ReportWire

Tag: federal grand jury

  • 8 workers found in Canton indicted by federal grand jury on immigration charges

    AKRON ‒ A federal grand jury has charged eight people who were found at a Canton manufacturing facility on Aug. 6 with immigration and identity theft-related violations.

    According to court documents, four of the defendants were previously removed from the U.S. but were found in Ohio without the consent of the U.S. attorney general or the secretary for homeland security for readmission.

    Seven of the defendants are from Guatemala and a one is from El Salvador, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio. They range in age from 21 to 55.

    The manufacturing facility where they were found was not identified in the release. The local communities where they were living also were not included.

    The charges are illegal reentry of removed alien, false claim to U.S. citizenship to engage unlawfully in employment, misuse of Social Security number, aggravated identity theft and unlawful use of identification documents.

    Canton: Mayor William Sherer II says city will not support nor hinder ICE deportations

    The investigations leading to the indictments were conducted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    “These cases are part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, and protect communities from the perpetrators of violent crime,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in a press release on Sept. 2.

    (This breaking news story will be updated as more infomation is available.)

    This article originally appeared on The Repository: Grand jury indicts 8 Canton workers on immigration violations

    Source link

  • 2 Navy supervisors indicted in alleged Red Hill spill cover-up

    Two civilian U.S. Navy super ­visors were indicted by a federal grand jury Thursday for allegedly conspiring to cover up the size and severity of the May 6, 2021, that contaminated water for 93, 000 people and prompted a class-­action lawsuit.

    John Floyd, 63, of Mililani, who worked as Fuels Department deputy director for the Navy, and Nelson Wu, 38, of Waipahu who was Fuels Department supervisory engineer, were indicted by a federal grand jury Thursday.

    Wu reported directly to Floyd. The pair allegedly redacted data sets, control room logs, tank inventory reports, tank level logs and transfer records.

    A federal into the May 6, 2021, spill, and another 20, 000-gallon jet fuel spill on Nov. 20, 2021, have been on ­going since at least 2022.

    Civilian and U.S. Department of Defense officials in charge of Red Hill operations during the fuel leaks have been testifying before the panel.

    Floyd and Wu are charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S. and causing another person to make a materially false statement or a material omission in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the federal government, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office.

    The pair are summoned for an arraignment on Friday at 10 :30 a.m. before Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Mansfield and are not in federal custody.

    In October 2021, that the May 6, 2021, spill was due to a control room operator’s failure to follow correct procedures and not due to age of infrastructure, corrosion or the equipment condition.

    Between May 6, 2021, and Oct. 1, 2021, Floyd and Wu worked in their roles for the Navy Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Pearl Harbor, which included the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility.

    After 20, 000 gallons of jet fuel spilled on May 6, 2021, following the failing of two pipeline couplings, the state Department of Health issued a formal request for answers as part of its authorized role as a regulator of the facility.

    On Oct. 1, 2021, the Navy responded to the state’s request for information and “Floyd and Wu participated in drafting the response to the RFI (request for information ) for review by Navy officers and transmission to the (state ).”

    The Fuels Department was the main source of information for the response.

    “When questioned about the accuracy of the May 6, 2021, spill volume data by multiple Navy officers involved in approving the response to the RFI, Floyd and Wu reiterated that only an estimated 1, 618 gallons had spilled into the tunnel and that the remainder of the jet fuel put into the JP-5 pipeline during the attempted transfer from Tank 12 had remained in the pipeline, ” according to the indictment.

    Floyd and Wu intended the Navy to report to the state Department of Health a fuel release quantity for the May 6, 2021, jet fuel spill that “severely underreported the actual figure ” by supplying the Navy officers responsible for issuing a response to the state with a draft response that “contained materially inaccurate information and omitted information and records material to the questions and demands.” They also reassured “the Navy officers that their fuel release and capture quantities were accurate ” when questioned by the Navy officers, according to the indictment.

    The Red Hill facility was built in the cavities of a mountain above an aquifer to conceal it from enemy attacks, according to the Navy and federal prosecutors. Construction occurred between 1940 to 1943 and included 20 steel-lined storage tanks.

    Each of the cylindrical tanks was 100 feet in diameter and 250 feet tall with a storage capacity of approximately 12.5 million gallons, according to the federal court records.

