ReportWire

Tag: Courts

  • Suspect in killing of Indiana cop seeks to represent himself

    Suspect in killing of Indiana cop seeks to represent himself

    [ad_1]

    RICHMOND, Ind. — A man facing a death penalty charge in the fatal shooting of an Indiana police officer has asked a judge to represent himself, and his appointed attorney wants to withdraw from the case.

    Phillip Matthew Lee, 47, of Richmond, is charged with murder in the death of Richmond Police Department Officer Seara Burton. He filed a motion Dec. 22 to represent himself at trial, court documents show.

    That same day, his court-appointed defense attorney, Andrew Maternowski, filed a motion seeking to withdraw from the case, records show.

    His trial is scheduled to begin March 7.

    Burton, 28, died Sept. 18 from a gunshot wound to the head after she was taken off life support Sept. 1. She was shot Aug. 10 after officers stopped Lee and Burton was called to assist with her police dog.

    A gag order bars police, attorneys and others from commenting on the case.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s tax returns to be released Friday after long fight

    Trump’s tax returns to be released Friday after long fight

    [ad_1]

    A House committee is set to release six years of Donald Trump’s tax returns on Friday, pulling back the curtain on financial records that the former president fought for years to keep secret.

    The Democratic-controlled House Ways and Means Committee voted last week to release the returns, with some redactions of sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers and contact information. Their dissemination comes in the waning days of Democrats’ control of the House and as Trump’s fellow Republicans prepare to retake power in the chamber.

    The committee obtained six years of Trump’s personal and business tax records, from 2015 to 2020, while investigating what it said in a Dec. 20 report was the Internal Revenue Service’s failure to pursue mandatory audits of Trump on a timely basis during his presidency, as required under the tax agency’s protocol.

    The release raises the potential of new revelations about Trump’s finances, which have been shrouded in mystery and intrigue since his days as an up-and-coming Manhattan real estate developer in the 1980s. The returns could take on added significance now that Trump has launched a third campaign for the White House.

    Trump’s tax returns are likely to offer the clearest picture yet of his finances during his time in office.

    Trump, known for building skyscrapers and hosting a reality TV show before winning the White House, broke political norms by refusing to make public his returns as he sought the presidency — though he did give some limited details about his holdings and income on mandatory disclosure forms.

    Instead, Trump has touted his wealth in the annual financial statements he gives to banks to secure loans and to financial magazines to justify his place on rankings of the world’s billionaires.

    Trump’s longtime accounting firm has since disavowed the statements, and New York Attorney General Letitia James has filed a lawsuit alleging Trump and his Trump Organization inflated asset values on the statements as part of a yearslong fraud. Trump and his company have denied wrongdoing.

    It will not be the first time Trump’s tax returns have been under scrutiny. In October 2018, The New York Times published a Pulitzer Prize-winning series based on leaked tax records that showed that Trump received a modern-day equivalent of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate holdings, with much of that money coming from what the Times called “tax dodges” in the 1990s.

    A second series in 2020 showed that Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2017 and 2018, as well as no income taxes at all in 10 of the past 15 years because he generally lost more money than he made.

    In its report last week, the Ways and Means Committee indicated the Trump administration may have disregarded a post-Watergate requirement mandating audits of a president’s tax filings.

    The IRS only began to audit Trump’s 2016 tax filings on April 3, 2019 — more than two years into his presidency — when Ways and Means chair Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., asked the agency for information related to the tax returns.

    By comparison, there were audits of President Joe Biden for the 2020 and 2021 tax years, said Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson. A spokesperson for former President Barack Obama said Obama was audited in each of his eight years in office.

    An accompanying report from Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation raised multiple red flags about aspects of Trump’s tax filings, including his carryover losses, deductions tied to conservation and charitable donations, and loans to his children that could be taxable gifts.

    The House passed a bill in response that would require audits of any president’s income tax filings. Republicans strongly opposed the legislation, raising concerns that a law requiring audits would infringe on taxpayer privacy and could lead to audits being weaponized for political gain.

    Republicans have argued that Democrats will regret the move once Republicans take power in January, and they warn that the committee’s new GOP chair will be under pressure to seek and make public the tax returns of other prominent people.

    The measure, approved mostly along party lines, has little chance of becoming law in the final days of this Congress. Rather, it is seen as a starting point for future efforts to bolster oversight of the presidency.

    Every president and major-party candidate since Richard Nixon has voluntarily made at least summaries of their tax information available to the public. Trump bucked that trend as a candidate and as president, repeatedly asserting that his taxes were “under audit” and couldn’t be released.

    Trump’s lawyers were repeatedly denied in their quest to keep his tax returns from the Ways and Means Committee. A three-judge federal appeals court panel in August upheld a lower-court ruling granting the committee access.

    Trump’s lawyers also tried and failed to block the Manhattan district attorney’s office from getting Trump’s tax records as part of its investigation into his business practices, losing twice in the Supreme Court.

    Trump’s longtime accountant, Donald Bender, testified at the Trump Organization’s recent Manhattan criminal trial that Trump reported losses on his tax returns every year for a decade, including nearly $700 million in 2009 and $200 million in 2010.

    Bender, a partner at Mazars USA LLP who spent years preparing Trump’s personal tax returns, said Trump’s reported losses from 2009 to 2018 included net operating losses from some of the many businesses he owns through the Trump Organization.

    The Trump Organization was convicted earlier this month on tax fraud charges for helping some executives dodge taxes on company-paid perks such as apartments and luxury cars.

    ———

    Associated Press writer Paul Wiseman in Washington contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Evidence of Russian crimes mounts as war in Ukraine drags on

    Evidence of Russian crimes mounts as war in Ukraine drags on

    [ad_1]

    KYIV, Ukraine — Ten months into Russia’s latest invasion of Ukraine, overwhelming evidence shows the Kremlin’s troops have waged total war, with disregard for international laws governing the treatment of civilians and conduct on the battlefield.

    Ukraine is investigating more than 58,000 potential Russian war crimes — killings, kidnappings, indiscriminate bombings and sexual assaults. Reporting by The Associated Press and “Frontline,” recorded in a public database, has independently verified more than 600 incidents that appear to violate the laws of war. Some of those attacks were massacres that killed dozens or hundreds of civilians and as a totality it could account for thousands of individual war crimes.

    As Karim Khan, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, told the AP, “Ukraine is a crime scene.”

    That extensive documentation has run smack into a hard reality, however. While authorities have amassed a staggering amount of evidence — the conflict is among the most documented in human history — they are unlikely to arrest most of those who pulled the trigger or gave the beatings anytime soon, let alone the commanders who gave the orders and political leaders who sanctioned the attacks.

    The reasons are manifold, experts say. Ukrainian authorities face serious challenges in gathering air-tight evidence in a war zone. And the vast majority of alleged war criminals have evaded capture and are safely behind Russian lines.

    Even in successful prosecutions, the limits of justice so far are glaring. Take the case of Vadim Shishimarin, a baby-faced 21-year-old tank commander who was the first Russian tried on war crimes charges. He surrendered in March and pleaded guilty in a Kyiv courtroom in May to shooting a 62-year-old Ukrainian civilian in the head.

    The desire for some combination of justice and vengeance was palpable in that courtroom. “Do you consider yourself a murderer?” a woman shouted at the Russian as he stood bent forward with his head resting against the glass of the cage he was locked in.

    “What about the man in the coffin?” came another, sharper voice. A third demanded the defense lawyer explain how he could fight for the Russian’s freedom.

    The young soldier was first sentenced to life in prison, which was reduced to 15 years on appeal. Critics said the initial penalty was unduly harsh, given that he confessed to the crime, said he was following orders and expressed remorse.

    Ukrainian prosecutors, however, have not yet been able to charge Shishimarin’s commanders or those who oversaw him. Since March, Ukraine has named more than 600 Russians, many of them high-ranking political and military officials, as suspects, including Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu. But, so far, the most powerful have not fallen into Ukrainian custody.

    “It would be terrible to find a scenario in which, in the end, you convict a few people of war crimes and crimes against humanity who are low-grade or mid-grade military types or paramilitary types, but the top table gets off scot-free,” said Philippe Sands, a prominent British human rights lawyer.

    Throughout the war Russian leaders have denied accusations of brutality.

