ReportWire

Tag: Courts

  • TikTok has promised to sue over the potential US ban. What’s the legal outlook?

    TikTok has promised to sue over the potential US ban. What’s the legal outlook?

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Legislation forcing TikTok‘s parent company to sell the video-sharing platform or face a ban in the U.S. received President Joe Biden’s official signoff Wednesday. But the newly minted law could be in for an uphill battle in court.

    Critics of the sell-or-be-banned ultimatum argue it violates TikTok users’ First Amendment rights. The app’s China-based owner, ByteDance, has already promised to sue, calling the measure unconstitutional.

    But a court challenge’s success is not is not guaranteed. The law’s opponents, which include advocacy organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, maintain that the government hasn’t come close to justifying banning TikTok, while others say national-security claims could still prevail.

    For years, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data, or influence Americans by suppressing or promoting certain content on TikTok. The U.S. has yet to provide public evidence to support those claims, but some legal experts note that political pressures have piled up regardless.

    If upheld, legal experts also stress that the law could set a precedent carrying wider ramifications for digital media in the U.S.

    Here’s what you need to know.

    That’s the central question. TikTok and opponents of the law have argued that a ban would violate First Amendment rights of the social media platform’s 170 million U.S. users.

    Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said a TikTok ban would “stifle free expression and restrict public access” to a platform that has become central source for information sharing.

    Among key questions will be whether the legislation interferes with the overall content of speech on TikTok, notes Elettra Bietti, an assistant professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University, because content-based restrictions meet a higher level of scrutiny.

    ByteDance had yet to officially file a lawsuit by late Wednesday, but Bietti said she expects the company’s challenge to primarily focus on whether a ban infringes on these wider free-speech rights. Additional litigation involving TikTok’s “commercial actors,” such as businesses and influencers who make their living on the platform, may also arise, she added.

    TikTok is expressing confidence about the prospects of its planned challenge.

    “Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere,” TikTok CEO Shou Chew said in a video response posted to X Wednesday. “The facts and the Constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail again.”

    Toomey also said that he is optimistic about the possibility of TikTok being able to block the measure in court, noting that both users and the company “have extremely strong” First Amendment claims.

    “Many of the calls to completely ban TikTok in the U.S. are about scoring political points and rooted in anti-China sentiment,” Toomey added. “And to date, these steps to ban TikTok had not been remotely supported by concrete public evidence.”

    Still, the future of any litigation is hard to predict, especially for this kind of case. And from a legal perspective, legal experts say it can be difficult to cite political motivations, even if they’re well-documented, as grounds to invalidate a law.

    The battle could also string along for some time, with the potential for appeals that could go all the way to the Supreme Court, which would likely uphold the law due to its current composition, said Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School.

    TikTok’s legal challenge won’t go on without a fight. The government will probably respond with national-security claims, which were already cited prominently as the legislation made its way through Congress.

    Toomey maintains that the government hasn’t met the high bar required to prove imminent national-security risks, but some other legal experts note that it’s still a strong card to play.

    “One of the unfortunate and really frustrating things about national-security legislation (is that) it tends to be a trump card,” Hurwitz said. “Once national-security issues come up, they’re going to carry the day either successfully or not.”

    Hurwitz added that he thinks there are legitimate national-security arguments that could be brought up here. National security can be argued because it’s a federal measure, he added. That sets this scenario apart from previously unsuccessful state-level legislation seeking to ban TikTok, such as in Montana.

    But national-security arguments are also vulnerable to questioning as to why TikTok is getting specific scrutiny.

    “Personally, I believe that what TikTok does isn’t that different from other companies that are U.S.-based,” Bietti said, pointing to tech giants ranging from Google to Amazon. “The question is, ‘Why ban TikTok and not the activities and the surveillance carried out by other companies in the United States?’”

    Still, legal experts note that there could be repercussions beyond TikTok in the future.

    The measure was passed as part of a larger $95 billion package that provides aid to Ukraine and Israel. The package also includes a provision that makes it illegal for data brokers to sell or rent “personally identifiable sensitive data” to North Korea, China, Russia, Iran or entities in those countries.

    That has encountered some pushback, including from the ACLU, which says the language is written too broadly and could sweep in journalists and others who publish personal information.

    “There’s real reason to be concerned that the use of this law will not stop with TikTok,” Toomey said. “Looking at that point and the bigger picture, banning TikTok or forcing its sale would be a devastating blow to the U.S. government’s decades of work promoting an open and secure global internet.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court to consider when doctors can provide emergency abortions in states with bans

    Supreme Court to consider when doctors can provide emergency abortions in states with bans

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will consider Wednesday when doctors can provide abortions during medical emergencies in states with bans enacted after the high court’s sweeping decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

    The case comes from Idaho, which is one of 14 states that now ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy with limited exceptions. It marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered a state ban since Roe was reversed.

    The Biden administration argues that even in states where abortion is banned, federal health care law says hospitals must be allowed to terminate pregnancies in rare emergencies where a patient’s life or health is at serious risk.

    Idaho contends its ban has exceptions for life-saving abortions but allowing it in more medical emergencies would turn hospitals into “abortion enclaves.” The state argues the administration is misusing a health care law that is meant to ensure patients aren’t turned away based on their ability to pay.

    The Supreme Court has allowed the Idaho law to go into effect, even during emergencies, as the case played out.

    Doctors have said Idaho’s abortion ban has already affected emergency care. More women whose conditions are typically treated with abortions must now be flown out of state for care, since doctors must wait until they are close to death to provide abortions within the bounds of state law.

    Meanwhile, complaints of pregnant women being turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to federal documents obtained by The Associated Press.

    Anti-abortion groups blame doctors for mishandling maternal emergency cases. Idaho argues the Biden administration overstates health care woes to undermine state abortion laws.

    The justices also heard another abortion case this term seeking to restrict access to abortion medication. It remains pending, though the justices overall seemed skeptical of the push.

    The Justice Department originally brought the case against Idaho, arguing the state’s abortion law conflicts with the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, known as EMTALA. It requires hospitals that accept Medicare to provide emergency care to any patient regardless of their ability to pay. Nearly all hospitals accept Medicare.

    A federal judge initially sided with the administration and ruled that abortions were legal in medical emergencies. After the state appealed, the Supreme Court allowed the law to go fully into effect in January.

    The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Without cameras to go live, the Trump trial is proving the potency of live blogs as news tools

    Without cameras to go live, the Trump trial is proving the potency of live blogs as news tools

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — They watched from the courtroom or via closed-circuit television in an overflow room — roughly 140 reporters, most with laptops or other silenced electronic devices, serving up news at its most elemental and in rapid-fire fashion.

    There were utterances posted a few seconds after they left a lawyer’s mouth. Observations on how Donald Trump is reacting. Tidbits on what testimony is causing jurors to scribble notes. “Let me give you some quotes to make you feel like you’re inside the courtroom,” MSNBC’s Yasmin Vossoughian said before reading the reports of colleagues.

    Trump’s hush money trial is illustrating the potency of live blogs as a news tool — by necessity.

    Television and text journalism are normally two very different mediums. Yet because New York state rules forbid camera coverage of trials and the former president’s case has such high interest, blogs are emerging as the best way to communicate for both formats.

    During opening arguments in the case on Monday, CNN used one-third of its television screen to display short printed updates of what was going on, written by its three journalists stationed at the Manhattan courthouse. MSNBC did something similar with onscreen “chyrons” — superimposed text.

    Traditional outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Associated Press use news blogs regularly, experience that proved helpful Monday. While such blogs often supplement traditional television coverage of big events like the Academy Awards or election nights — it’s known as a “second-screen” experience — this time consumers had no other option.

    Some 140 reporters watched from the courtroom or via closed-circuit television in an overflow room, feeding news to editors. They’re watched carefully themselves: Two reporters covering the trial were expelled on Monday for breaking rules prohibiting recording and photography in the overflow room, where reporters who can’t get into the courtroom watch the proceedings on large screens, according to court officials.

    Blog dispatches sometimes felt like bits and pieces of a print story in development, like this from The Washington Post’s Devlin Barrett: “They disguised what the payments were,” (prosecutor Matthew) Colangelo said, speaking clearly and calmly with his hands in his suit pockets.”

    Others try to set the scene: “All 18 jurors are looking directly at the veteran prosecutor, who stands at a lectern in the middle of the courtroom about halfway between them and Trump,” wrote AP’s Michael R. Sisak.

    The New York Post ‘s Kyle Schnitzer wrote that Trump attorney Todd Blanche wrapped up his opening statement with a hometown appeal, quoting him in saying, “use your common sense, you’re New Yorkers, that’s why we are here.”

    Other observances are more analytical or seek to correct the record.

    The Post’s Shayna Jacobs wrote that “in opening statements, prosecutors focused heavily on the circumstantial evidence that they argue will help prove that Donald Trump paid off Stormy Daniels in 2016 to keep her from going public about an alleged encounter with Trump a decade before.”

    The Times’ Maggie Haberman wrote as Trump’s attorney was delivering his opening statement that “Blanche is trying to portray the the National Enquirer’s practices as similar to how other news outlets operate, in terms of deciding when and how to publish a story. That is not correct.”

    For CNN and MSNBC, which covered opening arguments more extensively Monday than Trump-friendly outlets Fox News Channel and Newsmax, there were some growing pains in getting used to the new form of storytelling.

    MSNBC used text less frequently, occasionally relying on the awkwardness of correspondents trying to search through notes for the latest quotes. “Trump lawyer: Trump is not on the hook for what Cohen did,” read one MSNBC chyron. “Trump lawyer: Nothing wrong with trying to influence an election,” read another.

    A handful of times, CNN’s Jake Tapper interrupted speakers to read blog dispatches that viewers were also able to see for themselves on their screens.

