ReportWire

Tag: d.a.

  • Trump’s DOJ hires voting rights lawyer behind L.A. case cited by conspiracy theorists

    [ad_1]

    Eric Neff’s tenure at the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office ended after he was placed on administrative leave in 2022 over accusations of misconduct in the prosecution of the CEO of Konnech, a software company that election conspiracy theorists said was in the thrall of the Chinese government.

    Now, three years later, Neff is serving as one of the Trump administration’s top election watchdogs.

    Late last year , his name began appearing on lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, listed as “acting chief” of the voting section.

    Neff’s appointment, first reported by Mother Jones, has prompted renewed scrutiny of his work at the L.A. County district attorney’s office.

    The Times interviewed several of Neff’s former colleagues, who revealed new details about claims of misconduct that emerged from the Konnech case, and said they were alarmed that someone with almost no background in federal election law was named to a senior position.

    Neff led the 2022 investigation of Konnech, a tiny Michigan company whose software is used by election officials in several major cities. In a criminal complaint, Neff accused the company’s CEO, Eugene Yu, of fraud and embezzlement, alleging the company stored poll worker information on a server based in China, a violation of its contract with the L.A. County registrar’s office.

    Six weeks after a complaint was filed, prosecutors dropped the case and launched an investigation into “irregularities” and bias in the way evidence was presented against Konnech, the D.A.’s office said in a 2022 statement.

    The county paid Konnech $5 million and joined a motion to find Yu factually innocent as part of a legal settlement.

    The internal probe was focused on accusations that Neff misled supervisors at the district attorney’s office about the role of election deniers in his investigation, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the case who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

    Neff also allegedly withheld information about potential biases in the case from a grand jury, according to the two officials.

    In a civil lawsuit filed last year, Neff said the internal review by the D.A.’s office cleared him of wrongdoing. The two officials familiar with the probe who spoke on the condition of anonymity disputed Neff’s characterization of the findings.

    A spokesman for Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman declined to comment or provide the results of the investigation into Neff, which the officials said was conducted by an outside law firm that generated a report on the case. Neff’s attorney also did not provide a copy of the report.

    A Department of Justice spokesman declined to comment.

    Neff’s attorney, Tom Yu — no relation to the Konnech CEO — said his client had no obligation to provide background information about the origins of the case to the grand jury.

    Neff’s appointment comes as President Trump continues to remake the DOJ in his own image by appointing political loyalists with no criminal law background as U.S. attorneys in New Jersey and Virginia and seeking prosecutions of his political enemies, such as former FBI Director James Comey.

    Trump has never recanted his false claim that he won the 2020 election.

    When then-L.A. County Dist. Atty. George Gascón announced the charges against Konnech in 2020, Trump said the progressive prosecutor would become a “National hero on the Right if he got to the bottom of this aspect of the Voting Fraud.”

    The Konnech case was centered on contract fraud, not voter fraud or ballot rigging. Six weeks after the charges were filed, the case disintegrated.

    The D.A.’s office cited Neff’s over-reliance on evidence provided by True the Vote, the group that pushed the unfounded Chinese government conspiracies about Konnech and also appeared in a film that spread claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

    Gascón initially denied that True the Vote was involved in the case, but weeks later, a D.A.’s office spokesman said a report from the group’s co-founder, Gregg Phillips, sparked the prosecution. Phillips testified in court in July 2022 that it was Neff who first contacted him about Konnech.

    The two officials who spoke to The Times said that Neff withheld True the Vote’s role from high-level D.A.’s office staff, including Gascón, when presenting the case.

    Gascón declined an interview request, noting he is named in Neff’s pending lawsuit, which is slated for trial in early 2026.

    Neff’s attorney insisted the case against Konnech was solid.

    “He was let go because Trump tweeted a statement of ‘Go George Go’,” the attorney said. “That’s why Eugene Yu was let go. Because Gascón was so scared he was going to lose votes.”

    Calls and emails to an attorney who previously represented Eugene Yu were not returned.

    In his lawsuit, Neff claimed he had evidence that “Konnech used third-party contractors based in China and failed to abide by security procedures” to protect L.A. County poll worker data. The evidence was not attached as an exhibit in the lawsuit.

