ReportWire

Tag: LAW

  • A former CHP officer charged with lying under oath will not have her case go to trial. Why?

    [ad_1]

    A now-retired California Highway Patrol officer was charged with lying under oath about several traffic stops.Prosecutors said that there is video to prove it, but it is evidence that a jury will not get to see.Instead, former Officer Michelle Reinert, who faced a maximum prison time of roughly 24 years, is allowed to do therapy for two.KCRA 3 Investigates takes a closer look at why, even though prosecutors say the evidence is “overwhelming,” this case will not go to trial.“We are here as part of a criminal interview with Officer Michelle Reinert,” a CHP sergeant explained in an audio recording before giving a Miranda warning.“Having these rights in mind do you wish to talk to us now?” he asked.Reinert paused for 10 seconds before hesitantly responding, “No.”“Do you have any questions for us?” she was asked.“I have no idea what’s going on, so I don’t even know what I’m supposed to ask,” Reinert said.It’s been nearly three years, but Scott Bohl said he remembers it clearly.“I was driving south on I-5 in Yolo County,” he said. “Saturday morning, Memorial weekend, and I know the CHP is out in force during holiday weekends.”So, he wasn’t surprised to see an officer parked ahead under an overpass. He was surprised, however, when that officer pulled him over.“She said she clocked me doing 86 miles an hour. I told her I wasn’t speeding,” Bohl said.For the first time in his life, he said, he got a traffic ticket.“For no reason whatsoever, she singled me out,” he said.The ticket came with a $274 fine, and a point on his driving record that would cause his car insurance to go up.“It hurts when you’re on social security, and that’s your sole income,” Bohl said.He went to court via Zoom to fight it. That is when he learned that, under oath, Officer Reinert’s description of that day was very different.“As I was traveling southbound, I observed a vehicle ahead of my location when I was traveling about 80 miles per hour,” she told the judge. “The vehicle was directly in front of my patrol vehicle in the number two lane.”At this point, Bohl started waving to get the judge’s attention.“The vehicle was about 100 feet ahead of my patrol vehicle, and it was pulling away as I was 80 miles per hour. I accelerated up to 85, and then the vehicle was at a steady, even pace with my patrol vehicle in a 70 miles-per-hour traffic zone,” Reinert testified. “At this time, I made a steady pace of the vehicle directly in front of my patrol vehicle 100 feet ahead for approximately a quarter of a mile.”Again, Bohl began waving, hoping to interject.“That’s a lie, a total lie,” Bohl told KCRA 3 Investigates, recounting the incident. “My blood pressure must have been through the roof when she started saying that. I just couldn’t believe it. I was shocked.”The 22-year veteran officer said she was driving, not parked. She also claimed to have matched Bohl’s speed and paced him for a quarter of a mile.He asked the officer to provide evidence that any of that happened, like dash camera video.“I don’t have a video today, and it is unknown if the camera was working at that time,” Officer Reinert said.Ultimately, the court took the officer at her word, finding Bohl guilty.Despite hitting roadblocks at every turn, Bohl tried once more. This time, with Reinert’s employer, the CHP.“I wanted to file a complaint to let them know this officer should not be wearing a uniform, doesn’t deserve to be in the CHP,” Bohl said.In doing so, he had no idea what he had just set in motion.“I wanted to take this case because this is the kind of officer that we need to go after aggressively,” said Frits van der Hoek with the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office.A CHP investigation found that Bohl was right, and he wasn’t the only driver impacted.Out of the roughly 100 citations Reinert issued in 2023, a CHP internal affairs investigation found inconsistencies with more than 50.In the “most egregious cases,” they recommended the DA’s Office bring criminal charges against Reinert.That is how the case eventually landed on van der Hoek’s desk.“I’m a supervising deputy district attorney,” he said.He is also a former police officer.“It’s a hard job. It’s super underappreciated and when I see something like this, it just makes my blood boil,” van der Hoek said.A Grand Jury indicted Reinert on three felony counts of perjury. Then, the DA’s Office filed a complaint alleging an additional three counts.The charges were related to three speeding tickets Reinert issued, including Bohl’s.“So, basically, Officer Reinert was writing traffic tickets for offenses that weren’t committed and then writing notes and providing testimony on that about things that didn’t happen,” van der Hoek said.In investigating Bohl’s complaint, the CHP did find dash camera video of his traffic stop.“This was like night and day,” van der Hoek said of the video.Just as Bohl had told a judge, Reinert was parked in a median when he drove by her.When Reinert did merge onto the highway, the video shows her driving behind Bohl for no more than five seconds before pulling him over.“There’s a huge difference between pacing somebody for a quarter mile and pulling behind them and immediately stopping them,” van der Hoek said.Reinert’s inconsistencies in this case also had consequences for her others.“We had to dismiss a bunch of DUI cases because we no longer had a witness that could competently testify about the case, including at least one where there was a DUI with injuries,” the prosecutor said.Despite the impacts and the evidence, Reinert’s case also came to a screeching halt.“The defense filed a motion for mental health diversion on the basis of a PTSD diagnosis,” van der Hoek said.California’s mental health diversion program allows some charged with crimes to avoid trial and opt for treatment if they have a qualifying diagnosis, like post-traumatic stress disorder.Reinert and her attorney did not respond to KCRA 3 Investigates’ interview requests.However, our investigative team obtained public records that show Reinert argued in court that she had been suffering from severe symptoms of PTSD.Her attorney told a judge that Reinert retired from the CHP in February 2024, about four months after Bohl filed his complaint against her. Defense Attorney Jim Granucci said Reinert was also diagnosed with PTSD in 2024 although her psychiatrist said Reinert was suffering from it even back during the times of the alleged crimes.“Her post-traumatic stress disorder was untreated,” her attorney explained.In addition, Granucci said that Reinert did not purposely lie. She would have had no reason to do so. There was nothing to gain, her attorney said.“On three tickets, she made mistakes,” he said.In December 2025, Yolo County Superior Court Judge Sonia Cortés granted Reinert’s request for mental health diversion although she described it as a “very difficult decision.”“Ms. Reinert is accused of committing offenses while she was on duty, and that does concern the court greatly because she did hold a position of authority, of public trust,” Judge Cortés said. “It goes to the core of our criminal justice system that those that are entrusted to enforce the laws do not abuse their power, and that the public have confidence in the system because, fundamentally, it is about our rule of law.”Still, she ruled that Reinert is eligible and suitable for mental health diversion according to the law.For the next two years, Reinert will have to complete the conditions of her diversion, which include regularly going to therapy, taking any prescribed medication, completing 240 hours of community service and writing apology letters to her alleged victims.If she successfully completes the program, then her perjury case will be dismissed.“Does it feel like justice?” KCRA 3 Investigates’ Lysée Mitri asked Bohl.“No, not at all,” he said.Still, Bohl said that it was worth staying the course and filing a complaint.“If you believe you’re innocent, fight for yourself,” Bohl said.Based on CHP’s findings, the court reimbursed Bohl and reversed its decision on his speeding ticket. Reinert retired from the CHP in 2024, but her law enforcement certification through the state was still active when KCRA 3 Investigates checked with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) last month. POST said it had not yet made a determination as her case was still under review.An officer being dishonest during the course of an investigation is typically grounds for getting a certification revokedWhen KCRA 3 Investigates checked in again on Friday, POST said Reinert voluntarily surrendered her certification on Feb. 12, 2026. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    YOLO COUNTY, Calif. —

    A now-retired California Highway Patrol officer was charged with lying under oath about several traffic stops.

    Prosecutors said that there is video to prove it, but it is evidence that a jury will not get to see.

    Instead, former Officer Michelle Reinert, who faced a maximum prison time of roughly 24 years, is allowed to do therapy for two.

    KCRA 3 Investigates takes a closer look at why, even though prosecutors say the evidence is “overwhelming,” this case will not go to trial.

    “We are here as part of a criminal interview with Officer Michelle Reinert,” a CHP sergeant explained in an audio recording before giving a Miranda warning.

    “Having these rights in mind do you wish to talk to us now?” he asked.

    Reinert paused for 10 seconds before hesitantly responding, “No.”

    “Do you have any questions for us?” she was asked.

    “I have no idea what’s going on, so I don’t even know what I’m supposed to ask,” Reinert said.

    It’s been nearly three years, but Scott Bohl said he remembers it clearly.

    “I was driving south on I-5 in Yolo County,” he said. “Saturday morning, Memorial weekend, and I know the CHP is out in force during holiday weekends.”

    So, he wasn’t surprised to see an officer parked ahead under an overpass. He was surprised, however, when that officer pulled him over.