    Still, the blog-like reports were often more helpful than on-screen analysts, particularly when they tried to predict what would take place next. One MSNBC pundit confidently predicted that Judge Juan Merchan would end the day’s proceedings before a first witness was called and a CNN analyst said that first witness would wrap his testimony with a juicy revelation.

    Neither happened.

    ___

    David Bauder writes about media for The Associated Press. Follow him at http://twitter.com/dbauder.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US committee releases sealed Brazil court orders to Musk’s X, shedding light on account suspensions

    US committee releases sealed Brazil court orders to Musk’s X, shedding light on account suspensions

    [ad_1]

    RIO DE JANEIRO — A U.S. congressional committee released confidential Brazilian court orders to suspend accounts on the social media platform X, offering a glimpse into decisions that have spurred complaints of alleged censorship from the company and its billionaire owner Elon Musk.

    The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee late Wednesday published a staff report disclosing dozens of decisions by Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordering X to suspend or remove around 150 user profiles from its platform in recent years.

    The 541-page report is the product of committee subpoenas directed at X. In his orders, de Moraes had prohibited X from making them public.

    “To comply with its obligations under U.S. law, X Corp. has responded to the Committee,” the company said in a statement on X on April 15.

    The disclosure comes amid a battle Musk has waged against de Moraes.

    Musk, a self-proclaimed free-speech absolutist, had vowed to publish de Moraes’ orders, which he equated to censorship. His crusade has been cheered on by supporters of far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro, who allege they are being targeted by political persecution, and have found common cause with their ideological allies in the U.S.

    De Moraes has overseen a five-year probe of so-called “digital militias,” who allegedly spread defamatory fake news and threats to Supreme Court justices. The investigation expanded to include those inciting demonstrations across the country, seeking to overturn Bolsonaro’s 2022 election loss. Those protests culminated in the Jan. 8 uprising in Brazil’s capital, with Bolsonaro supporters storming government buildings, including the Supreme Court, in an attempt to oust President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from office.

    De Moraes’ critics claim he has abused his powers and shouldn’t be allowed to unilaterally ban social media accounts, including those of democratically elected legislators. But most legal experts see his brash tactics as legally sound and furthermore justified by extraordinary circumstances of democracy imperiled. They note his decisions have been either upheld by his fellow justices or gone unchallenged.

    The secret orders disclosed by the congressional committee had been issued both by Brazil’s Supreme Court and its top electoral court, over which de Moraes currently presides.

    The press office of the Supreme Court declined to comment on the potential ramifications of their release when contacted by The Associated Press.

    “Musk is indeed a very innovative businessman; he innovated with electric cars, he innovated with rockets and now he invented a new form of non-compliance of a court order, through an intermediary,” said Carlos Affonso, director of the nonprofit Institute of Technology and Society. “He said he would reveal the documents and he found someone to do this for him.”

    Affonso, also a professor of civil rights at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said that the orders are legal but do merit debate, given users were not informed why their accounts were suspended and whether the action was taken by the platform or at the behest of a court. The orders to X included in the report rarely provide justification, either.

    The Supreme Court’s press office said in a statement Thursday afternoon that the orders do not contain justifications, but said the company and people with suspended accounts can gain access by requesting the decisions from the court.

    While Musk has repeatedly decried de Moraes’ orders as suppressing “free speech” principles and amounting to “aggressive censorship,” the company under his ownership has bowed to government requests from around the world.

    Last year, for instance, X blocked posts critical of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and, in February, it blocked accounts and posts in India at the behest of the country’s government.

    “The Indian government has issued executive orders requiring X to act on specific accounts and posts, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment,” X’s global affairs account posted on Feb. 21. “In compliance with the orders, we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone; however, we disagree with these actions and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts.”

    Brazil is a key market for X and other social media platforms. About 40 million Brazilians, or about 18% of the population, access X at least once per month, according to market research group eMarketer.

    X has followed suspension orders under threat of hefty fines. De Moraes typically required compliance within two hours, and established a daily fine of 100,000-reais ($20,000) for noncompliance.

    It isn’t clear whether the 150 suspended accounts represent the entirety of those de Moraes ordered suspended. Until the committee report, it wasn’t known whether the total was a handful, a few dozen or more. Some of the suspended accounts in the report have since been reactivated.

    On April 6, Musk took to X to challenge de Moraes, questioning why he was “demanding so much censorship in Brazil”. The following day, the tech mogul said he would cease to comply with court orders to block accounts — and that de Moraes should either resign or be impeached. Predicting that X could be shut down in Brazil, he instructed Brazilians to use a VPN to retain their access.

    De Moraes swiftly included Musk in the ongoing investigation of digital militias, and launched a separate investigation into whether Musk engaged in obstruction, criminal organization and incitement. On April 13, X’s legal representative in Brazil wrote to de Moraes that it will comply with all court orders, according to the letter, seen by the AP.

    Affonso said the committee’s release of de Moraes’ orders were aimed less at Brazil than at the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden. The report cites Brazil “as a stark warning to Americans about the threats posed by government censorship here at home.”

    Terms like “censorship” and “free speech” have turned into political rallying cries for U.S. conservatives since at least the 2016 presidential election, frustrated at seeing right-leaning commentators and high-profile Republican officials booted off Facebook and Twitter in its pre-Musk version for violating rules.

    “The reason why the far-right needs him (Musk) is because they need a platform, they need a place to promote themselves. And Elon Musk needs far-right politicians because they will keep his platform protected from regulations,” said David Nemer, a Brazil native and University of Virginia professor who studies social media.

    In the U.S., free speech is a constitutional right that’s much more permissive than in other countries, including Brazil. Still, the report’s release seemed to invigorate Bolsonaro and his far-right supporters.

    Late Wednesday, soon after the court orders were released, Bolsonaro capped off a speech at a public event by calling for a round of applause for Musk.

    His audience eagerly complied.

    ___

    AP writer Barbara Ortutay contributed from San Francisco

    ___

    Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Full jury panel seated on third day of Trump’s New York hush-money trial

    Full jury panel seated on third day of Trump’s New York hush-money trial

    [ad_1]

    Twelve jurors and one alternate have been sworn in to serve in the criminal trial against former United States President Donald Trump, as the third day of his New York court proceedings concludes.

    Thursday saw Trump return to court after Wednesday’s weekly break. There, lawyers for both the defence and prosecution continued haggle over which candidates to select from the jury pool.

    But the proceedings started with a setback. Seven jurors had been selected and sworn in on Tuesday — only for two of those jurors to be dismissed during Thursday’s hearing.

    One claimed to face pressure from family and friends about her appointment to the jury. The other was scrutinised for allegedly misrepresenting his previous interactions with the justice system.

    But jury selection quickly got back on track — and a process that sometimes can stretch for weeks was wrapped up in a couple of hours, with seven more jurors picked for the 12-person panel.

    Then it was time for the lawyers and the presiding judge, Juan Merchan, to turn their attention to the alternates.

    Merchan has indicated he plans to have six alternate jurors for Trump’s trial, in case any of the principle members of the jury needs to be replaced. By the end of the Thursday, one had been sworn in, with five more slated to be picked as early as Friday.

    Trump stands accused of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, in relations to hush-money payments he allegedly made to the adult film star Stormy Daniels in the run-up to the 2016 elections. He has pleaded not guilty.

    Selecting a jury to render a fair and impartial verdict has been a key hurdle in the proceedings so far. Here are the highlights from day three of the historic trial:

    Former President Donald Trump attends the start of the court proceedings on April 18 [Jeenah Moon/AP Photo, pool]

    A full panel of jurors

    The defence and prosecution quickly whittled down a second batch of 96 potential jurors on Thursday, with many being promptly dismissed after saying they could not be fair and impartial.

    The rest filled out the 42-point questionnaire, asking them about their employment, their educational background and their media consumption habits.

    The prosecution and defence then had an opportunity to speak and question the potential jurors in a process called “voir dire”. Both sides reminded the jury pool about their responsibilities to the court.

    “The problem with biases is they colour the way you look at the world. What you may believe and may not,” said Susan Necheles, a lawyer for Trump’s defence. “We wouldn’t allow someone who has a strong dislike for a certain type of people to sit on a jury of that type of person.”

    Ultimate, seven more jurors were selected, filling out the 12-member jury. One alternate was named.

    Another group of prospective jurors was sworn in before the end of the day, in anticipation of Friday’s continued search for alternates.

    A sketch of Todd Blanche whispering into Donald Trump's ear.
    A courtroom sketch shows defence lawyer Todd Blanche whispering to Donald Trump in court on April 18  [Jane Rosenberg/Reuters]

    First dismissed juror describes public pressure

    But Thursday’s additions to the jury panel came after some losses.

    A nurse who had been previously selected to serve on the jury earlier this week was dismissed after she explained that friends, coworkers and family members had deduced her identity from media reports.

    The jury in the Trump trial is supposed to be anonymous. But the woman explained she had started to face questions from her contacts about her participation in the trial.

    “I don’t believe at this point that I can be fair and unbiased and let the outside influences not affect my decision-making in the courtroom,” the juror said.

    Judge Merchan ultimately excused her from the jury panel. He reiterated that, “after sleeping on it overnight, she had concerns about her ability to be fair and impartial in this case”.

    Portrait of Juan Merchan
    Judge Juan Merchan is presiding over Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York City [File: Seth Wenig/AP Photo]

    Questions raised about second dismissed juror

    But the nurse was only one of two seated jurors from Tuesday to be dismissed. The second faced questions about the veracity of the information he provided to the court.

    Prosecutors early in the day raised concerns that the juror, identified in media reports as an IT professional, may have misrepresented himself when answering a question about whether he had ever been accused or convicted of a crime.

    He had answered he had not. But on Thursday, prosecutors noted that a man with the same name had been arrested in the 1990s for tearing down political posters in Westchester County, a suburban area north of New York City.

    Without offering details, Judge Merchan ultimately excused the juror. “He does not need to come back and should not come back Monday morning,” he told the court.

