ReportWire

Tag: federal authority

  • Man sentenced for throwing Molotov cocktail at deputies during protest against immigration raids

    [ad_1]

    A man was sentenced four years in federal prison Friday after he admitted to lighting a Molotov cocktail and throwing it at Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies during a protest last year against immigration raids.

    Emiliano Garduño Gálvez, 23, pleaded guilty in October to one count each of possessing an unregistered destructive device and obstructing law enforcement during a civil disorder. Federal authorities said Gálvez is an immigrant from Mexico in the U.S. illegally, having entered more than a decade ago and staying beyond the time permitted in his visa.

    “This defendant’s reckless behavior threatened the lives and safety of law enforcement officers and that of a lawful protester,” Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said in a statement. “My office remains steadfast in its efforts to prosecute and punish those who commit acts of violence against others.”

    The events occurred in June, when Border Patrol agents convened near Home Depot in Paramount, drawing protesters.

    According to the U.S. attorney’s office, the group threw objects like rocks and cinder block chunks at federal and local law enforcement officers, and set off fireworks. Authorities declared the protest an unlawful assembly.

    The U.S. attorney’s office said Gálvez was hiding behind a stone wall when he lit and threw a Molotov cocktail toward sheriff’s deputies, who were engaging in crowd control. The incendiary device landed in a grassy area near a protester’s foot, about 15 feet from sheriff’s deputies. Gálvez then fled the area.

    Federal prosecutors had argued in a sentencing memorandum for Gálvez to serve a longer sentence — more than seven years — because of the seriousness of his offenses. Video recordings appear to show that the flaming wick separated from the bottle after he threw it.

    “Defendant endangered everyone — law enforcement and civilians in the area — and is lucky that, despite his actions, no one was injured,” the prosecutors’ sentencing memo said.

    Gálvez’s federal public defenders asked for a more lenient sentence of three years, saying in a sentencing memo that he was “caught up in a historic social movement and under the influence of Brandy and nitrous oxide,” and now “readily admits and acknowledges how serious his actions were and the harm that could have ensued.”

    [ad_2]

    Alene Tchekmedyian

    Source link

  • ICE ‘wrongfully detained’ L.A. County D.A.’s office employee, Hochman says

    [ad_1]

    A Los Angeles County district attorney’s office employee was “wrongfully detained” by federal immigration agents on Friday, according to an internal e-mail obtained by The Times.

    L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman called the incident “unacceptable” in an office-wide memo sent out on Friday evening.

    “A member of our Office was wrongfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I can thankfully report that, shortly after, our employee was released and is safe,” Hochman wrote. “This incident is unacceptable. Our employee is a dedicated public servant who serves the people of Los Angeles County with professionalism and integrity. This troubling situation caused great distress to our colleague, our co-worker’s family, and our entire Office family.”

    The reason for the person’s detention was not immediately clear. A spokesman for Hochman declined to comment further and referred questions to ICE. Representatives for ICE did not respond to inquiries from The Times. .

    Two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the incident, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to talk candidly, said the employee was not a prosecutor. The employee was also not engaged in protest activity, the officials said.

    In the e-mail, Hochman said he personally reached out to federal authorities on Friday to make them aware of the situation and “urge them to be more respectful of the rights of those who reside in our community and ensure this wrongful conduct does not occur again.”

    In the months since ICE and Border Patrol agents began carrying out President Trump’s sweeping immigration raids in U.S. cities, civil liberties groups have repeatedly sued the Department of Justice alleging agents are making stops based on race rather than reasonable suspicion.

    After ICE and Border Patrol agents spent months raiding car washes and Home Depot parking lots around L.A. County, a federal judge in October found sufficient evidence that agents were violating the 4th Amendment by relying on the race, language and vocation of targeted individuals to form “reasonable suspicion” for arrest.

    The American Civil Liberties Union recently lodged a lawsuit against federal authorities on similar grounds over their behavior during chaotic and tense raids in Minneapolis. The Trump administration has maintained it is conducting tightly targeted operations and only going after the “worst of the worst,” but data show many of those arrested in Los Angeles during the raids had no criminal record.