    Moscow’s U.N. ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, said no civilians were tortured and killed in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha despite the meticulous documentation of the atrocities by AP, other journalists, and war crimes investigators there.

    “Not a single local person has suffered from any violent action,” she said, calling the photos and video of bodies in the streets “a crude forgery” staged by the Ukrainians.

    Such statements have been easily rebutted by Ukrainian and international authorities, human rights groups and journalists who have meticulously documented Russian barbarity since the Kremlin ordered the unprovoked invasion in February.

    Part of that effort, the AP and Frontline database called War Crimes Watch Ukraine, offers a contemporaneous catalog of the horrors of war. It is not a comprehensive accounting. AP and Frontline only included incidents that could be verified by photos, videos or firsthand witness accounts. There are hundreds of reported incidents of potential war crimes for which there was not enough publicly available evidence to independently confirm what happened.

    Still, the resulting database details 10 months of attacks that appear to violate the laws of war, including 93 attacks on schools, 36 where children were killed, and more than 200 direct attacks on civilians, including torture, the kidnapping and killing of civilians, and the desecration of dead bodies. Among Russia’s targets: churches, cultural centers, hospitals, food facilities and electrical infrastructure. The database catalogs how Russia utilized cluster bombs and other indiscriminate weapons in residential neighborhoods and to attack buildings housing civilians.

    An AP investigation revealed that Russia’s bombing of a theater in Mariupol, which was being used as a civilian shelter, likely killed more than 600 people. Another showed that in the first 30 days after the invasion, Russian forces struck and damaged 34 medical facilities, suggesting a pattern and intent.

    “That’s a crime against the laws of war,’ said Stephen Rapp, a former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes. “Once somebody’s injured, they’re entitled to medical care. You can’t attack a hospital. That’s the oldest rule we have in international law.”

    Experts say Russia under President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly ignored the rules established by the Geneva Conventions, a series of treaties that dictate how warring countries should treat each other’s citizens, and the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court and defined specific war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    “These abuses are not the acts of rogue units; rather, they are part of a deeply disturbing pattern of abuse consistent with what we have seen from Russia’s prior military engagements — in Chechnya, Syria, and Georgia,” said Beth Van Schaack, the U.S. Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal Justice, speaking earlier this month at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

    ———

    This story is part of an AP/FRONTLINE investigation that includes the War Crimes Watch Ukraine interactive experience and the documentary “ Putin’s Attack on Ukraine: Documenting War Crimes ” on PBS.

    ———

    Short of a regime-toppling revolution in Moscow, however, it is unlikely Putin and other high-ranking Russians end up in court, whether in Ukraine or the Hague, experts say.

    And even as a chorus of global leaders have joined Ukrainians in calling for legal action against the architects of this war, there is disagreement about the best way to do it.

    The International Criminal Court has been investigating potential war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. But it cannot prosecute the most basic offense, the crime of aggression – the unjust use of military force against another nation — because the Russian Federation, like the United States, never gave it authority to do so.

    Efforts to plug that loophole by creating a special international tribunal for the crime of aggression in Ukraine have been gaining momentum. Last month, the European Union threw its support behind the idea.

    Some human rights advocates say a special tribunal would be the smartest way to proceed. Sands, the British human rights lawyer, said prosecuting Russia before such a tribunal would be a “slam dunk.”

    “You’d need to prove that that war is manifestly in violation of international law,” he added. “That’s pretty straightforward because Mr. Putin has set out the reasons for that war, and it’s blindingly obvious that they don’t meet the requirements of international law.”

    But Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, has opposed the creation of a special tribunal, calling it a “vanity project.”

    ”We are an international court,” Khan told AP and Frontline in July. “We’ve been accepted, of course, by the Security Councilors as legitimate. They’ve used this court in terms of referrals. And I think we should focus on using this court effectively.”

    Whatever happens on the international stage, the vast majority of cases will be heard within Ukraine itself.

    The daunting task of turning Ukraine’s beleaguered prosecutorial service into a bureaucracy capable of building sophisticated war crimes cases falls on Yurii Bielousov.

    When he was offered the job of leading the war crimes department in the prosecutor general’s office, Bielousov knew it would be tough. Just how tough became clear after Russians pulled out of Bucha last spring, leaving behind a crime scene strewn with the decomposing bodies of more than 450 men, women and children.

    Bucha was the first complex case picked up by Bielousov’s prosecutors, and it quickly became one of the most important. No one in Ukraine had ever dealt with something of that scale before.

    “The system was not in collapse, but the system was shocked,” Bielousov said. “OK, OK, let’s go everyone, and just try to do our best.”

    Ukraine has five different investigative agencies, each assigned legal responsibility for different kinds of crimes. The crimes in Bucha cut across all those categories, tangling the bureaucracy. That has only made building tough cases even harder.

    Despite the setbacks and hurdles, Bielousov says his prosecutors remain focused on gathering evidence that will stand up in domestic and international courts. He says he is also focused on another goal — compiling an incontrovertible record of Russia’s savagery that the world cannot ignore.

    Yulia Truba wants the same thing. Her husband was one of the first men Russian soldiers tortured and killed in Bucha. She said she wants to establish a single, shared truth about what happened to her husband

    “Russia won’t recognize this as a crime,” Truba said. “I just want as many people as possible to recognize it was a real murder and he was tortured. For me, this would be justice.”

    ———

    Biesecker reported from Washington. Frontline producers Tom Jennings and Annie Wong contributed.

    ———

    Follow AP investigative reporters Michael Biesecker at twitter.com/mbieseck and Erika Kinetz at twitter.com/ekinetz

    ———

    To contact the AP’s investigations team, email investigative@AP.org

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bolivian opposition leader held on ‘terrorism’ charges

    Bolivian opposition leader held on ‘terrorism’ charges

    [ad_1]

    Prosecutors in Bolivia are seeking six months of pre-trial detention in the case of Luis Fernando Camacho, the governor of Santa Cruz and prominent right-wing leader whose sudden arrest on Wednesday sparked allegations of kidnapping.

    Camacho is being held in the political capital of La Paz on charges of “terrorism”, prosecutor Omar Mejillones confirmed in a statement on Thursday.

    The Santa Cruz governor also faces ongoing investigations into his role during Bolivia’s 2019 political crisis, which led to the departure of then-President Evo Morales. Among the charges being considered are breach of duty, misuse of influence and attacking the president and high-ranking officials.

    Camacho – a former presidential candidate who heads the powerful Christian conservative coalition Creemos – had been a leader during the 2019 protests that helped to remove Morales, the country’s first Indigenous president, from office.

    In a statement, Camacho rejected the accusations, saying they lacked credibility.

    The 2019 political crisis saw Morales seeking a fourth consecutive term as president, a move his critics denounced as unconstitutional. Morales had successfully appealed to the Supreme Court to abolish term limits after voters refused to do so in a 2016 referendum.

    Morales successfully won his fourth term in October 2019 but the election was mired in allegations of fraud and protests erupted contesting Morales’s leadership. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights estimates 36 people lost their lives in the crisis. With an international audit under way and violence in the streets, Bolivia’s military called on Morales to resign.

    He did, leaving office in November 2019, but condemned the conflict as a “coup”. On Thursday, Morales applauded Camacho’s arrest with a post on Twitter.

    “Finally, after three years, Luis Fernando Camacho will answer for the coup d’etat that led to robberies, persecutions, arrests and massacres of the de facto government. We trust that this decision will be upheld with the firmness demanded by the people’s clamour for justice,” Morales wrote.

    Camacho’s allies, meanwhile, have called the arrest a “kidnapping”, organised by Morales’s Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) political party.

    In a statement posted on Camacho’s social media on Thursday, his legal team said Bolivia’s judiciary had “practically closed the doors” against their legal actions to free the governor and was continuing to “violate [his] constitutional rights”.

    Camacho’s arrest and subsequent jailing have heightened existing tensions between Bolivia’s left-wing government and conservative-led Santa Cruz, the largest of the country’s nine departments.

    Following the prosecutor’s announcement on Thursday, the right-wing Pro-Santa Cruz Committee – a civic group of which Camacho was once president – announced it would lead a general strike on Friday as well as blockades on the department’s highways.

    Already, protesters have taken to the streets in Santa Cruz to block roads. The local prosecutor’s office was reportedly set on fire. And on Wednesday, amid reports Camacho was being flown to La Paz to face charges, protesters entered two Santa Cruz airports in an apparent attempt to stop his transport.