    A DOJ spokesperson declined to describe Neff’s job duties. His name appears on a number of lawsuits filed in recent months against states that have refused to turn over voter registration lists to the Trump administration.

    Neff is also involved in a suit filed against the Fulton County clerk’s office in Georgia seeking records related to the 2020 election, records show.

    “We will not permit states to jeopardize the integrity and effectiveness of elections by refusing to abide by our federal elections laws,” Asst. Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, the California conservative who now leads the civil rights division, said in a recent statement. “If states will not fulfill their duty to protect the integrity of the ballot, we will.”

    Dhillon declined to comment through a DOJ spokesman.

    The voting section “enforces the civil provisions of the federal laws that protect the right to vote, including the Voting Rights Act,” according to the DOJ’s website.

    It does not appear that Neff has any background working on cases related to federal election law. He first became an L.A. County prosecutor in 2013 and spent years handling local crime cases out of the Pomona courthouse. He was promoted and reassigned to the Public Integrity Division, which investigates corruption issues, in 2020, according to his lawsuit.

    While there, he handled only two prosecutions related to elections. One was the Konnech case. The other involved allegations of election rigging against a Compton city council member.

    In August 2021, Isaac Galvan, a Democrat, was charged with conspiring to commit election fraud after he allegedly worked to direct voters from outside his council district to cast ballots for him. Galvan won the race by just one vote, but was booted from office when a judge determined at least four improper ballots had been cast.

    Galvan’s criminal case is still pending; he recently pleaded guilty to charges in a separate corruption and bribery case in federal court. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles said there was no overlap between the D.A.’s election rigging case and the bribery case against Galvan. Federal prosecutors are not reviewing the Konnech case, the spokesman said.

    Court filings show Neff was involved in Galvan’s L.A. County case, but the prosecution was led by a more senior attorney.

    Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School who served in the civil rights division during the Obama administration, said section chiefs normally have decades of experience in the area of law they’re meant to supervise.

    “The biggest problem with somebody with Neff’s history is the giant screaming red flag that involves filing a prosecution based on unreliable evidence,” Levitt said. “That’s not something any prosecutor should do.”

    Neff’s attorney, Yu, scoffed at the idea that his client was not experienced enough for his new role in the Trump administration, or that he was selected due to his involvement in the Konnech case.

    “Eric got the job because he’s qualified to get the job. He didn’t get the job for any other reason. He got the job because he’s an excellent advocate,” Yu said. “I think the Justice Department is very fortunate to have Eric.”

    Times Staff Writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    James Queally

    Source link

  • Kevin Hart accused of fabricating evidence in $12-million lawsuit by former friend

    Kevin Hart accused of fabricating evidence in $12-million lawsuit by former friend

    [ad_1]

    A former friend of Kevin Hart has accused Hart in a lawsuit of submitting fabricated evidence to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office stemming from his 2017 sex tape scandal, and alleging that investigators accepted the evidence and acted upon it without proper vetting.

    In an amended complaint filed Aug. 6 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Jonathan “J.T.” Jackson — who sued the “Get Hard” star in July for breach of written contract — further alleged that Hart and the D.A.’s office contributed to false extortion accusations against him that hurt his reputation.

    Representatives for Hart did not immediately respond to The Times’ requests for comment.

    Jonathan “J.T.” Jackson, left — a Navy veteran, professional bowler and actor — has updated his lawsuit against comedian Kevin Hart.

    (Arnold Turner/ Chris Pizzello / Associated Press)

    Jackson — a Navy veteran, professional bowler and actor — sued Hart for allegedly botching a settlement agreement meant to clear Jackson’s name relating to the fallout from Hart’s 2017 scandal. He accused Hart of not using the “meticulously negotiated” and agreed-upon wording from their 2021 settlement when Hart addressed the scandal in an Instagram post that same year, resulting in July’s $12-million breach of written contract lawsuit that Jackson updated last week.

    Jackson’s amended complaint includes a transcript of a 2017 interview of Hart by D.A.’s investigator Robin Letourneau said to confirm “multiple key points” that refute the claims made against Jackson and show that Hart allegedly instigated criminal extortion charges that led to Jackson’s arrest.

