over until Kristin is returned home, and we have committed to that from the beginning,” he said. “We don’t take a breath. We do not put this aside.”

    Paul Flores was seen with Smart on May 25, 1996. The defense said Flores was seen helping Smart walk to her dorm after she became drunk at an off-campus party. Prosecutors suggested she may have been drugged and that Flores took her to his own room where he killed her during an attempted rape.

    Paul Flores had long been considered a suspect in the killing. He had a black eye when investigators interviewed him. He told them he got it playing basketball with friends, who denied his account, according to court records. He later changed his story to say he bumped his head while working on his car.

    During Paul Flores’ trial, the prosecution also told jurors that four cadaver dogs had alerted to the “smell of death on his mattress” but Sanger called it “junk science” and noted there wasn’t any forensic evidence of Smart having been in the room.

    “This case was not prosecuted for all these years because there’s no evidence,” Sanger said during closing arguments. “It’s sad Kristin Smart disappeared, and she may have gone out on her own, but who knows?”

    Investigators conducted dozens of fruitless searches for Smart’s body over two decades. In the past two years they turned their attention to Ruben Flores’ home.

    Behind latticework beneath the deck of his large house on a dead end street, archaeologists working for police in March 2021 found a soil disturbance about the size of a casket and the presence of human blood, prosecutors said. The blood was too degraded to extract a DNA sample.

    After Tuesday’s verdict, Ruben Flores maintained that both he and his son are innocent and said he feels badly that Smart’s family will never have a resolution. He said the case was about feelings, not facts.

    “We don’t know what happened to their daughter,” he told reporters.

    “They’ve had searches and everything,” he said. “They come to my house and say she was buried here, and that’s a surprise to me.”

    “He should have never been charged,” said his attorney, Harold Mesick. “It would be nice if the community would actually honor the presumption of innocence. There is so much animosity toward this man and his family.”

    The trial was held in Salinas, 110 miles (177 kilometers) north of San Luis Obispo. A judge agreed to move it after the defense argued that it was unlikely the Floreses could receive a fair trial with so much notoriety in the city of about 47,000 people.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man convicted of killing missing California college student

    Man convicted of killing missing California college student

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — The last man seen with Kristin Smart was convicted Tuesday of killing the college freshman, who vanished from a California campus more than 25 years ago, but his father was acquitted of helping him conceal the crime.

    Jurors unanimously found Paul Flores guilty of first-degree murder. He could face 25 years to life in prison when he is sentenced.

    In an email, his attorney, Robert Sanger, declined to comment on the verdict because “the matter is still pending.”

    A jury in a separate trial found his father, Ruben Flores, not guilty of charges of being an accessory to murder after the fact. The conflicting verdicts were read moments apart in the same courtroom.

    “Without Kristin, there’s no joy or happiness in this verdict,” Smart’s father, Stan Smart, said at a news conference after the hearing. “After 26 years, with today’s split verdict, we learned that our quest for justice for Kristin will continue.”

    He described the case as a long, agonizing journey and said he was grateful to the two juries for their diligence.

    Smart disappeared from California Polytechnic State University on the state’s scenic central coast over Memorial Day weekend in 1996. Her remains have never been found. The father and son weren’t arrested until 2021.

    San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Ian Parkinson told reporters at a news conference that the investigation won’t end until Smart’s remains are found.

    “This case will not be over until Kristin is returned home, and we have committed to that from the beginning,” he said. “We don’t take a breath. We do not put this aside.”

    Prosecutors maintained the younger Flores, now 45, killed the 19-year-old during an attempted rape on May 25, 1996, in his dorm room at Cal Poly, where both were first-year students. He was the last person seen with Smart as he walked her home from an off-campus party where she became intoxicated.

    His father, now 81, was accused of helping bury the slain student behind his home in the nearby community of Arroyo Grande and later digging up the remains and moving them.

    Outside the courthouse, Ruben Flores maintained that his son is innocent and said he feels badly that Smart’s family will never have a resolution. He said the case was about feelings, not facts.