    Bolivia’s public works minister Edgar Montano took to Twitter on Thursday to say his house in Santa Cruz had been targeted and burned, “violating the integrity and safety of my family”. He blamed Camacho and the Pro-Santa Cruz Committee for the attack.

    “They are not going to intimidate us with criminal acts such as burning my home and calls on social networks to loot institutions and homes belonging to other officials”, he tweeted, adding: “#SantaCruz is not an independent country.”

    A protester outside the state attorney’s office in La Paz, Bolivia, cries out for the release of Santa Cruz governor Luis Fernando Camacho [Claudia Morales/Reuters]

    Earlier this year, the Pro-Santa Cruz Committee led widespread protests after current President Luis Arce, a member of Morales’s Movement Towards Socialism party, announced plans to postpone Bolivia’s census.

    The census, originally scheduled for this year, was expected to show population growth in Santa Cruz, a soy-growing department rich in agriculture that also houses the country’s largest city. That, in turn, would have resulted in more government funding allocated to the department, as well as greater representation in Congress.

    Prosecutors have promised to seek the “harshest punishment” for any violence stemming from this week’s protests. Meanwhile, Bolivian politicians representing Camacho’s Creemos party have called on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to protect Camacho’s “safety and integrity”.

    A spokesperson for the United States State Department told Reuters: “We encourage observance of international norms and reliance on democratic institutions. We urge all parties to resolve this issue peacefully and democratically.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court asked to enforce $3M deal in police shooting lawsuit

    Court asked to enforce $3M deal in police shooting lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Several parties to a wrongful death lawsuit over the fatal police shooting of a Black man on the Virginia Beach oceanfront last year have asked a judge to enforce the $3 million settlement agreement announced earlier this month.

    The city of Virginia Beach and the family of Donovon Lynch — a cousin of musician and Virginia Beach native Pharrell Williams — announced the settlement agreement Dec. 13. But Lynch’s father, Wayne Lynch, has since told local news outlets that he has parted ways with his attorneys and that the settlement isn’t finalized.

    Last week, several parties to the matter filed a joint motion asking a judge to enforce the announced deal.

    The joint motion was filed by Thomas Martin and Justin Fairfax, who have served as attorneys for Wayne Lynch, as well as attorneys for the city and the officer who shot Donovon Lynch.

    The motion says that an outside party advised Wayne Lynch not to sign the agreement, “which is against the interests of the Estate and contrary to Plaintiff’s prior agreement.”

    Court records show that the motion was referred to a judge on Tuesday.

    Efforts by The Associated Press to reach Wayne Lynch weren’t immediately successful. But Lynch wrote in an emailed statement on Tuesday that the settlement had not been finalized, TV station WVEC-TV reported.

    “I regret that it was publicly disclosed before all non-monetary terms were finalized,” Lynch’s statement said.

    He also wrote that Fairfax, a former lieutenant governor, and Martin were no longer representing him. On Wednesday, he filed a motion to substitute Fairfax and Martin with a new attorney, court records show.

    Lauren Burke, a spokesperson for Fairfax, said in a statement provided to the AP Wednesday that Fairfax and Martin remain “the attorneys of record in this case.”

    “Justin E. Fairfax and Thomas B. Martin have been honored to secure a $3M settlement in the death of Wayne Lynch’s son Donovon Lynch,” the statement said. “This historic settlement for the Lynch family will soon be completely settled in Virginia federal court.”

    A spokesperson for the city declined to comment.

    Wayne Lynch filed the $50 million wrongful death lawsuit in June 2021 against the city and Solomon D. Simmons, the police officer who shot his son. Simmons is also Black.

    Lynch’s shooting occurred on a warm March night near the city’s crowded boardwalk, which is lined with restaurants and hotels. The evening dissolved into chaos after separate outbreaks of gunfire. At least eight people were wounded, and one woman, who was believed to be a bystander, was killed.

    In November 2021, a special grand jury found that Simmons was justified in shooting Lynch. Authorities said Lynch had a gun and racked a round into the chamber before pointing his weapon toward a parking lot filled with people and police.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Florida inmate pleads guilty to threatening federal judge

    Florida inmate pleads guilty to threatening federal judge

    [ad_1]

    JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — A Florida state prison inmate faces up to 10 years in federal prison for threatening to kill a federal judge and his family.

    Curtis Brown, 35, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Jacksonville federal court to threatening to murder a federal judge in retaliation for performing his official duties and mailing a threatening letter, according to court records.

    A sentencing date wasn’t immediately set.

    According to court documents, Brown was serving a sentence for drug trafficking in the Florida State Prison in Raiford in November 2021 when he sent a handwritten letter to a federal judge’s chambers. The letter stated that the judge’s “recent refusal to grant warranted relief” gave Brown no other choice but to use his federal stimulus money to pay for someone to kill the judge.

    The letter stated that if Brown could not get to the judge in time, then Brown would settle for a member of the judge’s family, prosecutors said. The letter was signed by Brown, and beneath his signature was a statement that the letter better stay between them, or it would get worse.

    Brown was sentenced to prison in 2006 after being convicted of multiple drug charges. Florida Department of Corrections records show that he was supposed to be released from state prison in 2034.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Architect of plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer to face sentence

    Architect of plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer to face sentence

    [ad_1]

    GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Prosecutors are recommending a life prison sentence for a co-leader of the conspiracy to kidnap Michigan’s governor, reminding a judge that social media posts and secretly recorded conversations revealed a chilling desire to spark a “reign of terror” in 2020.

    Barry Croft Jr. was due in federal court Wednesday, a day after key ally Adam Fox was sentenced to 16 years in prison after prosecutors also recommended a life sentence for his role in a scheme to snatch Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and galvanize their confederates toward civil war in other states.

    The conspirators were furious over tough COVID-19 restrictions that Whitmer and officials in other states had put in place during the early months of the pandemic, as well as perceived threats to gun ownership.

    Croft, a Delaware trucker, regularly wore a tri-cornered hat common during the American Revolution and had tattoos on his arms symbolizing resistance — “Expect Us” — as he traveled to Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan to meet with like-minded extremists.

    “Although he may not have had hierarchical control over all the other participants, he coordinated and pushed the implementation of the conspiracy from its inception to its final stages,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Nils Kessler said in a court filing.

    “The only remaining step was for the governor to appear at her cottage so they could launch their plan, but fortunately she was still beyond their control,” the prosecutor said.

    Whitmer wasn’t physically harmed. The FBI, which was secretly embedded in the group, broke things up a month before the 2020 presidential election and arrested 14 people.

    Fox, 39, and Croft, 47, were convicted of two counts of conspiracy at a second trial in August. Croft also was found guilty of possessing an unregistered explosive. A different jury in Grand Rapids, Michigan, couldn’t reach a verdict on the pair at the first trial last spring but acquitted two other men.

    “The abduction of the governor was only meant to be the beginning of Croft’s reign of terror,” Kessler said. “He called for riots, ‘torching’ government officials in their sleep and setting off a ‘domino’ effect of violence across the country.”

    A key piece of evidence: Croft, Fox and others traveled to see Whitmer’s vacation home in northern Michigan, with undercover agents and informants inside the cabal.

    At one point, Croft told allies: “I don’t like seeing anybody get killed either. But you don’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, you know what I mean?”

    Croft’s attorney tried to soften his client’s role. In a court filing, Joshua Blanchard said the Bear, Delaware, man didn’t actually have authority over others and often frustrated them because he “just kept talking.”

    Croft was smoking 2 ounces (56 grams) of marijuana per week, Blanchard said.

    “Simply put, to the extent that the jury determined he was a participant, as they necessarily did, he was a participant to a lesser degree than others,” Blanchard insisted.

    Two men who pleaded guilty and testified against Fox and Croft received substantial breaks: Ty Garbin already is free after a 2 1/2-year prison term, while Kaleb Franks was given a four-year sentence.

    In state court, three men recently were given lengthy sentences for assisting Fox earlier in the summer of 2020. Five more are awaiting trial in Antrim County, where Whitmer’s vacation home is located.

    When the plot was extinguished, Whitmer blamed then-President Donald Trump, saying he had given “comfort to those who spread fear and hatred and division.” In August, 19 months after leaving office, Trump said the kidnapping plan was a “fake deal.”