    The storage tanks, which were numbered 1 through 20, were connected by an approximately 2.5-mile pipeline system that ran through an underground tunnel adjacent to the tanks from just uphill of tanks 19 and 20 down to Pearl Harbor.

    The water contamination, including a Nov. 20, 2021, spill of 20, 000 gallons, affected roughly 93, 000 people, mostly military families and civilians living in former military areas.

    For months following the November spill, the state Department of Health issued an advisory that the water was unsafe to drink.

    Thousands of families relocated to hotel rooms or moved out of their housing as the Navy and regulators worked to make the water safe to drink. The all-clear was declared in March 2022, about four months after the jet fuel contamination was found.

    In March 2022, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced the department would permanently shut down the Red Hill facility following the disaster.

    The decision came amid withering pressure from state officials, the Hawaii congressional delegation, protests and extensive community opposition to keeping the under ­ground, World War II-era fuel facility in operation.

    If convicted, Floyd and Wu face up to five years in federal prison and a fine up to $250, 000 on each charge.

    This case is being investigated by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division, and the Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Inspector General.

    On May 7, Senior U.S. District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi to 17 people affected by the Red Hill water crisis as part of ongoing consideration of civil complaints generated by the disaster.

    Koba ­yashi ordered the government to pay $682, 258 to the plaintiffs to compensate them for damages and, in the case of some clients, for future medical care related to exposure to jet fuel that tainted the Navy’s Oahu water system.

    The 17 “bellwether cases ” were selected from more than 7, 500 cases connected to the Red Hill fuel spill that are awaiting resolution. Two other related cases—one for military service members and one for more military families and civilians—also are pending in Hawaii’s federal court.

    Last month, the Honolulu Board of Water Supply in connection to the jet fuel leaks.

    In a nearly 100-page federal civil tort complaint filed in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii, BWS says it’s suing the Navy “for negligence, nuisance, and trespass resulting in damages where the government of the United States of America, if a private party, would be liable to the BWS.”

    BWS has estimated the cost of past, current and future impacts from the fuel leaks at $1.2 billion.

    Source link

  • Two Navy employees indicted for lying about size of Red Hill fuel spill

    GEORGE F. LEE / GLEE @STARADVERTISER.COM The tunnels of the the Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility in 2023.

    GEORGE F. LEE / GLEE @STARADVERTISER.COM The tunnels of the the Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility in 2023.

    Two civilian U.S. Navy executives were indicted by a federal grand jury Thursday for lying to the Hawaii Department of Health about the size of the May 6, 2021.

    John Floyd, 63, of Mililani, who worked as Fuels Department Deputy Director for the Navy, and Nelson Wu, 38, of Waipahu who was Fuels Department Supervisory Engineer were indicted by a federal grand jury Thursday. Wu reported directly to Floyd.

    into the fuel spill have been ongoing since at least 2022.

    Floyd and Wu are charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and causing another person to make a materially false statement or a material omission in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the government of the United States, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office.

    The pair are summoned for an an arraignment on Sep. 5 at 10 :30 before Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Mansfield and are not in federal custody.

    Between May 6, 2021 and Oct. 1, 2021, Floyd and Wu worked int heir roles for the Navy Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Pearl Harbor, which included the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility.

    After 20, 000 gallons of on May 6, 2021 following the failing of two pipeline couplings, the Hawaii Department of Health issued a formal request for answers as part of their authorized role as a regulator of the facility.

    On Oct.1, 2021, the Navy responded to the state’s request for information and “Floyd and Wu participated in drafting the response to the RFI (request for information ) for review by Navy officers and transmission to the (state ).”

    The Fuels Department was the main source of information for the response.

    “When questioned about the accuracy of the May 6, 2021 spill volume data by multiple Navy officers involved in approving the response to the RFI, Floyd and Wu reiterated that only an estimated 1, 618 gallons had spilled into the tunnel and that the remainder of the jet fuel put into the JP-5 pipeline during the attempted transfer from Tank 12 had remained in the pipeline, ” according to the indictment.

    The water contamination included a Nov. 20, 2021 spill of 20, 000 gallons and affected roughly 93, 000 people, mainly military families. For months the state Department of Health issued an advisory that the water was unsafe to drink.

    Thousands of families relocated to hotel rooms or moved out of their housing as the Navy and regulators worked to make the water safe to drink. The all-clear was declared in March 2022, about four months after the jet fuel contamination was found.