    [ad_2]

    James Queally

    Source link

  • Four charged with plotting New Year’s Eve attacks in Southern California, prosecutors say

    [ad_1]

    Federal authorities said Monday that they foiled a plot to bomb multiple sites of two U.S. companies on New Year’s Eve in Southern California after arresting members of an extremist anti-capitalist and anti-government group.The four suspects were arrested Friday in the Mojave Desert east of Los Angeles as they were rehearsing their plot, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said during a news conference. Officials showed reporters surveillance aerial footage of the suspects moving a large black object in the desert to a table. Officials said they were able to make the arrests before the suspects assembled a functional explosive device.In the criminal complaint, the four suspects named are Audrey Illeene Carroll, 30; Zachary Aaron Page, 32; Dante Gaffield, 24; and Tina Lai, 41. They are all from the Los Angeles area, Essayli said.Officials did not describe a motive but said they are members of an offshoot of a group dubbed the Turtle Island Liberation Front. The group calls for decolonization, tribal sovereignty and “the working class to rise up and fight back against capitalism,” according to the criminal complaint.The term “Turtle Island” is used by some Indigenous peoples to describe North America in a way that reflects its existence outside of the colonial boundaries put in place by the U.S. and Canada. It comes from Indigenous creation stories where the continent was formed on the back of a giant turtle.Officials also found “Free Palestine” flyers at the desert campsite where the suspects were working with the bomb-making materials.The charges against each suspect include conspiracy and possession of a destructive device. Essayli said additional charges were expected in coming weeks.The four suspects’ attorneys did not immediately return requests for comment, and The Associated Press was unable to reach family members. AP also sent Turtle Island Liberation Front’s social media accounts messages asking for comment but did not get a response.Alleged plot had multiple targetsEssayli said Carroll last month created a detailed plan to bomb five or more business locations across Southern California on New Year’s Eve. He declined to name the companies but described them as “Amazon-type” logistical centers.“Carroll’s bomb plot was explicit,” Essayli said. “It included step-by-step instructions to build IEDs… and listed multiple targets across Orange County and Los Angeles.”The plan included planting backpacks filled with complex pipe bombs that were set to be detonated simultaneously at midnight on New Year’s Eve at five locations, according to officials and the criminal complaint. New Year’s Eve was identified as an opportune time in the plan that stated “fireworks will be going off at this time so explosions will be less likely to be noticed,” according to the investigation.The eight-page handwritten plan titled “OPERATION MIDNIGHT SUN” stated more locations could be added. The locations were identified as property and facilities operated by two separate companies tied to activities affecting interstate and foreign commerce, according to the complaint.Two of the group’s members also had discussed plans for future attacks targeting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and vehicles with pipe bombs in 2026, according to the criminal complaint.Carroll noted “that would take some of them out and scare the rest of them,’” according to the complaint.The plans were discussed both at an in-person meeting with members in Los Angeles and through an encrypted messaging app, Essayli said.‘Bomb-making components’ found at campsitePhotos included in the court documents show a desert campsite with what investigators said were bomb-making materials strewn across plastic folding tables.The suspects “all brought bomb-making components to the campsite, including various sizes of PVC pipes, suspected potassium nitrate, charcoal, charcoal powder, sulfur powder, and material to be used as fuses, among others,” the complaint states.The plan included instructions on how to manufacture the bombs and also how to avoid leaving evidence behind that could be traced back to the group, officials said. The suspects recently had acquired precursor chemicals and other items, including purchases from Amazon, according to the complaint.The FBI moved in last week as they rehearsed the attack in the desert near Twentynine Palms, California, officials said.“They had everything they needed to make an operational bomb at that location,” Essayli said.Authorities issued search warrants and found posters for the Turtle Island Liberation Front at Carroll’s home that called for “Death to America,” and “Death to ICE,” Essayli said. In Page’s residence, police found a copy of the detailed bomb plan, he added.Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said while federal and local officials disagree on the Trump administration’s immigration raids, they come together still to protect residents. The LAPD does not stop people or take action for any reason related to immigration status, and it doesn’t enforce immigration laws, a practice that has been in place for 45 years.“The successful disruption of this plot is a powerful testament to the strength of our unified response,” McDonnell said.The suspects were taken into custody without incident. They were scheduled to appear in court in Los Angeles Monday afternoon.___Watson reported from San Diego. Associated Press journalists Jessica Hill in Las Vegas and Graham Lee Brewer in Norman, Oklahoma, contributed to this report.

    Federal authorities said Monday that they foiled a plot to bomb multiple sites of two U.S. companies on New Year’s Eve in Southern California after arresting members of an extremist anti-capitalist and anti-government group.

    The four suspects were arrested Friday in the Mojave Desert east of Los Angeles as they were rehearsing their plot, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said during a news conference. Officials showed reporters surveillance aerial footage of the suspects moving a large black object in the desert to a table. Officials said they were able to make the arrests before the suspects assembled a functional explosive device.

    In the criminal complaint, the four suspects named are Audrey Illeene Carroll, 30; Zachary Aaron Page, 32; Dante Gaffield, 24; and Tina Lai, 41. They are all from the Los Angeles area, Essayli said.

    Officials did not describe a motive but said they are members of an offshoot of a group dubbed the Turtle Island Liberation Front. The group calls for decolonization, tribal sovereignty and “the working class to rise up and fight back against capitalism,” according to the criminal complaint.