    “We don’t know what happened to their daughter,” he told reporters.

    Sanger had tried to pin the killing on someone else — noting that Scott Peterson, who was later convicted at a sensational trial of killing his pregnant wife and the fetus she was carrying — was also a student at the campus about 200 miles (320 kilometers) up the coast from Los Angeles.

    During his closing arguments, Sanger said no attempted rape occurred and he cast doubt on testimony from witnesses, including a student who was in Smart’s dorm who testified to seeing Paul Flores in Smart’s room.

    He also referred to forensic evidence offered by the prosecution as “junk science.”

    “This case was not prosecuted for all these years because there’s no evidence,” Sanger said. “It’s sad Kristin Smart disappeared, and she may have gone out on her own, but who knows?”

    Paul Flores had long been considered a suspect in the killing. He had a black eye when investigators interviewed him. He told them he got it playing basketball with friends, who denied his account, according to court records. He later changed his story to say he bumped his head while working on his car.

    Investigators conducted dozens of fruitless searches for Smart’s body over two decades. In the past two years they turned their attention to Ruben Flores’ home about 12 miles (20 kilometers) south of Cal Poly in the community of Arroyo Grande.

    Behind latticework beneath the deck of his large house on a dead end street, archaeologists working for police in March 2021 found a soil disturbance about the size of a casket and the presence of human blood, prosecutors said. The blood was too degraded to extract a DNA sample.

    The trial was held in Salinas, 110 miles (177 kilometers) north of San Luis Obispo. A judge agreed to move it after the defense argued that it was unlikely the Floreses could receive a fair trial with so much much notoriety in the city of about 47,000 people.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man convicted in death of Texas agency’s 1st Sikh deputy

    Man convicted in death of Texas agency’s 1st Sikh deputy

    [ad_1]

    HOUSTON — A man was convicted of capital murder on Monday in the 2019 shooting death of a law enforcement officer who was the first Sikh deputy in his Texas agency.

    A jury took less than 30 minutes before finding Robert Solis, 50, guilty in the killing of Harris County Sheriff’s Deputy Sandeep Dhaliwal during a September 2019 traffic stop in a residential cul-de-sac 18 miles (29 kilometers) northwest of Houston.

    Authorities say the 42-year-old deputy was shot multiple times from behind after he stopped Solis and was walking back to his patrol car.

    The same jury in Houston that convicted Solis began hearing evidence late Monday afternoon in the trial’s punishment phase. Prosecutors are seeking a death sentence.

    Just before his trial began last week, Solis fired his court appointed attorneys and chose to represent himself.

    Solis testified in his own defense and told jurors he had accidentally shot Dhaliwal.

    Prosecutors argued Solis deliberately shot Dhaliwal because he didn’t want to go back to jail. At the time of the traffic stop, Solis had a warrant for violating parole.

    Dhaliwal was described by Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez as “a trailblazer” because he was the first Sikh deputy with the sheriff’s office when he joined the force around 2009.

    Gonzalez’s predecessor as sheriff, Adrian Garcia, implemented a religious accommodation policy that allowed Dhaliwal to wear the traditional turban and beard of the Sikh religion.

    Garcia, who is now a Harris County commissioner, was in a public meeting Monday afternoon when he paused to announce the guilty verdict.

    “I know this won’t bring him back but it is some measure of justice,” Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, the county’s top elected official, said during the meeting before holding a moment of silence to honor Dhaliwal.

    ———

    This story has been corrected to show that Adrian Garcia is now a county commissioner, not Ed Gonzalez/

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A Connecticut jury’s ruling this week ordering Alex Jones to pay $965 million to parents of Sandy Hook shooting victims he maligned was heartening for people disgusted by the muck of disinformation.

    Just don’t expect it to make conspiracy theories go away.

    The appetite for such hokum and narrowness of the judgments against Jones, who falsely claimed that the 2012 elementary school shootings were a hoax and that grieving parents were actors, virtually ensure a ready supply, experts say.