    “She said she clocked me doing 86 miles an hour. I told her I wasn’t speeding,” Bohl said.

    For the first time in his life, he said, he got a traffic ticket.

    “For no reason whatsoever, she singled me out,” he said.

    The ticket came with a $274 fine, and a point on his driving record that would cause his car insurance to go up.

    “It hurts when you’re on social security, and that’s your sole income,” Bohl said.

    He went to court via Zoom to fight it. That is when he learned that, under oath, Officer Reinert’s description of that day was very different.

    “As I was traveling southbound, I observed a vehicle ahead of my location when I was traveling about 80 miles per hour,” she told the judge. “The vehicle was directly in front of my patrol vehicle in the number two lane.”

    At this point, Bohl started waving to get the judge’s attention.

    “The vehicle was about 100 feet ahead of my patrol vehicle, and it was pulling away as I was 80 miles per hour. I accelerated up to 85, and then the vehicle was at a steady, even pace with my patrol vehicle in a 70 miles-per-hour traffic zone,” Reinert testified. “At this time, I made a steady pace of the vehicle directly in front of my patrol vehicle 100 feet ahead for approximately a quarter of a mile.”

    Again, Bohl began waving, hoping to interject.

    “That’s a lie, a total lie,” Bohl told KCRA 3 Investigates, recounting the incident. “My blood pressure must have been through the roof when she started saying that. I just couldn’t believe it. I was shocked.”

    The 22-year veteran officer said she was driving, not parked. She also claimed to have matched Bohl’s speed and paced him for a quarter of a mile.

    He asked the officer to provide evidence that any of that happened, like dash camera video.

    “I don’t have a video today, and it is unknown if the camera was working at that time,” Officer Reinert said.

    Ultimately, the court took the officer at her word, finding Bohl guilty.

    Despite hitting roadblocks at every turn, Bohl tried once more. This time, with Reinert’s employer, the CHP.

    “I wanted to file a complaint to let them know this officer should not be wearing a uniform, doesn’t deserve to be in the CHP,” Bohl said.

    In doing so, he had no idea what he had just set in motion.

    “I wanted to take this case because this is the kind of officer that we need to go after aggressively,” said Frits van der Hoek with the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office.

    A CHP investigation found that Bohl was right, and he wasn’t the only driver impacted.

    Out of the roughly 100 citations Reinert issued in 2023, a CHP internal affairs investigation found inconsistencies with more than 50.

    In the “most egregious cases,” they recommended the DA’s Office bring criminal charges against Reinert.

    That is how the case eventually landed on van der Hoek’s desk.

    “I’m a supervising deputy district attorney,” he said.

    He is also a former police officer.

    “It’s a hard job. It’s super underappreciated and when I see something like this, it just makes my blood boil,” van der Hoek said.

    A Grand Jury indicted Reinert on three felony counts of perjury. Then, the DA’s Office filed a complaint alleging an additional three counts.

    The charges were related to three speeding tickets Reinert issued, including Bohl’s.

    “So, basically, Officer Reinert was writing traffic tickets for offenses that weren’t committed and then writing notes and providing testimony on that about things that didn’t happen,” van der Hoek said.

    In investigating Bohl’s complaint, the CHP did find dash camera video of his traffic stop.

    “This was like night and day,” van der Hoek said of the video.

    Just as Bohl had told a judge, Reinert was parked in a median when he drove by her.

    When Reinert did merge onto the highway, the video shows her driving behind Bohl for no more than five seconds before pulling him over.

    “There’s a huge difference between pacing somebody for a quarter mile and pulling behind them and immediately stopping them,” van der Hoek said.

    Reinert’s inconsistencies in this case also had consequences for her others.

    “We had to dismiss a bunch of DUI cases because we no longer had a witness that could competently testify about the case, including at least one where there was a DUI with injuries,” the prosecutor said.

    Despite the impacts and the evidence, Reinert’s case also came to a screeching halt.

    “The defense filed a motion for mental health diversion on the basis of a PTSD diagnosis,” van der Hoek said.

    California’s mental health diversion program allows some charged with crimes to avoid trial and opt for treatment if they have a qualifying diagnosis, like post-traumatic stress disorder.

    Reinert and her attorney did not respond to KCRA 3 Investigates’ interview requests.

    However, our investigative team obtained public records that show Reinert argued in court that she had been suffering from severe symptoms of PTSD.

    Her attorney told a judge that Reinert retired from the CHP in February 2024, about four months after Bohl filed his complaint against her.

    Defense Attorney Jim Granucci said Reinert was also diagnosed with PTSD in 2024 although her psychiatrist said Reinert was suffering from it even back during the times of the alleged crimes.

    “Her post-traumatic stress disorder was untreated,” her attorney explained.

    In addition, Granucci said that Reinert did not purposely lie. She would have had no reason to do so. There was nothing to gain, her attorney said.

    “On three tickets, she made mistakes,” he said.

    In December 2025, Yolo County Superior Court Judge Sonia Cortés granted Reinert’s request for mental health diversion although she described it as a “very difficult decision.”

    “Ms. Reinert is accused of committing offenses while she was on duty, and that does concern the court greatly because she did hold a position of authority, of public trust,” Judge Cortés said. “It goes to the core of our criminal justice system that those that are entrusted to enforce the laws do not abuse their power, and that the public have confidence in the system because, fundamentally, it is about our rule of law.”

    Still, she ruled that Reinert is eligible and suitable for mental health diversion according to the law.

    For the next two years, Reinert will have to complete the conditions of her diversion, which include regularly going to therapy, taking any prescribed medication, completing 240 hours of community service and writing apology letters to her alleged victims.

    If she successfully completes the program, then her perjury case will be dismissed.

    “Does it feel like justice?” KCRA 3 Investigates’ Lysée Mitri asked Bohl.

    “No, not at all,” he said.

    Still, Bohl said that it was worth staying the course and filing a complaint.

    “If you believe you’re innocent, fight for yourself,” Bohl said.

    Based on CHP’s findings, the court reimbursed Bohl and reversed its decision on his speeding ticket.

    Reinert retired from the CHP in 2024, but her law enforcement certification through the state was still active when KCRA 3 Investigates checked with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) last month. POST said it had not yet made a determination as her case was still under review.

    An officer being dishonest during the course of an investigation is typically grounds for getting a certification revoked

    When KCRA 3 Investigates checked in again on Friday, POST said Reinert voluntarily surrendered her certification on Feb. 12, 2026.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Immigration experts share how to push back against Trump’s actions

    [ad_1]

    MARBLEHEAD — A panel of local immigration experts shared how people can push back against President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, including donating to legal defense funds for immigrants or volunteering to accompany local immigrants to court hearings.

    During a panel discussion on immigration enforcement Tuesday night, experts said people can also challenge local police departments’ use of security technology from companies such as Flock Security, which allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement to access license plate data collected by local law enforcement.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“*6D[ E9:D 😀 23@FE :>>:8C2?ED 3FE H6 2C6 E96 42?2CJ 😕 E96 >:?6[” D2:5 A2?6=:DE 2?5 $2=6> C6D:56?E p=6I2?5C2 !:ñ6C@D$9:6=5D[ 2? 2DD@4:2E6 AC@76DD@C 2E qC2?56:D &?:G6CD:EJ’D %96 w6==6C $49@@=] “(92E 😀 92AA6?:?8 E@ :>>:8C2?ED 😀 2 H2C?:?8 D:8? 23@FE E96 E@I:4:EJ @7 E96 >:?6] %9:D H@C< 😀 23@FE E96 4@?5:E:@?D @7 @FC 56>@4C24J]”k^Am

    kAm!:ñ6C@D$9:6=5D[ H9@ E62496D 4=2DD6D @? AF3=:4 A@=:4J 2?5 :>>:8C2E:@?[ H2D @?6 @7 D6G6C2= A2?6=:DED 2E |2C3=69625’D ~=5 }@CE9 r9FC49 7@C 2? 6G6?E E:E=65 “qF:=5:?8 r@>>F?:EJ !@H6C 😕 E96 }6H xrt p86]” $96 2?5 @E96CD D92C65 ?@E @?=J 9@H A6@A=6 42? 96=A E96:C :>>:8C2?E ?6:893@CD[ 3FE 2=D@ 9@H %CF>A’D A@=:4J 492?86D 92G6 D6G6C6=J 9:?56C65 @C 6G6? 92=E65 E96 A2E9 E@ 4:E:K6?D9:A 7@C >:==:@?D @7 A6@A=6]k^Am