    The term “Turtle Island” is used by some Indigenous peoples to describe North America in a way that reflects its existence outside of the colonial boundaries put in place by the U.S. and Canada. It comes from Indigenous creation stories where the continent was formed on the back of a giant turtle.

    Officials also found “Free Palestine” flyers at the desert campsite where the suspects were working with the bomb-making materials.

    The charges against each suspect include conspiracy and possession of a destructive device. Essayli said additional charges were expected in coming weeks.

    The four suspects’ attorneys did not immediately return requests for comment, and The Associated Press was unable to reach family members. AP also sent Turtle Island Liberation Front’s social media accounts messages asking for comment but did not get a response.

    Alleged plot had multiple targets

    Essayli said Carroll last month created a detailed plan to bomb five or more business locations across Southern California on New Year’s Eve. He declined to name the companies but described them as “Amazon-type” logistical centers.

    “Carroll’s bomb plot was explicit,” Essayli said. “It included step-by-step instructions to build IEDs… and listed multiple targets across Orange County and Los Angeles.”

    The plan included planting backpacks filled with complex pipe bombs that were set to be detonated simultaneously at midnight on New Year’s Eve at five locations, according to officials and the criminal complaint. New Year’s Eve was identified as an opportune time in the plan that stated “fireworks will be going off at this time so explosions will be less likely to be noticed,” according to the investigation.

    The eight-page handwritten plan titled “OPERATION MIDNIGHT SUN” stated more locations could be added. The locations were identified as property and facilities operated by two separate companies tied to activities affecting interstate and foreign commerce, according to the complaint.

    Two of the group’s members also had discussed plans for future attacks targeting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and vehicles with pipe bombs in 2026, according to the criminal complaint.

    Carroll noted “that would take some of them out and scare the rest of them,’” according to the complaint.

    The plans were discussed both at an in-person meeting with members in Los Angeles and through an encrypted messaging app, Essayli said.

    ‘Bomb-making components’ found at campsite

    Photos included in the court documents show a desert campsite with what investigators said were bomb-making materials strewn across plastic folding tables.

    The suspects “all brought bomb-making components to the campsite, including various sizes of PVC pipes, suspected potassium nitrate, charcoal, charcoal powder, sulfur powder, and material to be used as fuses, among others,” the complaint states.

    The plan included instructions on how to manufacture the bombs and also how to avoid leaving evidence behind that could be traced back to the group, officials said. The suspects recently had acquired precursor chemicals and other items, including purchases from Amazon, according to the complaint.

    The FBI moved in last week as they rehearsed the attack in the desert near Twentynine Palms, California, officials said.

    “They had everything they needed to make an operational bomb at that location,” Essayli said.

    Authorities issued search warrants and found posters for the Turtle Island Liberation Front at Carroll’s home that called for “Death to America,” and “Death to ICE,” Essayli said. In Page’s residence, police found a copy of the detailed bomb plan, he added.

    Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said while federal and local officials disagree on the Trump administration’s immigration raids, they come together still to protect residents. The LAPD does not stop people or take action for any reason related to immigration status, and it doesn’t enforce immigration laws, a practice that has been in place for 45 years.

    “The successful disruption of this plot is a powerful testament to the strength of our unified response,” McDonnell said.

    The suspects were taken into custody without incident. They were scheduled to appear in court in Los Angeles Monday afternoon.

    ___

    Watson reported from San Diego. Associated Press journalists Jessica Hill in Las Vegas and Graham Lee Brewer in Norman, Oklahoma, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What federal laws could President Trump use to send troops to US cities?

    [ad_1]

    What federal laws could President Trump use to send troops to US cities?

