ReportWire

Tag: forgery

  • Mom who wrote children’s book on grief goes on trial for husband’s murder

    A murder trial is underway for a Utah mother of three who published a children’s book about grief after her husband’s death and was later accused of killing him.Kouri Richins, 35, faces a slew of felony charges for allegedly killing her husband, Eric Richins, with fentanyl in March 2022 at their home just outside the ski town of Park City. The trial began Monday and is slated to run through March 26.Prosecutors say she slipped five times the lethal dose of the synthetic opioid into a Moscow mule cocktail that he drank.She is also accused of trying to poison him a month earlier on Valentine’s Day with a fentanyl-laced sandwich that made him break out in hives and black out, according to court documents.Prosecutors have argued that Richins killed her husband for financial gain while planning a future with another man she was seeing on the side. Richins has vehemently denied the allegations.She faces nearly three dozen counts, including aggravated murder, attempted murder, forgery, mortgage fraud and insurance fraud. The murder charge alone carries a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.Her defense attorneys, Wendy Lewis, Kathy Nester and Alex Ramos, said they are confident the jury will allow Richins to return home to her children after hearing her side of the story.“Kouri has waited nearly three years for this moment: the opportunity to have the facts of this case heard by a jury, free from the prosecution’s narrative that has dominated headlines since her arrest,” her legal team said in a statement, adding, “What the public has been told bears little resemblance to the truth.”As the trial began, Richins sat quietly with her defense team, wearing a black blazer and white blouse.In the months before her arrest in May 2023, Richins self-published the children’s book “Are You with Me?” about a father with angel wings watching over his young son after passing away. The book, which she promoted on a local television station, could play a key role for prosecutors in framing Eric Richins’ death as a calculated killing with an elaborate cover-up attempt.Years before her husband’s death, Richins opened numerous life insurance policies on Eric Richins without his knowledge, with benefits totaling nearly $2 million, prosecutors allege. Court documents also indicate she had a negative bank account balance, owed lenders more than $1.8 million and was being sued by a creditor.Among the witnesses who could be called to testify throughout the trial are a housekeeper who claims to have sold fentanyl to Richins on three occasions and the man with whom Richins was allegedly having an affair.The state’s key witness, housekeeper Carmen Lauber, told a detective she had sold Richins up to 90 blue-green fentanyl pills that she acquired from a dealer. Lauber is not charged with any crimes in connection with the case, and detectives said at an earlier hearing that she had been granted immunity.Defense attorneys are expected to argue that Lauber did not actually give Richins fentanyl and was motivated to lie for legal protection. None was ever found in her house, and the dealer has said he was in jail and detoxing from drug use when he told detectives in 2023 that he had sold fentanyl to Lauber. He later said in a sworn affidavit that he only sold her the opioid OxyContin.Other witnesses could include relatives of the defendant and her late husband, and friends of Eric Richins who have recounted phone conversations from the day prosecutors say he was first poisoned by his wife of nine years.One friend said in written testimony that they noticed fear in Eric Richins’ voice when he called on Valentine’s Day and said, “I think my wife tried to poison me.”

    A murder trial is underway for a Utah mother of three who published a children’s book about grief after her husband’s death and was later accused of killing him.

    Kouri Richins, 35, faces a slew of felony charges for allegedly killing her husband, Eric Richins, with fentanyl in March 2022 at their home just outside the ski town of Park City. The trial began Monday and is slated to run through March 26.

    Prosecutors say she slipped five times the lethal dose of the synthetic opioid into a Moscow mule cocktail that he drank.

    She is also accused of trying to poison him a month earlier on Valentine’s Day with a fentanyl-laced sandwich that made him break out in hives and black out, according to court documents.

    Prosecutors have argued that Richins killed her husband for financial gain while planning a future with another man she was seeing on the side. Richins has vehemently denied the allegations.

    She faces nearly three dozen counts, including aggravated murder, attempted murder, forgery, mortgage fraud and insurance fraud. The murder charge alone carries a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.

    Her defense attorneys, Wendy Lewis, Kathy Nester and Alex Ramos, said they are confident the jury will allow Richins to return home to her children after hearing her side of the story.

    “Kouri has waited nearly three years for this moment: the opportunity to have the facts of this case heard by a jury, free from the prosecution’s narrative that has dominated headlines since her arrest,” her legal team said in a statement, adding, “What the public has been told bears little resemblance to the truth.”

    As the trial began, Richins sat quietly with her defense team, wearing a black blazer and white blouse.