    kAms6DA:E6 E96 25>:?:DEC2E:@?’D 2DDFC2?46 E92E xrt 286?ED 2C6 E2C86E:?8 :>>:8C2?ED H9@ 2C6 4C:>:?2=D[ EH@E9:C5D @7 :>>:8C2?ED 😕 &]$] 4FDE@5J 5@ ?@E 92G6 4C:>:?2= 4@?G:4E:@?D[ D2:5 A2?6=:DE 2?5 =@42= :>>:8C2E:@? 2EE@C?6J s:2?? $=2G:E]k^Am

    kAm%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 92D >256 :E >@C6 5:77:4F=E 7@C F?244@>A2?:65 >:?@CD 😕 xrt 4FDE@5J E@ 36 C6=62D65 E@ E96:C C6=2E:G6D’ 4FDE@5J[ 2?5 :>A=6>6?E65 2 >@C6 5:77:4F=E 4:E:K6?D9:A E6DE 😕 ~4E@36C[ D96 ?@E65]k^Am

    kAm~77:4:2=D 2=D@ 92G6 A=2?D E@ C6G6E E96 ?62C=J a__[___ C67F866D 2==@H65 :?E@ E96 4@F?ECJ F?56C E96 q:56? 25>:?:DEC2E:@?[ 244@C5:?8 E@ %96 pDD@4:2E65 !C6DD] %CF>A 92D =:>:E65 E96 2??F2= 42A @7 C67F866D 25>:EE65 :?E@ E96 &]$] E@ f[d__[ H:E9 AC:@C:EJ 8:G6? E@ H9:E6 $@FE9 p7C:42?D]k^Am

    kAmxrt 😀 ?@H 2==@H65 E@ 56E2:? 2?5 56A@CE G:4E:>D @7 9F>2? EC277:4<:?8 H9@ 92G6 A6?5:?8 2AA=:42E:@?D 7@C 2DJ=F> DE2EFD] pD @7 y2?] a`[ E96 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 92D 2=D@ DFDA6?565 :>>:8C2E:@? G:D2D 7@C fd 4@F?EC:6D[ :?4=F5:?8 p7892?D H9@ 2:565 &]$] EC@@AD 5FC:?8 E96 p7892?:DE2? (2C]k^Am

    kAm“|2?J @7 E96> 92G6 2=C625J 8@?6 E9C@F89 E96 2DJ=F> AC@46DD[ 2?5 E96:C 72>:=:6D 2C6 😕 52?86C[” $=2G:E D2:5] “x C6>6>36C @?6 4=:6?E H96C6 E96 %2=:32? G:D:ED E96 72>:=J @?46 2 H66<[ 2?5 ?@H E96J’C6 ?@E 6G6? 2==@H65 E@ 4@>6 @G6C]”k^Am

    kAm“W%CF>AX 😀 24E:G6=J E2<:?8 2H2J =682= DE2EFD[” !:ñ6C@D$9:6=5D D2:5] “w6’D E2=<:?8 23@FE :==682=:EJ[ 3FE 96’D 24EF2==J 4C62E:?8 >@C6 :==682=:EJ[ 3642FD6 E96D6 A6@A=6 925 DE2EFD6D]”k^Am

    kAmp3@FE `c >:==:@? F?5@4F>6?E65 :>>:8C2?ED 92G6 2AA=:42E:@?D 36:?8 AC@46DD65 E@ @3E2:? =682= DE2EFD[ $=2G:E D2:5] $96 25565 E92E :E 😀 96C 5FEJ 2D 2? 2EE@C?6J E@ AC@E64E E96D6 A6@A=6 7C@> “>62? DA:C:E65[ F?72:C[ :==682= :>>:8C2E:@? AC24E:46D]k^Am

    kAm“%9C@F89 6I64FE:G6 @C56C[ :>>:8C2?ED H9@ 92G6 5@?6 6G6CJE9:?8 C:89E[ 7@==@H65 2== E96 CF=6D[ ?@H E96J’C6 36:?8 9F?E65 5@H? =:<6 4@>>@? 4C:>:?2=D 2?5 >2J ?@E 92G6 2 492?46 2E 86EE:?8 32:=[” $=2G:E D2:5]k^Am

    kAmxrt 😀 2=D@ >@G:?8 :>>:8C2?ED :E 92D 😕 4FDE@5J E@ 5:776C6?E DE2E6D[ >2<:?8 :E 92C56C 7@C :>>:8C2E:@? 2EE@C?6JD E@ 5676?5 E96:C 4=:6?ED[ D2:5 A2?6=:DE }2?4J }@C>2?[ 2? :>>:8C2E:@? 2EE@C?6J H9@ DA64:2=:K6D 😕 4@>A=6I 56A@CE2E:@? 42D6D]k^Am

    kAm“(6’C6 ?@E DE2?5:?8 DE:==[” }@C>2? D2:5] “(6 2C6 7:89E:?8 324<[ 3FE F?56CDE2?5:?8 E92E H6 42? @?=J 7:89E H:E9:? E96 4@?7:?6D @7 E96 =2H]”k^Am

    kAm%92E’D H9J :E 😀 D@ :>A@CE2?E E@ 42== =68:D=2E@CD @? r2A:E@= w:== 2?5 q624@? w:== 2?5 25G@42E6 282:?DE C646?E 492?86D @C 3:==D E92E AC@E64E :>>:8C2?ED’ C:89ED[ !:ñ6C@D$9:6=5D D2:5]k^Am

    kAm!6@A=6 42? E2<6 A2CE 😕 DJ>3@=:4 24E:@?D =:<6 AC@E6DED[ D:E:?D 2?5 @E96C 56>@?DEC2E:@?D E@ AFD9 7@C 2 ?2CC2E:G6 492?86 2C@F?5 :>>:8C2E:@?[ 6:E96C @FED:56 xrt 56E6?E:@? 46?E6CD =:<6 E96 @?6 😕 qFC=:?8E@? @C H96C6 =2HD 2C6 A2DD65[ D96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAms@?2E:@?D 42? 36 >256 E@ =682= 5676?D6 7F?5D 2?5 7F?5C2:D6CD 7@C 72>:=:6D 27764E65 3J xrt 2CC6DED E9C@F89 E96 x>>:8C2?E yFDE:46 }6EH@C< @7 |2DD249FD6EED[ @C {&rt[ 2?5 D:>:=2C @C82?:K2E:@?D]k^Am

    kAm%96D6 @C82?:K2E:@?D ?665 G@=F?E66CD E@@[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 $2=6>32D65 (6=4@>6 x>>:8C2?E }6EH@C<[ E96 q@DE@? x>>:8C2?E yFDE:46 p44@>A2?:>6?E }6EH@C< 2?5 !px# !C@;64E[ H9:49 AC@G:56D =682= DFAA@CE]k^Am

    kAm{&rt 2=D@ ?665D G@=F?E66CD E@ G6C:7J :7 xrt 286?ED 2C6 @? E96 }@CE9 $9@C6 2?5 CF? 2 9@E=:?6 7@C =@42= C6A@CED @7 xrt 286?ED]k^Am

    kAm~? E96 >F?:4:A2= =6G6=[ C6D:56?ED 42? 25G@42E6 7@C E96:C 4:EJ @C E@H? 8@G6C?>6?E E@ >2<6 D2?4EF2CJ @C5:?2?46D @C AC@>:D6D ?@E E@ 2DD:DE xrt[ =:<6 H92E q6G6C=J C646?E=J 5:5] {@42= 2?5 DE2E6 A@=:46 56A2CE>6?ED 😕 |2DD249FD6EED 2C6 ?@E =682==J 2==@H65 E@ >2<6 2CC6DED D@=6=J 32D65 @? :>>:8C2E:@? DE2EFD[ 3FE >F?:4:A2=:E:6D 42? A=6586 E@ ?@E 2==@H xrt E@ FD6 >F?:4:A2= AC@A6CE:6D E@ DE286 7@C @A6C2E:@?D]k^Am

    kAm“sFC:?8 %CF>A’D 7:CDE 25>:?:DEC2E:@?[ H6 H@C<65 C62==J 92C5 E@ 4C62E6 2 =:?6 36EH66? @FC =2H 6?7@C46>6?E 2?5 xrt[” !:ñ6C@D$9:6=5D D2:5] “%96 r@?DE:EFE:@? 😀 G6CJ 4=62C E92E E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E 42??@E 7@C46 DE2E6D E@ 5@ E96 H@C< @7 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E[ 2?5 😕 E96 r@?DE:EFE:@?[ W:>>:8C2E:@?X 😀 2 7656C2= 7F?4E:@?[ ?@E 2 DE2E6 7F?4E:@?]k^Am

    kAm“!@=:46 5@?’E 92G6 E@ 5@ :>>:8C2E:@? W6?7@C46>6?EX 3FE D@>6E:>6D A@=:46 56A2CE>6?ED H2?E E@ 5@ :>>:8C2E:@? 6?7@C46>6?E[ 2?5 H6 ?665 E@ AC6G6?E E92E 7C@> 92AA6?:?8 3642FD6 E96J’C6 ?@E DFAA@D65 E@]”k^Am

    kAmr@?E24E r2C@=:?6 t?@D 2E k6>mk2 9C67lQ>2:=E@irt?@Do?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>Qmrt?@Do?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>k^2mk^6>m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Mamdani co-signs comeback of nonprofit property COPA bill vetoed by Adams | amNewYork

    [ad_1]

    A hotly debated housing bill that would give nonprofits first dibs on property purchases — vetoed by former Mayor Eric Adams hours before he left office — is likely to get a new chance to pass under the Mamdani administration. Its sponsor is already anticipating lawsuits attempting to stop it. 