    ———

    Ed White in Detroit contributed to this story. Joey Cappelletti is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • EXPLAINER: What happens if COVID asylum restrictions end?

    EXPLAINER: What happens if COVID asylum restrictions end?

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Since the pandemic began, the United States has been using a public health rule designed to limit the spread of disease to expel asylum-seekers on the southern border.

    Title 42, as it’s called, has been used more than 2.5 million times to expel migrants since March 2020, although that number includes people who repeatedly attempted to cross the border.

    The Supreme Court said in a ruling Tuesday that it would keep Title 42 in place indefinitely. The case will be argued in February, and the stay will be maintained until the justices decide the case.

    In November, a federal judge ruled that immigration authorities could no longer use Title 42 to quickly expel prospective asylum-seekers and set a Dec. 21 deadline for its use to end. That set off a legal back-and-forth with a group of conservative-leaning states pushing to keep Title 42 in place and the federal government and immigration advocates say its time is over.

    The change comes as surging numbers of people are seeking to enter the country through the southern border and with Republicans intent on making immigration a key issue when they take control of the House in January.

    A look at Title 42 and the potential impact of the ruling:

    HOW IT STARTED

    In March 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an order limiting migration across the southern and northern borders, saying it was necessary to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. The virus was ravaging the U.S., schools were shutting down and hospitals filling up, and President Donald Trump was trying numerous ways to limit migration, his signature political issue.

    The order authorized Customs and Border Protection to immediately remove migrants, including people seeking asylum, to prevent the spread of the virus. The order said areas where migrants were held often weren’t designed to quarantine people or allow for social distancing and could put border personnel and others at risk.

    “The public health risks of inaction are stark,” it said.

    The Biden administration continued the policy. While many Democrats pushed President Joe Biden to overturn Trump’s anti-immigration measures, some — especially in border states — have advocated to keep Title 42, saying the U.S. is unprepared for an increase in asylum-seekers. When the CDC moved to lift it earlier this year, moderate Democrats — including Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Raphael Warnock of Georgia — wanted it to stay.

    THE COURT FIGHT

    In 2021, a group representing immigrants who were denied the right to seek asylum sued to end the use of Title 42.

    As that case made its way through the courts, the CDC announced last April that the rule was no longer needed because vaccines and treatments were becoming much more widespread.

    That sparked Republican-leaning states to file their own lawsuit aimed at keeping Title 42 in place. The states argued that ending the rule would lead to a surge in migrants to their states that would in turn take a toll on their services. That argument found favor with a Trump-appointed judge in Louisiana who ordered keeping the restrictions in place. The judge found Biden’s administration failed to follow administrative procedures requiring public notice and time to gather public comment on the plan to end the restrictions.

    But that ruling was effectively blocked by another federal judge in a separate lawsuit in Washington. That judge, appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, ruled on Nov. 15 that the Biden administration must lift the asylum restrictions by Dec. 21. That ruling, addressing broader questions about Title 42, took precedence over the Texas ruling, cheering immigration advocates. In a key development, the federal government did not appeal to keep the public health restrictions in place.

    “The court was correct to find that banning migrants, while allowing the rest of the country to open up, is unlawfully arbitrary, causes grave harm to desperate asylum-seekers, and overrides the United States’ legal commitments to provide a safe haven for those fleeing persecution,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

    Then a group of conservative states tried to intervene to keep Title 42 in place. They argued that the cancellation of pandemic-era policy “will cause an enormous disaster at the border” and the additional migrants will increase the states’ costs for law enforcement, education and health care. They’ve also argued that they had to intervene after the federal government did not push to keep Title 42 in place. The case has gone all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, who last week ordered a temporary stay keeping Title 42 in place so it could thoroughly study each side’s arguments.

    The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday extended the temporary stay indefinitely as it set a February timetable for hearing arguments.

    DOES TITLE 42 AFFECT ALL ASYLUM-SEEKERS?

    Not really. The Biden administration has not used it with children traveling alone, only single adults or families. And the ban has been unevenly enforced by nationality, falling largely on migrants from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador — in addition to Mexicans — because Mexico allows them to be returned from the United States. Last month, Mexico began accepting Venezuelans who are expelled from the United States under Title 42, causing a sharp drop in Venezuelans seeking asylum at the U.S. border.

    Some other nationalities are less likely to be subject to Title 42 because costs or frayed relations with their home countries, Cuba for example, make it difficult for the U.S. to send them back. People from these countries have become a growing presence at the border, confident they will be released in the United States to pursue their immigration cases.

    According to the most recent figures released by Customs and Border Protection officials, illegal border crossings by Cubans and Nicaraguans rose sharply in November while overall migration flows were little changed from October.

    WHAT HAPPENS IF TITLE 42 ENDS?

    If it goes away, asylum-seekers will be interviewed by asylum officers who will determine if they have a “credible fear” of being persecuted in their home countries. If they’re found to face a credible threat, they can stay in the U.S. until a final determination is made.

    That can take years. Although some are detained while their asylum process plays out, the vast majority are freed into the United States with notices to appear in immigration court or report to immigration authorities.

    The Department of Homeland Security said in a memo outlining their preparations for the end of Title 42’s use that the current system is not designed “to handle the current volume of migration nor the increased volume we expect over the coming weeks and months.”

    It said it is preparing for a possible surge by cracking down on smuggling networks, speeding removal of those found to have little basis to stay in the U.S., and working with international partners to stem migration. It said it’s also seeking more money from Congress. Meanwhile, as temperatures plummeted last week, thousands of migrants were gathered on the Mexican side of the border waiting to see what happens if and when Title 42’s use ends.

    Republicans, who will control the House come January, are expected to make immigration a major issue. Already there have been calls to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

    Some Democrats have also voiced concern about what happens when Title 42 goes away. In a letter to Biden this week, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas joined two Texas Republicans — Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Tony Gonzales — in asking Biden to keep Title 42 in place, saying there was a crisis at the southern border and that DHS hadn’t presented a plan to maintain control there.

    ——

    Follow Santana on Twitter @ruskygal.

    ———

    Follow AP’s complete coverage on immigration: https://apnews.com/hub/immigration

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After presidency, unclear fate for Brazil’s brash Bolsonaro

    After presidency, unclear fate for Brazil’s brash Bolsonaro

    [ad_1]

    BRASILIA, Brazil — Jair Bolsonaro told supporters that the future could only bring him three possibilities: arrest, death or a second term as Brazil’s president.

    None of those outcomes came to pass. And his Oct. 30 loss to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva set off two months of relative silence for the self-styled standard-bearer of the Brazilian conservative movement.

    Bolsonaro’s oft-cited motto is “God, Family, Country,” and as president he handed more power to the armed forces and loosened gun restrictions. Many of Bolsonaro’s far-right supporters remain in his thrall and have camped outside military buildings, pleading futilely for army intervention that would keep the president in power.

    But Bolsonaro authorized his chief-of-staff to preside over the transition process, and moving trucks have started showing up at the presidential palace and residence. Personal items were spotted being removed, especially art given as gifts by supporters – including life-size wooden sculptures of Bolsonaro and a motorcycle.

    A seven-term fringe lawmaker before winning his presidential campaign in 2018, Bolsonaro has discussed holding a salaried position in his Liberal Party, a party executive involved in discussions told The Associated Press, asking not to be identified because plans haven’t been announced.

    Bolsonaro addressed backers in the capital, Brasilia, once after he lost the vote, saying briefly that the armed forces were under his control. A second time, he stood in silence as backers prayed for him.

    Some supporters insist that Bolsonaro would not let them down by giving up the fight but others have started to decamp from important sites. According to Bolsonaro’s official daily agenda, he worked just over an hour each day from the election until Dec. 23.

    The Liberal Party will be the biggest party in both the Lower House and Senate. It has declared its opposition to Lula’s incoming government and Bolsonaro is expected to lead the effort within the party, the party executive said.

    But many of the Liberal Party’s members are neither fully loyal to Bolsonaro nor ideologically aligned with him, and they will have incentives to work with the new administration, said Guilherme Casarões, political analyst and professor at Getulio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo. The Liberal Party is considered centrist and is known for making deals with the sitting government.

    “That makes it harder to have the ideological fidelity that Bolsonaro likes to maintain,” said Casarões. “If he doesn’t manage to have total control over the Liberal Party, we are going to see a new split.”