    In the months before her arrest in May 2023, Richins self-published the children’s book “Are You with Me?” about a father with angel wings watching over his young son after passing away. The book, which she promoted on a local television station, could play a key role for prosecutors in framing Eric Richins’ death as a calculated killing with an elaborate cover-up attempt.

    Years before her husband’s death, Richins opened numerous life insurance policies on Eric Richins without his knowledge, with benefits totaling nearly $2 million, prosecutors allege. Court documents also indicate she had a negative bank account balance, owed lenders more than $1.8 million and was being sued by a creditor.

    Among the witnesses who could be called to testify throughout the trial are a housekeeper who claims to have sold fentanyl to Richins on three occasions and the man with whom Richins was allegedly having an affair.

    The state’s key witness, housekeeper Carmen Lauber, told a detective she had sold Richins up to 90 blue-green fentanyl pills that she acquired from a dealer. Lauber is not charged with any crimes in connection with the case, and detectives said at an earlier hearing that she had been granted immunity.

    Defense attorneys are expected to argue that Lauber did not actually give Richins fentanyl and was motivated to lie for legal protection. None was ever found in her house, and the dealer has said he was in jail and detoxing from drug use when he told detectives in 2023 that he had sold fentanyl to Lauber. He later said in a sworn affidavit that he only sold her the opioid OxyContin.

    Other witnesses could include relatives of the defendant and her late husband, and friends of Eric Richins who have recounted phone conversations from the day prosecutors say he was first poisoned by his wife of nine years.

    One friend said in written testimony that they noticed fear in Eric Richins’ voice when he called on Valentine’s Day and said, “I think my wife tried to poison me.”

    Source link

  • Republican Florida House Rep. Carolina Amesty indicted on forgery charges

    Republican Florida House Rep. Carolina Amesty indicted on forgery charges

    booking photo via Orange County Jail

    District 45 Florida Rep. Carolina Amesty, R-Windermere

    Florida Republican Carolina Amesty, a state representative for parts of west Orange County and north Osceola County, has been indicted by a grand jury on forgery charges, the State Attorney’s Office for the Ninth Judicial Circuit shared Thursday.

    A first-term state representative elected in 2022, 29-year-old Amesty of the Windermere area turned herself in to the Orange County Jail Thursday, where the Attorney General’s Office said she will receive an appropriate bond.

    Amesty is facing four third-degree felony charges for the misuse of her notary commission, each punishable by up to five years in prison. Charges specifically include forgery, uttering a forgery, false acknowledgment or certification by a notary public and notarizing your own signature.

    Amesty, who’s running for re-election this year, is alleged to have knowingly notarized a document with a forged signature in 2021 while serving as an administrator for a nonprofit school run by her family, Central Christian Academy.

    According to State Attorney Andrew Bain, the grand jury indictment comes after a “concerned citizen” tipped his office off about potential wrongdoing, not to mention extensive investigative reporting from reporters at the Orlando Sentinel over the last year, who delved into Amesty’s background, credentials and relationship to her family’s school.

    “A concerned citizen brought potential criminal wrongdoing to our attention, and in line with our obligation to investigate fairly and without bias, we requested a Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation and thoroughly reviewed the facts and evidence of the case,” Bain said in a statement.

    “That information was presented to the grand jury who found sufficient evidence to return an indictment. I am committed to upholding fairness and justice in every case by applying the law equally to everyone and my record reflects this dedication.” Amesty’s case will proceed through the judicial process, the State Attorney General’s Office notes.

    click to enlarge An immigration rights advocate holds a sign protesting Florida Rep. Carolina Amesty's support for a sweeping immigration bill that worries rights advocates. - McKenna Schueler

    McKenna Schueler

    An immigration rights advocate holds a sign protesting Florida Rep. Carolina Amesty’s support for a sweeping immigration bill that worries rights advocates.

    Amesty, who’s faced flak for throwing undocumented immigrants under the bus through her support for harsh state immigration policy, faced no Republican challengers this year during the 2024 Primary Election. But she will be joined on the General Election ballot this November by Democratic candidate Leonard Spencer, a former Disney executive and political newcomer, who is running to flip Amesty’s House District 45 seat blue.

    Following news of the indictment, the Florida Democratic Party released a statement calling on Amesty to resign from her seat. FDP Chair Nikki Fried said the charges levied on the young Republican lawmaker “call every decision she’s ever made on behalf of her constituents into question.”

