Sam Bankman-Fried, who founded the FTX cryptocurrency exchange, on Thursday was convicted of seven fraud and conspiracy charges carrying a maximum sentence of 110 years in prison.
During the monthlong trial, Bankman-Fried gave testimony in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that stretched over three days. At one point during his time on the stand, the 31-year-old disgraced mogul testified that he believed his crypto company would fail.
“I thought there was maybe a 20 percent chance of success,” Bankman-Fried testified.
He also said he knew “basically nothing” about cryptocurrency before founding FTX in 2019.
Nevertheless, Bankman-Fried had pleaded not guilty to all seven counts of fraud and conspiracy. Prosecutors argued that he and others involved in FTX’s operations defrauded customers out of as much as $10 billion to cover losses and pay back loans owed by sister fund Alameda Research.
Former FTX chief executive Sam Bankman-Fried leaves Manhattan federal court in New York City on January 3, 2023. He was found guilty on Thursday of seven counts of fraud and conspiracy, defrauding crypto users of up to $10 billion. Photo by ED JONES/AFP via Getty Images
The testimony of Caroline Ellison, Bankman-Fried’s former girlfriend and one-time chief executive officer of Alameda, garnered much media attention. She told the court that Bankman-Fried instructed her to steal billions of dollars from customers to cover losses and debt owed by the sister fund.
Bankman-Fried was accused of bullying Ellison during her testimony by scoffing and shaking his head.
At one time, FTX was seen as a tech success story. The company enjoyed a high profile with commercials featuring stars like football legend Tom Brady and comedian Larry David. However, the company collapsed in November 2022, and Bankman-Fried was arrested the following month in the Bahamas before being extradited to the United States.
“His crimes caught up to him. His crimes have been exposed,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon told the jury on Thursday, according to the Associated Press, which also reported that U.S. Attorney Damian Williams told the media after the verdict that Bankman-Fried “perpetrated one of the biggest financial frauds in American history, a multibillion dollar scheme designed to make him the king of crypto.”
“But here’s the thing: The cryptocurrency industry might be new. The players like Sam Bankman-Fried might be new. This kind of fraud, this kind of corruption is as old as time and we have no patience for it,” he added.
Bankman-Fried’s attorney said in a statement that while they respect the jury’s decision, they were “very disappointed with the result.”
Newsweek reached out to Bankman-Fried’s attorney via email for further comment Thursday night.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan set a sentencing date of March 28, and Bankman-Fried is expected to appeal.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Robert De Niro’s ongoing civil trial has been filled with a series of colorful one-liners. “You got me!” he exploded, after admitting that he had twice asked his former employee Graham Chase Robinson to scratch his back when he had an itch he couldn’t reach. In his testimony this week, he described Robinson’s accusations of harassment and gender discrimination as “all nonsense,” but acknowledged that he may have asked her to have a late-night martini delivered to him from Nobu.
On Thursday, De Niro’s girlfriend Tiffany Chen joined the fray. While on the stand, according to the Independent, she discussed a text she sent to a then employee of Canal Productions, De Niro’s company where Robinson worked as vice president of finance and production after rising from her role as his assistant beginning in 2008.
“The whole situation has become very Single White Female,” Chen wrote. She was discussing how Robinson had gone into the couple’s home and allegedly unplugged all of her electronics.
In the courtroom, Chen elaborated on what she meant by this reference to the 1992 erotic thriller: a woman who is “obsessive, crazy, and dangerous.”
Robinson, Chen testified, dreamt of dating De Niro herself. “I believed she lived her whole life as a fantasy,” Chen said.
The trial, which began on Monday and is expected to last two weeks, addresses two lawsuits that Robinson and De Niro filed against each other. In 2019, De Niro accused Robinson of using company resources for personal purposes, including the use of over $125,000 in frequent flyer miles and a Netflix account that the suit alleged she repeatedly accessed during work hours. In short order, Robinson responded with a suit of her own, claiming that De Niro subjected her to repeated sexist remarks and “gratuitous physical contact.”
In Chen’s view, the dispute was romantic in origin. She testified that Robinson had an “imaginary intimacy” with De Niro and that Chen urged him to get rid of her. Robinson, she said amid a stream of angry remarks, was “obsessive, psychotic and dangerous.”
In other texts displayed in court, Chen described Robinson to De Niro as a “straight up Nasty B****” and wrote “her possessive manner over the house makes me very uncomfortable.”
When asked if she had written these messages, Chen was just as direct. “Yeah,” she testified. “I wrote it.”
Two new suspects are facing charges in the robbery and killing of rapper PnB Rock, who was shot to death in September 2022 while dining at Roscoe’s House of Chicken & Waffles in South L.A, authorities said.
Tremont Jones was charged with two counts of robbery, conspiracy to rob the rapper and illegally possessing a firearm as a felon, according to a criminal complaint filed in September. Another suspect, Wynisha Evans, was charged with being an accessory after the fact.
Both Jones and Evans pleaded not guilty to the charges when they were arraigned at the Compton Courthouse last month, said Venusse Dunn, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
Authorities had arrested the pair in May in connection to PnB Rock’s killing. However, since charges had been filed in court as a separate case, apart from the main murder case, Jones and Evans remained largely unknown to the public. The new suspects’ charges were brought to light this week after Rolling Stone attended their most recent hearing in Compton on Monday.
The Times could not immediately reach attorneys for Jones and Evans.
PnB Rock, 30, whose legal name was Rakim Allen, had been dining at the Roscoe’s House of Chicken & Waffles location on Manchester Avenue with his girlfriend, Stephanie Sibounheuang, on Sept. 12 when a 17-year-old boy walked up to their table and demanded jewelry and other valuables, prosecutors alleged in court documents. The jewelry was valued at “several hundreds of thousands of dollars,” prosecutors said.
After Allen refused the teen’s demands, prosecutors alleged, the youth shot the seated rapper once in the chest, then twice more in the back. Seconds later, the teen allegedly threatened to shoot Sibounheuang in the head and took several pieces of jewelry off Allen’s body before fleeing the restaurant with his father, suspected getaway driver Freddie Lee Trone.
In the new court filings, prosecutors accused Jones of taking part in the plot to rob Allen. Jones allegedly met Trone at a parking lot near the Roscoe’s and talked for several minutes before handing Trone an object covered in a towel, which prosecutors allege was a firearm. Trone drove off and returned to the area to drop off his teen son, who was wearing a ski mask and armed with a gun, prosecutors alleged. Jones allegedly stuck around, eventually leaving a nearby parking lot as the teen made his way into the restaurant.
Evans was accused of fleeing with Trone after the shooting. She had known Trone since they were children, according to a recent court filing by the prosecution, and saw him as “a father figure” to her own son. After learning he was a suspect in the shooting, she reached out to Trone, prosecutors said in the filing. She allegedly rented a car and drove him from L.A. to Nevada “for safety,” the document said.
An FBI-led task force found Trone in Las Vegas within several weeks and arrested him in late September. He was extradited to California, where he was charged with murder, robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. His son faced the same charges. Trone’s wife, Shauntel Trone, who is not related to his son, was charged also in late September with robbery and hiding Trone and his son at her home before their eventual arrests.
Jones remains incarcerated at Men’s Central Jail in downtown Los Angeles and is held on $1 million bail, according to county jail records. Evans was released last week on her own recognizance since her non-violent charge fell within the county’s new zero-bail policy. The court installed the policy in July after criticizing the cash bail system for disfavoring people who don’t have access to large amounts of money.
Jones, Evans and Trone are due in court for another hearing in December.
Philadelphia-born rapper PnB rock was known for his 2015 single “Fleek” and a hit song with Atlanta rapper YFN Lucci, “Everyday We Lit,” which cracked the Billboard Hot 100 in 2016. He also collaborated with other prominent artists, such as Ed Sheeran and Chance the Rapper.
Times staff writers James Queally, Richard Winton, Kenan Draughorne and the late Gregory Yee contributed to this report.
A federal grand jury in August indicted Trump on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, in the January 6 case. Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith has investigated Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the election results, including alleged attempts to submit false slates of pro-Trump electors from swing states he lost to the Electoral College. Trump, who is campaigning for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination and is the current frontrunner, maintains his innocence, accusing prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes.
Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, previously put in place a “narrowly tailored” gag order against Trump at the request of prosecutors, who had raised concerns about Trump’s previous comments. Chutkan then temporarily put the gagging order on hold thus giving Trump’s attorneys time to prove why the former president’s comments should not be restricted, The Associated Press reports.
The gag order prohibited Trump from making certain types of statements about Jack Smith’s team or potential witnesses, including any comments that directly targeted court personnel, potential witnesses or the special counsel and his staff.
Newsweek has reached out to Trump’s attorneys via email for comment.
Former US President and 2024 Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the New England Sports Center in Derry, New Hampshire, October 23, 2023. Judge Tanya Chutkan has reinstated a gag order for Trump amid his 2020 election case. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP) (Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images)
Chutkan’s ruling on the gag order was posted online to PACER Sunday night, but the order itself was not immediately available, according toThe AP. Newsweek also could not gain access to PACER Sunday night as the system seemed to be experiencing a glitch.
Meanwhile, after Chutkan’s ruling, Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday saying, “The Corrupt Biden Administration just took away my First Amendment Right To Free Speech. NOT CONSTITUTIONAL! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN…”
Victor Shi, a Biden-supporting activist, reacted to the ruling saying on X, formally Twitter, “BREAKING: Judge Tonya Chutkan just lifted the temporary hold she placed on Donald Trump’s gag order, denying Trump of his motion to stay her gag order. It’s a Sunday night & Judge Chutkan is still working. This is great news.”
Former U.S. attorney Andrew Weissmann said on X, “BREAKING -Chutkan lifts the temporary stay of her “gag” order, so it is now back in effect. Trump will likely seek a stay from the appellate court in DC. Trump’s continued attacks during the short interim when there was a stay was relied on by the US in arguing to lift the stay.”
Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, also said on X, “Judge Chutkan is on solid legal ground. She could gag Trump completely if she wanted to. Instead, she has given him wide latitude to criticize Biden, DOJ, and even her. Trump just can’t target parties and witnesses outside of court.”
BREAKING -Chutkan lifts the temporary stay of her “gag” order, so it is now back in effect. Trump will likely seek a stay from the appellate court in DC. Trump’s continued attacks during the short interim when there was a stay was relied on by the US in arguing to lift the stay. https://t.co/t3WREve10V
— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) October 29, 2023
In addition to the 2020 election case, Trump is currently battling an array of other legal issues. The former president is also facing a $250 million civil fraud trial stemming from a lawsuit New York Attorney General Letitia James filed last year alleging that Trump and top executives at The Trump Organization conspired to increase his net worth by billions of dollars on financial statements provided to banks and insurers to make deals and secure loans.
Trump was also indicted for alleged mishandling of classified documents that were recovered from his Mar-a-Lago residence. He has maintained his innocence in all cases.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
The possibility that former Vice President Mike Pence takes the stand against Donald Trump in the Department of Justice‘s (DOJ) election interference case is “high” and “almost a certainty” after dropping out of the 2024 Republican presidential primary race, legal analyst Danny Cevallos said Sunday.
The DOJ charged Trump in August on four criminal counts in special counsel Jack Smith‘s investigation into the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, culminating in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, when a group of his supporters violently protested the election results in a failed effort to block congressional certification of President Joe Biden‘s victory. The former president has claimed, without evidence, the election was stolen via widespread voter fraud, and has maintained his innocence in the case.
Meanwhile, Pence was among the packed crowd of candidates seeking the 2024 Republican nomination for president, all of whom have struggled against the overwhelming polling strength of Trump and his reelection bid. Pence, in particular, struggled greatly and garnered only single-digit support from likely Republican voters. His troubles were attributed by some to his unpopularity with independents and moderate Republicansfor his association with the Trump administration, and among MAGA Republicans over his refusal to go along with Trump’s attempts to overturn the election.
“It’s become clear to me it’s not my time,” Pence said during his speech Saturday at the Republican Jewish Coalition Conference. “I have decided to suspend my campaign for president effective today. We always knew this would be an uphill battle, but I have no regrets.”
Former Vice President Mike Pence speaks on September 18 in Washington, D.C. Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks on July 8 in Las Vegas. The possibility that Pence takes the stand against Trump in the Department of Justice’s election interference case is “high” and “almost a certainty,” legal analyst Danny Cevallos said Sunday. Getty Images/Drew Angerer/Mario Tama
While speaking on MSNBC on Sunday, Cevallos was asked about the likelihood of Pence taking the stand against his former boss. He replied, “High to almost a certainty.”
“I think that when he was opposing subpoenas in the past, he was doing so symbolically. He was really just putting on a front,” Cevallos said. “If he was speaking candidly behind closed doors, he was probably saying, ‘All right, we’ve got to argue against the subpoena, just for the show, just for my candidacy. But secretly, I can’t wait to go in there and testify against the guy who put this tremendous fear into me and many other people in Congress on that fateful day well over a year ago now.’”
“I don’t think there’s going to be much impediment to Mike Pence racing in to testify,” the legal analyst continued. “There is absolutely nothing holding him back now.”
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek on Sunday, “Pence has already flipped on Trump and he’s going to be the star witness in the election fraud cases. Pence was the target of the fake elector scheme, he’s already testified before the grand jury, and has said publicly that he told Trump that what he and his lawyers wanted to do was unconstitutional.”
He added: “Pence withdrawing from the presidential race doesn’t change his role as a witness in the cases. In fact, it probably makes it easier for him to testify without worrying about alienating potential voters.”
Political analyst and law professor Jonathan Turley also told Newsweek on Sunday that “Pence has been consistent since the January 6 riot on his view of the allegations of election fraud.”
Turley added: “I expect he will remain so as a potential witness. The question is not the animus but the evidence. We do not know if Pence can say with any foundation that Trump knew he lost the election and was actively pursuing claims that he considered factually or legally unfounded.”
Newsweek has reached out to a Trump spokesperson for comment via email.
On Saturday, Trump had a message for Pence after news of him dropping out of the 2024 race circulated.
“Everybody that leaves seems to be endorsing me. You know people are leaving now, and they’re all endorsing me. I don’t know about Mike Pence; he should endorse me. He should endorse me, you know why? Because I had a great successful presidency, and he was the vice president. He should endorse me,” the former president said. “I chose him, made him vice president, but people in politics can be very disloyal.”
Newsweek has also reached out to multiple legal analysts for additional comment.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Nearly four decades after they were busted for the New Year’s Day murder of a French tourist in Times Square, two childhood friends who have long professed their innocence appear to be on the brink of finally clearing their names.
In an Oct. 6 letter a top prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office asked a judge for a “pre-motion conference to discuss an anticipated motion to vacate the convictions” of Eric Smokes and David Warren.
The letter from Terri Rosenblatt, head of the Post-Conviction Justice Unit (PCJU) said the DA’s office is “prepared to concede … that there is newly discovered evidence that creates a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome …”
Eric Smokes (l.) and David Warren (r.) are pictured at the defense table in State Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2020 in New York. (Alec Tabak for New York Daily News)
The Daily News first wrote about Smokes and Warren, childhood buddies from East New York, in 2017, when their lawyers were planning to file a motion to vacate their convictions.
They were busted Jan. 8, 1987, a week after 71-year-old French tourist Jean Casse was mugged and robbed outside Ben Benson’s steakhouse on W. 52nd St. a few minutes after midnight on the morning of Jan. 1.
Smokes, then 19, and Warren, then 16, said from the start that they went with friends to Times Square to celebrate the new year and that when Casse was attacked they were outside the Latin Quarter nightclub, four blocks away from the steakhouse. They then headed further south because they didn’t have enough money to get in.
Casse, visiting the city with his wife and others — was heading back to his room at the Plaza Hotel with his group when he was knocked to the ground with a punch and struck his head on the ground, causing injuries he would die from later that day. His wife, Huguette Casse, 65, was not hurt.
Based largely on eyewitness testimony, both teens were charged with murder and convicted. Smokes, accused of punching Casse, was sentenced to 25 years to life, and Warren, accused of rifling through the victim’s pockets, got 15 years to life.