    Updated: 3:24 PM EDT Aug 26, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    President Donald Trump indicated late last week that Chicago could be the next U.S. city targeted for a federal troop deployment, mirroring similar actions already taken in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.On Monday, Trump doubled down on the potential of sending the U.S. military to Chicago, though he stopped short of making any guarantees.”They need help. We may wait. We may or may not, we may just go in and do it, which is probably what we should do,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the Trump administration has been working on plans for some time to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, possibly as early as September.The Trump administration has cited high levels of crime and lack of immigration enforcement as reasons for deploying federal troops. However, officials from D.C., Los Angeles and Chicago have pushed back against those claims and voiced strong opposition to Trump’s actions.“The guard is not needed,” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson told NBC News. “This is not the role of our military. The brave men and women who signed up to serve our country did not sign up to occupy American cities.”Sending federal troops to Chicago would represent a significant escalation beyond the Trump administration’s earlier deployments in Los Angeles and D.C., pushing the limits of executive authority and inviting greater legal scrutiny. It could also lay the groundwork for Trump to send troops to other U.S. cities.Here’s a closer look at the federal laws at play and the legal arguments the Trump administration may use to uphold its deployment of federal troops to cities like Chicago.Title 10, Section 12406When considering the legal justifications for future troop deployments to cities like Chicago, Baltimore and New York, it’s best to begin with the Trump administration’s past actions.Washington, D.C., was the most recent place targeted, but its unique status as the capital means it’s unlikely to serve as a legal precedent for a nationwide rollout.Los Angeles, on the other hand, may offer a better roadmap.On June 7, Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests over his administration’s immigration policies. Shortly after, the number of Guard troops was increased to 4,100, plus approximately 700 Marines were also sent to the state.In a memo announcing the deployment, Trump invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which states that the president can federalize National Guard units to repel an invasion, suppress a rebellion or enforce federal law.Video below: President Trump considers deploying armed National Guard to cities amid criticismAccording to Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, it was the first time since 1965 that a president activated a state’s National Guard without the governor’s request.California subsequently sued Trump, arguing that the deployment of federal troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military to enforce domestic law.The Trump administration has maintained that federal troops were not engaged in law enforcement, but were instead deployed to protect federal immigration personnel and property.A federal judge initially ruled in favor of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, stating that Trump must relinquish control of the National Guard back to the state. However, a week later, an appeals court overturned the ruling.The lawsuit went back to court earlier this month, but a new ruling has not been made.Looking toward Chicago, Baltimore and New York, Trump could attempt to invoke Section 12406 again, using claims of high crime rates or lack of cooperation with federal officials in immigration enforcement as justification. But, like California, the move would certainly be met with legal action.Insurrection Act of 1807Another route the Trump administration could take is to invoke the rarely used Insurrection Act of 1807.The 19th-century law serves as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, giving the president the power to use the U.S. military to carry out domestic law enforcement duties.Like Section 12406 of Title 10, the Insurrection Act requires certain conditions to be met to justify its use, such as suppressing an insurrection, quelling domestic violence or enforcing civil rights. However, it is widely viewed as a more extreme measure, especially when used without a state’s consent.Additionally, Section 12406 only gives the president control of the National Guard, while the Insurrection Act extends to the entire armed forces. The act also authorizes those forces to engage in domestic law enforcement, including detaining civilians and controlling crowds. Section 12406 does not.According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the Insurrection Act has only been used 30 times in American history. Most recently, it was used in 1992, at the request of California’s governor, to respond to the Los Angeles riots. The last time it was used against the state’s wishes was during the 1950s and 1960s to enforce school desegregation and to protect civil rights marches.Trump has never officially invoked the Insurrection Act, though he has repeatedly threatened to do so. “If there’s an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,” Trump said in June, regarding the situation in Los Angeles. “We’ll see … If we didn’t get involved right now, Los Angeles would be burning.”Some legal experts have questioned whether Trump’s past actions have already crossed the threshold, including his deployment of the Marines to Los Angeles, which isn’t explicitly protected by Section 12406, but does fall under the Insurrection Act’s powers.Ultimately, if Trump does invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to cities like Chicago, Baltimore, or New York, it would almost assuredly be challenged in court.However, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court, in the 1827 case Martin v. Mott, ruled that the president has sole discretion to determine if conditions are met to invoke the Insurrection Act. It’s a judgment that courts have historically been reluctant to contest.

    President Donald Trump indicated late last week that Chicago could be the next U.S. city targeted for a federal troop deployment, mirroring similar actions already taken in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

    On Monday, Trump doubled down on the potential of sending the U.S. military to Chicago, though he stopped short of making any guarantees.

    “They need help. We may wait. We may or may not, we may just go in and do it, which is probably what we should do,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

    The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the Trump administration has been working on plans for some time to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, possibly as early as September.

    The Trump administration has cited high levels of crime and lack of immigration enforcement as reasons for deploying federal troops. However, officials from D.C., Los Angeles and Chicago have pushed back against those claims and voiced strong opposition to Trump’s actions.

    “The guard is not needed,” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson told NBC News. “This is not the role of our military. The brave men and women who signed up to serve our country did not sign up to occupy American cities.”

    Sending federal troops to Chicago would represent a significant escalation beyond the Trump administration’s earlier deployments in Los Angeles and D.C., pushing the limits of executive authority and inviting greater legal scrutiny. It could also lay the groundwork for Trump to send troops to other U.S. cities.

    Here’s a closer look at the federal laws at play and the legal arguments the Trump administration may use to uphold its deployment of federal troops to cities like Chicago.

    Title 10, Section 12406

    When considering the legal justifications for future troop deployments to cities like Chicago, Baltimore and New York, it’s best to begin with the Trump administration’s past actions.

    Washington, D.C., was the most recent place targeted, but its unique status as the capital means it’s unlikely to serve as a legal precedent for a nationwide rollout.