    The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act would keep housing in the hands of the community and curb landlords selling to big property groups, say advocates and bill sponsor Council Member Sandy Nurse. 

    It does so, Nurse said, by giving qualified groups like community land trusts the right of first refusal on distressed residential buildings with four or more units. The nonprofits have 25 days to submit a statement of interest, then 80 days to make an official offer on the property before other buyers can take a shot at it.

    Since the city began considering COPA five years ago, it’s faced sharp criticism from the real estate industry and Republican council members who say it would open the city up to legal challenges. Critics argue the bill violates private property rights, a landlord’s right to freedom of contract and the Constitution’s takings clause.

    Nurse said she’d been told by the city’s Law Department her legislation was legally defensible before the council passed it with a 31-10 vote in December. 

    However, the city’s Law Department later reached out to Nurse to raise legal red flags — doing so days before she was set to bring COPA back to the floor in an attempt to override Adams’ last-minute veto. Nurse called the move “extremely frustrating” and an example of the “chaotic nature and disorganization” of the Adams administration.

    Now, Nurse said, she and her team are working with the Law Department and “seeking to propose some new language to address the concerns.” She declined to share what those concerns were, as discussions were still ongoing.

    “The Law Department told us the bill was defensible, but they wanted to make it even stronger … because of the amount of attention on the bill and because the real estate industry spent so much time trying to oppose the legislation,” Nurse said. “We want to make sure that it is as strong as possible in anticipating somebody wanting to sue the council over the legislation.”

    The council member said she had “every intention to pass this legislation,” and was working as quickly as possible to reintroduce it.  

    Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who supported COPA on the campaign trail, said he’d work with the council to ensure it passes. 

    His office told amNewYork Law the act would give tenants “a real opportunity to shape the future of their homes.”

    “Our administration looks forward to working closely with Council Member Nurse to reintroduce and pass the legislation,” a spokesperson for Mamdani said in a statement.  

    The future of COPA

    City Council Speaker Julie Menin brought up the COPA legal advising mishap when she spoke earlier this month at the confirmation hearing for Steve Banks as head of the Law Department. 

    Menin said the failure demonstrated that the council needs proactive legal opinions on bills.  

    “It put the council in a very difficult situation where, weeks after the bill passes, we are hearing red flags from the Law Department,” Menin told Banks. “That cannot happen again.”

    Banks promised the speaker nothing similar would happen under his leadership, adding that he had already spoken with Nurse about the bill and that they had “talked about ways to try to move forward” with the legislation. When asked for more details after the hearing, the Law Department said it couldn’t comment on privileged communications. 

    Menin, who abstained from voting on COPA last year, didn’t respond to questions from amNewYork Law regarding the nature of the red flags and whether she’d support the bill upon reintroduction.

    Some real estate attorneys aren’t convinced that just a few changes would prevent the bill from legal challenges. 

    Sherwin Belkin, a founding partner of real estate firm Belkin, Burden & Goldman, said the entire concept of the bill is problematic. 

    “I think the notion of the state deciding who a property owner can sell its property to raises significant legal and constitutional questions regarding private property and contract rights,” he said.

    “The property owner may feel that [another] party, not the nonprofit, has greater economic stability, will be a better partner to align itself with on sale … This is restricting that,” Belkin continued. “This is saying that’s not really for the seller to determine, but in fact, that’s very much part of private property rights and contractual rights — to be able to determine the stability and feasibility of the party with whom you’re about to enter into a contract.”

    Elena Rodriguez, a staff attorney for the New Economy Project, which has advocated for COPA, shot down arguments that the bill would violate private property or contract rights. She emphasized the bill only applies when an owner is voluntarily selling a building, and said landlords are free to turn down a nonprofit’s offer and sell to someone else — they just have to give the nonprofit the chance to make the first offer.  

    If a landlord does receive an offer from another buyer after they reject a nonprofit’s, they must offer the community group a chance to match it, and then sell to the group if it does. If no nonprofits express interest within the initial 25-day window, a property owner is automatically exempt from granting them the right of first refusal.   

    “Courts have repeatedly upheld regulations that govern the process of a voluntary sale, and similar laws in San Francisco and elsewhere have taken effect without being struck down,” Rodriguez said. 

    She added that COPA would only operate prospectively, meaning it wouldn’t interfere with any property actively under contract if passed, and it doesn’t regulate a building’s sale price.  

    Market concerns 

    Critics of COPA have also raised concerns that the law would slow down property sales, thus potentially driving down prices and the pool of would-be buyers.

    That could create an argument that COPA violates the Constitution’s takings clause, which prevents government overreach into private property, because the procedural hurdles installed by the government could hurt property owners’ return on investment. But even some real estate attorneys say that might be a stretch. 

    Belkin said the constitutional claim is significantly weaker than the property rights path. 

    “That argument, I think, is a little more difficult, because you have to demonstrate that there has been an economic injury caused by the bill,” Belkin said. “It would be more speculative at this early time to be able to demonstrate that …but the argument would be that, by so limiting the pool of prospective purchasers, the purchase price will be negatively impacted.”

    He and other attorneys said a potential fix might be to reduce the timeframes for nonprofits to make their offers, but Nurse said that wouldn’t be happening. The windows are already shorter than she initially wanted them to be, and it’s necessary to give nonprofits enough time to properly consider making an offer and to gather the necessary funds.

    “The real estate industry … wants unfettered access to any potential property. They don’t want to be subject to any interventions that, personally, we think would help address the housing crisis,” Nurse said. “This legislation is meant to create a small window of opportunity for our trusted, mission-driven affordable housing providers to take these properties, purchase them, do light repairs and rehabilitation if needed, and provide safe, affordable housing that New Yorkers can live in.” 

    “It’s not a guarantee, it’s just an opportunity,” Nurse continued. “It’s a small window of time, and once that window is closed, the private sector can continue to move forward with their mission, which is to make as much money as possible.”

    COPA is expected to come up for a vote within this legislative session and will need only a simple majority vote to be sent to Mamdani’s desk.

    [ad_2]

    Isabella Gallo

    Source link

  • Immigration experts share how locals can push back against Trump’s actions

    [ad_1]

    MARBLEHEAD — A panel of local immigration experts shared ways people can push back against President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, including donating to legal defense funds for immigrants or volunteering to accompany local immigrants to court hearings.

    During a panel discussion on immigration enforcement Tuesday night, experts said citizens can also challenge local police departments’ use of security technology from companies like Flock Security, which allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement to access license plate data collected by local law enforcement.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“*6D E9:D 😀 23@FE :>>:8C2?ED[ 3FE H6 2C6 E96 42?2CJ 😕 E96 >:?6[” D2:5 A2?6=:DE 2?5 $2=6> C6D:56?E p=6I2?5C2 !:ñ6C@D$9:6=5D[ 2? 2DD@4:2E6 AC@76DD@C 2E qC2?56:D &?:G6CD:EJ’D %96 w6==6C $49@@=] “(92E 😀 92AA6?:?8 E@ :>>:8C2?ED 😀 2 H2C?:?8 D:8? 23@FE E96 E@I:4:EJ @7 E96 >:?6] %9:D H@C< 😀 23@FE E96 4@?5:E:@?D @7 @FC 56>@4C24J]”k^Am