    With that, the original seven jurors seated on Tuesday dropped down to five.

    Joshua Steinglass walks through a hall in a suit and tie.
    Assistant Manhattan District Attorney Joshua Steinglass led the prosecution’s ‘voir dire’ on Thursday [File: John Minchillo/AP Photo]

    Warnings about protecting the jury pool’s identity

    With one of the formerly seated jurors citing privacy concerns as a reason for leaving, Judge Merchan issued a stern warning to the court about protecting the jury pool’s privacy.

    “There’s a reason that this is an anonymous jury,” Merchan said. “It kind of defeats the purpose of that when so much information is put out there that it is very easy for anyone to identify who the jurors are.”

    Last month, Merchan ruled that the jury would not be publicly named, given the sensitivity of the case — and the risk of jurors being harassed or intimidated.

    Aside from the judge and court administrators, only the prosecution and the defence are allowed to know certain personal details about the candidates, in order to make informed decisions about jury selection.

    But that creates a dilemma for media outlets covering the trial, as they seek to document other details about the jury candidates — without divulging their identities.

    On Thursday, Judge Merchan tightened the restrictions further, calling on journalists to stop reporting on the physical appearance of potential jurors, as well as specifics about their employment history.

    “We just lost what probably would have been a very good juror,” the judge said of the woman who had been previously seated on the jury. “She said she was afraid and intimidated by the press, all the press.”

    Susan Necheles walks out of the courthouse, which is barricaded by a temporary metal fence.
    Defence lawyer Susan Necheles, centre left, is seen entering the Manhattan criminal courthouse on April 18 [Jeenah Moon/AP Photo, pool]

    A literal chill falls over the courtroom

    The comfort of the jury pool cropped up in a different sense later in the day, as the judge addressed the chilly conditions in the courtroom.

    The Manhattan criminal courthouse where the trial is unfolding is an Art Deco building that is more than 80 years old: Construction was completed in 1941.

    Judge Merchan cited the older infrastructure in brushing aside a request from Trump lawyer Todd Blanche to raise the thermostat.

    “There’s no question it’s cold, but I’d rather be a little cold than sweat,” the judge said.

    But complaints continued, notably from Trump himself. As he left for lunch, the former president stopped by the rows of reporters seated in the courtroom and asked, “Is it cold enough?”

    The frosty temperatures were also enough to merit a second comment from Judge Merchan later in the day.

    “I want to apologise that it’s chilly in here,” Merchan said, earning chuckles from the court. “We’re trying to do the best we can to control the temperature, but it’s one extreme or the other.”

    Donald Trump holds up a stack of printed articles outside a Manhattan courthouse.
    Former US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters about articles covering his New York criminal trial [Timothy A Clary/Reuters, pool]

    Witnesses under wraps

    In one of the final moments before Thursday’s proceedings ended, Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche asked the prosecution for the names of the first witnesses it planned to call.

    But a lawyer for the prosecution, Joshua Steinglass, declined to provide the names, pointing out that Trump had a habit of bashing witnesses on his social media account.

    Blanche maintained that Trump could “commit to the court and the people” that he would not write posts about any witnesses.

    Judge Merchan, however, cast doubt on that argument. “That he will not tweet about any witnesses? I don’t think you can make that representation,” he said before the proceedings adjourned for the day.

    Trump left the courtroom, and when he appeared outside, he carried a stack of articles to show reporters.

    “These are all stories over the last few days from legal experts,” he said, flipping through the thick bunch of pages. “All of these stories are from legal experts saying how this is not a case. The case is ridiculous.”

    Trump is currently facing a total of four criminal indictments, including the New York case. April’s proceedings make him the first US president, past or present, to stand trial on criminal charges.

    The former president has denied wrongdoing in all the cases. He is also running for re-election this November.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump trial: Why can’t Americans see or hear what is going on inside the courtroom?

    Trump trial: Why can’t Americans see or hear what is going on inside the courtroom?

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — It’s a moment in history — the first U.S. president facing criminal charges in an American courtroom. Yet only a handful of observers are able to see or even hear what is going on.

    Instead, most of the nation is getting news of former President Donald Trump‘s hush money trial secondhand. Starting with preliminary motions and jury selection Monday, reporters in a Manhattan courtroom must convey what is being said to the outside world after the fact.

    That’s all because New York state law regarding media coverage of court proceedings is one of the most restrictive in the country. Last week’s death of O.J. Simpson, whose murder trial beamed live from a California courtroom captivated a nation three decades ago, was a telling reminder of how New York is behind the times — or, at least, a holdout.

    Regulations limiting media coverage in courtrooms date back nearly a century, when the spectacle of bright flashbulbs and camera operators standing on witness tables during the 1935 trial of the man accused of kidnapping and killing Charles Lindbergh’s baby son horrified the legal community, according to a 2022 report by the New York-based Fund for Modern Courts.

    Rules to enforce decorum spread nationally, amended to account for the invention of television, as defense lawyers worried that video coverage would harm their cases, the report said.

    Yet an interest in open government chipped away at these laws and — slowly, carefully — video cameras began to be permitted in courts across the country, often at the discretion of judges presiding in individual cases.

    New York allowed them, too, on an experimental basis between 1987 and 1997, but they were shut down. Lobbyists for defense lawyers remain strong in New York and hold particular sway among lawyers in the state Assembly, said Victor Kovner, a former New York City corporation counsel who advocates for open courtrooms.

    New York and Louisiana are the only states remaining that completely restrict video coverage, the Fund for Modern Courts said.

    To Kovner and others, that’s outrageous.

    “We’re the media capital of the world, we like to think, and the fact that cameras aren’t permitted in one of our three branches of government is unacceptable,” said New York State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who has sponsored a bill to try to change that.

    “It’s one of the most consequential trials of our modern age,” the senator said. “I think the public has a right to see exactly what happens in that courtroom.”

    On the trial’s first day, some reporters suggested that it appeared there were times that Trump drifted off to sleep while watching the proceedings. The former president’s campaign disputed that. With no video camera in place and trained on him, there’s no way of knowing for sure.

    That’s because the presiding judge, Juan M. Merchan, permitted a handful of still photographers to shoot photos of Trump before the day’s proceedings started. Once court was called into session, courtroom sketch artists — a dying communications form — hold sway.

    There is actually some video coverage of the trial, available on monitors in an overflow room adjacent to the main courtroom. It was packed Monday with reporters, court officers and a few members of the public, including Ron Sinibaldi, a former accountant from Long Island who lined up outside the courthouse before midnight for a seat.

    “I read presidential biographies,” Sinibaldi said. “I go to presidential libraries. I’m here for the history.”

    In a hallway outside of the courtroom, a limited number of cameras and a small pool of reporters are positioned to capture remarks of anyone involved in the trial who want to address the outside world. That included Trump, even before the proceedings started.

    Absent live coverage of the trial, how often the former president chooses to take advantage of those cameras and whether news organizations carry his remarks either live, taped or not at all will play a big role in how the case is perceived publicly.

    MSNBC carried his remarks live on Monday morning. “They’re trying to grab the narrative regardless of the outcome,” CNN reporter Phil Mattingly said of the Trump defense team.

    With some difficulty. CNN stationed a team on the streets of Manhattan outside the courtroom, where a truck festooned with pro-Trump flags frequently drove by, blaring horns and music from loudspeakers. Reporters sometimes struggled to be heard. “It is kind of a circus down here,” CNN’s Kaitlan Collins said.

    Commentators and experts, many of them with experience in jury selection, offered opinions from outside the courtroom or from studios. Fox News analyst Jonathan Turley said “most cities, at least those outside of New York,” will see the case as a weaponization of criminal justice.

    With estimates that jury selection could take two weeks, and no way of showing it, journalists will have a lot of time to fill unless they turn their attention elsewhere.

    Georgia, where Trump faces charges of election meddling, gives judges discretion over whether to allow television cameras. Superior Court of Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has said he will make all hearings and trials in that case available for broadcast. That has already included hearings on whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis would be allowed to argue the case.

    Federal courts do not allow cameras in criminal cases. Trump is facing separate federal cases for election interference and mishandling classified documents, although it is not clear when, or if, trials will take place.

    The feds offer one glimmer of hope: The U.S. Supreme Court permits audio of oral arguments to be broadcast outside of the courtroom. But there’s no indication that this would apply to Trump’s case. New York’s law does not allow audio coverage of his hush money trial.

    Proponents of legislation to open up New York courts to electronic media coverage are hoping the attention paid to the Trump case may boost their proposals. The idea is being considered as part of current negotiations over the New York state budget so, theoretically, a new law could even affect the Trump trial if it is passed and goes into effect immediately.

    Given New York state’s history, it’s best not to count on it.

    ___

    Associated Press correspondent Jennifer Peltz and Jake Offenhartz in New York, and Anthony Izaguirre and Maysoon Khan in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report. David Bauder writes about media for The Associated Press. Follow him at http://twitter.com/dbauder.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Woman, 70, who wielded blade concealed inside cane in fatal Ardmore stabbing, sentenced to decades in prison

    Woman, 70, who wielded blade concealed inside cane in fatal Ardmore stabbing, sentenced to decades in prison

    [ad_1]

    A 70-year-old woman will spend 20 to 40 years in prison for fatally stabbing a man in Ardmore in June using a 16-inch blade she had concealed inside her cane.

    Renee DiPietro, 70, was found guilty of third-degree murder at her trial in February for the killing of 31-year-old Michael Sides. DiPietro had intervened in a fight between Sides and her son, who had earlier been kicked out of a bar for allegedly punching one of Sides’ friends, prosecutors said.

    MORE: Police arrest 68 at pro-Palestinian protest that blocked Philly roads

    Around 1:30 a.m. on June 10, police found Sides wounded at the intersection of Cricket Avenue and Cricket Terrace. He had been stabbed in the chest and died at a hospital about an hour later.