“I just went into shock,” Warren recalled when The News first interviewed him. “I might have been in shock for two years, honestly.”
Eric Smokes, right, and David Warren listen to arguments in court Thursday, January 3, 2019 in Manhattan. (Barry Williams for New York Daily News)
In 2005, Smokes got a letter in prison from James Walker, the prosecution’s key witness.
Walker, 16 at the time, was busted for a mugging a day after Casse was killed and told a detective he had done robberies with Smokes and Warren, and that Smokes earlier on Jan. 2 said he’d “caught a body” in Times Square.
The letter, an apology in which he said he told the police what they wanted in exchange for preferential treatment in his own case, was all Smokes needed to hear.
“There was only one way to go,” Smokes told The News in 2017. “Getting out and just letting it go, sucking it up — ’25 years is just 25 years’ — that wasn’t an option for me.”
Eric Smokes testifies in court Thursday, Jan. 3, 2019 in Manhattan. (Barry Williams for New York Daily News)
Warren was released from prison in 2009, Smokes in 2011. They found steady work in construction, married the women they were dating and set out to clear their names.
Their lawyers found two other witnesses who recanted, saying they had been pressured by police and prosecutors to pin the murder on Smokes and Warren.
“They kept asking me who did it,” Robert Anthony testified in 2018. “I kept telling them I didn’t know. I didn’t do anything. And they said, yeah, well…If they didn’t do it, you did it.”
After repeatedly saying he saw Casse on the ground but not who attacked him, Anthony testified that after 12 hours of being grilled he finally told cops what they wanted to hear.
“I was scared,” he explained.
The other witness, Kevin Burns testified that as he was being questioned for an unrelated robbery on Jan. 2, 1987 he said he was outside the steakhouse the night before and saw Casse confronted by Smokes and Warren.
When he then tried to take back that statement, explaining he had lied, he said an assistant district attorney told him it was too late, vowed to out him as a snitch if he didn’t stick with his original story and promised he’d get no deal in his own pending case.
“I lived with this lie,” he said at the 2018 hearing. “Everybody has something in their life they’re ashamed of and wish they had a chance to rectify. This is my chance to rectify this lie that I told 30 years ago.”
David Warren in State Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2020 in New York. (Alec Tabak for New York Daily News)
Antignani said Smokes and Warren had not “established their innocence through clear and convincing evidence” and he agreed with Assistant District Attorney Christine Keenan, who had argued that neither police nor prosecutors involved in the original investigation pressured witnesses.
Witnesses Anthony and Burns were “not credible,” the judge said in his ruling, and he gave only “limited credence” to Walker’s claims, which he repeated in an affidavit, but was not able to testify to because he died after getting shot in an unrelated incident.
But as the lawyers for Smokes and Warren, James Henning and Pierre Sussman, prepared to appeal, the DA’s office changed course. The PCJU, formed by District Attorney Alvin Bragg, decided to review the case, sharing information and witness access with defense lawyers.
PCJU’s Rosenblatt in her letter said “new evidence” had emerged — including photographs “which were misplaced and not found until after” the motion to vacate hearing. Smokes is listed as 5 feet 10 inches tall and 230 pounds — not 6 feet tall and skinny, as witnesses told police at the time.
There were also leads to other suspects that were not turned over, with Rosenblatt pointing out that there is “no evidence” the DA’s office was aware of this during the vacate hearing.
Rosenblatt also notes an account from someone who in statements revealed for the first time he said he was “99% confident” he was with Burns the entire night and that neither of them were outside the steakhouse; a contention from a witness who in 1987 placed Smokes and Warren at the crime but now said he made that claim because cops had threatened to charge him if he didn’t; and so-called “scratch notes” that were located in another file that suggest police fed Anthony facts, including Warren’s name and photo, before he identified him as being involved.
“The People do not take the decision to consent to vacate two homicide convictions lightly, and come to this Court with significant deference to both the jury verdict and the prior litigation,” Rosenblatt said in her letter. “The People are aware of the resources that went into both, and the thoroughness of the Court’s prior decision.
“However, based on the newly-discovered evidence, the People believe that the only legally correct and just outcome is to move to vacate these convictions.”
It wasn’t immediately clear if Henning and Sussman would contest whether the evidence found during the review constitutes a Brady violation, which is a failure to turn over to the defense exculpatory evidence and could constitute malfeasance.
The lawyers said they, Smokes, now 56, and Warren, 53, wouldn’t comment until a decision is made in the case.
The DA’s office had no comment on the letter.
A decision in the case is not expected for at least several weeks.
The legal fight between Terraform Labs and Citadel Securities over the 2022 UST stablecoin issue presents a complicated situation filled with accusations, calling for a careful and unbiased review to find out what really happened.
Citadel Securities is caught up in a legal issue with Terraform Labs, connected to the 2022 instability of the stablecoin UST. In a strong response to Terraform’s legal request, Citadel firmly denies having any part in the matter, calling the accusations a far-fetched conspiracy theory. This article aims to break down this complex legal situation, keeping a balanced view.
Citadel Securites has responded in scathing fashion to an effort by Do Kwon’s lawyers to serve a subpoena on them. Kwon/Terraform Labs are hunting for evidence of a Citadel role in the UST depeg of May 2022, based on tweets from @GiganticRebirth, among other leads pic.twitter.com/vfO1clO0xu
Terraform accuses Citadel and Jump Trading of working together to raise asset prices, a claim that Citadel strongly denies. Citadel’s legal response criticizes Terraform’s argument as baseless, pointing out its reliance on questionable social media posts and underlining that the time period Terraform is interested in is not relevant.
Citadel argues that Terraform’s legal move is just an attempt to shift blame away from itself, especially given the ongoing legal troubles Terraform is facing with the SEC and its former CEO, Do Kwon.
Citadel insists that it barely had anything to do with the cryptocurrencies in question, with its involvement totaling just $0.13 across two test transactions. This, Citadel says, clears it of any blame in the UST incident.
Additionally, Citadel claims to have given Terraform all the information it needed, showing that it did not really trade in the cryptocurrencies involved.
However, to fully understand this situation, we need to look at both sides. Citadel’s quick dismissal of the social media posts as ridiculous raises questions about what kind of evidence is needed in such complex cases.
While it’s important to avoid getting caught up in baseless conspiracy theories, we also need to make sure all possible leads are looked into, especially when the stability of digital currencies is at risk.
Citadel’s request for the court to punish Terraform adds another layer to this situation. If the court agrees, it could set a precedent that might scare other companies away from seeking legal help in similar cases, worried about having to pay a lot of money if they lose.
An L.A. County judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging L.A.’s “mansion tax” on Tuesday, marking the end of a months-long legal challenge from the luxury real estate community that looked to declare the measure unconstitutional.
The transfer tax known as Measure ULA was passed in November and took effect April 1, bringing a 4% charge on all residential and commercial real estate sales in the city above $5 million and a 5.5% charge on sales above $10 million, pumping millions into housing and homelessness-prevention efforts.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Barbara Scheper issued a tentative ruling dismissing the challenge on Monday after hearing arguments from both sides, and she officially dismissed the lawsuit on Tuesday, according to court documents.
The ruling is a big win for housing activists, who say that L.A. desperately needs the money raised by the tax.
“This is a great day for Los Angeles,” said Joe Donlin, who serves as director of the United to House LA coalition, which brought the measure onto the ballot in November. “The judge’s ruling confirms what we knew all along: ULA is the law of the land and it’s the will of the people. And it reminds us of the power of the people to shape our city’s future for the good.”
Donlin said he was surprised the ruling came out so soon.
“Before the hearing, we thought it might take weeks or months, but this was a positive sign that the judge didn’t feel compelled by the plaintiff’s arguments,” he said.
Advocates for Measure ULA gather outside Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown L.A. on Monday. A judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the measure.
(United to House LA)
Greg Bonett, senior staff attorney for the Public Counsel who worked to defend the measure, applauded the decision, calling it “a resounding victory for the power of the people to initiate transformative solutions to address our city’s housing and homelessness crises.”