    Los Angeles, on the other hand, may offer a better roadmap.

    On June 7, Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests over his administration’s immigration policies. Shortly after, the number of Guard troops was increased to 4,100, plus approximately 700 Marines were also sent to the state.

    In a memo announcing the deployment, Trump invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which states that the president can federalize National Guard units to repel an invasion, suppress a rebellion or enforce federal law.

    Video below: President Trump considers deploying armed National Guard to cities amid criticism

    According to Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, it was the first time since 1965 that a president activated a state’s National Guard without the governor’s request.

    California subsequently sued Trump, arguing that the deployment of federal troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military to enforce domestic law.

    The Trump administration has maintained that federal troops were not engaged in law enforcement, but were instead deployed to protect federal immigration personnel and property.

    A federal judge initially ruled in favor of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, stating that Trump must relinquish control of the National Guard back to the state. However, a week later, an appeals court overturned the ruling.

    The lawsuit went back to court earlier this month, but a new ruling has not been made.

    Looking toward Chicago, Baltimore and New York, Trump could attempt to invoke Section 12406 again, using claims of high crime rates or lack of cooperation with federal officials in immigration enforcement as justification. But, like California, the move would certainly be met with legal action.

    Insurrection Act of 1807

    Another route the Trump administration could take is to invoke the rarely used Insurrection Act of 1807.

    The 19th-century law serves as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, giving the president the power to use the U.S. military to carry out domestic law enforcement duties.

    Like Section 12406 of Title 10, the Insurrection Act requires certain conditions to be met to justify its use, such as suppressing an insurrection, quelling domestic violence or enforcing civil rights. However, it is widely viewed as a more extreme measure, especially when used without a state’s consent.

    Additionally, Section 12406 only gives the president control of the National Guard, while the Insurrection Act extends to the entire armed forces. The act also authorizes those forces to engage in domestic law enforcement, including detaining civilians and controlling crowds. Section 12406 does not.

    According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the Insurrection Act has only been used 30 times in American history. Most recently, it was used in 1992, at the request of California’s governor, to respond to the Los Angeles riots. The last time it was used against the state’s wishes was during the 1950s and 1960s to enforce school desegregation and to protect civil rights marches.

    Trump has never officially invoked the Insurrection Act, though he has repeatedly threatened to do so.

    “If there’s an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,” Trump said in June, regarding the situation in Los Angeles. “We’ll see … If we didn’t get involved right now, Los Angeles would be burning.”

    Some legal experts have questioned whether Trump’s past actions have already crossed the threshold, including his deployment of the Marines to Los Angeles, which isn’t explicitly protected by Section 12406, but does fall under the Insurrection Act’s powers.

    Ultimately, if Trump does invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to cities like Chicago, Baltimore, or New York, it would almost assuredly be challenged in court.

    However, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court, in the 1827 case Martin v. Mott, ruled that the president has sole discretion to determine if conditions are met to invoke the Insurrection Act. It’s a judgment that courts have historically been reluctant to contest.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Department releases a new list of sanctuary jurisdictions. L.A. County is not on it

    [ad_1]

    The Department of Justice published a new list Tuesday of “sanctuary” jurisdictions that it claims have policies, laws or regulations that obstruct enforcement of federal immigration laws.

    Although the list includes the Trump administration’s typical targets — the city of Los Angeles and the state of California — it is much shorter than a previous list issued by the Department of Homeland Security. And at least one local area that has become a major battleground over immigration is not on it: L.A. County.

    Los Angeles County has not formally declared itself a sanctuary jurisdiction. However, the county that it is home to more than 2 million residents who are undocumented or living with undocumented family members was included on a Homeland Security list of sanctuary jurisdictions published in May. That list was subsequently removed from the department’s website.

    In a news release, the Department of Justice said Tuesday that the new federal list of 35 cities, counties and states — a much lower figure than the hundreds of jurisdictions that appeared on the previous Homeland Security list — is “not exhaustive” and “will be updated as federal authorities gather further information.”

    A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not answer specific questions from The Times about why L.A. County was not on the list.

    “These designations were made after a thorough review of documented laws, ordinances, and executive directives by the listed jurisdictions,” the agency states on its website. “This initial list of designated Sanctuary Jurisdictions will be reviewed regularly, to include additional jurisdictions and remove jurisdictions that have remediated their policies, practices, and laws. Each state, county, and city will have an opportunity to respond to its placement on the list.”

    The new Justice Department list is just the latest effort by the Trump administration to ramp up pressure on cities, counties and states that have policies or laws that restrict collaboration with federal immigration authorities.