    The amended complaint said that Hart and his legal team “fabricated evidence and provided misleading statements that contributed and led to [Jackson’s] wrongful implication and arrest.” According to the original complaint, the alleged evidence was an April 2018 email addressed to Hart by someone identified as Juan Carlos Yépez, who demanded 20 bitcoins to prevent the tape’s release (after the tape had been released eight months earlier). The email, a copy of which is included in the complaint, also included accusations of molestation and attempted rape.

    Jackson, 47, was the target of a January 2018 raid at his home in which he and his wife were held at gunpoint by investigators with the district attorney’s office. Investigators were looking into allegations of extortion in the raid, which Jackson believes Hart’s allegations instigated. Jackson was arrested a few months later, and the complaint said a voice recording made during his arrest captured Letourneau “specifically stating that Plaintiff was responsible for the extortion email that Hart allegedly received on April 27, 2018.”

    Jackson claimed in his lawsuit that the extortion report hinged on the email, and he argued that it had not been properly authenticated, although Hart claimed to have forwarded it to his legal team, which then forwarded it to the D.A. But the email lacked forwarding headers and other digital markers, leading Jackson to believe that it was potentially fabricated, according to the lawsuit. However, Jackson alleged, investigators were expected to further scrutinize and verify the digital evidence but allegedly did not and the email was still used to prosecute him.

    “The District Attorney’s blanket reliance on Hart’s authentication, despite clear discrepancies, raises significant doubts about the validity of the evidence and the thoroughness of its verification,” the lawsuit said.

    A spokesperson for the district attorney’s office said Friday that the office did not comment on pending litigation.

    Jackson, who also goes by “Action Jackson,” was charged in May 2018 with attempting to extort money from Hart after claiming to have a secret video of the comedian engaging in extramarital sex in Las Vegas in August 2017. The charges were eventually dropped by prosecutors (whom Jackson also sued in December), but Jackson claimed that his “reputation was unjustly tarnished due to a series of malicious actions by the defendants,” including when Hart released the 2019 Netflix docuseries “Don’t F— This Up.” In the series, Hart mentioned extortion and alleged that Jackson had been involved in the creation and dissemination of the sex tape. Jackson was later cleared of all charges brought against him by the D.A. A $60-million lawsuit filed by Montia Sabbag, the model who appeared with Hart in the sex tape, was dismissed in 2020.

    Hart told Letourneau that no one else was in his private bedroom within his suite on the night of the sex tape recording except Sabbag and another female friend, identified as Morgan in the lawsuit.

    “Hart emphasizes that no one else had access to his room,” the amended complaint said. “Hart states he was discombobulated and not in control of his actions but implies that Sabbag was aware of the camera’s placement. Hart suggests Sabbag knew where to position herself and Hart to be recorded.”

    In the Sept. 18, 2017, interview transcript, the “Jumanji” and “Die Hart” star also admitted to taking the hallucinogenic drug Molly, claiming that a friend, whose identity he did not reveal, pressured him to do the drug.

    “F— it, I said, and I put it in my drink,” Hart said in the D.A. interview, which is included in the complaint. “I had some water there. It was watered down. Because it’s in my drink, I’m fine. I’m fine with drinking. The night is good. As the night goes, I’m now with the girl Montia at the end of the night.”

    Hart said that he did not have sex with Sabbag that night, but had sex with her the next morning when he “woke up to sexual activity.” That’s when he realized she was trying to get closer to the hidden camera that recorded the sex tape, although he noted that he never felt Sabbag leave the bed.

    Hart also mentioned that his friends, including Jackson, were downstairs in his suite for about only 10 minutes and that his private bedroom was upstairs. That claim contradicts “any implication that [Jackson] had an opportunity to place or manipulate the camera.” Hart also noted that Sabbag and Morgan were the only people who could have taken pictures or been involved in the recording or have access to Hart’s private bedroom upstairs in the suite, “strengthening the claim that Plaintiff was not involved,” the complaint said.