    “Carolina Amesty can’t effectively represent the people of House District 45 while defending herself from felony charges,” Fried continued. “She should resign from office immediately, and if she refuses to take responsibility for her actions, we demand that the Florida House of Representatives expel her from membership.”

    The Amesty campaign posted a statement on Twitter/X Thursday afternoon downplaying the prosecution, claiming it is “based on misleading reports from a partisan newspaper.”

    “Rep. Amesty calls for a speedy trial, looks forward to her day in court, and is confident of her public vindication.”

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | or sign up for our RSS Feed

    McKenna Schueler

    Source link

  • Man Convicted Over Antisemitic Message Projected On Anne Frank House

    Man Convicted Over Antisemitic Message Projected On Anne Frank House

    A Polish-Canadian man has been convicted for projecting “Ann [sic] Frank invented the ballpoint pen” onto the Anne Frank House museum, the message alluding to an antisemitic conspiracy theory that the famed diary was a forgery. What do you think?

    “Thank god she wasn’t home to see that.”

    Greg Paduri, City Tosher

    “Finally, someone with the balls to take down Anne Frank.”

    Xavier Santerre, Unemployed

    “Maybe he got the wrong house.”

    Shelby Collins, Aspiring Conservationist

    Source link

  • Donald Trump indicted in Georgia election-interference case

    Donald Trump indicted in Georgia election-interference case

    Former President Donald Trump was criminally indicted by a grand jury in Georgia’s Fulton County on Monday night in connection with a probe into his efforts to overturn the state’s results in the 2020 presidential election.

    The 41-count indictment against Trump and 18 of his associates, including Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Trump adviser John Eastman, was handed to a judge in Atlanta around 9 p.m. Eastern after a daylong session by the Fulton County grand jury, and the details…

    Source link

  • ‘This is a game changer’: Ahead of Amazon Prime Day, a new law makes it harder for online sellers to hawk fake or stolen products

    ‘This is a game changer’: Ahead of Amazon Prime Day, a new law makes it harder for online sellers to hawk fake or stolen products

    Shopping online has just gotten safer.

    The INFORM Consumers Act, which went into effect Tuesday, aims to limit the sales of stolen and counterfeit products on e-commerce platforms. 

    The measure, which requires e-commerce sites to verify and disclose information about their high-volume third-party sellers, was passed into law following a lobbying campaign to address counterfeit products after being left out of the bipartisan Chips and Science Act last year.

    All online marketplaces, including eBay, Etsy, Poshmark and Amazon’s third-party sales platform, will now be required to collect information from high-volume sellers, defined as those selling 200 items or more totaling at least $5,000 over the previous 12 months. These third-party sellers must submit information such as a government-issued ID, a bank-account number, a working email address and phone number, and a taxpayer identification number. 

    Customers will also be able to find the verified contact information for bigger third-party sellers — those with sales of over $20,000 a year — and to get in touch with them outside of the e-commerce platform. In the past, consumers often had to engage within the platform operator in order to communicate with a seller. 

    Those bigger sellers will also have their full names and physical addresses listed on their product pages in addition to their contact information, according to the Federal Trade Commission’s business guide

    “This is a game changer,” said Teresa Murray, director of the consumer watchdog office at U.S. PIRG, a nonprofit that lobbies on behalf of the public interest. “For bad guys, stealing items has generally been the difficult part. Selling things online once you’ve stolen them is easy. We hope that with the INFORM Act, it’s not nearly as easy in the future.”

    ‘The only people opposing this may be thieves.’


    — Teresa Murray, U.S. PIRG

    The act goes into effect just weeks before Amazon Prime Day, when the world’s biggest e-commerce site rolls out discounts for Prime members. This year, Prime Day will be held over two days, on July 11 and 12.

    Picks: Amazon Prime Day is July 11-12. You’ll need the $139-a-year Prime membership to access the deals, but is it actually worth it?

    Also see: Amazon sued by FTC, which alleges people were ‘tricked and trapped’ into Prime subscriptions

    Several e-commerce platforms, including Amazon and eBay, supported the INFORM Consumers Act. TechNet, a national network of technology CEOs and senior executives representing what it calls the innovation economy, wrote to leaders in Congress last December, saying the law would improve consumer safety and increase transparency. 

    In a statement provided to MarketWatch, eBay
    EBAY,
    +2.32%

    said it “fully supports transparency and is committed to a safe selling and buying experience for our customers. We were proud to support” the law “to protect consumers from bad actors who seek to misuse online marketplaces, while also ensuring important protections for sellers. We are fully prepared to comply with the new law.”