    In March 2022, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced the department would permanently shut down the Red Hill facility following the disaster. The decision came amid withering pressure from state officials, the Hawaii congressional delegation, protests and extensive community opposition to keeping the under ­-ground, World War II-era fuel facility in operation.

    If convicted, Floyd and Wu face up to five years’ in federal prison and a fine up to $250, 000 on each charge.

    This case is being investigated by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division, and the Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Inspector General.

    See more :

    12 Comments By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. Report comments if you believe they do not follow our.

    Having trouble with comments ? .

    Source link

  • Fort Stewart soldier, spouse charged with starving child to death

    A former soldier and his wife have been indicted by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Georgia on charges that the couple starved their child to death while stationed at Fort Stewart.

    Brandon M. Kelley, 29, and Stacey D. Kelley, 26, were indicted for reportedly “murdering their child, Vyolet Kelley, by depriving her of adequate nourishment,” an Aug. 8 Justice Department release stated.

    The couple faces one count of felony murder, along with two counts of second-degree murder, in the child’s unlawful death, according to court documents. The Justice Department did not specify the age of the minor.

    All counts allege the child died due to malnourishment and insufficient medical care while the couple was living at Fort Stewart, during which time Brandon Kelley was serving as an enlisted soldier, the release said.

    A report from News4Jax indicated the period of abuse took place across October and November of 2024. A request sent to Fort Stewart regarding Kelley’s service record had not been returned as of publication.

    “The allegations in this case are heartbreaking on many levels,” acting United States Attorney Tara M. Lyons said in the release. “Our office will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to pursue justice.”

    The couple could face life in prison if convicted.

    Investigation of the Kelleys was carried out by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division. Prosecution is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Timothy P. Dean and E. Greg Gilluly, Jr.

    The Kelleys’ indictment was unsealed just days after five soldiers were shot at the installation. U.S. Army Sgt. Quornelius Radford was arrested on Aug. 6 following the shooting.

    Radford, who has been ordered to remain in pretrial confinement, faces six counts of attempted murder, six counts of aggravated assault and one count of domestic violence.

    Source link

  • George Santos Was Finally Too Much for Republicans

    George Santos Was Finally Too Much for Republicans

    So long, George Santos, we hardly knew ye—and that was pretty much the problem.

    This morning, House members evicted one of their own for only the sixth time in history, terminating the congressional career of the Long Island Republican barely a year after he won election on a campaign of lies and alleged fraud. The vote to expel Santos was 311–114, easily clearing the two-thirds threshold needed to pass. As with most other consequential votes this year, a unified Democratic caucus carried the resolution along with a divided GOP, whose members struggled with the decision of whether to trim their already narrow majority by kicking Santos out of Congress. A slim majority of Republicans stood by Santos, while all but four Democrats voted to expel him.

    Santos’s tenure was as memorable as it was brief; to the bitter end—and it was bitter—he seemed to be auditioning for a reality show, or perhaps the title role in a sequel to Steven Spielberg’s Catch Me if You Can. Ultimately, a Republican Party that has largely embraced a former president indicted in four separate criminal cases was unwilling to offer the same support to a freshman member of Congress whom a large majority of GOP lawmakers would not have recognized before January. The vote suggested that some ethical line remains that a Republican politician cannot cross without reproach—at least if that person is not named Donald Trump. Where exactly that line sits, however, is unclear.

    Republicans largely stood by Santos through earlier efforts to oust him this year after a federal grand jury indicted him on charges of wire fraud, money laundering, false statements, and theft of public funds; just a month ago, the House overwhelmingly rejected an expulsion resolution across party lines. Then came a damning report by the House Ethics Committee that alleged in striking detail just how flagrantly Santos had deceived his campaign donors. He used campaign funds on OnlyFans and Botox, among other salacious tidbits investigators uncovered. “Representative Santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit,” the report concluded. “He blatantly stole from his campaign.”

    David A. Graham: The non-end of George Santos

    Santos denounced the report and generally denied the allegations, but he has refused to offer a specific defense of his actions. Still, Republican leaders resisted expelling him. Speaker Mike Johnson privately urged Santos to resign in order to spare his party the difficult vote of removing him. But Santos, who had already announced that he would not seek a second term next year, was done with party loyalty. “If I leave, they win,” he told reporters, accusing his colleagues of “bullying” him.