The judge’s ruling is a blow for many in the luxury real estate community, who claim that the transfer tax has frozen the market and stifled development.
Keith Fromm, an attorney for Newcastle Courtyards, one of two groups challenging the measure, said he plans to appeal the decision.
“The order contains numerous errors of law which the appellate courts will hopefully recognize and correct,” Fromm said. “The ruling is simply one step in a very long journey to justice.”
The legal battle — which was headed by two main groups: Newcastle and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. — became a national conversation, as other cities looked to L.A. to see how it would implement such a tax.
Other cities such as San Francisco, New York City and Culver City have implemented transfer taxes, but L.A.’s is unique in scope and scale, not just taxing home sales but all property sales above $5 million.
Voters approved the measure with a 57% majority in November, and the tax became a hot-button issue immediately after.
Advocates argue that the tax is a way for luxury property owners to contribute to solving L.A.’s housing crisis, while opponents say it discourages development and pushes owners out of L.A. and into cities that don’t have the tax, such as Beverly Hills, West Hollywood or Santa Monica.
“With Measure ULA, we are now going to lose billions of dollars every year in economic development and property tax revenue in order to raise less than $500 million through the tax,” said Jason Oppenheim, a real estate agent with the Oppenheim Group and star of Netflix’s “Selling Sunset.”
The luxury real estate market froze in the months after the measure took effect, as many luxury homeowners looked to find loopholes to avoid paying the tax. Many hired accountants to find workarounds, such as dividing their homes into three parcels and selling them separately to stay under the $5-million threshold at which the tax kicks in.
Many homeowners held off on selling their homes, hoping the lawsuit would overturn the tax. As a result, funds raised by the tax have fallen dramatically short of original projections since sales have slowed.
In November, proponents of the tax estimated it would raise roughly $900 million a year. In March, a report from the city administrative officer lowered that number to $672 million. Then in April, Mayor Karen Bass’s first budget proposal, a $13.1-billion plan, included only $150 million in projected revenue from Measure ULA.
The number was chosen out of caution, as the city wanted to funnel as much money as possible toward housing and homelessness issues but not so much that it wouldn’t be able to pay it back if the measure were ruled unconstitutional.
But with the court’s latest ruling, spending will likely increase.
On Wednesday, the L.A. City Council’s budget, finance and innovation Committee will meet to discuss the implementation process, and the ULA coalition will propose that $12 million be reallocated to short-term emergency assistance for renters.
In August, the City Council passed a $150-million spending plan for funds raised by Measure ULA. It was the first time funds were specifically allocated since the tax was passed in November, and the plan sent money to six programs: short-term emergency rental assistance, eviction defense, tenant outreach and education, direct cash assistance for low-income seniors and people with disabilities, tenant protections and affordable housing production.
TYLER, Texas (KLTV) – A Louisiana man pleaded guilty in a Smith County court Friday to possessing a large amount of marijuana.
Deandre Rainey, 30, of Shreveport, La., was arrested on Jan. 26, 2021, after a trooper found 31 pounds of marijuana during a Smith County traffic stop. Rainey pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana >5lbs<=50lbs in Judge Kerry L. Russell’s court Friday. The Smith County DA recommended eight years deferred probation, and Rainey is set to be sentenced Dec. 6.
One of Rainey’s co-defendants, Sirderrick Stout, 32, of Bossier City, La., also appeared in court Friday for the same case. Stout submitted a motion for continuance as his lawyer was unable to attend, which was granted until Oct. 30.
In the original case, four men were arrested in the traffic stop. Armand Jamor Burgy, 31, of Shreveport, has not been seen in a Smith County court. Corseydon Yalmon D. Evans, 28, of Shreveport, was granted continuance until Oct. 30 when he is set to go to trial.
Cryptocurrency detective ZachXBT disclosed on social media that his account, along with a few others, has been subpoenaed by a court demanding a wide array of personal information.
Cryptocurrency detective ZachXBT said on social media that his X account and a few others were subpoenaed by a court, seeking more information about them “for an unclear reason.”
It seems that my account and a few others were subpoenaed for overly broad info for an unclear reason.
In a post on Oct. 21, the blockchain sleuth attached two screenshots. One describes the information required by a court, which X was obliged to produce. The second one was X’s notice about the legal request.
Although the reason behind the subpoena remains unclear, the required information includes names, billing records, IP addresses, phone numbers, text detailed records, records of session times, and so on.
“It seems that my account and a few others were subpoenaed for overly broad info for an unclear reason.”
ZachXBT
Although the scope of the required information is vast, ZachXBT suggested “it does not necessarily mean” X can provide all of this, given that “the request was overly broad and unrelated to my account.”
Some X users supposed that ZachXBT might eventually be called to testify in court as a witness, to which the blockchain detective responded he “would decline to help” given the method used to approach him.
In mid-June 2023, non-fungible token (NFT) trader Jeffrey Huang (also known as MachiBigBrother) sued the blockchain sleuth over an investigation published in June 2022.
During the inquiry, ZachXBT alleged the trader stole 22,000 ETH from a now-closed project Formosa Financial. However, in August 2023 Huang withdrew his defamation suit after the sleuth softened his accusations.
The California Supreme Court is considering whether to grant a hearing for three elephants — Nolwazi, Amahle and Mabu — at the Fresno Chaffee Zoo. If granted, the hearing would determine whether these elephants are being unjustly detained, and whether they should be relocated to a sanctuary.
Elephants are sensitive, intelligent beings who feel joy and sorrow, have meaningful projects and relationships and often walk many miles per day in the wild. As a result, they tend to suffer in captive environments like zoos. When their freedom is restricted, they have an increased risk of developing joint disorders and damaged tusks. They also are more likely to experience boredom, depression and aggression.
Accordingly, the Nonhuman Rights Project, which submitted the petition, is urging the court to recognize that Nolwazi, Amahle and Mabu have a right to bodily liberty in a habeas corpus hearing, which can be used to determine whether their detention is lawful. Scholars in a wide range of fields, myself included, are submitting amicus letters to the court in support of the basic idea of elephant rights.
Why is it necessary to recognize elephant rights? Why not simply rely on existing welfare protections to prevent cruelty? When elephants are seen as lacking rights, we can protect them as “property” or as a matter of public interest. But such protections leave elephants vulnerable when their “owners” and the public are insufficiently concerned about them. By recognizing elephant rights, we can safeguard against abuse and neglect even when welfare protections are inadequate.
The idea of elephant rights is surprisingly minimal. When we say that elephants have rights, we are not necessarily saying that they have the same rights as us. (Among human beings, for example, infants have different rights than adults.) We also are not saying that they have duties. (Again, infants can have rights without duties.) Our claim is only that elephants can have rights that reflect their own interests and vulnerabilities.
Additionally, recognizing that elephants have a right to liberty does not necessarily mean releasing them into the wild; elephants, like humans, may not always be able to live independently. Instead, it simply means granting elephants as much freedom as possible for them. In the case of Nolwazi, Amahle and Mabu, that means being released to a sanctuary accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.
Last year the Fresno Superior Court denied a similar petition for the elephants at the Fresno Chaffee Zoo because they are not being held in state custody, and the 5th District Court of Appeal denied a second petition. Now, the Nonhuman Rights Project is urging the California Supreme Court to decide that privately detained individuals, including elephants, can qualify for habeas relief too.
This case is not the first of its kind. The New York Court of Appeals recently considered a similar petition involving Happy, an elephant at the Bronx Zoo. In 2021, the court granted a hearing on Happy’s habeas claim, marking the first time that the highest court in an English-speaking jurisdiction allowed such a hearing for a nonhuman animal. But the court ultimately sided with the zoo.
Thus far, the rationalizations courts have used to reject elephant rights show little basis in logic or the law. For instance, the majority in the Happy case argued that you can have rights only if you have specific genes (why?) and only if you can have duties (again, what about infants?). They also suggested that you can access habeas relief only if you can live independently (once more: infants).
The majority in the Happy case also expressed concern about a slippery slope: If an animal in a zoo has the right to liberty, what about animals in farms and labs? And if those animals have that right, how can society still function? Perhaps a decision with this much disruptive potential is best made by legislatures.