    Bolsonaro got 49% of the presidential vote, fuelling the possibility of a presidential run in 2026 and making him a possible aid to candidates in the 2024 municipal elections, said Eduardo Grin, political analyst and professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation.

    However, Grin noted there is a history of strong Brazilian candidates failing to sustain support in subsequent years. And the governors of Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais, Brazil’s two most populous states, could prove more palatable options to conservative voters.

    The customary final act for outgoing presidents is handing over the presidential sash to their successor. Bolsonaro’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment on whether he will attend Lula’s inauguration.

    The last time a president declined to hand over the sash was in 1985, marking the end of the nation’s two-decade military dictatorship and the return of democracy.

    Either way, the inauguration will come as a blow to Bolsonaro’s backers, said analyst Mario Sérgio Lima, from Medley Advisors.

    “As his supporters are used to radicalism, they are expecting catharsis. When they see Lula being sworn in, they will feel betrayed, like he (Bolsonaro) had the power in his hands and did nothing,” said Lima. “For them, it is a sign of weakness.”

    Bolsonaro also faces swirling legal threats. The Supreme Court is investigating him on suspicion of illegally spreading lies about topics including COVID-19 vaccines, Supreme Court justices, releasing confidential information from an ongoing investigation and interfering improperly with the Federal Police. The Supreme Court is the only government body that can investigate a sitting president or federal lawmaker.

    As of Jan. 1, Bolsonaro will no longer enjoy the legal protection of sitting leaders, and could face fresh charges in lower courts. After Lula was convicted of corruption and money laundering by lower courts in 2018, he was deemed ineligible to run in that year’s presidential election and spent more than a year in jail. His convictions were later annulled on the grounds that he was tried in a court without proper jurisdiction.

    “But Lula had an entire party behind him to bring him up again, and that isn’t the case for Bolsonaro,” said Lima, adding that Bolsonaro would struggle to maintain allies fighting for his cause.

    And any eventual conviction could jeopardize a possible 2026 run by Bolsonaro to return to his former job, in addition to all the other challenges he faces.

    “The political fate of Bolsonaro and Brazil’s extreme right has more stumbling blocks than it appears,” said Grin. “There will be more difficulties than ease.”

    —-

    Associated Press writer Diane Jeantet contributed to this report from Rio de Janeiro.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Divided appeals court rejects 4 insider trading convictions

    Divided appeals court rejects 4 insider trading convictions

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A divided appeals court on Tuesday rejected the insider trading convictions of four men, including an ex-government employee turned consultant, prompting a sharp dissent from a judge who says the ruling may prompt insiders to sell confidential government information to the highest bidders.

    The decision of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in a case in which a Washington consultant, David Blaszczak, was charged with converting government secrets into hedge fund profits.

    In 2018, a jury convicted Blaszczak and three hedge fund employees in a scheme prosecutors said enabled the hedge fund workers to make over $3.5 million illegally for their company from 2012 through 2014. The Securities and Exchange Commission said the profits reached $3.9 million.

    Before becoming a consultant, Blaszczak worked at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    The SEC and prosecutors said he boasted about access to government information about the timing and content of planned changes to reimbursement rules affecting publicly traded health care-related companies.

    In a 2-to-1 decision Tuesday, the 2nd Circuit said it was reversing its prior affirmance of the convictions after the U.S. Supreme Court urged further consideration to consider its reversal of convictions of officials in the administration of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

    In that case, the Supreme Court concluded that politically motivated conduct by the officials to cause significant traffic gridlock for several days at the New Jersey entrance to the George Washington Bridge linking New Jersey and Manhattan was not a crime because they did not aim to deprive the bridge’s owners of money or property.

    In the Blaszczak case, defense lawyers argued that their client’s information did not constitute property or a thing of value within the meaning of criminal laws pertaining to fraud and insider trading. Their argument, as it related to most counts, was supported by prosecutors in the most recent appeal.

    The 2nd Circuit agreed to reverse the majority of convictions and vacated convictions on two other counts, leaving it to a lower court to decide whether a retrial on those counts will occur.

    In a dissent, Circuit Judge Richard A. Sullivan blasted the ruling. He wrote that it “effectively permits sophisticated insiders to leverage their access to confidential government information and sell it to the highest bidders — in this case, hedge funds that used the confidential information to make millions shorting the stocks of public companies affected by CMS’s regulations.”

    He said the ruling also “threatens to upend decades of settled precedent concerning frauds premised on the theft of intangible property and suggests — in what amounts to dicta — a curious and troubling rule of deference that would require federal courts to acquiesce whenever the government announces a new, post-conviction statutory interpretation.”

    Sullivan said he disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that confidential information held by a government agency is not property.

    David Patton, a lawyer who defended Blaszczak, declined comment.

    A prosecutor’s spokesperson also declined comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Divided appeals court rejects 4 insider trading convictions

    Divided appeals court rejects 4 insider trading convictions

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A divided appeals court on Tuesday rejected the insider trading convictions of four men, including an ex-government employee turned consultant, prompting a sharp dissent from a judge who says the ruling may prompt insiders to sell confidential government information to the highest bidders.

    The decision of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in a case in which a Washington consultant, David Blaszczak, was charged with converting government secrets into hedge fund profits.

    In 2018, a jury convicted Blaszczak and three hedge fund employees in a scheme prosecutors said enabled the hedge fund workers to make over $3.5 million illegally for their company from 2012 through 2014. The Securities and Exchange Commission said the profits reached $3.9 million.

    Before becoming a consultant, Blaszczak worked at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    The SEC and prosecutors said he boasted about access to government information about the timing and content of planned changes to reimbursement rules affecting publicly traded health care-related companies.

    In a 2-to-1 decision Tuesday, the 2nd Circuit said it was reversing its prior affirmance of the convictions after the U.S. Supreme Court urged further consideration to consider its reversal of convictions of officials in the administration of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

    In that case, the Supreme Court concluded that politically motivated conduct by the officials to cause significant traffic gridlock for several days at the New Jersey entrance to the George Washington Bridge linking New Jersey and Manhattan was not a crime because they did not aim to deprive the bridge’s owners of money or property.

    In the Blaszczak case, defense lawyers argued that their client’s information did not constitute property or a thing of value within the meaning of criminal laws pertaining to fraud and insider trading. Their argument, as it related to most counts, was supported by prosecutors in the most recent appeal.

    The 2nd Circuit agreed to reverse the majority of convictions and vacated convictions on two other counts, leaving it to a lower court to decide whether a retrial on those counts will occur.

    In a dissent, Circuit Judge Richard A. Sullivan blasted the ruling. He wrote that it “effectively permits sophisticated insiders to leverage their access to confidential government information and sell it to the highest bidders — in this case, hedge funds that used the confidential information to make millions shorting the stocks of public companies affected by CMS’s regulations.”

    He said the ruling also “threatens to upend decades of settled precedent concerning frauds premised on the theft of intangible property and suggests — in what amounts to dicta — a curious and troubling rule of deference that would require federal courts to acquiesce whenever the government announces a new, post-conviction statutory interpretation.”

    Sullivan said he disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that confidential information held by a government agency is not property.

    David Patton, a lawyer who defended Blaszczak, declined comment.

    A prosecutor’s spokesperson also declined comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court keeps immigration limits in place indefinitely

    Supreme Court keeps immigration limits in place indefinitely

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is keeping pandemic-era limits on immigration in place indefinitely, dashing hopes of immigration advocates who had been anticipating their end this week.

    In a ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court extended a temporary stay that Chief Justice John Roberts issued last week. Under the court’s order, the case will be argued in February and the stay will be maintained until the justices decide the case.

    The limits, often referred to as Title 42 in reference to a 1944 public health law, were put in place under then-President Donald Trump at the beginning of the pandemic. Under the restrictions, officials have expelled asylum-seekers inside the United States 2.5 million times and turned away most people who requested asylum at the border on grounds of preventing the spread of COVID-19.

    Immigration advocates sued to end the policy, saying it goes against American and international obligations to people fleeing to the U.S. to escape persecution. They’ve also argued that the policy is outdated as coronavirus treatments improve.

    The Supreme Court’s decision comes as thousands of migrants have gathered on the Mexican side of the border, filling shelters and worrying advocates who are scrambling to figure out how to care for them.