    Investigators learned that DiPietro’s son had called his parents for a ride home shortly after midnight. But as he tried to get into his mother’s car, he was attacked by Sides and a fist fight ensued.

    Surveillance video showed Renee get out of the car and strike Sides multiple times with a black cane, police said. When the sheath of the blade fell off, DiPietro stabbed Sides once in the chest. The video showed Renee DiPietro attempt to remove the license plate from the back of her car before she got in and her husband drove away from the scene, according to prosecutors. The DiPietros didn’t offer Sides help or call 911.

    When DiPietro was arrested at her home in Philadelphia the morning after the stabbing, she turned the knife over to police and said she had also taken a baseball bat with her when she and her husband went to pick up their son.

    During the trial, DiPietro’s attorney argued that DiPietro was acting in self-defense. Montgomery County prosecutors claimed that because Sides was unarmed, DiPietro’s use of her knife was disproportionate and excessive.

    After her conviction, DiPietro said she didn’t agree with the verdict reached by the jury and insisted she was only protecting her son.

    “It was wrong,” DiPietro said. “If it was their child, what would they do?”

    [ad_2]

    Michael Tanenbaum

    Source link

  • Asbestos victim’s dying words aired in wrongful death case against Buffet’s railroad

    Asbestos victim’s dying words aired in wrongful death case against Buffet’s railroad

    [ad_1]

    HELENA, Mont. — Thomas Wells ran a half-marathon at age 60 and played recreational volleyball until he was 63. At 65 years old, doctors diagnosed him with mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive lung cancer linked to asbestos exposure.

    “I’m in great pain and alls I see is this getting worse,” the retired middle school teacher from Oregon said in a video deposition recorded in March 2020, four months after his cancer diagnosis. He died a day later.

    Portions of Wells’ deposition were replayed Monday in a federal courtroom for a jury hearing a wrongful death case against Warren Buffett’s BNSF Railway.

    The estates of Wells and a second mesothelioma victim accuse the railroad and its corporate predecessors in a lawsuit of polluting Libby, Montana, with asbestos-contaminated vermiculite from a nearby mine that was transported through the remote town’s rail yard in boxcars for much of last century.

    BNSF attorneys have denied the claims and are scheduled to lay out their defense beginning Tuesday. They’ve said that railroad officials were unaware the shipments were hazardous.

    A cleanup of the contaminated rail yard in downtown Libby was largely completed in 2022.

    The trial is the first alleging BNSF exposed community members in Libby to asbestos fibers that can cause lung scarring and mesothelioma. It comes almost 25 years after federal authorities arrived in the community not far from the U.S.-Canada border following news reports about toxic asbestos dust causing widespread deaths and illnesses among mine workers and their families.

    Numerous other lawsuits from asbestos victims have been filed against BNSF.

    The W.R. Grace & Co. mine that operated on a mountaintop outside Libby produced contaminated vermiculite that health officials say has sickened more than 3,000 people and led to several hundred deaths.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2009 declared the first-ever public health emergency during a Superfund cleanup in Libby. It’s one of the deadliest sites under the federal pollution program. The agency banned remaining industrial uses of asbestos last month.

    Wells said in the 2020 deposition that he believed he was sickened while working for the U.S. Forest Service in the Libby area for about six months each in 1976-78 and again in 1981. He never went to the vermiculite mine, he said, but described wind kicking up dust along the railroad tracks at the rail yard.

    “It was dusty. You know, you’d wash the car and pretty soon you have to wash the car again,” Wells said.

    The second plaintiff, Joyce Walder, played in the same area in her youth before dying of mesothelioma at 66.

    Mine operator W.R. Grace repeatedly told the railroad’s corporate predecessors that the product it was shipping through Libby was safe, according to BNSF attorney Chad Knight. Local officials also believed the vermiculite was safe, and the railroad couldn’t legally reject the loads, he said.

    “You have to go back and look at what the information was at the time,” Knight told jurors during opening statements last week. “The materials coming from the mine were being used all over town. No one suspected there was anything unsafe about the products.”

    Knight has also sought to cast doubt on whether the BNSF rail yard was the source of the plaintiffs’ medical problems, since asbestos dust was prevalent in the Libby area when the mine was operating.

    Tainted vermiculite was used in Libby’s high school track, a baseball field next to the rail yard, as a soil amendment in home gardens and as insulating material in homes across the U.S.

    The plaintiffs’ attorneys showed jurors several insurance claims for tons of asbestos that leaked out of rail cars in the 1970s and did not make it to its destination, and an example of a placard that was put on a rail car in the late 1970s saying it contained asbestos fibers and to avoid creating dust.

    Residents of Libby have described encountering vermiculite along BNSF tracks where children in the community often played.

    When kicked up by wind or a passing trains, asbestos fibers from that vermiculite “can remain airborne for hours if not days depending on conditions,” said plaintiffs expert Steven Compton, who directs the private laboratory MVA Scientific Consultants in Georgia.

    Thomas Wells’ son Sean Wells described his father during Friday testimony as a “wonderful teacher” and “just the best dad,” who he could talk to about anything and coached their sports teams.

    “There’s not a day that goes by that I don’t think about my dad and wish I could pick up the phone and call him,” Sean Wells said. “He wasn’t only our dad. … He was our best friend. We did everything together.”

    Walder died in October 2020 — less than a month after her diagnosis.

    She grew up in Libby and could have been exposed to the microscopic, needle-shaped asbestos fibers while fishing and floating on a river that traveled past a spot where a conveyor belt loaded vermiculite onto train cars, according to court records. Additional exposure may have also come from playing around a baseball field near the rail yard, walking along the railroad tracks and spending time at the home of a friend who lived near the rail yard. She also returned to Libby to visit family.

    After her diagnosis Walder underwent chemotherapy and surgery. In a follow-up appointment Walder’s family was told the cancer had come back even worse.

    “I hope no one has to see the light of hope pass from a parent’s or loved one’s eyes, because that is something you will never forget,” Walder’s daughter, Chandra Zechmeister, testified Monday.

    ___

    Brown reported from Billings, Mont.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump arrives at court for the start of jury selection in his historic hush money trial

    Trump arrives at court for the start of jury selection in his historic hush money trial

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump arrived Monday at a New York court for the start of jury selection in his hush money trial, marking a singular moment in American history as the former president and current White House hopeful answers to criminal charges.

    It’s the first criminal trial of any former U.S. commander-in-chief and the first of Trump’s four indictments to reach trial. Because he is also the presumptive nominee for this year’s Republican ticket, the trial will produce the head-spinning split-screen of a presidential candidate spending his days in court and, he has said, “campaigning during the night.”

    There could be some legal arguments and housekeeping matters before jury selection begins. When it does, scores of people are due to be called into the courtroom to start the process of finding 12 jurors, plus six alternates.

    Trump’s notoriety would make the process of picking a jury a near-herculean task in any year, but it’s likely to be especially challenging now, unfolding in a closely contested presidential election in the city where Trump grew up and catapulted to celebrity status before winning the White House.

    Judge Juan M. Merchan has written that the key is “whether the prospective juror can assure us that they will set aside any personal feelings or biases and render a decision that is based on the evidence and the law.”

    The trial amounts to a historic courtroom reckoning for Trump, whose norm-shattering presidency was shadowed from start to finish by investigations and who now faces four separate indictments charging him with crimes ranging from hoarding classified documents to plotting to overturn an election.

    Yet the political stakes are less clear given that a conviction would not preclude him from becoming president and because the allegations in this case have been known to the public for years and are seen as less grievous than the conduct behind the three other cases against him.

    No matter the outcome, Trump is looking to benefit from the proceedings, presenting himself as the victim of politically motivated prosecutions designed to derail his candidacy. He’s lambasted judges and prosecutors for years, a pattern of attacks that continued up to the moment he entered court on Monday, when he said: ‘“This is political persecution. This is a persecution like never before.”

    Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

    Prosecutors say he was trying to conceal an alleged effort to keep salacious — and, he says, bogus — stories about his sex life from emerging during his 2016 campaign.

    The charges center on $130,000 in payments that Trump’s company made to his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen. He had paid that sum on Trump’s behalf to keep porn actor Stormy Daniels from going public, a month before the election, with her claims of a sexual encounter with the married mogul a decade earlier.

    Prosecutors say the payments to Cohen were falsely logged as legal fees in order to cloak their actual purpose. Trump’s lawyers say the disbursements indeed were legal expenses, not a cover-up.

    Trump himself casts the case, and his indictments elsewhere, as a broad “weaponization of law enforcement” by Democratic prosecutors and officials. He maintains they are orchestrating sham charges in hopes of impeding his presidential run.

    After decades of fielding and initiating lawsuits, the businessman-turned-politician now faces a trial that could result in up to four years in prison if he’s convicted, though a no-jail sentence also would be possible.

    The trial of an ex-president and current candidate is a moment of extraordinary gravity for the American political system, as well as for Trump himself. Such a scenario would have once seemed unthinkable to many Americans, even for a president whose tenure left a trail of shattered norms, including twice being impeached and acquitted by the Senate.

    The scene inside the courtroom may be greeted with a spectacle outside. When Trump was arraigned last year, police broke up small skirmishes between his supporters and protesters near the courthouse in a tiny park, where a local Republican group has planned a pro-Trump rally Monday.

    Trump’s attorneys lost a bid to get the hush-money case dismissed and have since repeatedly sought to delay it, prompting a flurry of last-minute appeals court hearings last week.

    Among other things, Trump’s lawyers maintain that the jury pool in overwhelmingly Democratic Manhattan has been tainted by negative publicity about Trump and that the case should be moved elsewhere.

    An appeals judge turned down an emergency request to delay the trial while the change-of-venue request goes to a group of appellate judges, who are set to consider it in the coming weeks.