    But it also represents a more targeted focus. The previous Homeland Security list, which included most of California’s 58 counties, sparked ridicule for its errors. It even included the conservative city of Huntington Beach, which declared itself a nonsanctuary city a few days after Trump took office and sued the state of California over its sanctuary policies.

    Gov. Gavin’s Newsom office dismissed the new Department of Justice list Tuesday as “another PR stunt by the federal government to scare people.”

    “Like their last failed attempt at this ridiculous and meaningless list, which they were forced to pull down within days because of the backlash, this was created without any input or criteria,” Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor, said Tuesday in a statement. “California is confident in the balance of our law.”

    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass also seemed committed to her city’s sanctuary status.

    “Los Angeles’ law is legally sound and we will always stand with the people of Los Angeles, especially in the face of continued assaults on our city,” Bass told The Times.

    Now that the Department of Justice has winnowed down its inventory of offenders, California is one of 13 states, mostly on the West Coast and in the Northeast, that the Trump administration has identified as having policies or laws that impede federal immigration agents.

    Only four county jurisdictions across the country are included in the Department of Justice list: Baltimore County, Md.; Cook County, Ill.; San Diego County and San Francisco County. Three of the 18 cities on the list — Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Francisco — are in California.

    “Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement Tuesday. “The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”

    In April, Trump signed an executive order, “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” directing the Justice Department to work with Homeland Security to publish a list of jurisdictions that “continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.”

    The Justice Department has since taken legal action against a number of sanctuary jurisdictions — including L.A., where the City Council voted unanimously in November to declare the city a sanctuary jurisdiction and block any city resources from being used for immigration enforcement.

    In June, the Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and the L.A. City Council that described L.A.’s sanctuary law as “illegal.” Officials, the lawsuit said, “refuse to cooperate or share information, even when requested, with federal immigration authorities.”

    “Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level,” Bondi said in a June statement. “It ends under President Trump.”

    Last month, Bondi announced a “major victory” for the Department of Justice: the city of Louisville, Ky., she said, was ditching its sanctuary policies after receiving a letter from her office.

    “This should set an example to other cities,” Bondi said on X. “Instead of forcing us to sue you — which we will, without hesitation — follow the law, get rid of sanctuary policies, and work with us to fix the illegal immigration crisis.

    On Tuesday, the Justice Department said in a news release that “the federal government will assist any jurisdiction that desires to be taken off this list to identify and eliminate their sanctuary policies.”

    L.A. County leaders have at times taken steps to oppose Trump’s aggressive clampdown on immigrants. Last week, for example, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 0 to direct county lawyers to draft an ordinance that prohibits officers, including federal agents, from concealing their identities with masks, except for medical reasons or when working in an undercover operation.

    But county officials have stopped short of declaring the county a sanctuary jurisdiction. And on Tuesday few L.A. County leaders responded publicly to the news that the county was no longer on the federal government’s official list of sanctuary jurisdictions.

    In a statement to The Times after the Justice Department released its list, L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who abstained from last week’s vote on masked law enforcement, said she had “worked hard to advance a thoughtful approach to governance — one that upholds the law while respecting the dignity of all individuals.”

    “I remain committed to leading with transparency, accountability, and a balanced perspective that prioritizes both public safety and community trust,” Barger said.

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie

    Source link

  • Doctor who helped supply Matthew Perry with ketamine pleads guilty

    Doctor who helped supply Matthew Perry with ketamine pleads guilty

    [ad_1]

    One of two doctors charged with supplying ketamine to Matthew Perry pleaded guilty Wednesday to illegally distributing the surgical anesthetic.

    Dr. Mark Chavez is among three defendants who signed a plea deal and are facing lesser charges in Perry’s death, which federal prosecutors chalked up to a conspiracy by multiple individuals to provide the actor with the drug.

    The two other defendants who have entered into plea agreements are Perry’s live-in personal assistant, Kenneth Iwamasa, and alleged drug dealer Erik Fleming.

    Two other defendants are not cooperating with prosecutors and face far more serious conspiracy charges.

    Jasveen Sangha, aka the “Ketamine Queen,” presented herself as “a celebrity drug dealer with high quality goods,” according to court documents. She’s accused of supplying Perry’s assistant with ketamine. Dr. Salvador Plasencia, referred to as “Dr. P,” allegedly injected the actor with the drug at his Pacific Palisades home. Both have pleaded not guilty and are set to be tried in March.

    During a brief appearance in federal court in Los Angeles on Wednesday, Chavez was asked how he pleaded and replied, “Guilty, your honor.” He is due back for sentencing in April and could face up to 10 years in federal prison. As part of his plea, Chavez agreed to surrender his medical license. He is free on $50,000 bond.

    Perry, 54, was found dead in the hot tub of his Pacific Palisades home on Oct. 28. He died from “acute effects of ketamine,” according to the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner’s Office. His death triggered a multiple-agency federal investigation.