    “We are deeply disappointed for all the desperate asylum seekers who will continue to suffer because of Title 42, but we will continue fighting to eventually end the policy,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which had been arguing to end Title 42′s use.

    The ruling Tuesday said specifically that the Supreme Court will review the issue of whether the states have the right to intervene in the legal fight over Title 42. Both the federal government and the immigration advocates have argued that the states waited too long to intervene and even if they hadn’t waited so long, that they don’t have sufficient standing to intervene.

    In a dissent, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson said that even if the court were to find the states have the right to intervene and Title 42 was lawfully adopted “…. the emergency on which those orders were premised has long since lapsed.”

    The judges said the “current border crisis is not a COVID crisis.”

    “And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort,” the justices wrote.

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday that the Biden administration “will, of course, comply with the order and prepare for the Court’s review.”

    “At the same time, we are advancing our preparations to manage the border in a secure, orderly, and humane way when Title 42 eventually lifts and will continue expanding legal pathways for immigration,” Jean-Pierre added. “Title 42 is a public health measure, not an immigration enforcement measure, and it should not be extended indefinitely.”

    In in November, a federal judge sided with advocates and set a Dec. 21 deadline to end the policy. Conservative-leaning states appealed to the Supreme Court, warning that an increase in migration would take a toll on public services and cause an “unprecedented calamity” that they said the federal government had no plan to deal with.

    Roberts, who handles emergency matters that come from federal courts in the nation’s capital, issued a stay to give the court time to more fully consider both sides’ arguments.

    The federal government asked the Supreme Court to reject the states’ effort while also acknowledging that ending the restrictions abruptly would likely lead to “disruption and a temporary increase in unlawful border crossings.”

    The precise issue before the court is a complicated, largely procedural question of whether the states should be allowed to intervene in the lawsuit. A similar group of states won a lower court order in a different court district preventing the end of the restrictions after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced in April that it was ending use of the policy.

    Until the judge’s November order in the advocates’ lawsuit, the states had not sought to take part in that case. But they say that the administration has essentially abandoned its defense of the Title 42 policy and they should be able to step in. The administration has appealed the ruling, though it has not tried to keep Title 42 in place while the legal case plays out.

    ———

    Spagat contributed from San Diego.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hearing delayed for ex-DA charged in wake of Arbery killing

    Hearing delayed for ex-DA charged in wake of Arbery killing

    [ad_1]

    BRUNSWICK, Ga. — A judge has postponed a court hearing this week for a former Georgia prosecutor charged with meddling in the police investigation of the 2020 killing of Ahmaud Arbery.

    Superior Court Judge John R. Turner ordered that the court appearance for former Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson’, initially scheduled for Thursday, be held later, according to court records. The judge has not set a new date.

    Johnson has not appeared in court since she was indicted in September 2021 on charges of violating her oath of office and hindering police investigating Arbery’s killing. White men in pickup trucks chased the young Black man on Feb. 23, 2020, after spotting him running in their neighborhood outside coastal Brunswick. The chase ended with Arbery being shot dead in the street.

    The man who initiated the chase, Greg McMichael, was a retiree who had worked as an investigator for Johnson. She was still Glynn County’s top prosecutor when Arbery was killed, but lost her reelection campaign a few months later.

    The indictment against Johnson accuses her of using her office to try to shield Greg McMichael and Travis McMichael, his adult son who fired the fatal shotgun blasts, from prosecution.

    Both McMichaels and a neighbor who joined the chase and recorded cellphone video of the killing, William “Roddie” Bryan, weren’t arrested until more than two months later when the video leaked online and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation took over the case from local police.

    The McMichaels and Bryan all have since been convicted of murder and federal hate crime charges.

    Johnson has denied wrongdoing, saying she immediately recused herself from the investigation into Arbery’s death.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sentence next for ‘driving force’ behind Whitmer kidnap plot

    Sentence next for ‘driving force’ behind Whitmer kidnap plot

    [ad_1]

    A steely rebel who wanted to inspire a revolution by kidnapping Michigan’s governor or an insecure patsy who was cleverly swayed by federal agents and informants?

    A judge has been given two very different portrayals of Adam Fox, who faces a possible life sentence Tuesday for conspiring to abduct Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and blow up a bridge to ease an escape in northern Michigan.

    Fox and co-defendant Barry Croft Jr. were accused of being at the helm of a wild plot to whip up anti-government extremists just before the 2020 presidential election. Their arrest, as well as the capture of 12 others, was a stunning coda to a tumultuous year of racial strife and political turmoil in the U.S.

    Fox and Croft were convicted at a second trial in August, months after a different jury in Grand Rapids, Michigan, couldn’t reach a verdict but acquitted two other men.

    Fox and Croft in 2020 met with like-minded provocateurs at a summit in Ohio, trained with weapons in Michigan and Wisconsin and took a ride to “put eyes” on Whitmer’s vacation home with night-vision goggles, according to evidence.

    “People need to stop with the misplaced anger and place the anger where it should go, and that’s against our tyrannical … government,” Fox declared that spring, boiling over COVID-19 restrictions and perceived threats to gun ownership.

    Whitmer wasn’t physically harmed. The FBI, which was secretly embedded in the group, broke things up by fall.

    “They had no real plan for what to do with the governor if they actually seized her. Paradoxically, this made them more dangerous, not less,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Nils Kessler said in a court filing ahead of the hearing.

    Croft offered bomb-making skills and ideology while Fox was the “driving force urging their recruits to take up arms, kidnap the governor and kill those who stood in their way,” the prosecutor said.

    In 2020, Fox, 39, was living in the basement of a Grand Rapids-area vacuum shop, the site of clandestine meetings with members of a paramilitary group and an undercover FBI agent. His lawyer said he was depressed, anxious and smoking marijuana daily.

    Christopher Gibbons said a life sentence would be extreme.

    Fox was regularly exposed to “inflammatory rhetoric” by FBI informants, especially Army veteran Dan Chappel, who “manipulated not only Fox’s sense of ‘patriotism’ but also his need for friendship, acceptance and male approval,” Gibbons said in a court filing.

    He said prosecutors had exaggerated Fox’s capabilities, saying he was poor and lacked the capability to obtain a bomb and carry out the plan.

    Croft, a trucker from Bear, Delaware, will be sentenced Wednesday.

    Two men who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and testified against Fox and Croft received substantial breaks: Ty Garbin already is free after a 2 1/2-year prison term, while Kaleb Franks was given a four-year sentence.

    In state court, three men recently were given lengthy sentences for assisting Fox earlier in the summer of 2020. Five more are awaiting trial in Antrim County, where Whitmer’s vacation home is located.

    When the plot was extinguished, Whitmer, a Democrat, blamed then-President Donald Trump, saying he had given “comfort to those who spread fear and hatred and division.” In August, 19 months after leaving office, Trump said the kidnapping plan was a “fake deal.”

    ———

    Ed White in Detroit contributed to this story. Joey Cappelletti is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-Maldives leader gets 11 years for money laundering, bribe

    Ex-Maldives leader gets 11 years for money laundering, bribe

    [ad_1]

    MALE, Maldives — A court in Maldives on Sunday found the former president guilty of money laundering and accepting a bribe and sentenced him to 11 years in prison.

    The Criminal Court of Maldives also ordered Abdulla Yameen to pay a fine of $5 million.

    The court found Yameen guilty of accepting money for leasing an island owned by the government. He ruled the Indian ocean archipelago nation, known as an exclusive tourist destination, from 2013 to 2018.

    It gave him a seven-year sentence for money laundering and four years for accepting a bribe.

    This was not the first time Yameen was found guilty. In a separate case in 2019, Yameen was found guilty of money laundering and sentenced to five years in prison.

    But two years later, the Supreme Court overturned the verdict, saying that evidence at the initial trial contained discrepancies and did not conclusively prove that Yameen had laundered $1 million in state money for personal gain.

    Yamen lost a reelection bid in 2018 to current President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih.

    During his time of office, he was accused of corruption, muzzling the media and persecuting political opponents.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lake loses suit over her defeat in Arizona governor’s race

    Lake loses suit over her defeat in Arizona governor’s race

    [ad_1]

    PHOENIX — A judge has thrown out Republican Kari Lake’s challenge of her defeat in the Arizona governor’s race to Democrat Katie Hobbs, rejecting her claim that problems with ballot printers at some polling places on Election Day were the result of intentional misconduct.