    “I am a calculated guy. And I know how to maneuver. There’s no way, there’s no way that I can [be] videotaped sleeping in bed with somebody else in the room with me not having knowledge of a person in the room,” Hart said in interview, adding that he “100%” believes that it was all “calculated” by Sabbag during the time he was sleeping in bed by himself.

    Hart also explained how he later learned about the sex tape being “shopped” around to celebrity media outlets, indicating a focus on selling the tape rather than extortion, the complaint said.

    Hart stated that he was “informed” about the video by a person from Media Take Out, not directly by the purported seller, “highlighting that he was not directly contacted or threatened or extorted,” according to the lawsuit. He was told that the tape would not “come cheap” and that it could ruin his career, “framing it as a sales pitch and business deal rather than a direct threat … supporting that it was a negotiation to sell the video, not extortion.”

    The complaint said that Hart’s representatives engaged in this alleged negotiation and that the seller of the sex tape had no idea that he or she was negotiating with Hart’s representatives. The actor-comedian, a seller identified in the documents as a “Hollywood Sex Tape Broker” named Kevin Blatt and Fred Mwangaguhunga from Media Take Out negotiated a price for the recording, “reinforcing the transactional nature of the interaction,” the complaint alleged.

    In a Friday statement to The Times, Mwangaguhunga,, said that neither he nor Media Take Out “has ever engaged in any negotiation for a sex tape.”

    “That is illegal. We were approached by a person looking to sell a purported video of Kevin Hart, and we immediately notified his representatives. Weeks later, law enforcement asked us for a copy of the email solicitation and we provided it,” Mwangaguhungasaid. “To be clear, it is not true that I, or any representative of Media Take Out, solicited or entered into any business agreement over an illegal video. It is also not true that either I, or anyone at Media Take Out, have ever acted as a representative for Kevin Hart in any negotiation.”

    Blatt told The Times on Friday that he was contacted to buy the tape but was never told who the seller was.

    Letourneau confirmed under oath at a Sept. 23, 2019, preliminary hearing that the interaction between all parties “was seen as a business deal and not extortion,” Jackson’s amended complaint said. “This detailed evidence collectively shows that Hart was involved in a negotiation over the sale of the video, not extorted, which is extremely crucial for understanding the legal and public perception of the incident.”

    After that fated Las Vegas trip, Hart met with Sabbag in Los Angeles, which further contradicts Hart’s “claims and narrative of being a victim of any crime committed,” the complaint said.

    “Additionally, officials named in [the complaint], including members of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, contributed to the false accusations against [Jackson] by accepting and acting upon the fabricated evidence without proper investigation and verification. The media then sensationalized these false accusations against [Jackson], further damaging his reputation,” the amended complaint said.

    “[Jackson] was wrongfully accused of extorting Hart using the sex tape, leading to significant social and professional fallout. This forced [Jackson] to navigate the legal system and endure hostile public opinion.”

    Jackson’s lawsuit initially accused Hart and his co-defendants — Hartbeat LLC and several individuals identified as John or Jane Doe — only of breach of written contract, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the amended complaint updated the allegations to include fraud in the inducement, malicious prosecution and defamation. Jackson claimed that the fabricated evidence and fraudulent actions induced him to enter into the contract with Hart, one he argued “was seemingly designed to mitigate the fallout from the fabricated accusations” against him.

    In addition to $12 million, Jackson is seeking punitive damages to be determined at trial, legal costs and fees and injunctions requiring the defendants to exonerate him, as well as the removal of “all the false statements” about him in Hart’s 2019 Netflix docuseries.

    [ad_2]

    Nardine Saad

    Source link

  • ‘Kind of bunk’: A closer look at the controversial case against a top L.A. D.A. official

    ‘Kind of bunk’: A closer look at the controversial case against a top L.A. D.A. official

    [ad_1]

    One legal expert called it “kind of bunk.” Another said it simply raises more questions than it answers.

    But two months after state prosecutors announced 11 felony charges against a top advisor to Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón, a newly unsealed court record offers a window into the controversial case.

    The basis for the allegations against Gascón advisor Diana Teran had remained opaque since California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced them in April.

    State prosecutors have said only that Teran improperly accessed confidential police records while working as the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department’s constitutional policing advisor in 2018, then improperly used data from those records when she joined the district attorney’s office three years later.