However, as two dissenting judges noted, this buck-passing argument fails too. It might be ideal for legislatures to address this issue. But at present, few are willing to do so. In the meantime, the judiciary has a duty to assess each case before it on the merits. When a petitioner makes a credible allegation about an unjust detention, the relevant court should hear that case.
Moreover, if courts fear a slippery slope, the solution is not to ignore rights violations. Yes, when violations occur in large numbers, addressing them all might be disruptive. But to look the other way because of the scale of the problem would be to treat injustice, perversely, as too big to fail. Courts should instead make narrow rulings about particular violations, leaving the rest for another day.
To be sure, legislatures should address this issue too. Last month, Ojai became the first U.S. city to recognize legal rights for nonhuman animals when it passed an ordinance declaring that elephants have the right to liberty. Such legislation can work in tandem with, not replace, judicial attention to current unjust detentions.
The California Supreme Court needs to address the elephants in the room. However the judges decide this case, they should not refuse to hear it on the grounds that Nolwazi, Amahle and Mabu lack rights. Elephants, like humans, merit legal consideration for their own sake. Humans have both a right and a duty to give them their day in court.
Jeff Sebo is an associate professor of environmental studies, affiliated professor of bioethics, medical ethics, philosophy and law, and director of the animal studies master of arts program at New York University. His most recent book is “Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves.”
On Friday, a federal judge will hear arguments on the gag order Sam Bankman-Fried was put under as part of his bail agreement for alleged witness tampering. It’s the latest court appearance stemming from the FTX founder’s continuous engagement with the press. And it’s not just Silicon Valley that has skin in the game: The New York Times, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and a documentarian making a movie about the tech mogul’s fall from grace have all recently filed letters objecting to the order over free speech concerns, urging the presiding judge Lewis Kaplan not to extend it through the criminal trial, which is set to start on October 2. Bankman-Fried faces multiple charges related to the multibillion-dollar fraud he is accused of orchestrating against FTX investors.
“The news media and the public at large has an interest—and a First Amendment right—in hearing from individuals who are willing to speak about issues of public importance, and that includes criminal prosecutions,” Katie Townsend, RCFP’s legal director and deputy executive director, told me. “Parties to criminal prosecutions have valid, interesting, and newsworthy things to say.” Further, Bankman-Fried has a right “to say what he wants about his reputation,” she noted, echoing constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, who has also weighed in with an affidavit on the defendant’s right to speak about his criminal prosecution. (Tribe is notably of counsel at the law firm that represents Bankman-Fried’s father, but said he submitted his affidavit “in an independent capacity as an expert on constitutional law.”)
The Times’ involvement in the case is no great surprise: Last month, it published excerpts from the private diary entries belonging to Caroline Ellison, Bankman-Fried’s former girlfriend and business partner who is expected to serve as a witness in the criminal case against him. It’s unclear whether Bankman-Fried provided those entries, but his attorneys said their client “shared certain documents” with the Times that “were not produced in discovery, in an effort to give his side of the story.” Federal prosecutors then asked a judge to revoke Bankman-Fried’s house arrest and send him to jail over alleged witness tampering. “The latest incident is an escalation of an ongoing campaign with the press that has now crossed a line,” Assistant US attorney Danielle Sassoonsaid in a hearing, adding that he’s had over 1,000 phone calls with journalists. While Kaplan did not rule on the request for revocation of bail, he did issue a temporary gag order on Bankman-Fried that prevented him, his attorneys, and others from publicly discussing the case. Bankman-Fried’s lawyers accepted the order but requested that it apply to all “parties and witnesses” in the case, including all current and former employees of FTX and other related entities.
But in their letters challenging the gag order, the Times and RCFP note the alternative tools available to the court to maintain a free trial—such as screening questionnaires for jurors—as well as the high threshold for restricting the speech of non-attorney trial parties and witnesses, given the public’s interest in people like Ellison. “She has confessed to being a central participant in a financial scheme that defrauded investors of billions of dollars—a scheme that was not detected by government regulators and law enforcement agencies until the public’s money had disappeared,” David McCraw, the primary litigator for the Times, wrote in his missive. “It is not surprising that the public wants to know more about who she is and what she did and that news organizations would seek to provide to the public timely, pertinent, and fairly reported information about her, as the Times did in its story.” (Ellison struck an agreement last December, pleading guilty to various charges linked to the alleged scheme. She is cooperating with prosecutors.)
Bankman-Fried’s openness with the media—and its reciprocal interest in him—was a hallmark of his rise and his eventual fall. He repeatedly spoke to reporters while under federal investigation and continued to engage once on house arrest. Puck’s Teddy Schleifer is amongthose who’ve visited him at his family’s home in Palo Alto, as is best-selling author Michael Lewis, who, when Bankman-Fried was arrested last December, had spent roughly the past year shadowing him for a new book. “He’s the ideal subject. He’s locked up in his house an hour from my house with an ankle monitor,” Lewis recently told the Times, when asked how his legal situation has impacted access. “It’s unbelievably convenient, as long as they keep him there. So, as long as he welcomes me into the house, it’s fine. I’ve been seeing him roughly every two weeks.”
Kaplan will officially rule on whether to revoke Bankman-Fried’s bail either during Friday’s hearing or sometime after; in conjunction, he could decide to extend, broaden, or finalize the gag order. There’s also the possibility that Kaplan does away with the gag order completely.
As for FTX, the company is still working its way through bankruptcy, which the gag order—particularly one extending to potential witnesses—could make “very difficult” for the media to cover, said Townsend. The public is “presumably watching pretty closely to see what happens with the company in connection with not just Bankman-Fried’s prosecution, but people with assets that are still tied up in those proceedings,” she added. “There’s a lot of fallout from the collapse.”
CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Declaring a mission to liberate “Taco Tuesday” for all, Taco Bell is asking U.S. regulators to force Wyoming-based Taco John’s to abandon its longstanding claim to the trademark.
Too many businesses and others refer to “Taco Tuesday” for Taco John’s to be able to have exclusive rights to the phrase, Taco Bell asserts in a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office filing that is, of course, dated Tuesday.
It’s the latest development in a long-running beef over “Taco Tuesday” that even included NBA star LeBron James making an unsuccessful attempt to claim the trademark in 2019.
“Taco Bell believes ‘Taco Tuesday’ is critical to everyone’s Tuesday. To deprive anyone of saying ‘Taco Tuesday’ — be it Taco Bell or anyone who provides tacos to the world — is like depriving the world of sunshine itself,” the Taco Bell filing reads.
A key question is whether “Taco Tuesday” over the years has succumbed to “genericide,” New York trademark lawyer Emily Poler said. That’s the term for when a word or phrase become so widely used for similar products — or in this case, sales promotions — they’re no longer associated with the trademark holder.
Well-known examples of genericide victims include “cellophane,” “escalator” and “trampoline.”
“Basically what this is about is you cannot trademark something that is ‘generic,’ ” Poler said. “That means it doesn’t have any association with that particular source or product.”
Basketball legend James — a well-known taco lover — encountered this problem when he tried to trademark “Taco Tuesday” in 2019. The Patent and Trademark Office, in a ruling that didn’t refer to Taco John’s, deemed “Taco Tuesday” too much of a “commonplace term” to qualify as a trademark.
With more than 7,200 locations in the U.S. and internationally, Taco Bell — a Yum Brands YUM, -2.45%
chain along with Pizza Hut, KFC and the Habit Burger Grill — is vastly bigger than Cheyenne-based Taco John’s. Begun as a food truck more than 50 years ago, Taco John’s now has about 370 locations in 23 mainly in western and midwestern states.
The chain’s size hasn’t discouraged big-time enforcement of “Taco Tuesday” as trademark, which dates to the 1980s. In 2019, the company sent a letter to a brewery just five blocks from its corporate headquarters, warning it to stop using “Taco Tuesday” to promote a taco truck parked outside on Tuesdays.
Actively defending a trademark is required to maintain claim to it, and the letter was just one example of Taco John’s telling restaurants far and wide to stop having “Taco Tuesdays.”