    In a decision Saturday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson, who was appointed by former Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, found that the court did not find clear and convincing evidence of the widespread misconduct that Lake had alleged had affected the result of the 2022 general election. Lake will appeal the ruling, she said in a statement.

    The judge said Lake’s witnesses didn’t have any personal knowledge of intentional misconduct.

    “The Court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence,” Thompson said.

    Lake, who lost to Hobbs by just over 17,000 votes, was among the most vocal 2022 Republicans promoting former President Donald Trump’s election lies, which she made the centerpiece of her campaign. While most of the other election deniers around the country conceded after losing their races in November, Lake has not. Instead, she asked the judge to either declare her the winner or order a revote in Maricopa County, home to more than 60% of Arizona’s voters.

    In the ruling, the judge acknowledged the “anger and frustration” of voters who were inconvenienced in the election and noted that setting aside the results of an election “has never been done in the history of the United States.”

    “But this Court’s duty is not solely to incline an ear to public outcry,” the judge continued. “It is to subject Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ actions to the light of the courtroom and scrutiny of the law.”

    Lawyers for Lake focused on problems with ballot printers at some polling places in Maricopa County. The defective printers produced ballots that were too light to be read by the on-site tabulators at polling places. Lines backed up in some areas amid the confusion.

    County officials say everyone had a chance to vote and all ballots were counted, since ballots affected by the printers were taken to more sophisticated counters at the elections department headquarters. They are in the process of investigating the root cause of the printer problems.

    Lake’s attorneys also claimed the chain of custody for ballots was broken at an off-site facility, where a contractor scans mail ballots to prepare them for processing. They claimed workers at the facility put their own mail ballots into the pile, rather than sending their ballots through normal channels, and also that paperwork documenting the transfer of ballots was missing. The county disputes the claim.

    Lake faced extremely long odds in her challenge, needing to prove not only that misconduct occurred, but also that it was intended to deny her victory and did in fact result in the wrong woman being declared the winner.

    Her attorneys pointed to a witness who examined ballots on behalf of her campaign and discovered 14 ballots that had 19-inch (48-centimeter) images of the ballot printed on 20-inch paper, meaning the ballots wouldn’t be read by a tabulator. The witness insisted someone changed those printer configurations, a claim disputed by elections officials.

    County officials say the ballot images were slightly smaller as a result of a shrink-to-fit feature being selected on a printer by a tech employee who was looking for solutions to Election Day issues. They say about 1,200 ballots were affected by turning on the feature and that those ballots were duplicated so that they could be read by a tabulator. Ultimately, these ballots were counted, officials said.

    A person who takes public opinion polls testified on behalf of Lake, claiming technical problems at polling places had disenfranchised enough voters that it would have changed the outcome of the race in Lake’s favor. But an expert who was called to testify by election officials said there was no evidence to back up the pollster’s claim that 25,000 to 40,000 people who would normally have voted actually didn’t cast ballots as a result of Election Day problems.

    A witness called on behalf of Lake acknowledged that that people who had their vote rejected by tabulators or ballot-on-demand printers — an occurrence for many voters — could still cast a ballot and have it counted.

    “The BOD printer failures did not actually affect the results of the election,” the judge said.

    Thompson had previously dismissed eight of the 10 claims Lake raised in her lawsuit. Among those was Lake’s allegation that Hobbs, in her capacity as secretary of state, and Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer engaged in censorship by flagging social media posts with election misinformation for possible removal by Twitter. He also dismissed her claims of discrimination against Republicans and that mail-in voting procedures are illegal.

    Hobbs takes office as governor on Jan. 2.

    Earlier on Friday, another judge dismissed Republican Abraham Hamadeh’s challenge of results in his race against Democrat Kris Mayes for Arizona attorney general. The court concluded that Hamadeh, who finished 511 votes behind Mayes and hasn’t conceded the race, didn’t prove the errors in vote counting that he had alleged.

    A court hearing is scheduled Thursday to present results of recounts in the races for attorney general, state superintendent and for a state legislative seat.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tory Lanez Found Guilty of Shooting Megan Thee Stallion

    Tory Lanez Found Guilty of Shooting Megan Thee Stallion

    [ad_1]

    On Friday, a Los Angeles jury found the rapper Tory Lanez guilty of shooting Megan Thee Stallion. Megan accused Lanez of shooting her in the feet in July 2020 following an argument between them that took place in an SUV, and prosecutors brought gun and assault charges against the Canadian rapper. During eight days of testimony, Megan offered an emotional account of the night of the fight and said that Lanez offered her and her former friend and assistant Kelsey Harris, who was also in the car, $1 million not to speak out. Lanez’s attorneys tried to position Harris as the shooter, and Lanez declined to testify. Lanez faces up to 22 years and 8 months in prison after being convicted on all three counts in the case.

    In a statement, Los Angeles district attorney George Gascón pointed to the backlash Megan has received since going public with her accusation. “You showed incredible courage and vulnerability with your testimony despite repeated and grotesque attacks that you did not deserve,” he said. “You faced unjust and despicable scrutiny that no woman should ever face and you have been an inspiration to others across La County and the nation.”

    “The jury got it right,” Megan’s attorney Alex Spiro said. “I am thankful there is justice for Meg.”

    In her testimony last week, Megan largely repeated what she’s said in interviews and on social media about what happened on the night of the shooting. In her telling, an ongoing conflict over the course of an evening–the group had been coming from a pool party at Kylie Jenner’s home–escalated after Lanez said in the car that he had had sexual relationships with both Megan and Harris. She said the argument turned towards the state of the two rappers’ careers. “Tory was basically telling me I wasn’t shit,” she testified, “and I said, ‘Actually, You ain’t shit. This is where you at in your career. This is where you at with your music.’ And I feel like that really rubbed him the wrong way.” Then, according to Megan, she exited the vehicle, and Lanez yelled, “Dance, bitch!” and began shooting at her.

    During his cross-examination of Megan, Lanez’s attorney George Mgdesyan tried to discredit her account by eliciting an admission that she lied in an interview with Gayle King when she said that she hadn’t had a sexual relationship with Lanez. Mgdesyan also asked why Megan had initially said she had stepped on glass, which Megan addressed in her testimony. “This was the height of police brutality and George Floyd, and if I said this man just shot me, I didn’t know if they might shoot first and ask questions later,” she told the jury. “In the Black community, in my community,” she continued, “it’s not really acceptable to be cooperating with police officers.” Megan also testified that as a woman in her industry, “people have a hard time believing you anyway.”

    The defense effort was not enough to sway a jury against Megan’s account of the night. As prosecutor Alexander Bott said during his closing remarks on Wednesday: “If you believe Megan, that’s enough.”

    Mgdesyan said Friday evening that Lanez may file an appeal. “We are shocked by the verdict. There was not sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Peterson,” the attorney said in a statement, Page Six reported. “We believe this case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We will be exploring all options including an appeal.”

    The jury’s decision marked the end of a trial surrounded by online contention and, in some cases, the proliferation of false rumors about the case. On Thursday, just after the jury began deliberating, several prominent hip-hop outlets and bloggers sent out tweets claiming that a verdict had been reached finding Lanez not guilty on two charges, only to retract them after it quickly emerged that the jury was on lunch break. An NBC News report this week explored how a crop of gossip bloggers had shaped the tenor of social media discussion around the trial. “It’s been very clear, as I’ve seen entertainment and gossip spaces commenting on the case, that she has been set up as someone who is out for herself, lying, and problematic in all these ways,” Catherine Knight Steele, a University of Maryland communications professor, told the outlet. “This points to the way that mis- and disinformation, and misogynoir, is trafficked because of its profitability, even in the Black community. It’s profitable for these sites to traffic in the most vile stereotypes about Black women.”

    The dynamic in some ways echoed Megan’s description of the attacks she said she has faced since accusing Lanez. “If I would have known that coming out and speaking my truth would come with people agreeing with me being shot,” she testified last week, “if I would have known, I would have started to lose my confidence.”

    Lanez is scheduled to be sentenced on January 27. He could also be deported following his conviction.

    [ad_2]

    Dan Adler

    Source link

  • Court reinstates guilty verdicts in 1987 killings of couple

    Court reinstates guilty verdicts in 1987 killings of couple

    [ad_1]

    EVERETT, Wash. — The Washington state Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated two aggravated murder convictions for a man in the 1987 killings of a young Canadian couple.