    Prosecutors last month revealed charges against what U.S. Atty Martin Estrada dubbed a “broad underground criminal network” that supplied the actor.

    In late September, about a month before Perry’s death, prosecutors allege, Plasencia learned the actor was interested in obtaining ketamine, a legal medication commonly used as an anesthetic, according to charging documents in the case.

    Perry had taken the drug through his regular physician in an off-label treatment for depression. But abusers of the drug use it recreationally, drawn to its dissociative effects.

    After learning of Perry’s interest, Plasencia contacted Chavez, who previously operated a ketamine clinic, to obtain the drug to sell to the actor, authorities said. In text messages to Chavez, Plasencia discussed how much to charge Perry for the ketamine, stating, “I wonder how much this moron will pay” and “Let’s find out,” according to court records. The doctors charged Perry $2,000 for a dose that cost Chavez $12, prosecutors allege.

    Chavez, as part of the plea agreement, admitted to diverting ketamine from his San Diego clinic to sell to Plasencia. Chavez admitted he lied to a drug distributor and submitted a prescription under the name of a former patient without their consent.

    Chavez transferred 22 vials of ketamine and nine ketamine lozenges, which were fraudulently obtained, to Plasencia for sale to Perry. Chavez “was fully aware that selling vials of ketamine to a patient for self-administration was illegal,” according to the plea agreement.

    Plasencia, although forbidden by the Drug Enforcement Administration from prescribing controlled substances, continues to practice medicine but must inform patients about the ongoing criminal case.

    Plasencia is facing one count of conspiracy to distribute ketamine, seven counts of distribution of ketamine and two counts of altering and falsifying documents or records related to the federal investigation. If convicted, he faces 10 years for each ketamine-related charge and 20 years for each falsification charge.

    [ad_2]

    Richard Winton

    Source link

  • Is Shohei Ohtani a theft victim? Is he in trouble? Legal experts say probes underway

    Is Shohei Ohtani a theft victim? Is he in trouble? Legal experts say probes underway

    [ad_1]

    Uncertainty suddenly surrounds one of Major League Baseball’s biggest stars, with Shohei Ohtani mired in recent days in a growing scandal linked to a federal investigation into illegal sports gambling.

    The public so far has only a fragmented picture of the case. But more facts could emerge in coming days and weeks, legal experts said, as federal prosecutors try to make sense of competing claims about Ohtani’s money being used to pay down gambling debts with a suspected illegal bookmaker in California. One key question — but not the only one — is whether the Japanese slugger was, as his representatives claim, the victim of a “massive theft” by his interpreter and right-hand man, Ippei Mizuhara.

    “If there has been a ‘massive theft,’ you would expect Ohtani’s people to cooperate with federal investigators,” said Jeff Ifrah, a former federal prosecutor and sports betting expert who now works as a defense attorney, including for professional athletes. “They will figure out whether or not the interpreter is lying, and whether or not Ohtani is a true victim.”

    Meanwhile, the federal investigation will almost certainly inform a separate, internal inquiry by Major League Baseball into whether — potential crimes aside — there were any violations of league policies around players gambling on sports other than their own, experts said.

    “There has to be an investigation,” said Andrew Brandt, a sports commentator and executive director of the Moorad Center for the Study of Sports Law at Villanova University. “The firing of the interpreter is not going to sweep this under the rug.”

    Neither Ohtani nor Mizuhara has been charged with a crime. No betting on baseball has been alleged.

    Still, the betting scandal has enveloped the MLB and one of its most high-profile — and highest paid — superstars. It has occurred so quickly that it has been difficult for observers, including many Dodgers fans, to keep track of what is being alleged and by whom.

    One moment this week, Ohtani and Mizuhara were chuckling with one another during a game. The next, Ohtani’s representatives were making the theft allegations. Soon after, MLB announced Mizuhara was fired.

    Mizuhara’s story, meanwhile, was rapidly shifting as well, according to reporting by The Times and ESPN. At first, he said Ohtani had learned of his debts and agreed to bail him out by wiring funds to an associate of Mizuhara’s alleged bookmaker, Orange County resident Mathew Bowyer. But soon after that, Mizuhara retracted that version of events, according to ESPN, and said Ohtani had no knowledge of his gambling debts and had not transferred money on his behalf.

    Evidence to support either camp’s version of events has been far slower to materialize.

    Ohtani’s camp has not responded to questions about the alleged nature of the theft, how the payments were made, or what Ohtani knew of Mizuhara’s debts if he didn’t know about the payments themselves. Mizuhara could not be reached for comment.

    An attorney for Bowyer said the alleged bookmaker — who is the target of an existing federal investigation but has not been charged with a crime — never interacted directly with Ohtani. Court records show federal prosecutors in Los Angeles have been conducting an investigation since 2017 into illegal gambling operations.