Taco John’s responded to Taco Bell’s filing by announcing a new two-week Taco Tuesday promotion, with a large side of riposte.
“I’d like to thank our worthy competitors at Taco Bell for reminding everyone that Taco Tuesday is best celebrated at Taco John’s,” CEO Jim Creel said in an emailed statement. “We love celebrating Taco Tuesday with taco lovers everywhere, and we even want to offer a special invitation to fans of Taco Bell to liberate themselves by coming by to see how flavorful and bold tacos can be at Taco John’s all month long.”
The filing is one of two from Taco Bell involving “Taco Tuesday.” One contests Taco John’s claim to “Taco Tuesday” in 49 states, while a similar filing contests a New Jersey restaurant and bar’s claim to “Taco Tuesday” in that state. Both Taco John’s and Gregory’s Restaurant and Bar in Somers Point, N.J., have been using “Taco Tuesday” for over 40 years.
A Taco John’s franchisee in Minnesota first came up with “Taco Twosday” to promote two tacos for 99 cents on a slow day of the week, Creel told the Associated Press in a recent interview.
The Patent and Trademark Office approved the Taco John’s “Taco Tuesday” trademark in 1989. Even with its many letters, Creel said, the company — established in 1969 in Cheyenne, Wyo. — has never had to go to court over the phrase.
He’s not feeling too picked on, either, by the much bigger Taco Bell. “It’s OK. It’s kind of nice that they’ve noticed,” Creel said.
“Donald Trump’s defense here is essentially that there is a vast conspiracy against him,” E. Jean Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan said in a Manhattan federal courtroom on Monday.
“Does that make any sense at all?” she added in her closing remarks in the civil trial against the former president. Carroll, the longtime Elle columnist and magazine writer, accused Trump of raping her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-’90s in a 2019 memoir excerpt for New York. Kaplan was posing a question that’s occupied much of the nation’s political attention in the years that have followed. After Carroll filed suit against Trump late last year for battery and defamation, it was one that played out for nine jurors.
On Tuesday, they found the former president liable for sexual abuse and defamation after less than three hours of deliberations, and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. The jury found Trump not liable for rape.
During her closing argument, Kaplan showed a chart of Carroll’s allegations alongside those of two other women, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who testified in the trial. Their accusations of sexual assault, all of which Trump has denied, shared common elements: “Semi-Public Place,” “Grab Suddenly,” and “Not My Type.”
“Three different women, decades apart…but one single pattern of behavior,” Kaplan said. “In that respect, what happened to E. Jean Carroll is not unique.”
Carroll sued Trump in November after the passage of a New York law that granted a one-year window for adult sexual abuse victims to bring lawsuits against their alleged abusers after the statute of limitations has expired. (The trial took place in federal court because Trump now lives in Florida.) Carroll has written about her initial allegation in 2019 and her experience of the blowback that followed when Trump denied her claim.
The proceedings in the case often amounted to a more detailed explication of the consequences she’s felt, as well as an examination of the kind of comments Trump has made so often throughout his six or so decades in the public eye that they tend to get taken for granted—including his most infamous. In her closing remarks on Monday, Kaplan had invoked the Access Hollywood video, shot in 2005 and leaked in 2016, weeks before Trump’s victory in the presidential race. Recalling the laughing tone Trump was caught on tape using to describe sexual assault, Kaplan said he “grabbed [Carroll] by the pussy.” Trump declined to testify at trial but a video deposition he gave for the case provided a fresh look at his familiar demeanor; he described Kaplan in the same way he did Carroll when he denied her initial allegation, saying that the attorney was not his type.
“Carroll’s narration of her own experience after coming forward is a pretty good example of the kind of misogyny that Trumpism embraces,” my colleague Molly Jong-Fast recently wrote, “and the impact it can have on those brave enough to step up.”
Trump’s attorney Joe Tacopina argued in his own closing remarks on Monday that there was in fact such a conspiracy as the one Kaplan invoked. He acknowledged that Trump’s comments in the Access Hollywood tape were “crude” and “rude” and said that he apologized for them. “He said that,” Tacopina said. “But that doesn’t make Ms. Carroll’s unbelievable story believable.”
At a campaign rally in 2016, Trump spoke about Stoynoff’s allegation of sexual assault and offered a defense he would go on to use again and again.
It seems that Ed Sheeran is so happy that his long legal battle is over, he could sing. So he did.
On Thursday, Sheeran won the copyright infringement suit first brought against him in 2018 alleging that Sheeran’s hit song “Thinking Out Loud” had ripped off Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.” The suit was brought by the family of Gaye’s late co-writer, Ed Townsend, and Townsend’s family asked for $100 million in damages.
After the verdict was announced in Sheeran’s favor, the singer told reporters outside the courthouse, “I’m obviously very happy with the outcome of the case. And it looks like I’m not having to retire from my day job after all.”
“These chords are common building blocks which were used to create music long before ‘Let’s Get It On’ was written and will be used to make music long after we all are gone,” Sheeran said. “They are in a songwriter’s ‘alphabet,’ our toolkit, and should be there for all of us to use. No one owns them or the way they are played, in the same way that nobody owns the color blue.”
On Friday evening, Sheeran swapped the suit and tie he’d worn in court for more casual attire and celebrated both the win and the release of his latest album, Subtract, with a mini concert on the street in New York City. Subtract was officially released Friday, and Sheeran has a pop-up shop, “The Subtract Experience,” currently open in SoHo. To the delight of crowds of gathered fans, Sheeran hopped on top of a parked Volvo with his acoustic guitar and performed about a half-dozen songs, including the contentious “Thinking Out Loud.”
Instagram content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
Despite asking if he could “play one song before I go,” Sheeran delivered several songs after starting off with “Boat,” off of Subtract.
“Ed this song is so good but that volvos roof is finished,” one commenter wrote.
“As a Volvo owner, this gave me anxiety,” another said.
“Crushin’ it. And the Volvo,” said yet another.
Sheeran is no stranger to paperwork nightmares, coming under fire from neighbors in the UK in 2022 for seeking to install a private crypt below his home there. Recently, he’s been surprising people all over the five boroughs, hanging out in Irish pubs and singing duets with subway buskers. He’s just here to spread joy and a Sheeran quality.
On the second day of her testimony on Thursday, as one of her lawyers questioned her, the magazine writer and longtime Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll was revisiting the past few years of her experience of social media. She was, she told her attorney, on the platform, former president Donald Trump’s hastily launched Twitter clone. Carroll sued Trump in November over her allegation, which she first made in 2019, that the former president raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in 1996. Since coming forward with her accusation, which Trump denies, Carroll said she’s seen her daily life shaped by the kind of discourse that’s become familiar to just about every American following along with the Trump era. In October 2022, Trump wrote on Truth Social that Carroll’s lawsuit against him was a “a complete con job” and “a Hoax and a lie.”
Carroll advocated for the new New York state law under which she is suing Trump, which provided a one-year window for adult sexual abuse victims to bring lawsuits against their alleged abusers after the statute of limitations has passed. (The trial is in federal court because Carroll and Trump reside in different states.) In the Manhattan courtroom Thursday, during her second day of testimony, her attorney asked Carroll why she had done so. “Because I understand why women, particularly, and some men, do not come forward,” she replied. “It takes years, and some maturity, and age.”
As a veteran magazine writer, Carroll has in recent years turned the focus of her work and public statements to such questions. Testifying in a federal courthouse, she reflected on many of the common matters that often go unaddressed in high-profile sex abuse trials. There’s a playbook for defense attorneys in these cases: They poke for inconsistencies and ask why alleged victims didn’t do one thing or another at the time they say they were abused. Joe Tacopina,the celebrity lawyer representing Trump, repeatedly sparred with Carroll about her account. They went back and forth about the meaning of several words such as “inconceivable,” “satire,” and “skimpy,” with Tacopina painting himself as a folksy foil to the literary-minded witness. He asked why she didn’t scream, and provoked one of the day’s highest-temperature moments.
“He raped me whether I screamed or not,” Carroll said, her voice rising.
“You need a minute, Ms. Carroll?”
“No, go right on.”