    “It’s easy to revel in Alex Jones being punished,” said Rebecca Adelman, a communications professor at the University of Maryland. “But there’s a certain shortsightedness in that celebration.”

    There’s a deep tradition of conspiracy theories across American history, from people not believing the official explanation of John F. Kennedy’s assassination to various accusations of extraterrestrial-visit coverups to unfounded allegations of the 2020 presidential election being rigged. With the Salem witch trials in 1692, they even predated the country’s formation.

    What’s different today? The internet allows such stories to spread rapidly and widely — and helps adherents find communities of the likeminded. That in turn can push such untrue theories into mainstream politics. Now the will to spread false narratives skillfully online has spread to governments, and the technology to doctor photos and videos enables purveyors to make disinformation more believable.

    In today’s media world, Jones found that there’s a lot of money to be made — and quickly — in creating a community willing to believe lies, no matter how outlandish.

    In a Texas defamation trial last month, a forensic economist testified that Jones’ Infowars operation made $53.2 million in annual revenue between 2015 and 2018. He has supplemented his media business by selling products like survivalist gear. His company Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy in July.

    To some, disinformation is the price America pays for the right to free speech. And in a society that popularized the term “alternative facts,” one person’s effort to curb disinformation is another person’s attempt to squash the truth.

    Will the Connecticut ruling have a chilling effect on those willing to spread disinformation? “It doesn’t even seem to be chilling him,” said Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor. Jones, he noted, reacted in real time on Infowars on the day of the verdict.

    “This will not impact the flow of stories that are filled with bad faith and extreme opinion,” said Howard Polskin, who publishes The Righting, a newsletter that monitors the content of right-wing websites. He says false stories about the 2020 election and COVID-19 vaccines remain particularly popular.

    “It seems to me that the people who peddle this information for profit may look upon this as the cost of doing business,” Adelman said. “If there’s an audience for it, someone is going to meet the demand if there’s money to be made.”

    Certainly, the people who believe that Jones and those like him are voices of truth being suppressed by society aren’t going to be deterred by the jury verdict, she said. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true.

    The plaintiffs awarded damages in the Sandy Hook case were all private citizens, an important distinction in considering its impact beyond this case, said Nicole Hemmer, a Vanderbilt University professor and author of “Partisans: The Conservative Revolutionaries Who Remade American Politics in the 1990s.”

    The case is reminiscent of Seth Rich, a young Democratic Party aide killed in a Washington robbery in 2016, she said. Rich’s name was dragged — posthumously — into political conspiracy theories, and his parents later sued and reached a settlement with Fox News Channel.

    The message, in other words: Be wary of dragging private citizens into outlandish theories.

    “Spreading conspiracy theories about the Biden administration is not going to get Fox News Channel sued,” Hemmer said. “It is not going to get Tucker Carlson sued.”

    Tracing the history of outlandish theories that sprout and thrive in the web’s murky corners is also difficult. Much of it is anonymous. It’s still not clear who is responsible for what is spread on QAnon or who makes money off it, Fenster says.

    If he was a lawyer, he said, “Who would I go after?”

    Despite any pessimism about what the nearly $1 billion Sandy Hook judgment might ultimately mean for disinformation, the dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania says it still sends an important message.

    “What this says is we can’t just make up truths to fit our own ideological predilections,” John Jackson said. “There is a hard and fast ground to facts that we can’t stray too far from as storytellers.”

    Consider the lawsuit filed against Fox News Channel by Dominion Voting Systems, a company that makes election systems. It claims Fox knowingly spread false stories about Dominion as part of former President Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election had been taken from him. Dominion has sought a staggering $1.6 billion from Fox, and the case has moved through the deposition phase.

    Fox has defended itself vigorously. It says that rather than spreading falsehoods, it was reporting on newsworthy claims being made by the president of the United States.