    kAm!:ñ6C@D$9:6=5D[ H9@ E62496D 4=2DD6D @? AF3=:4 A@=:4J 2?5 :>>:8C2E:@?[ H2D @?6 @7 D6G6C2= A2?6=:DED 2E |2C3=69625’D ~=5 }@CE9 r9FC49 7@C 2? 6G6?E E:E=65 “qF:=5:?8 r@>>F?:EJ !@H6C 😕 E96 }6H xrt p86]” $96 2?5 @E96CD D92C65 ?@E @?=J 9@H A6@A=6 42? 96=A E96:C :>>:8C2?E ?6:893@CD[ 3FE 2=D@ 9@H %CF>A’D A@=:4J 492?86D 92G6 D6G6C6=J 9:?56C65 @C 6G6? 92=E65 E96 A2E9 E@ 4:E:K6?D9:A 7@C >:==:@?D @7 A6@A=6]k^Am

    kAms6DA:E6 E96 25>:?:DEC2E:@?’D 2DDFC2?46 E92E xrt 286?ED 2C6 E2C86E:?8 :>>:8C2?ED H9@ 2C6 4C:>:?2=D[ EH@E9:C5D @7 :>>:8C2?ED 😕 &]$] 4FDE@5J 4FCC6?E=J 5@ ?@E 92G6 4C:>:?2= 4@?G:4E:@?D[ D2:5 A2?6=:DE 2?5 =@42= :>>:8C2E:@? 2EE@C?6J s:2?? $=2G:E]k^Am

    kAm%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 92D >256 :E >@C6 5:77:4F=E 7@C F?244@>A2?:65 >:?@CD H9@ 2C6 😕 xrt 4FDE@5J E@ 36 C6=62D65 :?E@ E96:C C6=2E:G6D’ 4FDE@5J[ 2?5 :>A=6>6?E65 2 >@C6 5:77:4F=E 4:E:K6?D9:A E6DE 😕 ~4E@36C[ D96 ?@E65]k^Am

    kAm~77:4:2=D 2=D@ 92G6 A=2?D E@ C6G6E E96 ?62C=J a__[___ C67F866D H9@ H6C6 2==@H65 :?E@ E96 4@F?ECJ F?56C E96 q:56? 25>:?:DEC2E:@?[ 244@C5:?8 E@ p! }6HD C6A@CED] %CF>A 92D =:>:E65 E96 2??F2= 42A @7 C67F866D 25>:EE65 :?E@ E96 &]$] E@ f[d__[ H:E9 2 AC:@C:EJ 7@C H9:E6 $@FE9 p7C:42?D]k^Am

    kAmxrt 😀 ?@H 2==@H65 E@ 56E2:? 2?5 56A@CE G:4E:>D @7 9F>2? EC277:4<:?8 H9@ 92G6 A6?5:?8 2AA=:42E:@?D 7@C 2DJ=F> DE2EFD] pD @7 y2?] a`[ E96 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 92D 2=D@ DFDA6?565 :>>:8C2E:@? G:D2D 7@C fd 4@F?EC:6D[ :?4=F5:?8 p7892?D H9@ 2:565 &]$] EC@@AD 5FC:?8 E96 p7892?:DE2? (2C]k^Am

    kAm“|2?J @7 E96> 92G6 2=C625J 8@?6 E9C@F89 E96 2DJ=F> AC@46DD[ 2?5 E96:C 72>:=:6D 2C6 😕 52?86C[” $=2G:E D2:5] “x C6>6>36C @?6 4=:6?E H96C6 E96 %2=:32? G:D:ED E96 72>:=J @?46 2 H66<[ 2?5 ?@H E96J’C6 ?@E 6G6? 2==@H65 E@ 4@>6 @G6C]”k^Am

    kAm“W%CF>AX 😀 24E:G6=J E2<:?8 2H2J =682= DE2EFD[” !:ñ6C@D$9:6=5D D2:5] “w6’D E2=<:?8 23@FE :==682=:EJ[ 3FE 96’D 24EF2==J 4C62E:?8 >@C6 :==682=:EJ[ 3642FD6 E96D6 A6@A=6 925 DE2EFD6D]”k^Am

    kAmp3@FE `c >:==:@? F?5@4F>6?E65 :>>:8C2?ED 92G6 2AA=:42E:@?D 36:?8 AC@46DD65 E@ @3E2:? =682= DE2EFD[ $=2G:E D2:5] $96 25565 E92E :E 😀 96C 5FEJ 2D 2? 2EE@C?6J E@ AC@E64E E96D6 A6@A=6 7C@> “>62? DA:C:E65[ F?72:C[ :==682= :>>:8C2E:@? AC24E:46D]k^Am

    kAm“%9C@F89 6I64FE:G6 @C56C[ :>>:8C2?ED H9@ 92G6 5@?6 6G6CJE9:?8 C:89E[ 7@==@H65 2== E96 CF=6D[ ?@H E96J’C6 36:?8 9F?E65 5@H? =:<6 4@>>@? 4C:>:?2=D 2?5 >2J ?@E 92G6 2 492?46 2E 86EE:?8 32:=[” $=2G:E D2:5]k^Am

    kAmxrt 😀 2=D@ >@G:?8 :>>:8C2?ED :E 92D 😕 4FDE@5J E@ 5:776C6?E DE2E6D[ >2<:?8 :E 92C56C 7@C :>>:8C2E:@? 2EE@C?6JD E@ 5676?5 E96:C 4=:6?ED[ D2:5 A2?6=:DE }2?4J }@C>2?[ 2? :>>:8C2E:@? 2EE@C?6J H9@ DA64:2=:K6D 😕 4@>A=6I 56A@CE2E:@? 42D6D]k^Am

    kAm“(6’C6 ?@E DE2?5:?8 DE:==[” }@C>2? D2:5] “(6 2C6 7:89E:?8 324<[ 3FE F?56CDE2?5:?8 E92E H6 42? @?=J 7:89E H:E9:? E96 4@?7:?6D @7 E96 =2H]”k^Am

    kAm%92E’D H9J :E 😀 D@ :>A@CE2?E E@ 42== =68:D=2E@CD @? r2A:E@= w:== 2?5 q624@? w:== 2?5 25G@42E6 282:?DE C646?E 492?86D @C 3:==D E92E AC@E64E :>>:8C2?ED’ C:89ED[ !:ñ6C@D$9:6=5D D2:5]k^Am

    kAm!6@A=6 42? E2<6 A2CE 😕 DJ>3@=:4 24E:@?D =:<6 AC@E6DED[ D:E:?D 2?5 @E96C 56>@?DEC2E:@?D E@ AFD9 7@C 2 ?2CC2E:G6 492?86 2C@F?5 :>>:8C2E:@?[ 6:E96C @FED:56 xrt 56E6?E:@? 46?E6CD =:<6 E96 @?6 😕 qFC=:?8E@? @C H96C6 =2HD 2C6 A2DD65[ D96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAms@?2E:@?D 42? 36 >256 E@ =682= 5676?D6 7F?5D 2?5 7F?5C2:D6CD 7@C 72>:=:6D 27764E65 3J xrt 2CC6DED E9C@F89 E96 x>>:8C2?E yFDE:46 }6EH@C< @7 |2DD249FD6EED W{&rtX 2?5 D:>:=2C @C82?:K2E:@?D]k^Am

    kAm%96D6 @C82?:K2E:@?D ?665 G@=F?E66CD E@@[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 $2=6>32D65 (6=4@>6 x>>:8C2?E }6EH@C<[ E96 q@DE@? x>>:8C2?E yFDE:46 p44@>A2?:>6?E }6EH@C< 2?5 !px# !C@;64E[ H9:49 AC@G:56D =682= DFAA@CE]k^Am

    kAm{&rt 2=D@ ?665D G@=F?E66CD E@ G6C:7J :7 xrt 286?ED 2C6 @? E96 }@CE9 $9@C6 2?5 CF? 2 9@E=:?6 7@C =@42= C6A@CED @7 xrt 286?ED]k^Am

    kAm~? E96 >F?:4:A2= =6G6=[ C6D:56?ED 42? 25G@42E6 7@C E96:C 4:EJ @C E@H? 8@G6C?>6?E E@ >2<6 D2?4EF2CJ @C5:?2?46D @C AC@>:D6D ?@E E@ 2DD:DE xrt[ =:<6 H92E q6G6C=J C646?E=J 5:5] {@42= 2?5 DE2E6 A@=:46 56A2CE>6?ED 😕 |2DD249FD6EED 2C6 ?@E =682==J 2==@H65 E@ >2<6 2CC6DED D@=6=J 32D65 @? :>>:8C2E:@? DE2EFD[ 3FE >F?:4:A2=:E:6D 42? A=6586 E@ ?@E 2==@H xrt E@ FD6 >F?:4:A2= AC@A6CE:6D E@ DE286 7@C @A6C2E:@?D]k^Am