    Johnson tried to pressure Santos, but he would not lobby other Republicans to expel him. He described the expulsion resolution as “a vote of conscience”—which is Capitol code for “vote however you want.” But in the hours before today’s vote, he and Majority Leader Steve Scalise told reporters that they would vote to save Santos.

    The reason GOP leaders would protect Santos was plain: With such a small majority, they couldn’t spare a single vote, even one as ethically and legally compromised as his. “Do you think for a minute if Republicans had a 25-seat majority, they would care about George Santos’s vote?” Representative Pete Aguilar of California, the House Democratic caucus chair, asked earlier this week. “They needed him to vote for Speaker McCarthy. They needed him to vote for Speaker Johnson. That’s the only reason why he’s still a member of Congress.”

    A few House Republicans acknowledged that the party could ill afford to jettison Santos when it has had enough trouble passing bills as is. The contingent pushing most aggressively for expulsion was Santos’s New York Republican colleagues, who were both personally appalled that he had slipped into Congress alongside them and most likely to suffer politically from his continued presence. A handful of GOP-held seats in Long Island and upstate New York—including the one formerly held by Santos—could determine whether Republicans keep control of the House next year.

    Santos won his competitive seat in 2022 after somehow evading the scrutiny that usually accompanies closely fought House races; not until weeks later did The New York Times report that he had almost entirely invented his life story. Santos had lied about attending a prestigious prep school and earning degrees from Baruch College and NYU. He lied about working on Wall Street for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. He said that his grandparents survived the Holocaust and that his mother was working in the Twin Towers on 9/11. Both were lies. “He has manufactured his entire life,” Representative Marc Molinaro, a fellow New York Republican, said yesterday in a floor speech arguing for Santos’s expulsion.

    Publicly, the Republicans who voted with Santos—mainly staunch conservatives—argued against his removal on procedural grounds. The only other lawmakers the House has expelled were either members of the Confederacy during the Civil War or convicted of crimes in court. Ousting Santos based on accusations alone, these Republicans said, would set a dangerous new precedent and overturn the will of the voters who sent him to Congress. Yet none of them was actually willing to vouch for him. “I rise not to defend Geroge Santos, whoever he is,” Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida said in a floor speech, “but to defend the very precedent that my colleagues are willing to shatter.”

    Maria Konnikova: What psychology can teach us about George Santos

    Santos was a performer until his very last moments in Congress. “I will not stand by quietly,” he declared on the House floor. It was one statement of his that was indisputably true. Santos was a ubiquitous presence in the days leading up to the vote, willing to attack anyone standing against him. During a three-hour appearance on X (formerly Twitter) Spaces, he accused his colleagues of voting while drunk on the House floor. When one Republican, Representative Max Miller of Ohio, called Santos a “crook” to his face, Santos replied by referring to him as “a woman-beater,” dredging up allegations that Miller had physically abused his ex-girlfriend. (Miller denied the accusations.) Finally, Santos attempted one last bit of retribution by filing a motion to expel Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York, the Democrat who pleaded guilty last month to a misdemeanor charge for falsely pulling a fire alarm en route to a House vote.

    “It’s all theater,” Santos declared yesterday with no hint of irony, on his penultimate day as a member of Congress. He had scheduled a press conference outside the House chamber, using the Capitol dome as a picturesque tableau. In the background, however, was a different icon: a garbage truck, presumably there to take out the congressional trash.

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • Will Trump Get a Speedy Trial?

    Will Trump Get a Speedy Trial?

    Settle in, America: This could take a while.

    When Special Counsel Jack Smith announced last week that a federal grand jury had indicted former President Donald Trump, he made a point of saying that the government would “seek a speedy trial in this matter, consistent with the public interest.” Whether Trump gets one could determine whether he goes to prison for his alleged crimes.

    In just over 18 months, Trump could be serving as president again, at which point he’d be in a position to attempt to pardon himself or instruct the Department of Justice to dismiss its case against him. That might seem like a long way away, but for the nation’s tortoiselike federal-court system, it’s not. Complex, high-profile cases sometimes take years to get to trial, and former federal prosecutors told me that, even under the fastest scenarios, Trump’s trial won’t begin for several months and potentially for more than a year. Trump may well be waiting for a trial when voters cast their presidential ballots next fall. Although Smith will do all he can to hurry up the prosecution, the former president’s legal team could move to dismiss the charges—though that would almost certainly be futile—and file other pretrial motions in order to bog down the process.