    Manhattan prosecutors have countered that a lot of the publicity stems from Trump’s own comments and that questioning will tease out whether prospective jurors can put aside any preconceptions they may have. There’s no reason, prosecutors said, to think that 12 fair and impartial people can’t be found amid Manhattan’s roughly 1.4 million adult residents.

    The process of choosing those 12, plus six alternates, will begin with scores of people filing into Merchan’s courtroom. They will be known only by number, as he has ordered their names to be kept secret from everyone except prosecutors, Trump and their legal teams.

    After hearing some basics about the case and jury service, the prospective jurors will be asked to raise hands if they believe they cannot serve or be fair and impartial. Those who do so will be excused, according to Merchan’s filing last week.

    The rest will be eligible for questioning. The 42 preapproved, sometimes multi-pronged queries include background basics but also reflect the uniqueness of the case.

    “Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former President Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president, that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?” asks one question.

    Others ask about attendance at Trump or anti-Trump rallies, opinions on how he’s being treated in the case, news sources and more — including any “political, moral, intellectual, or religious beliefs or opinions” that might “slant” a prospective juror’s approach to the case.

    Based on the answers, the attorneys can ask a judge to eliminate people “for cause” if they meet certain criteria for being unable to serve or be unbiased. The lawyers also can use “peremptory challenges” to nix 10 potential jurors and two prospective alternates without giving a reason.

    “If you’re going to strike everybody who’s either a Republican or a Democrat,” the judge observed at a February hearing, “you’re going to run out of peremptory challenges very quickly.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Vietnamese property tycoon sentenced to death in country’s largest financial fraud, state media reports

    Vietnamese property tycoon sentenced to death in country’s largest financial fraud, state media reports

    [ad_1]

    Vietnamese property tycoon Truong My Lan, center, looks on at a court in Ho Chi Minh City on April 11, 2024.

    Str | Afp | Getty Images

    The Vietnamese property tycoon Truong My Lan was sentenced to death on Thursday for her involvement in the country’s biggest financial fraud case, state media outlet Thanh Nien reported.

    Lan was found guilty of embezzlement, bribery and violating banking rules around lending. She was sentenced to death for the embezzlement charges and to 20 years in prison for each of the other two accusations, according to state media.

    Lan, who is the chairwoman of real estate development firm Van Thinh Phat Holdings Group, was accused of appropriating assets from Saigon Joint Stock Commercial Bank by taking out unlawful loans to Van Thinh Phat and shell companies.

    Much of Lan’s defense was based on her lawyers arguing that she only controlled about 15% of the bank and did not have an official position in the bank, suggesting that embezzlement charges were not appropriate, local media reported.

    However, witnesses who held large stakes themselves told the court that they were instructed to act on Lan’s behalf. Judges therefore found that Lan holds a controlling stake of more than 90% in SCB through proxies and was the de facto owner of the bank, local media reported.

    The loans were reportedly worth a total of $44 billion and accounted for more than 90% of SCB’s lending between 2012 and 2022. An estimated $12.3 billion was allegedly funneled to Van Thinh Phat while other funds were used privately. Some of the over 1,000 loans had been settled by Lan, judges found, but the court said she would have to compensate the bank fully.

    Lan was first arrested in 2022, with allegations dating back around 10 years. Alongside Lan, more than 80 other people including central bank officials have been charged in the case for damaging SCB, state media reported.

    Reuters reported on Thursday that a family member confirmed that Lan would appeal the sentence.

    CNBC was not able to independently verify the report.

    The case against Lan is part of a wider crackdown on corruption that has been spearheaded by Vietnam’s ruling Communist party and has been dubbed “blazing furnace.” High-level politicians including former Vietnamese presidents have been forced to resign in connection with the campaign and hundreds of officials and businesspeople have been sentenced.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge in Trump’s classified files case agrees to redact witness names, granting prosecution request

    Judge in Trump’s classified files case agrees to redact witness names, granting prosecution request

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The federal judge presiding over the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump granted a request by prosecutors on Tuesday aimed at protecting the identities of potential government witnesses.

    But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon refused to categorically block witness statements from being disclosed, saying there was no basis for such a “sweeping” and “blanket” restriction on their inclusion in pretrial motions.

    The 24-page order centers on a dispute between special counsel Jack Smith’s team and lawyers for Trump over how much information about witnesses and their statements could be made public ahead of trial. The disagreement, which had been pending for weeks, was one of many that had piled up before Cannon and had slowed the pace of the case against Trump — one of four prosecutions he is confronting.

    The case remains without a firm trial date, though both sides have said they could be ready this summer. Cannon, who earlier faced blistering criticism over her decision to grant Trump’s request for an independent arbiter to review documents obtained during an FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, made clear her continued skepticism of the government’s theory of prosecution, saying Tuesday that the case raised “still-developing and somewhat muddled questions.”

    In reconsidering an earlier order and siding with prosecutors on the protection of witness identities, Cannon likely averted a dramatic exacerbation of tensions with Smith’s team, which last week called a separate order from the judge “fundamentally flawed.”

    The issue surfaced in January when defense lawyers filed in partially unredacted form a motion that sought to require prosecutors to turn over a trove of documents that they said would bolster their claim that the Biden administration had sought to “weaponize” the government in charging Trump.

    Defense lawyers asked permission to file the motion, which included as attachments information that they had obtained from prosecutors, in mostly unredacted form. But prosecutors objected to unsealing the motion to the extent that it would reveal the identity of any potential government witness.

    Cannon then granted the defense request for the motion and its exhibits to be filed in unredacted form as long as the personal identifying information of witnesses remained sealed. Smith’s team asked her to reconsider, saying that witnesses could be exposed to threats and harassments if publicly identified.

    In agreeing Tuesday for the witness names to remain redacted, she wrote, “Although the record is clear that the Special Counsel could have, and should have, raised its current arguments previously, the Court elects, upon a full review of those newly raised arguments, to reconsider its prior Order.”

    Still, the order was not a complete win for prosecutors.

    Cannon rejected a request by Smith’s team to seal from pretrial motions the substance of all witness statements, with the exception of information that could be used to identify witnesses.

    “As for legal authority, the cases cited in the Special Counsel’s papers do not lend support to this sweeping request; nor do they appear to have been offered as such,” Cannon wrote. “And based on the Court’s independent research, granting this request would be unprecedented: the Court cannot locate any case — high-profile or otherwise — in which a court has authorized anything remotely similar to the sweeping relief sought here.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • European court hands down mixed rulings on 3 cases seeking to force countries to meet climate goals

    European court hands down mixed rulings on 3 cases seeking to force countries to meet climate goals

    [ad_1]

    STRASBOURG, France — Europe’s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday that its member nations have an obligation to protect their citizens from the ill effects of climate change, but still threw out a high-profile case brought by six Portuguese youngsters aimed at forcing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    The European Court of Human Rights sided with more than 2,000 Swiss members of Senior Women for Climate Protection, who also sought such measures in a mixed session of judgements in which a French mayor similarly seeking stronger government efforts to combat climate change was also defeated.

    Lawyers for all three had hoped the Strasbourg court would find that national governments have a legal duty to make sure global warming is held to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, in line with the goals of the Paris climate agreement.

    “I really hoped that we would win against all the countries, so obviously I’m disappointed that this didn’t happen,” said 19-year-od Sofia Oliveira, one of the Portuguese plaintiffs. “But the most important thing is that the Court has said in the Swiss women’s case that governments must cut their emissions more to protect human rights. So, their win is a win for us, too, and a win for everyone!”

    In a reference to its fundamental Convention of Human Rights, “the court found that Art. 8 of the Convention encompasses a right for individuals to effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, well-being and quality of life.”

    Judgments from the European Court of Human Rights set a legal precedent against which future lawsuits would be judged in the Council of Europe’s 46 member states.

    Although activists have had successes with lawsuits in domestic proceedings, this was the first time an international court ruled on climate change.

    “This is a turning point,” said Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at the University of Zurich. She said Tuesday’s decision confirms for the first time that countries have an obligation to protect people from the effects of climate change and will open the door to more legal challenges.

    Ahead of the ruling, a large crowd gathered in front of the court building to cheer and wave flags, including climate activist Greta Thunberg, who was coming off of multiple arrests during a demonstration in The Hague over the weekend.

    The decisions have “the potential to be a watershed moment in the global fight for a livable future. A victory for any of the three cases would be one of the most significant developments on climate change since the signing of the Paris Agreement” said Gerry Liston, a lawyer with the Global Legal Action Network, which is supporting the Portuguese students.

    The European Union, which doesn’t include Switzerland, currently has a target to be climate-neutral by 2050. Many governments have said that meeting a 2030 goal would be economically unattainable.

    The groups were confident that the 17 judges would rule in their favor, but the mixed decision could undermine a previous ruling in the Netherlands. In 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ordered the government to cut emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels.

    The Urgenda decision, referring to the climate group that brought the case, relied on the European Convention of Human Rights. It could be overturned if Tuesday’s decision concludes there is no legal obligation for countries to combat climate change.

    “A court ruling is binding on all countries,” said Dennis van Berkel, who represented Urgenda in the Netherlands.

    Together with five more young people, 16-year-old André dos Santos Oliveira took Portugal and 32 other nations to court, arguing the failure to stop emissions violated their fundamental rights. Their case was thrown out.

    “The extreme heat waves, the rainfalls, followed by heat waves, it is just choking us with greenhouse effects. And what worries me is the frequency in which they started happening more and more. That’s what really scared me. And, I thought to myself, well, what can I do?” she said.

    But judges ruled in favor of a group of Swiss retirees also demanding their government do more. Senior Women for Climate Protection, whose average age is 74, say older women’s rights are especially infringed on because they are most affected by the extreme heat that will become more frequent due to global warming.

    Earth shattered global annual heat records in 2023, flirted with the world’s agreed-upon warming threshold, and showed more signs of a feverish planet, Copernicus, a European climate agency, said in January.

    In all three cases, lawyers argued that the political and civil protections guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights are meaningless if the planet is uninhabitable.