    Etsy
    ETSY,
    +3.45%

    said it “has long been supportive of the INFORM Act passing into law, as a balanced and thoughtful approach to make the ecommerce landscape safer for both consumers and sellers.” In a statement provided to MarketWatch, the company said, “We are taking appropriate steps to comply with the INFORM Act requirements.”

    Amazon
    AMZN,
    +1.45%

    and Poshmark, owned by South Korea–based Naver Corp.
    035420,
    -0.59%
    ,
    did not immediately respond to MarketWatch requests for comment.

    Some analysts, however, said the new law lacks stronger protections that were included the SHOP SAFE Act, an earlier bill that did not get passed by Congress. The INFORM Act, they noted, does not hold online platforms liable when a third party sells harmful counterfeit products or when the platform has not followed certain best practices. 

    “Notably, the legislation is supported by Amazon and other marketplaces as it’s seen as a watered-down bill that would head off more stringent legislation like the SHOP SAFE Act,” Ben Koltun, director of research at Beacon Policy Advisors, wrote in a note last year.

    So how can consumers spot counterfeit or stolen items? A guide from PIRG has tips, such as keeping an eye out for products with suspiciously low prices or featuring misspellings or mislabeling or low-quality, photoshopped photos in their listings.

    PIRG also cautions consumers about purchasing medications online. Always check the legitimacy of online pharmacies, it says. 

    “Many online marketplaces haven’t been doing enough to protect consumers from sellers who appear to be peddling stolen or counterfeit goods,” Murray said. “The only people opposing this [new law] may be thieves.”

    Victor Reklaitis contributed.

    Source link

  • Wells Fargo settles shareholder lawsuit for $1 billion: report

    Wells Fargo settles shareholder lawsuit for $1 billion: report

    Wells Fargo & Co. has agreed to pay $1 billion to settle a shareholders lawsuit related to its 2016 fake-accounts scandal, according to the Wall Street Journal.

    Citing court documents, the Journal reported Monday night that Wells Fargo
    WFC,
    +3.41%

    settled a class-action suit brought by shareholders who claimed bank executives overstated the bank’s progress at cleaning up its risk-management systems and governance in the wake of the scandal.

    In a statement to the Journal, Wells Fargo said: “While we disagree with the allegations in this case, we are pleased to have resolved this matter.”

    The settlement, which still needs to be approved by a judge, likely would be the 17th-largest ever for a shareholders’ class action, the Journal reported.

    Wells Fargo has paid billions in fines and settlements related to the scandal. In December, the  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered Wells Fargo to pay $3.7 billion as a result of alleged widespread mismanagement, and in March, a former Wells Fargo executive accused of overseeing the fake-account scheme pleaded guilty to criminal charges, agreeing to a 16-month prison term and a $17 million fine.

    Wells Fargo shares are down 6% year to date and are off 8% over the past 12 months, compared to the S&P 500’s
    SPX,
    +0.30%

    8% gain in 2023 and 3% rise over the past year.

    Source link

  • Opinion: No, an indictment wouldn’t end Trump’s run for the presidency – he could even campaign or serve from a jail cell

    Opinion: No, an indictment wouldn’t end Trump’s run for the presidency – he could even campaign or serve from a jail cell

    Donald Trump announced his 2024 run for the presidency on Nov. 15. In his address he railed against what he perceived as the “persecution” of himself and his family, but made scant mention of his legal woes.

    There is also the not-so-small matter of a Justice Department investigation into the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol.

    The announcement has led some to speculate that Trump may be hoping that becoming a presidential candidate will in some way shield him from prosecution.

    Donald Trump has announced his bid to run in the 2024 presidential race. WSJ’s Alex Leary breaks down the challenges the former president will face on the campaign trail, including new political rivals and a waning influence among voters. Photo Composite: Adele Morgan

    So, does an indictment—or even a felony conviction—prevent a presidential candidate from running or serving in office?

    The short answer is no. Here’s why:

    The U.S. Constitution specifies in clear language the qualifications required to hold the office of the presidency. In Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II, it states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    These three requirements—natural-born citizenship, age, and residency—are the only specifications set forth in the United States’ founding document.

    Congress has ‘no power to alter’

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutionally prescribed qualifications to hold federal office may not be altered or supplemented by either the U.S. Congress or any of the states.

    Justices clarified the court’s position in their 1969 Powell v. McCormack ruling. The case followed the adoption of a resolution by the House of Representatives barring pastor and New York politician Adam Clayton Powell Jr. from taking his seat in the 90th Congress.