    kAm“sFC:?8 %CF>A’D 7:CDE 25>:?:DEC2E:@?[ H6 H@C<65 C62==J 92C5 E@ 4C62E6 2 =:?6 36EH66? @FC =2H 6?7@C46>6?E 2?5 xrt[” !:ñ6C@D$9:6=5D D2:5] “%96 r@?DE:EFE:@? 😀 G6CJ 4=62C E92E E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E 42??@E 7@C46 DE2E6D E@ 5@ E96 H@C< @7 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E[ 2?5 😕 E96 r@?DE:EFE:@?[ W:>>:8C2E:@?X 😀 2 7656C2= 7F?4E:@?[ ?@E 2 DE2E6 7F?4E:@?]k^Am

    kAm“!@=:46 5@?’E 92G6 E@ 5@ :>>:8C2E:@? W6?7@C46>6?EX 3FE D@>6E:>6D A@=:46 56A2CE>6?ED H2?E E@ 5@ :>>:8C2E:@? 6?7@C46>6?E[ 2?5 H6 ?665 E@ AC6G6?E E92E 7C@> 92AA6?:?8 3642FD6 E96J’C6 ?@E DFAA@D65 E@]”k^Am

    kAmk6>mr@?E24E r2C@=:?6 t?@D 2Ek^6>m k6>mk2 9C67lQ>2:=E@irt?@Do?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>Qmrt?@Do?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>k^2mk^6>m k6>m]k^6>mk^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • A California county’s only hospital cleared a federal hurdle, but it still needs millions to reopen

    [ad_1]

    A shuttered Northern California hospital is getting a lifeline from Congress, but it doesn’t come with money to actually reopen and serve patients.

    A new federal law will restore the “critical access” designation for Glenn Medical Center, the only hospital in Glenn County. As a result, once it reopens, the hospital qualifies for full Medicare reimbursement, a key source of revenue.

    Separately, last week a California lawmaker introduced a bill to create state loans for struggling hospitals, which could help the facility find the money it needs to reopen.

    For now, Glenn Medical Center says it needs $40 million to $50 million to restart operations and bring back staff.

    Glenn Melnick, a health economist at USC, says because a federal decision led to the hospital’s closure, it would make sense for the federal government to provide funds for the hospital’s reopening.

    “In an ideal world this [congressional] bill would have restored their status and made them whole, right?” he said. “But failing that, you’re gonna have to look to the state.”

    Regaining critical access status

    The problem with Glenn Medical Center, according to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was distance.

    Critical access hospitals must be at least 35 miles from the next closest facility, and a review showed that Glenn Medical was only 32 miles from a hospital in Colusa County. Hospital officials appealed arguing that the hospital’s location had not changed since it qualified for the designation a quarter-century earlier, but their appeals were unsuccessful, and the hospital closed last fall.

    A critical access designation brings hospitals regulatory flexibility and increased reimbursement for Medicare patients. Without the revenue that comes from having critical access status, operations at Glenn Medical would be unsustainable, hospital management previously told CalMatters.

    The closure meant a county of 28,000 people no longer had a local emergency room.

    Last fall, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the late Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa introduced efforts in Congress to restore Glenn Medical’s designation. The deal that was ultimately signed into law directs the federal health agency to waive the distance requirement for any critical access hospital that had this designation as of Jan. 1, 2024, and that received a notification of noncompliance before Jan. 1, 2026.

    “Returning the [critical access] designation is a great step, but it doesn’t solve the problem,” said Matthew Beehler, a spokesperson for American Advanced Management, the company that owns and operates Glenn Medical Center.

    “We’re trying to be realistic about how much money it will take to reopen because it will take significant recruitment efforts,” he said.

    Distressed hospital loans 2.0

    In Sacramento, a state bill now may pave the way for the financial help that Glenn Medical is seeking.

    Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria (D-Fresno) on Thursday introduced the sequel to a 2023 law that created the state’s Distressed Hospital Loan Program. That fund is out of money after distributing about $300 million to hospitals. Soria’s new proposal, Assembly Bill 1923, is seeking a new round of $300 million for struggling hospitals. If the bill makes it out of the Legislature and gains Gov. Gavin Newsom’s support, hospitals could then apply for the loans.

    That previous loan program afforded then-closed Madera Community Hospital $57 million, allowing it to reopen in March 2025. It’s the only hospital in Madera County.

    American Advanced Management took over and reopened Madera Community; it also owns Glenn Medical.

    “Realistically we would have to find funding from the state like Madera did,” American Advanced Management’s Beehler said. “As we’ve seen in Madera…we need to cover about a year’s worth of expenses before you get reimbursements.”

    The ongoing challenges of rural hospitals

    Glenn Medical’s bureaucratic challenges are unique, prompted by a reinterpretation of a longtime federal rule. But similar to many rural and community hospitals, it had been operating in the red for years. That precarious financial state makes these hospitals particularly vulnerable to any change.

    “Here’s the thing, most of these rural hospitals are on a shoestring,” Melnick said. And especially independent hospitals, those that are not part of a larger health system, “they’re living year to year right now.”

    The first round of loans to distressed hospitals pushed through in 2023 happened as several hospitals warned they were on the brink — which they said was the result of higher labor costs and low reimbursement rates. In announcing the bill, Soria said she is trying again in part because of the federal budget bill President Trump signed last year that makes sweeping cuts and changes to the country’s safety net programs.

    That law, experts say, will starve hospitals in rural and underserved areas of tens of billions of dollars in the next decade. “Dozens of hospitals are facing a financial cliff right now, thanks to the largest federal healthcare cuts in history that arrived with this new federal administration in 2025,” Soria said.

    In an attempt to cushion this blow, Congress created a $50-billion Rural Health Transformation Project. California will receive $233 million from that fund this year, with more expected over the next five years. But experts have noted that this federal project makes up only about third of the expected losses in rural areas. It’s not yet clear whether Glenn Medical could qualify for a piece of this money.

    Ana B. Ibarra writes for CalMatters.

    [ad_2]

    Ana B. Ibarra

    Source link

  • Salem to continue discussion on raising fees for failing to clear snow, ice from sidewalks

    [ad_1]

    SALEM — Salem City Councilors expressed support for the intent of a proposal to increase fines for failing to clear snow and ice from sidewalks, but said that more discussion is necessary to ensure that enforcement actually results in increased sidewalk access.

    The change, proposed by Mayor Dominick Pangallo, would amend city ordinances so that owners of residential properties would be fined $100 a day for neglecting to remove snow and/or ice from sidewalks, and owners of commercial property would be charged $200 each day to encourage compliance.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm!C6G:@FD=J[ C6D:56?E:2= 2?5 4@>>6C4:2= AC@A6CEJ @H?6CD H:E9 D?@H @? E96:C D:56H2=>6C4:2= AC@A6CEJ @H?6CD H@F=5 36 7:?65 Sd_ 7@C 6249 @776?D6]k^Am

    kAm%96 $2=6> r:EJ r@F?4:= F?2?:>@FD=J G@E65 @? %9FCD52J ?:89E E@ C676C E96 AC@A@D65 @C5:?2?46 2>6?5>6?E E@ E96 r@>>:EE66 @? ~C5:?2?46D[ {:46?D6D[ 2?5 {682= p772:CD 4@A@DE65 H:E9 E96 r@>>:EE66 @7 E96 (9@=6]k^Am

    kAm“x E9:?< E96 :?E6?E @7 E9:D @C5:?2?46 😀 8@@5] qFE :7 H6’C6 7:?:?8 A6@A=6 7@C ?@E 4=62C:?8 D:56H2=[” (2C5 ` r:EJ r@F?4:=@C tC:? %FC@HD<: D2:5] “(6 ?665 E@ >2<6 DFC6 E96 D:56H2=< 86ED 4=62C65 D@>69@H[ D@ H6 D9@F=5 >2J36 92G6 2 A=2? 😕 A=246 7@C E92E 2D H6==]”k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Michael McHugh Staff Writer

    Source link

  • President Trump pardons 5 former NFL players for crimes ranging from perjury to drug trafficking