    A loss in a trial, or a significant settlement, could impose a real financial hardship on Fox, Hemmer said. Yet as it progresses, there’s been no indication that any of its commentators are pulling punches, particularly concerning the Biden administration.

    Distrust of mainstream news sources also fuels the taste among many conservatives for theories that fit their world view — and a vulnerability to disinformation.

    “I don’t think there’s any incentive to move toward well-grounded reporting or to move in the direction of news and information instead of commenting,” Hemmer said. “That’s what they want. They want the wild conspiracy theories.”

    Even if the crushing verdict in Connecticut this week — coupled with the $49 million judgement against him in August by the Texas court — muzzles or minimizes Jones, Adelman says others are likely to take over for him: “It would be wrong to misinterpret this as the death knell of disinformation.”

    ———

    David Bauder is the media writer for The Associated Press. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/dbauder

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A Connecticut jury’s ruling this week ordering Alex Jones to pay $965 million to parents of Sandy Hook shooting victims he maligned was heartening for people disgusted by the muck of disinformation.

    Just don’t expect it to make conspiracy theories go away.

    The appetite for such hokum and narrowness of the judgments against Jones, who falsely claimed that the 2012 elementary school shootings were a hoax and that grieving parents were actors, virtually ensure a ready supply, experts say.

    “It’s easy to revel in Alex Jones being punished,” said Rebecca Adelman, a communications professor at the University of Maryland. “But there’s a certain shortsightedness in that celebration.”

    There’s a deep tradition of conspiracy theories across American history, from people not believing the official explanation of John F. Kennedy’s assassination to various accusations of extraterrestrial-visit coverups to unfounded allegations of the 2020 presidential election being rigged. With the Salem witch trials in 1692, they even predated the country’s formation.

    What’s different today? The internet allows such stories to spread rapidly and widely — and helps adherents find communities of the likeminded. That in turn can push such untrue theories into mainstream politics. Now the will to spread false narratives skillfully online has spread to governments, and the technology to doctor photos and videos enables purveyors to make disinformation more believable.

    In today’s media world, Jones found that there’s a lot of money to be made — and quickly — in creating a community willing to believe lies, no matter how outlandish.

    In a Texas defamation trial last month, a forensic economist testified that Jones’ Infowars operation made $53.2 million in annual revenue between 2015 and 2018. He has supplemented his media business by selling products like survivalist gear. His company Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy in July.

    To some, disinformation is the price America pays for the right to free speech. And in a society that popularized the term “alternative facts,” one person’s effort to curb disinformation is another person’s attempt to squash the truth.

    Will the Connecticut ruling have a chilling effect on those willing to spread disinformation? “It doesn’t even seem to be chilling him,” said Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor. Jones, he noted, reacted in real time on Infowars on the day of the verdict.

    “This will not impact the flow of stories that are filled with bad faith and extreme opinion,” said Howard Polskin, who publishes The Righting, a newsletter that monitors the content of right-wing websites. He says false stories about the 2020 election and COVID-19 vaccines remain particularly popular.

    “It seems to me that the people who peddle this information for profit may look upon this as the cost of doing business,” Adelman said. “If there’s an audience for it, someone is going to meet the demand if there’s money to be made.”

    Certainly, the people who believe that Jones and those like him are voices of truth being suppressed by society aren’t going to be deterred by the jury verdict, she said. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true.

    The plaintiffs awarded damages in the Sandy Hook case were all private citizens, an important distinction in considering its impact beyond this case, said Nicole Hemmer, a Vanderbilt University professor and author of “Partisans: The Conservative Revolutionaries Who Remade American Politics in the 1990s.”

    The case is reminiscent of Seth Rich, a young Democratic Party aide killed in a Washington robbery in 2016, she said. Rich’s name was dragged — posthumously — into political conspiracy theories, and his parents later sued and reached a settlement with Fox News Channel.

    The message, in other words: Be wary of dragging private citizens into outlandish theories.