    Switzerland is not alone in being affected by global warming, said Alain Chablais, representative of the country at last year’s hearings. “This problem cannot be solved by Switzerland alone.”

    Acknowledging the urgency of the climate crisis, the court fast-tracked all three cases, including a rare move allowing the Portuguese case to bypass domestic legal proceedings.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Top UN court will hold hearings in a case accusing Germany of facilitating Israel’s Gaza conflict

    Top UN court will hold hearings in a case accusing Germany of facilitating Israel’s Gaza conflict

    [ad_1]

    THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Preliminary hearings open Monday at the United Nations’ top court in a case that seeks an end of German military and other aid to Israel, based on claims that Berlin is “facilitating” acts of genocide and breaches of international law in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

    Israel strongly denies its military campaign amounts to breaches of the Genocide Convention.

    While the case brought by Nicaragua centers on Germany, it indirectly takes aim at Israel’s military campaign in Gaza following the deadly Oct. 7 attacks when Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel, killing some 1,200 people. More than 33,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, according to the territory’s Health Ministry. Its toll doesn’t differentiate between civilians and combatants, but it has said women and children make up the majority of the dead.

    “We are calm and we will set out our legal position in court,” German Foreign Ministry spokesperson Sebastian Fischer said ahead of the hearings.

    “We reject Nicaragua’s accusations,” Fischer told reporters in Berlin on Friday. “Germany has breached neither the genocide convention nor international humanitarian law, and we will set this out in detail before the International Court of Justice.”

    Nicaragua has asked the court to hand down preliminary orders known as provisional measures, including that Germany “immediately suspend its aid to Israel, in particular its military assistance including military equipment in so far as this aid may be used in the violation of the Genocide Convention” and international law.

    The court will likely take weeks to deliver its preliminary decision and Nicaragua’s case will likely drag on for years.

    Monday’s hearing at the world court comes amid growing calls for allies to stop supplying arms to Israel as its six-month campaign continues to lay waste to Gaza.

    The offensive has displaced the vast majority of Gaza’s population. Food is scarce, the U.N. says famine is approaching and few Palestinians have been able to leave the besieged territory.

    “The case next week in The Hague will likely further galvanize opposition to any support for Israel,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of law and international peace studies at the University of Notre Dame.

    On Friday, the U.N.’s top human rights body called on countries to stop selling or shipping weapons to Israel. The United States and Germany opposed the resolution.

    Also, hundreds of British jurists, including three retired Supreme Court judges, have called on their government to suspend arms sales to Israel after three U.K. citizens were among seven aid workers from the charity World Central Kitchen killed in Israeli strikes. Israel said the attack on the aid workers was a mistake caused by “misidentification.”

    Germany has for decades been a staunch supporter of Israel. Days after the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas, Chancellor Olaf Scholz explained why: “Our own history, our responsibility arising from the Holocaust, makes it a perpetual task for us to stand up for the security of the state of Israel,” he told lawmakers.

    Berlin, however, has gradually shifted its tone as civilian casualties in Gaza have soared, becoming increasingly critical of the humanitarian situation in Gaza and spoken out against a ground offensive in Rafah.

    Nicaragua’s government, which has historical links with Palestinian organizations dating back to their support for the 1979 Sandinista revolution, was itself accused earlier this year by U.N.-backed human rights experts of systematic human rights abuses “tantamount to crimes against humanity.” The government of President Daniel Ortega fiercely rejected the allegations.

    In January, the ICJ imposed provisional measures ordering Israel to do all it can to prevent death, destruction and acts of genocide in Gaza. The orders came in a case filed by South Africa accusing Israel of breaching the Genocide Convention.

    The court last week ordered Israel to take measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including opening more land crossings to allow food, water, fuel and other supplies into the war-ravaged enclave.

    On Friday, Israel said it’s taking steps to increase the flow of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, including reopening a key border crossing into northern Gaza.

    Nicaragua argues that by giving Israel political, financial and military support and by defunding the United Nations aid agency for Palestinians, UNWRA, “Germany is facilitating the commission of genocide and, in any case has failed in its obligation to do everything possible to prevent the commission of genocide.”

    Israel strongly denies that its assault amounts to genocidal acts, saying it is acting in self defense. Israeli legal advisor Tal Becker told judges at the court in January that the country is fighting a “war it did not start and did not want.”

    ___

    Associated Press writer Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russian sentenced to 10 months in gulag for ‘tickling breast’ of war statue

    Russian sentenced to 10 months in gulag for ‘tickling breast’ of war statue

    [ad_1]

    A RUSSIAN influencer has been sentenced to prison for “tickling the breast” of a famous war statue.

    Alena Agafonova, 23, will be sent to Vladimir Putin’s infamous gulag jail where she will be forced to do 10 months of hard labour.

    8

    Alena Agafonova, 23, weeping after being convicted of the ‘Rehabilitation of Nazism’ by a Russian court todayCredit: East2West
    She has also been banned from social media for two years and will lose ten per cent of her future earnings

    8

    She has also been banned from social media for two years and will lose ten per cent of her future earningsCredit: East2West
    She filmed herself pretending to 'tickle' the breast of a Russian war statue

    8

    She filmed herself pretending to ‘tickle’ the breast of a Russian war statue
    A Russian law enforcement officer taking her up to the court

    8

    A Russian law enforcement officer taking her up to the courtCredit: East2West

    She has been convicted of the “Rehabilitation of Nazism” by a Russian court for a social media video she filmed last year at the famous war statue of The Motherland Calls.

    The memorial, a 279ft statue of a woman brandishing a sword, commemorates the “Heroes of the Battle of Stalingrad” – one of World War 2’s most epic battles.

    In the video, which is now officially banned in Russia, Alena appears to “tickle” the figure’s right breast.

    She has also been banned from social media for two years – and will now have to pay 10 per cent of her future earnings as a fine to the state.

    Previous footage showed Alena handcuffed as a law enforcement officer read out her indictment.

    He said: “I am informing you that the investigative department for the Central District of Volgograd has a criminal case against you for the desecration of a symbol of military glory of Russia, an insult to the memory of defenders of the fatherland, committed with the use of the internet…”

    The influencer appeared to cry in court hearings as she promised to not make the same mistake again.

    She said: “I address all residents of Russia and Volgograd and ask everyone not to commit the acts I did last year because of my stupidity.

    “I didn’t even think that I could insult someone’s feelings. I ask all Russian citizens for forgiveness.”

    Separately, she offered “deep apologies” for her stunt.

    Russian rapper Vacio who wore just a SOCK to Moscow elite’s ‘naked party’ is ‘conscripted to fight in Ukraine’

    Alena was put on Russia’s wanted list after the incident – and was accused of  “desecration of a burial site” and “cynical actions that disregard the norms of morality”.

    She went into hiding in Sri Lanka to avoid an action by Putin’s brutal force.

    However, she was detained as soon as she entered Russia – and was immediately transported to Volgograd for further action.

    The Motherland Calls statue is among the most famous in Russia and commemorates those who fought and died in one of the bloodiest battles in the Second World War, resulting in a decisive Soviet victory against Adolf Hitler.

    The USSR suffered more than one million casualties during the Battle of Stalingrad, which lasted from August 1942 until February 1943.

    Alena’s punishment shows the new morality in Russia under Putin amid the war with Ukraine.

    The dictator has been cracking down any behaviour deemed as debauched despite being no stranger to going topless himself.

    While the despot is known for stripping down and showing off his impressive but steroid-infused physique, he has earned himself a “prudish” reputation for imposing an unprecedented new drive on traditional values.

    His new morality hounds anyone who defies “traditional values”, imposing tough sentences on them.

    Russian rapper Maxim Tesli was recently charged with “petty hooliganism” after he appeared in a concert wearing nothing but a sock over his manhood back in January.

    Another influencer also faced a potential six-year jail sentence in Russia for using Instagram after the app was banned by Putin.

    Elsewhere, a pair of female Russian influencers were forced into abject apologies and will face hefty fines over a kiss they posted on social media.

    She has been sentenced to 10 months hard labour in Putin's infamous gulag

    8

    She has been sentenced to 10 months hard labour in Putin’s infamous gulagCredit: East2West
    The influencer was detained in Moscow and was forced to apologise to the Russians

    8

    The influencer was detained in Moscow and was forced to apologise to the RussiansCredit: East2West
    Alena is a popular influencer and blogger in Russia

    8

    Alena is a popular influencer and blogger in RussiaCredit: East2West
    She will now be forced to do hard labour in gulag for 10 months

    8

    She will now be forced to do hard labour in gulag for 10 monthsCredit: East2West

    [ad_2]

    Sayan Bose

    Source link

  • Americans think a president’s power should be checked, AP-NORC poll finds — unless their side wins

    Americans think a president’s power should be checked, AP-NORC poll finds — unless their side wins

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Like many Americans, Richard Bidon says he’d like to see the U.S. government “go back to its original design” — a system of checks and balances developed nearly 240 years ago to prevent any branch, especially the presidency, from becoming too powerful.

    But that’s mainly when Republicans are in power.

    Bidon, an 84-year-old Democrat who lives near Los Angeles, said if President Joe Biden is reelected, he doesn’t want him to have to get the approval of a possibly Republican-controlled Congress to enact policies to slow climate change. He wants presidents to have the power to change policy unilaterally — as long as they’re from the right party.

    “When a Democrat’s in, I support” a strong presidency, Bidon said. “When Republicans are in, I don’t support it that much. It’s sort of a wishy-washy thing.”

    A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Opinion Research finds that Bidon’s view is common. Though Americans say don’t want a president to have too much power, that view shifts if the candidate of their party wins the presidency. It’s a view held by members of both parties, though it’s especially common among Republicans.

    Overall, only about 2 in 10 Americans say it would be “a good thing” for the next president to be able to change policy without waiting on Congress or the courts. But nearly 6 in 10 Republicans say it would be good for a future President Donald Trump to take unilateral action, while about 4 in 10 Democrats say the same if Biden is reelected.