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump on Thursday pardoned five former professional football players — one posthumously — for various crimes ranging from perjury to drug trafficking.The pardons were announced by White House pardon czar Alice Marie Johnson. Ex-NFL players Joe Klecko, Nate Newton, Jamal Lewis, Travis Henry, and the late Billy Cannon were granted clemency.“As football reminds us, excellence is built on grit, grace, and the courage to rise again. So is our nation,” Johnson wrote on the social media site X, as she thanked Trump for his “continued commitment to second chances.”Johnson said Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones “personally” shared the news with Newton, who won three Super Bowls with the team.The White House did not return a request for comment Thursday night on why Trump, an avid sports fan, pardoned the players.Klecko, a former star for the New York Jets, pleaded guilty to perjury after lying to a federal grand jury that was investigating insurance fraud. A defensive lineman, Klecko was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2023. He was a two-time Associated Press All-Pro player and a four-time Pro Bowler.Newton, an offensive lineman, pleaded guilty to a federal drug trafficking charge after authorities discovered $10,000 in his pickup truck as well as 175 pounds of marijuana in an accompanying car driven by another man. Newton was a two-time All-Pro player and six-time Pro Bowler.Lewis, formerly of the Baltimore Ravens and the Cleveland Browns, pleaded guilty in a drug case in which he used a cellphone to try to set up a drug deal not long after he was a top pick in the 2000 NFL draft. Lewis, a running back, was named an All-Pro once and was a one-time Pro Bowler. He was named the 2003 AP Offensive Player of the Year.Henry, who played for the Denver Broncos, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic cocaine for financing a drug ring that moved the drug between Colorado and Montana. He was a running back for three teams and a one-time Pro Bowler.And Cannon — who played with the Houston Oilers, Oakland Raiders and Kansas City Chiefs — admitted to counterfeiting in the mid-1980s after a series of bad investments and debts left him broke.Cannon was a two-time All-Pro player and a two-time Pro Bowler. Cannon also won the 1959 Heisman Trophy while starring for Louisiana State University, where he had one of the most memorable plays in college football history: an 89-yard punt return for a touchdown against Ole Miss. He died in 2018.

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump on Thursday pardoned five former professional football players — one posthumously — for various crimes ranging from perjury to drug trafficking.

    The pardons were announced by White House pardon czar Alice Marie Johnson. Ex-NFL players Joe Klecko, Nate Newton, Jamal Lewis, Travis Henry, and the late Billy Cannon were granted clemency.

    “As football reminds us, excellence is built on grit, grace, and the courage to rise again. So is our nation,” Johnson wrote on the social media site X, as she thanked Trump for his “continued commitment to second chances.”

    Johnson said Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones “personally” shared the news with Newton, who won three Super Bowls with the team.

    The White House did not return a request for comment Thursday night on why Trump, an avid sports fan, pardoned the players.

    Klecko, a former star for the New York Jets, pleaded guilty to perjury after lying to a federal grand jury that was investigating insurance fraud. A defensive lineman, Klecko was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2023. He was a two-time Associated Press All-Pro player and a four-time Pro Bowler.

    Newton, an offensive lineman, pleaded guilty to a federal drug trafficking charge after authorities discovered $10,000 in his pickup truck as well as 175 pounds of marijuana in an accompanying car driven by another man. Newton was a two-time All-Pro player and six-time Pro Bowler.

    Lewis, formerly of the Baltimore Ravens and the Cleveland Browns, pleaded guilty in a drug case in which he used a cellphone to try to set up a drug deal not long after he was a top pick in the 2000 NFL draft. Lewis, a running back, was named an All-Pro once and was a one-time Pro Bowler. He was named the 2003 AP Offensive Player of the Year.

    Henry, who played for the Denver Broncos, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic cocaine for financing a drug ring that moved the drug between Colorado and Montana. He was a running back for three teams and a one-time Pro Bowler.

    And Cannon — who played with the Houston Oilers, Oakland Raiders and Kansas City Chiefs — admitted to counterfeiting in the mid-1980s after a series of bad investments and debts left him broke.

    Cannon was a two-time All-Pro player and a two-time Pro Bowler. Cannon also won the 1959 Heisman Trophy while starring for Louisiana State University, where he had one of the most memorable plays in college football history: an 89-yard punt return for a touchdown against Ole Miss. He died in 2018.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Brooklyn Bar Association reopens doors after 5 months with first-ever breakfast event | amNewYork

    [ad_1]

    Brooklyn Bar Association President-Elect Angélicque Moreno stands next to immediate past president Anthony Vaughn at the organization’s first breakfast event.

    Provided by Anthony Vaughn

    After being closed since September 2025, due to a leak in its over-a-century-old historic brownstone, the Brooklyn Bar Association reopened its doors to the public Wednesday morning for its first-ever breakfast event — which leaders say they hope is the first of many.

    “I thought, since we just reopened this month, this would be a great opportunity to invite our members in the legal community to come back to our legal home,” said Anthony Vaughn, the organization’s immediate past president. “This is something new, and I’m hoping that we can use this as a jumping off point to do this each month [and] as an opportunity to get more events on the calendar.” 

    In-person events, like this breakfast, are critical to building the legal community, learning from each other and bridging generational gaps, Vaughn said. 

    “Without the in person experience, you lose sight of the importance of building and nurturing relationships,” Vaughn said. “I know there’s a different perspective that you can fulfill the same goals by online or through social media, and I agree in part, but there’s something about a screen which creates separation that in-person events eliminate.”

    Michael Pavlakos of East Coast Appraisal Services, Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Lisa Lewis and Anthony Vaughn stand together at the Brooklyn Bar Association’s breakfast event.

    “I think it’s important for the younger generation, as well as our senior attorneys, to get together to bridge those gaps,” he continued. “The elders can learn from the youth, and quite frankly, the youth can always learn from the elders. But, it’s very difficult to do that if the elders aren’t on social media, but the young groups are. So, why don’t we get into a common space where we all feel comfortable and share ideas and do something new?”

    Attendees pose at the Brooklyn Bar Association’s first breakfast, and first event since reopening their historic building after repairs. Anthony Vaughn

    Vaughn said he hopes to see more of the organization’s roughly 2,000 members return to the Brooklyn Heights brownstone located at 123 Remsen St., a landmark the association has called home since 1918. Founded in the wake of fraudulent city elections in 1872, the Brooklyn Bar Association offers attorneys, judges and other members of the legal community an opportunity for networking and legal education through seminars, dinners and other organized events.

    New York Housing Judge Javier Ortiz, Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Lisa Lewis, Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Rosemarie Montalbano, Angelicque Moreno, Anthony Vaughn, retired New York State Administrative Judge Lawrence Knipel, Brooklyn Civil Court Judge Hemalee Patel and Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Joanne Quinones stand together at the Brooklyn Bar Association.

    A couple dozen attorneys, judges and members joined Vaughn and Brooklyn Bar Association President-Elect Angélicque Moreno in welcoming members back to the building and asking them what type of events they’d like to see held more often.

    Attorneys Diane Matero and Helen Galette, Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Rosemarie Montalbano and attorney Lilmary Madrigal gather in the Brooklyn Bar Association’s historic brownstone.

    “We encourage people to think of ideas, whether it be a CLE or another activity, to get on the schedule,” Vaughn said. “More camaraderie, more support of this association, only advances our membership experience.”

    Attorneys and bar association members talk at the organization’s breakfast event.Isabella Gallo

    The Brooklyn Bar Association will hold various presentations and seminars over the next few months, and its annual Judiciary Night is set for April.

    [ad_2]

    Isabella Gallo

    Source link

  • Judge rules feds must temporarily resume funding for Gateway tunnel rail project | amNewYork

    [ad_1]

    View of construction underway for the Gateway Program’s Hudson River Tunnels, New York, NY, at Hudson Yards, Oct. 6, 2025.

    Photo by Anthony Behar/Sipa USA

    The Trump administration will have to temporarily resume funding the Gateway tunnel rail project for two weeks, following a stay from a Manhattan federal judge on Friday, allowing construction that was set to halt on Feb. 6 to continue.

    U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas’s decision came five hours after a Friday afternoon hearing in a suit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James and her New Jersey counterpart, Jennifer Davenport, earlier this week. 

    The states argue the feds are illegally withholding the funds because the move was for political reasons rather than based on any legal merits — citing Trump’s Truth Social posts framing the freeze as political retribution against Congressional Democrats. 

    Vargas’s decision said she believed the states would “suffer irreparable harm” if she didn’t force the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to temporarily unfreeze funding to the project. She requested the parties meet and confer over next steps in the case by Feb. 11. 

    The USDOT froze federal funding for the $16 billion project, amounting to $11 billion in grants and $4 billion in loans, on the basis that it needed to review compliance with new rules around contracting with minority-and-women-owned businesses. Court filings state that the entity overseeing the project the Gateway Development Commission (GDC), has provided the federal government with the information it requested. 

    In a statement, James said she was grateful the court acted quickly to block the funding freeze, calling it a “critical victory for workers and commuters.”

    “The Hudson Tunnel Project is one of the most important infrastructure projects in the nation, and we will keep fighting to ensure construction can continue without unnecessary federal interference,” James said.