    The resolution was not based on Powell’s failure to meet the age, citizenship and residency requirements for House members set forth in the Constitution. Rather, the House found that Powell had diverted Congressional funds and made false reports about certain currency transactions.

    When Powell sued to take his seat, the Supreme Court invalidated the House’s resolution on grounds that it added to the constitutionally specified qualifications for Powell to hold office. In the majority opinion, the court held that: “Congress has no power to alter the qualifications in the text of the Constitution.”

    For the same reason, no limitation could now be placed on Trump’s candidacy. Nor could he be barred from taking office if he were to be indicted or even convicted.

    But in case of insurrection…

    The Constitution includes no qualification regarding those conditions—with one significant exception. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person from holding federal office “who, having previously taken an oath…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

    The reason why this matters is the Justice Department is currently investigating Trump for his activities related to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

    Under the provisions of the 14th Amendment, Congress is authorized to pass laws to enforce its provisions. And in February 2021, one Democratic congressman proposed House Bill 1405, providing for a “cause of action to remove and bar from holding office certain individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

    Even in the event of Trump being found to have participated “in insurrection or rebellion,” he might conceivably argue that he is exempt from Section 3 for a number of reasons. The 14th Amendment does not specifically refer to the presidency and it is not “self-executing”—that is, it needs subsequent legislation to enforce it. Trump could also point to the fact that Congress enacted an Amnesty Act in 1872 that lifted the ban on office holding for officials from many former Confederate states.

    He might also argue that his activities on and before Jan. 6 did not constitute an “insurrection” as it is understood by the wording of the amendment. There are few judicial precedents that interpret Section 3, and as such its application in modern times remains unclear. So even if House Bill 1405 were adopted, it is not clear whether it would be enough to disqualify Trump from serving as president again.

    Running from behind bars

    Even in the case of conviction and incarceration, a presidential candidate would not be prevented from continuing their campaign—even if, as a felon, they might not be able to vote for themselves.

    History is dotted with instances of candidates for federal office running—and even being elected—while in prison. As early as 1798—some 79 years before the 14th Amendment — House member Matthew Lyon was elected to Congress from a prison cell, where he was serving a sentence for sedition for speaking out against the Federalist Adams administration.

    Eugene Debs, founder of the Socialist Party of America, ran for president in 1920 while serving a prison sentence for sedition. Although he lost the election, he nevertheless won 913,693 votes. Debs promised to pardon himself if he were elected.

    And controversial politician and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche also ran for president from a jail cell in 1992.

    A prison cell as the Oval Office?

    Several provisions within the Constitution offer alternatives that could be used to disqualify a president under indictment or in prison.

    The 25th Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to suspend the president from office if they conclude that the president is incapable of fulfilling his duties.

    The amendment states that the removal process may be invoked “if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

    It was proposed and ratified to address what would happen should a president be incapacitated due to health issues. But the language is broad and some legal scholars believe it could be invoked if someone is deemed incapacitated or incapable for other reasons, such as incarceration.

    To be sure, a president behind bars could challenge the conclusion that he or she was incapable from discharging the duties simply because they were in prison. But ultimately the amendment leaves any such dispute to Congress to decide, and it may suspend the president from office by a two-thirds vote.

    Indeed, it is not clear that a president could not effectively execute the duties of office from prison, since the Constitution imposes no requirements that the executive appear in any specific location. The jail cell could, theoretically, serve as the new Oval Office.

    Finally, if Trump were convicted and yet prevail in his quest for the presidency in 2024, Congress might choose to impeach him and remove him from office. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows impeachment for “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    Whether that language would apply to Trump for indictments or convictions arising from his previous term or business dealings outside of office would be a question for Congress to decide. The precise meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is unclear, and the courts are unlikely to second-guess the House in bringing an impeachment proceeding.

    For sure, impeachment would remain an option—but it might be an unlikely one if Republicans maintained their majority in the House in 2024 and 2026.

    Stefanie Lindquist is Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science at Arizona State University. She previously taught at Vanderbilt University, the University of Georgia and the University of Texas.

    This commentary was originally published by The Conversation—No, an indictment wouldn’t end Trump’s run for the presidency—he could even campaign or serve from a jail cell

    More on Trump’s legal problems

    Trump Organization executive says he helped colleagues dodge taxes

    Judge says he’ll appoint monitor to oversee Donald Trump’s company

    Justice Department weighs appointing special counsel if Trump runs in 2024, report says

    Source link