    The sentiment comes amid escalating polarization and is a sign of the public’s willingness to push the boundaries of the political framework that has kept the U.S. a stable democracy for more than two centuries. In the poll, only 9% of Americans say the nation’s system of checks and balances is working extremely or very well. It also follows promises by Trump to “act as a dictator” on day one of a new administration to secure the border and expand oil and gas drilling.

    Bob Connor, a former carpenter now on disability in Versailles, Missouri, wants that type of decisive action on the border. He’s given up hope on Congress taking action.

    “From what I’ve seen, the Republicans are trying to get some stuff done, the Democrats are trying to get some other stuff done — they’re not mixing in the middle,” said Connor, 56. “We’re not getting anywhere.”

    He blames the influx of migrants on Biden unilaterally revoking some of Trump’s own unilateral border security policies when he took office.

    “I’m not a Trump fanatic, but what he’s saying has to get done is right,” Connor said.

    Joe Titus, a 69-year-old Democrat from Austin, Texas, believes Republicans have destroyed Congress’ ability to act in its traditional legislative role and says Biden will have to step into the gap.

    “There’s this so-called ‘majority’ in Congress, and they’re a bunch of whack-jobs,” Titus, a retired Air Force mechanic, said of the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. “It’s not the way this thing was set up.”

    The current Congress is setting dubious records as the least productive one in the country’s history, with fewer than three dozen bills sent to Biden’s desk last year. At Trump’s urging, House Republicans have stalled aid to Ukraine and a bipartisan immigration bill.

    Titus said that in general he opposes expanded presidential power but would support Biden funding more immigration judges and sending additional aid to Ukraine on his own.

    “There’s certain things that it seems to me the public wants and the other party is blocking,” Titus said.

    The presidency has steadily gained power in recent years as congressional deadlocks have become more common. Increasingly, the nation’s chief executive is moving to resolve issues through administrative policy or executive orders. The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule later this year on a case that could significantly weaken the ability of federal agencies — and thus a presidential administration — to issue regulations.

    Meanwhile, conservatives are planning a takeover of the federal bureaucracy should they win the White House in November, a move that could increase the administration’s ability to make sweeping policy changes on its own.

    The AP-NORC poll found that voters’ views of which institutions have too much power were colored by their own partisanship. Only 16% of Democrats, whose party currently controls the White House, say the presidency has too much power while nearly half of Republicans believe it does. In contrast, about 6 in 10 Democrats say the U.S. Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has too much power.

    With Congress evenly divided between the two parties — the GOP has a narrow House majority, Democrats a narrow Senate one — Americans have similar views on its power regardless of party. About 4 in 10 from both major parties say it has too much power.

    “I think Congress had too much power when the presidency and Congress were both ruled by Democrats, but now that Republicans are in the majority there’s an equal balance,” said John V. Mohr, a 62-year-old housecleaner in Wilmington, North Carolina.

    In contrast, he complained that Biden is “sitting there writing executive orders left and right,” including his proclamation marking Transgender Day of Visibility, which fell on Easter Sunday this year.

    The abstract idea of a president with nearly unchecked power remains unpopular.

    Steven Otney, a retired trucker in Rock Hill, South Carolina, said major policies should be approved by Congress and gain approval from the courts. But he also said it depends on the topic. He wants to see prompt action on certain issues by the next president if he’s Trump.

    “Some things need to be done immediately, like that border wall being finished,” said Otney, a Republican.

    He said it’s just common sense.

    “If Trump got in there and said ‘I want to bomb Iran,’ no, that’s crazy,” Otney said. “Within reason, not stupid stuff either way. Something to help the American people, not hurt us.”

    The poll of 1,282 adults was conducted March 21-25, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

    Riccardi reported from Denver.

    The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    By NICHOLAS RICCARDI and LINLEY SANDERS – Associated Press

    Source link

  • Senior UK jurists have joined calls to stop arms sales to Israel. Other allies face similar pressure

    Senior UK jurists have joined calls to stop arms sales to Israel. Other allies face similar pressure

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — More than 600 British jurists, including three retired judges from the U.K. Supreme Court, are calling on the government to suspend arms sales to Israel, piling pressure on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak after the deaths of three U.K. aid workers in an Israeli strike.

    Britain is just one of a number of Israel’s longstanding allies whose governments are under growing pressure to halt weapons exports because of the toll of the six-month-old war in Gaza.

    In an open letter to Sunak published late Wednesday, the lawyers and judges said the U.K. could be complicit in “grave breaches of international law” if it continues to ship weapons.

    Signatories, including former Supreme Court President Brenda Hale, said Britain is legally obliged to heed the International Court of Justice’s conclusion that there is a “plausible risk of genocide” in Gaza.

    The letter said the “sale of weapons and weapons systems to Israel … falls significantly short of your government’s obligations under international law.”

    Britain is a staunch ally of Israel, but relations have been tested by the mounting death toll, largely civilian, from the war. Calls for an end to arms exports have escalated since an Israeli airstrike killed seven aid workers from the aid charity World Central Kitchen, three of them British.

    Israel says the attack on the aid workers was a mistake caused by “misidentification.”

    The U.K.’s main opposition parties have all said the Conservative government should halt weapons sales to Israel if the country has broken international law in Gaza.

    Several senior Conservatives have urged the same, including Alicia Kearns, who heads the House of Commons foreign affairs committee.

    Sunak has not committed to an arms export ban, but said Wednesday that “while of course we defend Israel’s right to defend itself and its people against attacks from Hamas, they have to do that in accordance with international humanitarian law.”

    British firms sell a relatively small amount of weapons and components to Israel. Defense Secretary Grant Shapps has said that military exports to Israel amounted to 42 million pounds ($53 million) in 2022.

    Other allies of Israel are also facing calls to cut off the supply of weapons and to push for a cease-fire in the conflict, which has killed more than 32,000 Palestinians, according to health authorities in Gaza.

    In February, Canada announced it would stop future shipments, and the same month a Dutch court ordered the Netherlands to stop the export of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel. The Dutch government said it would appeal.

    Other countries, including Israel’s two biggest arms suppliers, the United States and Germany, continue to allow weapons sales.

    Peter Ricketts, a former U.K. national security advisor, said suspension of U.K. arms sales would not change the course of the war, but “would be a powerful political message.”

    “And it might just stimulate debate in the U.S. as well, which would be the real game-changer,” he told the BBC.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Aurora police officer who beat Black man with gun goes on trial

    Former Aurora police officer who beat Black man with gun goes on trial

    [ad_1]

    A former Aurora police officer is set to go on trial for his actions in the 2021 arrest of a Black man, including repeatedly hitting the man with a gun after he swatted his hands at the officer’s weapon, according to body camera footage and court documents.

    The violent arrest has put the former officer, John Haubert, on trial facing assault and other charges with opening statements expected Tuesday.

    The trial follows the convictions last year of a police officer and two paramedics from the city’s fire department in the 2019 death of Elijah McClain, who was put in a neckhold by police before being injected with the sedative ketamine by paramedics.

    Haubert’s lawyer, Reid Elkus, did not immediately respond to a request for comment to the allegations but said at a a recent court hearing that there was a rush by police to investigate and charge Haubert.

    Haubert, who resigned, has pleaded not guilty.

    His arrest of Kyle Vinson in July 2021 renewed anger about misconduct by the city’s police department. The department’s then-chief, Vanessa Wilson, who had vowed to try to restore trust, announced Haubert’s arrest four days later, calling the handling of Vinson’s arrest a “very despicable act.”

    Haubert also held his hand around Vinson’s neck for about 39 seconds, according to Haubert’s arrest affidavit, which referred to Haubert as “strangling” Vinson.

    Vinson was taken to a hospital for welts and a cut on his head that required six stitches, police said.

    Vinson was with two other men sitting under some trees when police responded to a report of trespassing in a parking lot. Two of the men got away from police, but Vinson was ordered to get on his stomach and put his hands out. He complied but repeatedly protested, saying he had not done anything wrong and police did not have a warrant. Police said there was a warrant for his arrest for a probation violation.

    [ad_2]

    Colleen Slevin

    Source link

  • Fallen crypto mogul Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years in prison

    Fallen crypto mogul Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years in prison

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Crypto entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced Thursday to 25 years in prison for a massive fraud on hundreds of thousands of customers that unraveled with the collapse of FTX, once one of the world’s most popular platforms for exchanging digital currency.

    Though he described Bankman-Fried as “extremely smart,” U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan delivered a blistering analysis of Bankman-Fried and his crimes before announcing a sentence that was half of what prosecutors sought and less than a quarter of the 105 years recommended by the court’s probation officers.

    “There is absolutely no doubt that Mr. Bankman-Fried’s name right now is pretty much mud around the world,” Kaplan said of the 32-year-old California man who seemed atop the cryptocurrency universe before his businesses collapsed in November 2022, leaving customers, investors and lenders short over $11 billion, which the judge ordered him to forfeit.

    He was convicted in November of fraud and conspiracy — a dramatic fall from a crest of success that included a Super Bowl advertisement, testimony before Congress and celebrity endorsements from stars like quarterback Tom Brady, basketball point guard Stephen Curry and comedian Larry David.

    Kaplan imposed the sentence in the same Manhattan courtroom where, four months previously, Bankman-Fried testified that he had intended to revolutionize the emerging cryptocurrency market with his innovative and altruistic ideas, not steal.

    The judge said Bankman-Fried repeatedly committed perjury on the witness stand in testimony that was “often evasive, hair-splitting, dodging questions.”

    Kaplan said the sentence reflected the risk that Bankman-Fried “will be in position to do something very bad in the future. And it’s not a trivial risk at all.” He added that the sentence was fashioned “for the purpose of disabling him to the extent that can appropriately be done for a significant period of time.”