    The high court unanimously rejected the defense’s arguments that William Talbott II should be granted a new trial due to one juror’s alleged bias, concluding that defense attorneys could have dismissed the juror ahead of the trial but opted not to, The Daily Herald reported.

    Detectives arrested Talbott, 59, in 2018 after using the then-novel method of forensic genealogy to connect him to the slayings of Tanya Van Cuylenborg, 18, and Jay Cook, 20. A Snohomish County jury convicted him of the killings in 2019, sentencing him to life in prison, but an appeals court overturned that conviction last year due to one juror’s perceived bias.

    Snohomish County prosecutors then appealed that ruling to the state’s highest court.

    Van Cuylenborg and Cook disappeared in November 1987 after leaving their home near Victoria, British Columbia, for an overnight trip to Seattle. Their bodies were found in separate locations in northwestern Washington about a week later.

    Investigators preserved DNA evidence recovered from Van Cuylenborg’s body and pants. Authorities used genetic genealogy in 2018 to identify the suspect as Talbott, who was 24 at the time of the killings and lived near where Cook’s body was discovered.

    Defense attorneys have never challenged the forensic genealogy. The appeal hinged on the seating of juror No. 40.

    Under questioning in jury selection, the woman expressed doubts about her ability to be impartial. Still, she said she would try to be fair and said she was a “fact-based person.”

    Talbott’s defense attorneys did not use their option to excuse her.

    Chief Justice Steven González noted during September oral arguments that the juror hadn’t made a statement that showed unquestionable bias or a blatant conflict of interest.

    “We reaffirm that if a party allows a juror to be seated and does not exhaust their peremptory challenges, then they cannot appeal on the basis that the juror should have been excused for cause,” Justice Mary Yu wrote in the 9-0 decision.

    Talbott has remained in custody since he was arrested four years ago. If the verdicts had not been reinstated, he would have faced another trial. He has been in custody at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla.

    The case is next expected to return to the state Court of Appeals to address other legal questions raised by the defendant. Talbott’s attorneys also have made arguments about “insufficient evidence,” the “inadequacy of the police investigation” and a series of other alleged missteps at trial, but those were not weighed in the state Court of Appeals’ first ruling.

    Talbott has maintained his innocence.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Feds: Jan. 6 participant arrested after California standoff

    Feds: Jan. 6 participant arrested after California standoff

    [ad_1]

    A participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol has been taken into custody in Southern California after an hours-long standoff

    LOS ANGELES — A participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol was taken into custody Thursday in Southern California after an hours-long standoff, authorities said.

    Eric Christie, 56, was arrested in the Sherman Oaks neighborhood of the San Fernando Valley, according to Laura Eimiller, an FBI spokesperson.

    He initially refused to comply with federal agents’ orders but surrendered without incident after three hours of negotiations, Eimiller said. She would not comment whether he was armed during the standoff.

    Video and photographs from the insurrection, discovered by online sleuths, show Christie at the Capitol last year, wrapped in a rainbow flag with a hammer attached to his belt, court documents state. A video captured Christie yelling “this is our Capitol” into a bullhorn while the crowd rushes into the Capitol as police attempted to keep them back.

    Christie’s arrest came the same day as the House Jan. 6 committee released its final report, concluding an 18-month investigation, asserting that Donald Trump criminally engaged in a “multi-part conspiracy” to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election and failed to act to stop his supporters from attacking the Capitol.

    Christie faces federal charges of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly weapon, as well as disorderly or disruptive conduct in restricted building or grounds with a deadly weapon, according to court documents.

    It was not immediately clear whether he had an attorney who could speak on his behalf. He is scheduled to appear in court Friday afternoon. NBC News first reported Christie’s arrest.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge kept FTX execs’ plea deals secret to get founder to US

    Judge kept FTX execs’ plea deals secret to get founder to US

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A judge kept secret that two of Sam Bankman-Fried’s closest associates had turned against him so the cryptocurrency entrepreneur wouldn’t get spooked and fight extradition from the Bahamas, according to court transcripts made public Friday.

    U.S. prosecutors in New York waited until Bankman-Fried, the founder of the collapsed crypto exchange FTX, was in FBI custody before revealing that his business partners, Carolyn Ellison and Gary Wang, had secretly pleaded guilty to fraud charges and were cooperating in the investigation, which can earn them leniency at sentencing.

    U.S. Attorney Damian Williams announced the guilty pleas when Bankman-Fried was in the air late Wednesday.

    Prosecutors had been concerned that if Bankman-Fried found out his friends were cooperating, he might try to fight extradition from the Bahamas, where he had been arrested at the request of U.S. authorities.

    Ellison, 28, and Wang, 29, entered their guilty pleas in Manhattan federal court Monday to charges that carry a potential penalty of decades in prison.

    At that hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon told the judge prosecutors had expected Bankman-Fried to consent to extradition Monday before there were “some hiccups in the Bahamian courtroom.”

    “We’re still expecting extradition soon, but given that he has not yet entered his consent, we think it could potentially thwart our law enforcement objectives to extradite him if Ms. Ellison’s cooperation were disclosed at this time,” Sassoon told U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams.

    The judge got assurance from Ellison’s lawyer that there was no objection to the request before granting it.

    “Exposure of cooperation could hinder law enforcement officials’ ability to continue the ongoing investigation and, in addition, may affect Mr. Bankman-Fried’s decision to waive extradition in this case,” Abrams said.

    Bankman-Fried, 30, appeared in court in New York on Thursday. He was released on the condition that he live under house arrest with his parents in Palo Alto, California, while awaiting trial.

    The home where he was staying was protected Friday by heightened security, including a Stanford University security guard posted about 50 yards (46 meters) from the home to keep passersby away. The school’s president lives nearby.

    Ellison is the former chief executive of Bankman-Fried’s cryptocurrency hedge fund trading firm, Alameda Research. Wang co-founded FTX, the crypto exchange. Both agreed to testify at Bankman-Fried’s trial.

    They and Bankman-Fried are accused of defrauding customers and investors by illegally diverting massive sums of customer money from FTX to make lavish real estate purchases, donate money to politicians and make risky trades at Alameda.

    In court Monday, Ellison said since FTX and Alameda collapsed in November, she has “worked hard to assist with the recovery of assets for the benefit of customers and to cooperate with the government’s investigation.”

    “I am truly sorry for what I did. I knew that it was wrong. And I want to apologize for my actions to the affected customers of FTX, lenders to Alameda and investors in FTX,” she said, according to a transcript.

    Ellison said she was aware from 2019 through 2022 that Alameda was given access to a borrowing facility at FTX.com that allowed Alameda to maintain negative balances in various currencies.

    She said the practical effect of the arrangement was that Alameda had access to an unlimited line of credit without being required to post collateral and without owing interest on negative balances or being subject to margin calls or liquidation protocols.

    Ellison said she knew that if Alameda’s FTX accounts had significant negative balances in any currency, it meant that Alameda was borrowing funds that FTX’s customers had deposited into the exchange.

    “While I was co-CEO and then CEO, I understood that Alameda had made numerous large illiquid venture investments and had lent money to Mr. Bankman-Fried and other FTX executives,” she said.

    Ellison said she understood that Alameda had financed the investments with short-term and open-term loans worth several billion dollars from external lenders in the cryptocurrency industry.

    When many of those loans were recalled by lenders in June, she agreed with others to borrow several billion dollars from FTX to repay them.

    “I understood that FTX would need to use customer funds to finance its loans to Alameda,” she said. “I also understood that many FTX customers invested in crypto derivatives and that most FTX customers did not expect that FTX would lend out their digital asset holdings and … deposits to Alameda in this fashion.”

    From July to October, Ellison said, she agreed with Bankman-Fried and others to provide misleading financial statements to Alameda’s lenders, including quarterly balance sheets that concealed the extent of the company’s borrowing and the billions of dollars in loans it had made to FTX executives and others.

    “I agreed with Mr. Bankman-Fried and others not to publicly disclose the true nature of the relationship between Alameda and FTX, including Alameda’s credit arrangement,” Ellison said.

    During his plea earlier Monday, Wang said that he made changes to computer code to enable the transactions with Alameda.

    “I knew what I was doing was wrong,” he said.

    ———

    Associated Press Writer Michael Liedtke in Palo Alto contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link