    It’s been unclear whose files she’d allegedly used or how, but after weeks of legal wrangling, an attorney for the Los Angeles Public Press convinced a judge to unseal the affidavit used to justify the arrest warrant.

    The 15-page document, unsealed late Tuesday, shows the core allegations are focused on Teran’s efforts to include more deputies’ names in district attorney’s databases used to track problem officers, much as her attorney had previously speculated.

    But the document also shows that records of disciplinary against at least two of the 11 deputies were already public when she flagged them for inclusion. This week, The Times found the records were easily located through a Google search.

    The identities of the nine other deputies were still redacted in the public version of the affidavit — though Teran’s lawyer said he was “99% confident” their records were already public as well.

    “I can’t believe a case would be filed on this type of evidence,” James Spertus told The Times. “I understated before how bad this case was.”

    On Wednesday, several legal experts who reviewed the affidavit raised questions about the case.

    “It strikes me as we’ve lost the forest for the trees from a broader criminal justice point of view,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a San Francisco attorney with a background in computer crimes. “It’s not like she’s putting people on the database who shouldn’t be there.”

    In an emailed statement, Bonta’s office declined to comment, citing the need to “protect the integrity” of a pending case.

    One law enforcement source familiar with the matter — who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record — said the state is considering dropping two of the charges against Teran, and late Wednesday, Spertus confirmed that was his expectation as well.

    With months to go before the general election — in which Gascón is facing a serious challenger — some have taken the Teran prosecution as a political betrayal, because Bonta endorsed Gascón four years ago. But it’s unclear what, if any, impact the controversy will have on the race.

    The district attorney’s office and the Sheriff’s Department did not immediately offer comment.

    The 15-page affidavit signed by Special Agent Tony Baca of the state Department of Justice traces the investigation into Teran back to a traffic stop involving a different district attorney’s official three years ago.

    The affidavit doesn’t identify that official, but the details line up with the December 2021 arrest of Gascón’s chief of staff, Joseph Iniguez.

    As The Times previously reported, Azusa police pulled over Iniguez’s fiance after he allegedly made an illegal U-turn into a McDonald’s drive-through. Police said Iniguez tried to interfere with the stop, and arrested him on suspicion of public intoxication.

    The police union later alleged that Iniguez threatened to have the arresting officer’s name added to the district attorney’s so-called Brady List, which contains officers with problematic disciplinary histories. The name is a reference to a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that requires prosecutors to turn over any evidence favorable to a defendant — including evidence of police misconduct.

    Given the potential conflict of interest, the case against Iniguez was turned over to the California Department of Justice. But state prosecutors never pursued charges, and Iniguez eventually sued the Azusa Police Department in a case that was settled last year.

    According to Baca’s affidavit, the state’s investigation somehow led officials to Teran, who had responsibility for the district attorney’s Brady database. The Department of Justice has not offered further explanation.

    Spertus said previously he believed the investigation into his client was sparked by a complaint from former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who said in 2019 he alerted the FBI and the state Department of Justice about a “massive data breach” involving Teran. At the time, neither agency agreed to take on the case.

    When Teran worked at the Sheriff’s Department under Villanueva’s predecessor, part of her usual duties included accessing confidential deputy records and internal affairs investigations. According to Baca’s affidavit, the department’s secret tracking software logged all of her searches starting in 2018.

    When she joined the district attorney’s office in 2021, Teran allegedly began suggesting the names of deputies who should be added to the Brady list — a practice two prosecutors told Baca was not usual. Then in April 2021, the affidavit says, Teran sent a list of 33 names to another prosecutor for possible inclusion in the databases.

    The affidavit says that several of those names were deputies whose files she’d accessed while working at the Sheriff’s Department, and that she “would not have identified so many of these deputy sheriffs” otherwise. The affidavit also alleges that some of the documents Teran sent along with the names appeared to have been “scanned, copied, or taken directly from the LASD data files.”

    The 11 charges, Baca wrote, reflected the 11 of those 33 deputies whose names did “not appear in either public records request responses or media articles.”