Tacopina, wearing a tight suit with his hair gelled, has previously represented Alex Rodriguez and A$AP Rocky. In recent weeks, he has become a cable news fixture on account of his involvement in Trump’s other ongoing Manhattan legal matter. Carroll was aware of the persona.
“You work out all the time,” she said to Tacopina at one point. “We’ve read about it.”
Tacopina seemed to have to stop himself from engaging.
Earlier this month, when Trump was indicted on charges of falsifying business records, his arrival from Palm Beach for his arraignment was an all-day news event. (He pleaded not guilty.) On Thursday, as Carroll testified, Trump was campaigning in New Hampshire to reclaim the presidency. Nearby the courthouse, a film crew was shooting the CBS procedural FBI and a tour group stared down One World Trade Center. Some of the crowd gathered around Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse were there for the British singer Ed Sheeran’s copyright infringement trial. (He has denied claims of copying a Marvin Gaye song.)
During his questioning, Carroll’s attorney displayed several of the tweets that have been directed at her. Trump’s initial denial in June 2019 infamously centered on his description of Carroll as “not my type.” Years on, his supporters were continuing to echo the idea. Carroll said the comments she’s received remain “equally disparaging and hurtful” relative to the initial blowback.
“I looked at my Twitter this morning,” she said. “They haven’t stopped.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday preserved women’s access to a drug used in the most common method of abortion, rejecting lower-court restrictions while a lawsuit continues.
The drug has been approved for use in the U.S. since 2000 and more than 5 million people have used it. Mifepristone is used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, in more than half of all abortions in the U.S.
The court faced a self-imposed Friday night deadline to decide whether women’s access to a widely used abortion pill would remain unchanged or be restricted while a legal challenge to its Food and Drug Administration approval goes on.
The justices have been weighing arguments that allowing restrictions contained in lower-court rulings to take effect would severely disrupt the availability of the drug, mifepristone, which is used in the most common abortion method in the United States.
It has repeatedly been found to be safe and effective, and has been used by more than 5 million women in the U.S. since the FDA approved it in 2000.
The Supreme Court had initially said it would decide by Wednesday whether the restrictions could take effect while the case continues. A one-sentence order signed by Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday gave the justices two additional days, without explanation.
Abortion opponents filed suit in Texas in November, asserting that FDA’s original approval of mifepristone 23 years ago and subsequent changes were flawed.
Matthew Kacsmaryk, shown listening to a question during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017, is the lone federal judge in his north Texas district — a fact that led to speculation among critics that the abortion-pill case had landed in his courtroom via judge shopping.
They won a ruling on April 7 by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, revoking FDA approval of mifepristone. The judge, the lone judge in his Amarillo, Texas, federal district, gave the Biden administration and Danco a week to appeal and seek to keep his ruling on hold.
Responding to a quick appeal, two more Trump appointees on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the FDA’s original approval would stand for now. But Judges Andrew Oldham and Kurt Englehardt said most of the rest of Kacsmaryk’s ruling could take effect while the case winds through federal courts.
MADISON, Wis. — A Democratic-backed Milwaukee judge won the high stakes Wisconsin Supreme Court race Tuesday, ensuring liberals will take over majority control of the court for the first time in 15 years with the fate of the state’s abortion ban on the line.
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz, 60, defeated former Justice Dan Kelly, who previously worked for Republicans and had support from the state’s leading anti-abortion groups.
The victory speaks to the importance of abortion as an issue for Democrats in a key swing state, with turnout on pace to be the highest ever for a Wisconsin Supreme Court race that didn’t share the ballot with a presidential primary.
In a jubilant scene at her victory party, the other three liberal justices on the court joined Protasiewicz on the stage and raised their arms in celebration.
Protasiewicz tried to downplay the importance of abortion as an issue in her victory, even though she and her allies, including an array of abortion rights groups including Planned Parenthood, made it the focus of much of her advertising and messaging to voters.
“It was really about saving our democracy, getting away from extremism and having a fair and impartial court where everybody gets a fair shot in the courtroom,” Protasiewicz told The Associated Press after her win. “That’s what it was all about.”
The new court controlled 4-3 by liberals is expected to decide a pending lawsuit challenging the state’s 1849 law banning abortion enacted a year after statehood. Protasiewicz said during the campaign that she supports abortion rights but stopped short of saying how she would rule on the lawsuit. She had called Kelly an “extreme partisan” who would vote to uphold the ban.
In addition to abortion, Protasiewicz’s win is likely to impact the future of Republican-drawn legislative maps, voting rights and years of other GOP policies. It will also ensure that liberals will have the majority leading up to the 2024 presidential election and immediately after.
Four of the past six presidential elections in Wisconsin have been decided by less than a percentage point and Trump turned to the courts in 2020 in his unsuccessful push to overturn his roughly 21,000-vote loss in the state. The current court, under a 4-3 conservative majority, came within one vote of overturning President Joe Biden’s win in the state in 2020, and both major parties are preparing for another close race in 2024.
Kelly is a former justice who has also performed work for Republicans and advised them on a plan to have fake GOP electors cast their ballots for Trump following the 2020 election even though Trump had lost.
Ahead of the vote, Protasiewicz called Kelly “a true threat to our democracy” because of his advising on the fake elector scheme.
Kelly had expressed opposition to abortion in the past, including in a 2012 blog post in which he said the Democratic Party and the National Organization for Women were committed to normalizing the taking of human life. He also had done legal work for Wisconsin Right to Life.
Kelly was endorsed by the state’s top three anti-abortion groups, while Protasiewicz was backed by abortion rights advocates.
Kelly was appointed to the state Supreme Court by then-Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, in 2016. He served four years before being defeated in 2020 on the same ballot as the Democratic presidential primary. Kelly was endorsed by Trump that year.
Trump did not endorse this year. Protasiewicz’s endorsements included Hillary Clinton.
Kelly tried to distance himself from his work for Republicans, saying it was “irrelevant” to how he would work as a justice. He tried to make the campaign about Protasiewicz’s record as a judge, arguing that she was soft on crime and accusing her of being “bought and paid for” by Democrats.
The Wisconsin Democratic Party gave Protasiewicz’s campaign more than $8 million, leading her to promise to recuse herself from any case brought by the party.
Protasiewicz said that while she anticipates many of the issues raised in the campaign will come before the court in the coming years, she pledged to be impartial and not beholden to Democrats and her liberal backers who poured an unprecedented amount of money into the race.
“I’ve told everybody on the entire time that I was running, despite the fact that I was sharing my personal values, every single decision that I will render will be rooted in the law,” she said. “And that is the bottom line. They’re independent and rooted in the law.”
Kelly, in a statement after his loss, said Protasiewicz “made her campaign about cynical appeals to political passions, serial lies, and a blatant disregard for judicial ethics and the integrity of the court.”
“I wish Wisconsin the best of luck,” he said. “I think it will need it.”
Protasiewicz was outspoken on Wisconsin’s gerrymandered legislative maps, calling them “rigged.” Kelly accused her of prejudging that case, abortion and others that could come before the court.
The state Supreme Court upheld Republican-drawn maps in 2022. Those maps, widely regarded as among the most gerrymandered in the country, have helped Republicans increase their hold on the state Legislature to near supermajority levels, even as Democrats have won statewide elections, including Tony Evers as governor in both 2018 and 2022 and Biden in 2020.
Protasiewicz will serve a 10-year term starting in August replacing retiring conservative Justice Pat Roggensack.
The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank sent shockwaves through the global economy and had the makings of another crisis. Depositors raced to withdraw money. Banks worried about the risk of contagion. I spent that weekend on the phone with small business owners in Ohio who didn’t know whether they’d be able to make payroll the next week. One woman was in tears, worried about whether she’d be able to pay her workers.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve responded quickly, took control of the bank, and contained the fallout. Consumers’ and small businesses’ money was safe. That Ohio small business was able to get paychecks out.
The regulators were able to protect Americans’ money from incompetent bank executives because when Congress created the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the FDIC in 1933, it ensured that their funding structures would remain independent from politicians in Congress and free from political whims.