    “Spreading conspiracy theories about the Biden administration is not going to get Fox News Channel sued,” Hemmer said. “It is not going to get Tucker Carlson sued.”

    Tracing the history of outlandish theories that sprout and thrive in the web’s murky corners is also difficult. Much of it is anonymous. It’s still not clear who is responsible for what is spread on QAnon or who makes money off it, Fenster says.

    If he was a lawyer, he said, “Who would I go after?”

    Despite any pessimism about what the nearly $1 billion Sandy Hook judgment might ultimately mean for disinformation, the dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania says it still sends an important message.

    “What this says is we can’t just make up truths to fit our own ideological predilections,” John Jackson said. “There is a hard and fast ground to facts that we can’t stray too far from as storytellers.”

    Consider the lawsuit filed against Fox News Channel by Dominion Voting Systems, a company that makes election systems. It claims Fox knowingly spread false stories about Dominion as part of former President Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election had been taken from him. Dominion has sought a staggering $1.6 billion from Fox, and the case has moved through the deposition phase.

    Fox has defended itself vigorously. It says that rather than spreading falsehoods, it was reporting on newsworthy claims being made by the president of the United States.

    A loss in a trial, or a significant settlement, could impose a real financial hardship on Fox, Hemmer said. Yet as it progresses, there’s been no indication that any of its commentators are pulling punches, particularly concerning the Biden administration.

    Distrust of mainstream news sources also fuels the taste among many conservatives for theories that fit their world view — and a vulnerability to disinformation.

    “I don’t think there’s any incentive to move toward well-grounded reporting or to move in the direction of news and information instead of commenting,” Hemmer said. “That’s what they want. They want the wild conspiracy theories.”

    Even if the crushing verdict in Connecticut this week — coupled with the $49 million judgement against him in August by the Texas court — muzzles or minimizes Jones, Adelman says others are likely to take over for him: “It would be wrong to misinterpret this as the death knell of disinformation.”

    ———

    David Bauder is the media writer for The Associated Press. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/dbauder

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mel Gibson can testify at Harvey Weinstein trial, judge says

    Mel Gibson can testify at Harvey Weinstein trial, judge says

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — Mel Gibson can testify about what he learned from one of Harvey Weinstein’s accusers, a judge ruled Friday in the rape and sexual assault trial of the former movie mogul.

    The 66-year-old actor and director was one of many witnesses, and by far the best known, whose identities were revealed in Los Angeles Superior Court. The judge and attorneys had taken a break from jury selection for motions on what evidence will be allowed at the trial, and who can testify. The witness list for the trial is sealed.

    Judge Lisa B. Lench ruled that Gibson can testify in support of his masseuse and friend, who will be known as Jane Doe #3 at the trial. Weinstein is accused of committing sexual battery by restraint against the woman, one of 11 rape and sexual assault counts in the trial against the 70-year-old.

    Prosecutors said that after getting a massage from the woman at a California hotel in Beverly Hills in May of 2010, a naked Weinstein followed her into the bathroom and masturbated. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty, and denied any non-consensual sexual activity.

    Weinstein’s attorneys argued against allowing Gibson to testify, saying that what he learned from the woman while getting a massage from her does not constitute a “fresh complaint” by the woman under the law by which Gibson would take the stand. A “fresh complaint” under California law allows the introduction of evidence of sexual assault or another crime if the victim reported it to someone else voluntarily and relatively promptly after it happened.

    Prosecutors said that when Gibson brought up Weinstein’s name by chance, the woman had a traumatic response and Gibson understood from her that she had been sexually assaulted. Gibson did not remember the timing of the exchange, but the prosecution will use another witness, Allison Weiner, who remembers speaking to both Gibson and the woman in 2015.

    Judge Lench said Gibson’s testimony will depend on how the accuser describes the exchange with him when she takes the stand, and she may choose to rule against it at that time.

    Weinstein attorney Mark Werksman then argued that if Gibson does take the stand, the defense should be allowed to cross-examine him about widely publicized antisemitic remarks Gibson made during an arrest in 2006, and about racist statements to a girlfriend that were recorded and publicized in 2010.