    Kaplan said he would advise the Federal Bureau of Prisons to send Bankman-Fried to a medium-security prison near San Francisco because his notoriety, his association with vast wealth, his autism and his social awkwardness are likely to make him especially vulnerable at a high-security facility.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicolas Roos had recommended a prison sentence of 40 to 50 years, saying it was the only way to ensure “the defendant doesn’t do it again.”

    Prosecutors said tens of thousands of people and companies worldwide lost billions of dollars since 2017 after Bankman-Fried looted FTX customer accounts that he promised were safe to make millions of dollars of illegal political donations, bribe Chinese officials, make risky investments, buy luxury real estate in the Caribbean and live lavishly.

    Kaplan agreed with prosecutors Thursday that Bankman-Fried should not be credited because some investors and customers might recover some money. He noted that customers lost about $8 billion, investors lost $1.7 billion and lenders were shorted by $1.3 billion.

    When he spoke, Bankman-Fried stood and apologized in a rambling statement: “A lot of people feel really let down. And they were very let down. And I’m sorry about that. I’m sorry about what happened at every stage.”

    He added, “My useful life is probably over. It’s been over for a while now, from before my arrest.”

    Wearing his khaki-colored prison uniform and chained at the ankles, Bankman-Fried seemed to briefly get emotional as he spoke for about 20 minutes, expressing regret about “a lot of mistakes” but casting some blame onto others. His trademark messy and bushy hair had returned from the trimmer look he displayed at trial.

    He praised some of his former executives and workmates, saying: “They threw themselves into it and then I threw all of that away. It haunts me every day.”

    Kaplan later criticized Bankman-Fried’s remarks, saying he expressed “never a word of remorse for the commission of terrible crimes.”

    As his misty-eyed client looked on, defense attorney Marc Mukasey said the portrayal of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate as an “arrogant greedy swindler who thought he would get away with fleecing the hard-earned money of hard-working people” was wrong.

    “Sam was not a ruthless financial serial killer who set out every morning to hurt people,” Mukasey said in court after urging in court papers that any prison sentence be in the single digits. “Sam Bankman-Fried doesn’t make decisions with malice in his heart. He makes decisions with math in his head.”

    The judge later criticized Bankman-Fried’s calculations, saying he was indeed “a math nerd, who looked at decisions in terms of math, expected value.”

    He cited trial testimony in which Bankman-Fried’s former girlfriend and fellow executive Caroline Ellison said Bankman-Fried once told her that his willingness to embrace risk was such that he’d be happy to flip a coin if it came up tails and the world was destroyed — as long as if it came up heads, the world would be twice as good.

    The judge said Bankman-Fried utilized that risk-taking nature at his companies, “betting on expected value” and weighing the risk of getting caught with the probability of large gains.

    “That was the game,” Kaplan said. “It’s his nature.”

    Bankman-Fried’s attorneys, friends and family had urged leniency, saying he was unlikely to re-offend. They also said FTX’s investors have largely recovered their funds — a claim disputed by bankruptcy lawyers, FTX and its creditors.

    “Mr. Bankman-Fried continues to live a life of delusion,” wrote John Ray, the CEO of FTX who has been cleaning up the bankrupt company. “The ‘business’ he left on November 11, 2022 was neither solvent nor safe.”

    One FTX customer, Sunil Kavuri, spoke at sentencing, saying he’d traveled from London on behalf of over 200 victims who had sent impact statements to the judge.

    He said he’d spoken to other “victims just like myself who had their dreams destroyed” and had lived “the FTX nightmare every day for almost two years, every day, every night, a lot of crying, sleepless nights.”

    Bankman-Fried’s parents, both Stanford Law School professors, did not speak as they left the courthouse Thursday, but later issued a statement: “We are heartbroken and will continue to fight for our son.”

    Bankman-Fried, of Palo Alto, California, was once worth billions of dollars on paper as the co-founder and CEO of FTX, which was the second-largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world at one time.

    FTX let investors buy dozens of virtual currencies, from Bitcoin to more obscure ones like Shiba Inu Coin. Flush with billions of dollars of investors’ cash, Bankman-Fried took out a Super Bowl advertisement to promote his business and bought the naming rights to an arena in Miami.

    But the collapse of cryptocurrency prices in 2022 took its toll on FTX, ultimately leading to its downfall. FTX’s hedge fund affiliate, Alameda Research, had bought billions of dollars of various crypto investments that lost considerable amounts of value in 2022. Bankman-Fried tried to plug the holes in Alameda’s balance sheet with FTX customer funds.

    Three people from Bankman-Fried’s inner circle pleaded guilty to related crimes and testified at his trial.

    Besides Ellison, two onetime friends of Bankman-Fried — Gary Wang and Nishad Singh — testified they felt they were directed by Bankman-Fried to commit fraud.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Sentenced to 25 Years in Prison

    FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Sentenced to 25 Years in Prison

    [ad_1]

    A US federal judge in the Southern District of New York has sentenced Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of bankrupt crypto exchange FTX, to 25 years in prison. In addition, Bankman-Fried has been ordered to forfeit $11 billion.

    Last November, at the end of a month-long trial, Bankman-Fried—known colloquially as SBF—was found guilty of seven counts of fraud and conspiracy in connection with the collapse of FTX.

    The exchange had fallen to pieces in November 2022 after running dry of funds with which to process customer withdrawals. The money was missing, the jury concluded, because Bankman-Fried had conducted an elaborate fraud whereby billions of dollars’ worth of user funds was swept into a sibling company and used to bankroll high-risk trading, venture bets, debt repayments, personal loans, political donations, and a lavish life in the Bahamas.

    In a court filing, the US government described the affair as “one of the largest financial frauds in history.” Bankman-Fried had demonstrated “unmatched greed and hubris” and a “brazen disrespect for the rule of law,” it said.

    “The judgment has to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime. This was a very serious crime,” said Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the case, before delivering the sentence. He cited the “enormous harm” inflicted by Bankman-Fried, the “brazenness of his actions,” and “his incredible flexibility with the truth.”

    Kaplan also criticized Bankman-Fried for his conduct on the witness stand during trial. Not only did Bankman-Fried perjure himself, the judge claimed, he was also “evasive” and “hairsplitting” in his responses to the prosecution’s questions. “I’ve been doing this job for almost 30 years, and I’ve never seen a performance quite like this,” said Kaplan.

    As Bankman-Fried received the sentence, he stood with his head lowered and hands together, an incongruously placid expression on his face.

    The sentencing completes a remarkable fall from grace. Between 2019 and 2022, Bankman-Fried steered FTX to a $32 billion dollar valuation, becoming for a time the world’s youngest self-made billionaire. The 32-year-old fraternized with regulators, politicians, sports stars, and supermodels. He won the adoration of venture capitalists, who fawned over him, and the media, which lionized him as the “next Warren Buffett” and the “Michael Jordan of crypto.” Privately, Bankman-Fried reportedly told others that he aspired to be the President of the United States.

    In his sentencing statement, Judge Kaplan cited political aspiration as one of the underlying motives of Bankman-Fried’s crime, pointing to his enormous contributions to candidates on both the left and right as “the biggest political financial crime in history.”

    “He wanted to be a hugely politically influential person in this country,” Kaplan said. “The goal was power and influence.”

    Instead of that political future—at least for years to come—Bankman-Fried will be consigned to a far less illustrious life in prison.

    In considering the appropriate sentence for Bankman-Fried, the judge was required to take into account a blend of factors beyond the details of the underlying crimes. Those include the extent of the financial losses dealt upon the victims, the defendant’s character and history, whether any obstruction of justice had taken place, the likelihood of recidivism, and so forth.

    [ad_2]

    Joel Khalili

    Source link

  • MyPillow, owned by election denier, faces eviction from Minnesota warehouse

    MyPillow, owned by election denier, faces eviction from Minnesota warehouse

    [ad_1]

    ST. PAUL, Minn. — A court plans to order the eviction of MyPillow from a suburban Minneapolis warehouse that it formerly used, but company founder and prominent election denier Mike Lindell said Wednesday that it’s just a formality because the landlord wants to take the property back.

    Lindell denied in an interview with The Associated Press that the eviction was another sign of his money woes. He said his financial picture is actually improving after a credit crunch last year disrupted cash flow at MyPillow after the company lost one of its major advertising platforms and was dropped by several national retailers.

    “We’re fine,” he said.

    Lindell faced a setback last month when a federal judge affirmed a $5 million arbitration award in favor of a software engineer who challenged data that Lindell said proves China interfered in the 2020 U.S. presidential election and tipped the outcome to Joe Biden. Lindell acknowledged in January that Fox News stopped running MyPillow commercials amid a billing dispute.

    Lindell confirmed Wednesday that MyPillow owes around $217,000 to Delaware-based First Industrial LP for rent for the facility in Shakopee. He said MyPillow no longer needed the space and removed its remaining property from the warehouse last June before subleasing the space to another company through December.

    Another company was going to start subleasing the space in January but backed out and “left us all stranded,” he said. MyPillow offered to find another tenant, he said, but the landlord just wanted to take back control of the warehouse instead. The $217,000 is for unpaid rent for January and February, he said. He also said MyPillow continues to lease space elsewhere.

    The Star Tribune reported that a Scott County judge on Tuesday said she would approve the warehouse owner’s request to formally evict MyPillow, which did not contest the landlord’s request.

    “MyPillow has more or less vacated but we’d like to do this by the book,” attorney Sara Filo, representing First Industrial, said during a hearing Tuesday, the newspaper reported. “At this point there’s a representation that no further payment is going to be made under this lease, so we’d like to go ahead with finding a new tenant.”

    Lindell, who continues to propagate former President Donald Trump’s lies that the 2020 election was stolen from him, in part by rigged voting machine systems, still faces defamation lawsuits by two voting machine companies. Lawyers who were originally defending him in those cases quit over unpaid bills.

    [ad_2]

    Source link