    The U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. declined to comment on the Ohtani matter.

    Depending on the circumstances, transferring funds to an illegal bookmaker can raise legal questions about aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise, or engaging in wire fraud or money laundering, legal experts said. But such charges against individual gamblers are rare and usually filed to get those gamblers to flip on bookmakers, the experts said.

    That said, stealing millions of dollars from someone, as Ohtani now accuses Mizuhara of doing, is definitely a crime, and not one that federal prosecutors are likely to ignore — especially when the allegations are coming from someone as high-profile as Ohtani, experts said.

    David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor who now has a white-collar criminal defense practice, said there are very clear steps that the parties should be taking in light of the latest allegations by Ohtani — if they haven’t already.

    Ohtani and his attorneys should start compiling whatever evidence they can as to the alleged theft, he said.

    They should proactively reach out to federal authorities, alert them of the alleged theft and that they are compiling records that they may be willing to share, and prepare their own internal analysis of the records. They also should reach out to MLB, say that they are taking the matter seriously and conducting a review, and that they have cut off all contact with Mizuhara.

    In addition to working with federal authorities, Ohtani’s lawyers should also be preserving a record for any potential civil litigation that Ohtani may want to bring against Mizuhara, Weinstein said.

    To the extent Mizuhara disputes the theft allegation, Weinstein said the translator and his attorneys should be compiling their own evidence to rebut the claim, including any communications with Ohtani that would indicate he was aware of the transactions. As any such evidence is found, they should be sharing that with federal authorities.

    “At this point, it’s every person for themselves,” Weinstein said.

    Meanwhile, federal prosecutors already investigating Bowyer will probably begin looking through whatever records they already have for anything related to Ohtani or Mizuhara, Weinstein said. They may also reach out directly to Ohtani and ask for an interview and any evidence he has of the alleged theft.

    “The authorities are going to look and say, ‘OK, let me see the bank account and show me where the theft is. Did you authorize these transactions?’” Weinstein said.

    At some point, prosecutors will also reach out to Mizuhara to ask for an interview with him, Weinstein said. If they believe there is a potential case to be made, they could also start subpoenaing bank records, he said.

    Ifrah said high-paid athletes often have staff who handle their business and financial interests, and sometimes do fall victim to betrayal by those people.

    “We get a lot of calls about professional athletes being in some kind of financial mess because someone close to them accesses their accounts or uses some sort of authority to access their financial assets,” Ifrah said.

    Because of that, the first question he would be asking if he were a prosecutor on the case, he said, is what kind of access Mizuhara had to Ohtani’s bank accounts. Ifrah said it would be hard to imagine Mizuhara siphoning millions from Ohtani in cash — which is what most illegal bookmakers deal in, if not crypto payments — without Ohtani or his financial managers knowing or agreeing to it.

    “You start to wonder, how was that a ‘massive theft’?” Ifrah said. “How did someone go and get cash from a bank account or liquidate one of your financial assets to get cash without you knowing?”

    Daniel Wallach, a sports betting and gambling attorney in Florida, agreed that any disappearance of millions of dollars should have set off alarms for the people who manage Ohtani’s assets and should have been addressed long before the media started asking questions.

    “The biggest red flag of all is that this pronouncement that there has been this ‘massive theft’ only occurred in response to the media poking around — like it was Crisis Management 101 to shift the attention away from Ohtani,” he said.

    Wallach said there are so many unanswered questions and contradictory explanations from Ohtani and Mizuhara at this point that, in addition to the federal investigation, MLB has no choice but to launch its own review — in part to make a decision as to whether Ohtani deserves to be benched.

    “This requires a full-on investigation because there’s so many inconsistencies and already deeply troubling facts,” he said. “MLB needs to get as much information about this as possible early on to make at least a preliminary assessment as to whether Ohtani should be placed on leave until the conclusion of an investigation.”

    Punishments for players are at the discretion of the MLB commissioner, and while suspending or fining Ohtani may be unpopular, Wallach said, “the league’s going to have a major reputational problem on its hands if there isn’t a deeper probe into the underlying events.”

    Cathy Fleming, a former federal prosecutor in New Jersey, has represented clients — namely family members of players — who have come under internal investigation by the MLB.

    She said the league has a “pretty good internal investigation unit” with smart lawyers who deal with players with respect but aren’t pushovers — and who will undoubtedly be training their eye on Ohtani soon, if they haven’t already.

    “He’s not only going to be dealing with whatever happens” in the federal case, she said, “but I’m sure MLB is going to be looking at it with a microscope.”

    Times staff writers Bill Shaikin, Nathan Fenno and Paul Pringle contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link