    Lench said a wider discussion of Gibson’s racism was not relevant to the trial, but she would allow questioning of whether he had a personal bias and animus toward Weinstein.

    Werksman argued that Gibson had such a bias both because Weinstein is Jewish, and because Weinstein published a book that criticized the depiction of Jews in the Gibson-directed 2004 film, “The Passion of the Christ.”

    “Any evidence of Mr. Gibson’s racism or antisemitism would give rise to a bias against my client, who challenged him,” Werksman said.

    The lawyer briefly, and mistakenly, said he thought the movie won a best picture Academy Award, but Weinstein, whose films once dominated the Oscars, shook his head as he sat at the defense table.

    “Sorry, my client would know better than I would,” Werksman said. “But it was an award-winning movie.”

    The defense also argued that Gibson was trying to whitewash his image by focusing on Weinstein’s wrongdoing and asserting himself as a champion of the #MeToo movement.

    The prosecution argued that Gibson had made no such suggestions about himself, and that at the time of the conversation with his masseuse he said he was discussing getting into a business deal with Weinstein, showing there was no such bias.

    Deputy District Attorney Marlene Martinez called Gibson’s past comments “despicable,” but said they had no relevance for the narrow purposes he would be called to the stand for.

    Gibson’s testimony raises the prospect of two of Hollywood’s once most powerful men, who have undergone public downfalls, facing each other in court.

    An email seeking comment from a representative for Gibson was not immediately returned.

    In one of several similar rulings Friday, Lench also found that “Melrose Place” actor Daphne Zuniga could testify in a similar capacity for a woman known at the trial as Jane Doe #4, whom Weinstein is accused of raping in 2004 or 2005.

    The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they have been sexually abused.

    Weinstein is already serving a 23-year sentence for a 2020 conviction for rape and sexual assault in New York. The state’s highest court has agreed to hear his appeal in that case.

    He was subsequently brought to Los Angeles for a trial that began Monday, five years after women’s stories about him gave massive momentum to the #MeToo movement.

    Friday’s arguments came a day after the premiere of the film “She Said,” which tells the story of the work of the two New York Times reporters whose stories brought Weinstein down.

    Weinstein’s attorneys previously sought to have the Los Angeles trial delayed because publicity from the film might taint the jury pool, but the judge denied their motion.

    The trial is expected to last eight weeks. The judge and attorneys will return to the jury selection process on Monday morning, and opening statements are expected to begin on Oct. 24.

    ———

    Follow AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton on Twitter: twitter.com/andyjamesdalton

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Head of zero-emission truck venture found guilty of fraud

    Head of zero-emission truck venture found guilty of fraud

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — The wealthy founder of Nikola Corp. was convicted Friday of charges he deceived investors with exaggerated claims about his company’s progress in producing zero-emission 18-wheel trucks fueled by electricity or hydrogen.

    A jury reached the verdict against Trevor Milton after deliberating for about five hours in federal court in Manhattan.

    At trial, the government had portrayed Milton as a con man while his lawyer called him an inspiring visionary who was being railroaded by overzealous prosecutors.

    Those prosecutors alleged that Nikola — founded by Milton in a Utah basement six years ago — falsely claimed to have built its own revolutionary truck that was actually a General Motors Corp. product with Nikola’s logo stamped onto it. There also was evidence that the company produced videos of its trucks that were doctored to hide their flaws.

    Called as a government witness, Nikola’s CEO testified that Milton “was prone to exaggeration” in pitching his venture to investors.

    “The lies — that is what this case is about,” prosecutor Matthew Podolsky told the jury in closing arguments Thursday.

    Defense attorney Marc Mukasey urged acquittal, saying there was “a stunning lack of evidence” that his client ever intended to cheat investors.

    Milton, 40, had pleaded not guilty to securities and wire fraud. He resigned in 2020 amid reports of fraud that sent Nikola’s stock prices into a tailspin.