    “There’s a pretty obvious incentive from [Trump’s] point of view for delaying this,” Kristy Parker, a lawyer at the advocacy group Protect Democracy who tried cases for 15 years at the Justice Department, told me. “That is especially true if he understands that the evidence against him is significant and that the chances of him being convicted of these offenses are pretty high.”

    David A. Graham: This indictment is different

    Different federal courts operate at different speeds. The Eastern District of Virginia, for example, has long been known as “the rocket docket”; it’s raced through even high-profile cases such as the 2018 trial of Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort. Trump’s trial will occur in the Southern District of Florida and will reportedly be overseen by one of his own appointees, Judge Aileen Cannon. “Federal judges have enormous control over their courtrooms and over the schedule and timing of their cases,” Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney in Virginia and Texas, told me. “Some are very good at docket management, and some are not.” Having served as a judge for less than three years, Cannon hasn’t developed much of a reputation either way.

    Cannon presided over a lawsuit Trump filed last year after the FBI executed a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago estate. She issued a series of rulings favorable to him. Representative Dan Goldman, a New York Democrat and a former federal prosecutor who served as a top counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, told me it was “concerning” that Cannon would apparently run the former president’s trial. “It was pretty clear that her initial rulings did not follow the law but followed some preconceived personal and political viewpoints, and there’s no place for that in the judiciary,” Goldman said. Indeed, the conservative Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a pair of Cannon’s decisions, including one that barred the government from accessing some of the documents that the FBI recovered from Mar-a-Lago.

    Another former Democratic co-counsel during the Trump impeachment, Norm Eisen, has called for Cannon to recuse herself or be taken off the case.

    If Cannon stays on the case, she will have fairly wide latitude to set its tempo. She will be responsible for scheduling any pretrial motions and hearings, determining what evidence is admissible, and ruling on potentially time-intensive challenges that Trump’s lawyers could bring.

    In their indictment, the prosecutors estimated that a trial would take 21 days in court—not an especially long trial for a case of such magnitude. The timeline suggests the government believes it has a pretty “straightforward” argument, Parker said.

    The fact that this case centers on documents Trump had in his possession—illegally, the government argues—means that he may have already seen a significant portion of the evidence the Justice Department has on him. Theoretically, that could speed up the discovery process that occurs before any trial. But cases that involve classified documents tend to take longer, former prosecutors told me, because the court will have to determine who can access sensitive materials and how to protect government secrets before and during a trial. Most of the pretrial rulings that Cannon could make are subject to appeal, and those delays can quickly add up.

    Another scheduling complication is that Trump is facing another criminal trial, in New York, on charges that he falsified business records, and he could face yet another indictment and trial in Georgia related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s Manhattan trial is scheduled for March, which would be about 10 months after his indictment in that case and right in the middle of the Republican primary season. (Although the cases are in different jurisdictions, the 10-month lag could be a rough guide for how long Trump’s federal trial will take to get under way.)

    David A. Graham: The stupidest crimes imaginable

    One of the biggest questions Cannon may face is whether the election should factor into her decisions about how soon to schedule a trial and whether to agree to delays that Trump might seek. Parker argued that the election is a legitimate consideration. “We are in uncharted territory,” she said, “and quite frankly, I would think that a court would want to try to get this matter resolved ahead of that point.” Even if Trump’s trial concludes before the 2024 election, however, it’s unlikely that (if he’s convicted) his appeals will be exhausted by then.

    The former prosecutors I spoke with could only guess at what would happen if Trump were elected president while awaiting trial or sentencing. The case would likely proceed after the election, and the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bar convicted felons from taking office. Whether Trump could pardon himself is a matter of debate; no president has ever tried, but in 1974, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion stating that a presidential self-pardon would be unconstitutional. Even if Trump did not attempt to pardon himself, though, he could lean on or simply direct his appointees in the Justice Department to drop the case against him. He’d surely argue that, by electing him, voters had rendered a verdict more legitimate than any jury’s.

    For all the legal wrangling to come, Trump’s ultimate fate may yet rest with the voters. If he is the Republican nominee, they will have what amounts to the final word on his future, political and otherwise. “These cases are important, but they are not magic wands,” Parker said. “They will not relieve the voting public of its problems.”

    Russell Berman

    Source link