    Susan Seager, the attorney who fought for the record’s release, questioned that reasoning.

    “This is a ridiculously narrow and inaccurate way of determining whether their disciplinary files are confidential,” she wrote in an emailed statement.

    Seager went on to call it “stunning” that Bonta would describe the 11 deputies’ records as confidential, pointing out that two names — Liza Gonzalez and Thomas Negron — were not redacted in the released affidavit.

    “Bonta’s office doesn’t explain why it unsealed those two names,” Seager wrote, “but perhaps that’s because there are two California court of appeal decisions dated 2014 and 2015 that discuss in great detail the disciplinary files of deputies Gonzalez and Negron and how they were fired for dishonesty in in 2010 and 2011, respectively.”

    Other legal experts who reviewed the affidavit were similarly critical.

    “I think it raises more questions than it answers — partly because there are still redactions,” said police oversight expert Michael Gennaco, adding it was “interesting” that the investigator who authored the affidavit didn’t appear to have done a case of this nature before.

    Cristine Soto DeBerry, executive director of the Prosecutors Alliance, panned the “absurdity” of the case.

    “A prosecutor earnestly trying to do her job and track important information should be applauded not punished,” she said in an emailed statement.

    Fakhoury, the attorney with a background in computer crimes, pointed out that state prosecutors don’t appear to be claiming that any of the information Teran flagged for inclusion in the Brady database was incorrect or didn’t belong there.

    “It also appears to me that there’s no allegation that she didn’t have computer access to the records at least when she was employed by the Sheriff’s Department,” he said. “So the unauthorized access is that she took the information she was allowed to have and used it after she left the Sheriff’s Department.”

    Fakhoury said federal prosecutors have tried to argue the theory that “unauthorized access” would include cases akin to Teran’s, in which someone accessed data for a permitted purpose and later used it for a different purpose. But the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected that theory, he said, and California’s Supreme Court has not weighed in on how broadly the state statute should be interpreted.

    “It’s an odd case,” he said. “I think it’s kind of bunk, frankly.”

    Legally, he said, it might not matter whether the records were already public —though that could raise larger questions about the decision to prosecute Teran.

    He wondered whether it might have a “chilling effect” on other prosecutors focused on police accountability: “Is this what we really want this kind of statute and this kind of investigation to go after?”

    Times staff writers James Queally and Richard Winton contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Keri Blakinger

    Source link

  • D.A. George Gascón faces 9 challengers in one of the largest primary fields in L.A. history

    D.A. George Gascón faces 9 challengers in one of the largest primary fields in L.A. history

    [ad_1]

    When Jackie Lacey sought a second term as Los Angeles’ top prosecutor in 2016, she wound up running unopposed.

    The man who ousted her from office, George Gascón, has a much steeper hill to climb to win reelection next year.

    During his first term in office, Gascón has frequently been at odds with his own prosecutors and law enforcement, who say his policies aimed at reducing mass incarceration and racially disparate outcomes in the criminal justice system have led to spikes in violence. Data show the violent crime rate is trending down, but some experts have cautioned against making connections between short-term shifts in the crime rate and a prosecutor’s policies.

    Gascón’s positions have motivated one of the largest primary fields in the history of the office, with a mix of former federal prosecutors, county judges and deputy district attorneys taking a run at the self-described “godfather of progressive prosecutors” in 2024.

    District attorney’s elections have become more competitive across the nation in recent years as reform-minded progressives challenge more traditional prosecutors. Gascón’s 2020 tilt with Lacey saw millions raised in a nationally watched race that drew endorsements from presidential candidates.

    Gascón, who announced his own reelection campaign and claimed the endorsement of L.A.’s powerful Federation of Labor last week, still figures to be well-funded and has largely retained the support of the burgeoning L.A. progressive bloc that vaulted him into office in 2020.

    But in a sign of the divide in the race, Gascón declined to attend the first debate last week. Hosted by police unions that spent millions against the progressive candidate in 2020, contenders at the forum spent two hours making the case that Gascón is unfit for office and needs to be replaced.

    Here are the contenders vying for Gascón’s office next March, listed in the order they announced their candidacy:

    [ad_2]

    James Queally

    Source link