But now, as the U.S. Supreme Court considers the case of Community Financial Services Association v. CFPB, these independent watchdogs’ ability to keep our financial system stable faces an existential threat.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the only agency solely dedicated to protecting the paychecks and savings of ordinary Americans, not Wall Street executives or venture capitalists. Corporate interests have armies of lobbyists fighting for every tax break, every exemption, every opportunity to be let off the hook for scamming customers and preying on families.
“ The CFPB’s funding structure is designed to be independent, just like the Fed and the FDIC. ”
Ordinary Americans don’t have those lobbyists. They don’t have that kind of power. The CFPB is supposed to be their voice — to fight for them. The CFPB’s funding structure is designed to be independent, just like the Fed and the FDIC. Otherwise, its ability to do the job would be subject to political whims and special interests — interests that we know are far too often at odds with what’s best for consumers.
Since its creation, the CFPB has returned $16 billion to more than 192 million consumers. It’s held Wall Street and big banks accountable for breaking the law and wronging their customers. It’s given working families more power to fight back when banks and shady lenders scam them out of their hard-earned money.
The CFPB can do this good work because it’s funded independently and protected from partisan attacks, just as the Fed and the FDIC are. So why, then, does Wall Street claim that only the CFPB’s funding structure is unconstitutional?
Make no mistake — the only reason that Wall Street, its Republican allies in Congress, and overreaching courts have singled out the CFPB is because the agency doesn’t do their bidding. The CFPB doesn’t help Wall Street executives when they fail. It doesn’t extend them credit in favorable terms or offer them deposit insurance like the other regulators do. The CFPB’s funding structure isn’t unconstitutional — it just doesn’t work in Wall Street’s favor.
If the Supreme Court rules against the CFPB, the $16 billion returned to consumers could be clawed back. What would happen then — will America’s banks really go back to the customers they’ve wronged with a collection tin?
“ Invalidating the CFPB and its work would also put the U.S. economy — and especially the housing market — at risk. ”
Invalidating the CFPB and its work would also put the U.S. economy — and especially the housing market — at risk. For more than a decade, the CFPB has set rules of the road for mortgages and credit cards and so much else, and given tools to help industry follow them. If these rules and the regulator that interprets them disappear, markets will come to a standstill.
By attacking the CFPB’s funding structure and putting consumers’ money at risk, Wall Street is putting the other financial regulators in danger, too.
The Fifth Circuit’s faulty ruling against the CFPB is astounding in its absurdity — the court ruled that the authorities that other financial agencies, like the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, have over the economy do not compare to the CFPB’s authorities. In other words, the court is claiming that the CFPB supposedly has more power in the economy than the Fed.
That’s ridiculous. Look at the extraordinary steps taken to contain the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — the idea that the CFPB could take action even close to as sweeping is laughable.
But we know why the Fifth Circuit put that absurd assertion in there — they recognize the damage this case could do to these other vital agencies, and to our whole economy.
“ Imagine what might happen if another series of banks failed and the FDIC did not have the funds to stop the crisis from spreading.”
The FDIC’s own Inspector General has stated that the Fifth Circuit ruling could be applied to their agency. If that happens, the FDIC and other regulators could be subject to congressional budget deliberations, which we all know are far too partisan and have resulted in shutdowns. Imagine what might happen if another series of banks failed and the FDIC did not have the funds to stop the crisis from spreading, or the Deposit Insurance Fund to protect depositors’ money. Imagine if politicians caused a shutdown, and we were without a Federal Reserve.
U.S. financial regulators are independently funded so that they can respond quickly when crises happen. It’s telling, though, that plenty of people in Washington don’t seem to consider the CFPB’s issues in the same category. Washington and Wall Street expect the government to spring into action when businesses’ money is put at risk. But when workers are scammed out of their paychecks, that’s not an emergency — it’s business as usual.
When Wall Street’s abusive practices put consumers in crisis, the CFPB must have the funding and strength it needs to carry out its mission — to protect consumers’ hard-earned money.
U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The battle between Thom Browne and Adidas over a striped design signature dates back to 2007. But it’s reached new heights in 2023, with both companies appearing in Manhattan court over the trademark dispute.
Read on for the latest on the Adidas vs. Thom Browne trademark case.
The Lawsuit
Thom Browne football 2022 campaign
Photo: Courtesy of Thom Browne
Adidas has been using its three-stripe logo since the 1950s, and has a litigious streak when it comes to striped brand signifiers, previously winning similar disputes against brands like Sketchers, Juicy Couture and Marc Jacobs.However, Adidas is claiming (per ) it wasn’t made aware of the alleged infringement until a decade later, in 2018, when Thom Browne applied for a trademark of its Grosgrain Signature — a red, white and blue-stripe logo — in Europe and expanded into sportswear. (The latter, in the company’s eyes, made it a more direct competitor.) Adidas then approached the brand for a settlement.
Thom Browne’s varsity-stripe motif goes back 15 years. The brand’s initial version had three stripes; Robert T. Maldonado, Browne’s attorney in the case, alleges (per Vogue Business) that the brand pivoted to the current Four-Bar Signature after Adidas’ then-CEO reached out about the similarities between them in 2007.
However, according to CNN, Adidas is claiming it wasn’t made aware of alleged infringement until a decade later, in 2018, when Thom Browne applied for a trademark of its Grosgrain Signature — the a red, white and blue-stripe logo — in Europe and expanded into sportswear. (The latter, in the company’s eyes, made it a more direct competitor.) Adidas then approached the brand for a settlement.
After unsuccessful attempts to settle the matter on their own, Adidas went the legal route, filing a trademark infringement and dilution complaint against Thom Browne in the summer 2021. It claimed in a New York federal court that the brand is “selling athletic-style apparel and footwear featuring two, three or four parallel stripes in a manner that is confusingly similar to Adidas’s three-stripe mark,” and is seeking $867,225 in damages, as well as the $7,011,961 in profits.
Thom Browne CEO Rodrigo Bazan issued a statement to to WWDin response to the lawsuit at the time. “We believe we are right and we are confident in the outcome of the case, as we have acted honorably for all this time,” he said. “[Adidas] consented for 12 years and now they are changing their mind. The court won’t allow that. And consumers won’t as well. It is an attempt to use the law illegally.”
The Testimony
Photo: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
On Monday, Jan. 9, Browne testified in front of an eight-person jury at Manhattan’s Southern District Court about his active upbringing in Pennsylvania, and how that resulted in a love of sports that ultimately inspired his use of varsity stripes. He said he wanted to create an “external signifier” that would render his label immediately recognizable, per reporting from WWD. This led him to the three stripes featured on varsity sweaters and collegiate pieces, speaking to the brand ethos of blending tailored clothing with sportswear.
Scroll to Continue
“Every collection and garment I design has a sporting reference,” he said, according to WWD.
To support the claim that the brand pivoted following a conversation with Adidas’ then-CEO about the stripes, Browne’s legal team juxtaposed design sketches from Fall 2008 (before the executive allegedly reach out, featuring three bars) with some from Spring 2009, which had the four bars.
Thom Browne is arguing that Adidas intentionally stayed silent on the issue for the following decade, during which time Thom Browne experienced significant growth. Adidas argues that it had no obligation to monitor Thom Browne’s output during that time.
Browne also reasons that, while the grosgrain red, white and blue ribbon has become a trademark of Thom Browne, the four parallel bars seen running down a suit leg or jacket arm are a design choice.
Charles Henn, who is representing Adidas, tried to differentiate tailored clothing from sportswear in court by asking Thom Browne to describe specific products via imagery — which the designer repeatedly characterized simply as “tailored sportswear.”
We’ll continue to update this story as new developments emerge.
UPDATE, Jan. 12, 5:00 p.m.:
Thom Browne has won the trademark case against Adidas. The eight-person jury found the American designer not guilty of infringing upon the sport giant’s three-stripe emblem.
On Thursday, attorneys for both Adidas and Thom Browne presented their final and closing arguments against the lawsuit. Browne’s supporters filled the right side of the courtroom, and were decked out in head-to-toe looks from the brand.
According to WWD, Maldonado (Browne’s attorney) began his closing argument with a simple statement: “Adidas does not own stripes.”