    At one point, the trial was delayed for more than a week after Milton’s lawyer tested positive for the coronavirus.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump angrily lashes out after his deposition is ordered

    Trump angrily lashes out after his deposition is ordered

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump angrily lashed out Wednesday, calling the nation’s legal system a “broken disgrace” after a judge ruled he must answer questions under oath next week in a defamation lawsuit lodged by a writer who says he raped her in the mid-1990s.

    He also called the 2019 lawsuit by E. Jean Carroll, a longtime advice columnist for Elle magazine, “a hoax and a lie.”

    The outburst late in the day came hours after U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in Manhattan rejected a request by his lawyers to delay a deposition scheduled for Oct. 19.

    Kaplan is presiding over the case in which Carroll said Trump raped her in the dressing room of a Manhattan Bergdorf Goodman store in the mid-1990s. He called the lawsuit “a complete con job.”

    “I don’t know this woman, have no idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event,” Trump said.

    “She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her. It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years,” he said.

    Then he grumbled: “Now all I have to do is go through years more of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her lawyer’s phony attacks on me. This can only happen to ‘Trump’!”

    Carroll is scheduled to be deposed on Friday.

    Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, said she was pleased with the judge’s ruling and looked forward to filing new claims next month “and moving forward to trial with all dispatch” after New York state passed the Adult Survivors Act, allowing her to sue for damages for the alleged rape without the statute of limitations blocking it.

    After Trump’s statement was released, a spokesperson for Kaplan’s firm, Kaplan Hecker & Fink, said the “latest statement from Donald Trump obviously does not merit a response.”

    Trump’s legal team has tried various legal tactics to delay the lawsuit and prevent him from being questioned by Carroll’s attorneys. But Judge Kaplan wrote that it was time to move forward, especially given the “advanced age” of Carroll, 78, and Trump, 76, and perhaps other witnesses.

    “The defendant should not be permitted to run the clock out on plaintiff’s attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong,” he wrote.

    Carroll’s lawsuit claims that Trump damaged her reputation in 2019 when he denied raping her. Trump’s legal team has been trying to quash the lawsuit by arguing that the Republican was just doing his job as president when he denied the allegations, including when he dismissed his accuser as “not my type.”

    Trump doubled down on the comment in his statement Wednesday, saying: “And, while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type! She has no idea what day, what week, what month, what year, or what decade this so-called ‘event’ supposedly took place. The reason she doesn’t know is because it never happened, and she doesn’t want to get caught up with details or facts that can be proven wrong.”

    Whether Trump will remain the defendant in the original lawsuit is a key question because if Trump was acting within the scope of his duties as a federal employee, the U.S. government would become the defendant in the case.

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a split decision last month that Trump was a federal employee when he commented on Carroll’s claims. But it asked another court in Washington to decide whether Trump’s public statements occurred during the scope of his employment.

    Kaplan, the judge, said Trump has repeatedly tried to delay the collection of evidence in the lawsuit.

    “Given his conduct so far in this case, Mr. Trump’s position regarding the burdens of discovery is inexcusable,” he wrote. “As this Court previously has observed, Mr. Trump has litigated this case since it began in 2019 with the effect and probably the purpose of delaying it.”

    The judge noted that the collection of evidence for the lawsuit to go to trial was virtually concluded, except for the depositions of Trump and Carroll.

    “Mr. Trump has conducted extensive discovery of the plaintiff, yet produced virtually none himself,” Kaplan said. “Completing these depositions — which already have been delayed for years — would impose no undue burden on Mr. Trump, let alone any irreparable injury.”

    The judge also said the deposition could be useful when Carroll’s lawyer next month files the new lawsuit.

    Whether the rape occurred is central to the defamation claims, as well as the anticipated new lawsuit, the judge said.

    ———

    Associated Press Writer Jill Colvin reported from Washington

    [ad_2]

    Source link