    The GDC announced Friday that construction work would stop at 5 p.m. if the feds did not release $205 million in reimbursements by then. The commission warned 1,000 construction workers would immediately lose their jobs and that a prolonged pause would put tens of thousands more, along with the nearly $20 billion in economic activity the effort is expected to spur, at risk. 

    After Vargas’s ruling, GDC said they hoped federal disbursements resumed “soon” so they could get workers back on the job, as they had already stopped work earlier that evening.  

    Attorneys for the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, Shankar Duraiswamy and Jeremy Feigenbaum, argued Friday that both states will experience “irreparable harm” if funding for the project remains frozen. They said that’s both because the states will be forced to foot the bill to safely maintain the active construction sites (money they say they’d never be able to recover) and because the states have vested nonmonetary interests in the project’s success, including that of safe, reliable rail travel in the region, and the time and resources they’d already poured into it. 

    “There is literally a massive hole in the ground in North Bergen, New Jersey,” Duraiswamy said, referring to one of the project’s five active construction sites. He also cited a 1,600-pound tunnel boring machine and another active construction site in the Hudson River, both of which he said could not “simply be left abandoned” without incurring significant health and safety risks to the surrounding areas.

    If completed, the Gateway project will replace a two-tube rail tunnel running between New York and New Jersey underneath the Hudson River, known as the North River Tunnel, that is falling apart after 116 years of wear-and-tear as well as storm damage from Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The tunnel facilitates the movement of hundreds of Amtrak and New Jersey Transit trains carrying a couple hundred thousand passengers each weekday to and from Penn Station.

    Duraiswamy and Feigenbaum argued that even a few days’ delay on the project could have a significant impact on its timeline, as the construction crews would have to be demobilized and remobilized and design planning would have to pause, adding costly weeks or months to the work. 

    Furthermore, the GDC has raised alarms that a prolonged work stoppage could permanently derail the project, increasing the likelihood that the current tunnel could shut down. The closure of such a major transit artery has the potential to significantly harm the regional and national economies, officials have warned.

    Prior to Vargas’ ruling, Tara Schwartz, an attorney for the USDOT, argued the court shouldn’t force the federal government to temporarily resume funding for the project for a few reasons: because this court didn’t have the proper jurisdiction to do that, a separate lawsuit brought by the Gateway Development Commission earlier this week would be enough to provide any relief necessary and the states weren’t contesting a policy choice, but a simple decision by USDOT not to fund a project anymore. 

    “Plaintiffs are not challenging a policy or directive; they literally just want the government to act differently,” Schwartz said. She also suggested that because the GDC had enough funds for a few more weeks, the states weren’t at risk of imminent monetary harms incurred by footing the bill for construction site maintenance, so an immediate temporary order wasn’t necessary. 

    Duraiswamy and Feigenbaum argued the states had their own separate and distinct harms from the commission — including nonmonetary interests of preventing further disrepair and degradation of the country’s busiest rail tunnel — and that there was no guarantee the commission’s suit would be able to recover money on the state’s behalf, or that it would even win the suit at all. 

    “It’s not enough to say Gateway Development Commission’s suit may recover monetary damages for the states,” Duraiswamy said, calling that a thorny legal question at best. “Even if that’s true, it doesn’t recover damages to [our interest injuries].”

    As it stands, work will continue on the project for the next 14 days —  the length of the temporary stay — before facing the same funding block again. 

    [ad_2]

    Isabella Gallo &#38; Ethan Stark-Miller

    Source link

  • Republicans reject complaint about Tulsi Gabbard as Democrats question time it took to see it

    [ad_1]

    The Republican leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees have rejected a top-secret complaint from an anonymous government insider alleging that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard withheld classified information for political reasons.The responses this week from Sen. Tom Cotton and Rep. Rick Crawford mean the complaint is unlikely to proceed further, though Democratic lawmakers who also have seen the document said they continue to question why it took Gabbard’s office eight months to refer the complaint to Congress as required by law.Gabbard’s office has rejected any allegations of wrongdoing as well as criticism of the timeframe for the referral, saying the complaint included so many classified details that it necessitated an extensive legal and security review. Select lawmakers were able to view the complaint this week.Cotton wrote Thursday on X that he agreed with an earlier inspector general’s conclusion that the complaint did not appear to be credible. He said he believes the complaint was prompted by political opposition to Gabbard and the Trump administration.“To be frank, it seems like just another effort by the president’s critics in and out of government to undermine policies that they don’t like,” wrote the Arkansas Republican, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.When asked about the complaint, Cotton’s office referred to his social media post.Crawford, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, also of Arkansas, said he believes the complaint was an attempt to smear Gabbard’s reputation.Democrats are pushing for explanations about why it took Gabbard’s office months to refer the complaint to the required members of Congress. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the law requires such a report to be sent within 21 days.“The law is clear,” Warner said Thursday at the Capitol. “I think it was an effort to try to bury this whistleblower complaint.”Warner said he also still has questions about the details of the complaint, noting that it was heavily redacted.The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, said in a written statement that he will keep looking into the matter.In a memo sent to lawmakers this week, the intelligence community’s inspector general said the complaint also accused Gabbard’s office of general counsel of failing to report a potential crime to the Department of Justice. The memo, which contains redactions, does not offer further details of either allegation.Last June, then-inspector general Tamara Johnson found that the claim Gabbard distributed classified information along political lines did not appear to be credible, according to the current watchdog, Christopher Fox. Johnson was “unable to assess the apparent credibility” of the accusation about the general counsel’s office, Fox wrote in the memo.Fox said he would have deemed the complaint non-urgent, unlike the previous inspector general, but respected the decision of his predecessor and therefore sent it to lawmakers.Copies of the top-secret complaint were hand-delivered this week to the “Gang of Eight” — a group comprised of the House and Senate leaders from both parties as well as the four top lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees.Andrew Bakaj, the attorney for the person who made the complaint, has said that while he cannot discuss the details of the report or the identity of its author, there is no justification for keeping it from Congress since last spring.A former CIA officer and now the chief legal counsel at Whistleblower Aid, Bakaj said he has heard significant redactions were made to the complaint before it was given to members of Congress.“Given the extensive redactions we understand exist, even in the version provided to the Gang of Eight, it seems unlikely anyone could reasonably and in a non-partisan manner reach the conclusions issued by Sen. Cotton,” Bakaj wrote in a statement to The Associated Press.Gabbard coordinates the work of the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies. She has recently drawn attention for another matter — appearing on site last week when the FBI served a search warrant on election offices in Georgia that are central to Trump’s disproven claims about fraud in the 2020 election.

    WASHINGTON —

    The Republican leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees have rejected a top-secret complaint from an anonymous government insider alleging that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard withheld classified information for political reasons.

    The responses this week from Sen. Tom Cotton and Rep. Rick Crawford mean the complaint is unlikely to proceed further, though Democratic lawmakers who also have seen the document said they continue to question why it took Gabbard’s office eight months to refer the complaint to Congress as required by law.

    Gabbard’s office has rejected any allegations of wrongdoing as well as criticism of the timeframe for the referral, saying the complaint included so many classified details that it necessitated an extensive legal and security review. Select lawmakers were able to view the complaint this week.

    Cotton wrote Thursday on X that he agreed with an earlier inspector general’s conclusion that the complaint did not appear to be credible. He said he believes the complaint was prompted by political opposition to Gabbard and the Trump administration.

    “To be frank, it seems like just another effort by the president’s critics in and out of government to undermine policies that they don’t like,” wrote the Arkansas Republican, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    When asked about the complaint, Cotton’s office referred to his social media post.

    Crawford, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, also of Arkansas, said he believes the complaint was an attempt to smear Gabbard’s reputation.

    Democrats are pushing for explanations about why it took Gabbard’s office months to refer the complaint to the required members of Congress. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the law requires such a report to be sent within 21 days.

    “The law is clear,” Warner said Thursday at the Capitol. “I think it was an effort to try to bury this whistleblower complaint.”

    Warner said he also still has questions about the details of the complaint, noting that it was heavily redacted.

    The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, said in a written statement that he will keep looking into the matter.

    In a memo sent to lawmakers this week, the intelligence community’s inspector general said the complaint also accused Gabbard’s office of general counsel of failing to report a potential crime to the Department of Justice. The memo, which contains redactions, does not offer further details of either allegation.

    Last June, then-inspector general Tamara Johnson found that the claim Gabbard distributed classified information along political lines did not appear to be credible, according to the current watchdog, Christopher Fox. Johnson was “unable to assess the apparent credibility” of the accusation about the general counsel’s office, Fox wrote in the memo.

    Fox said he would have deemed the complaint non-urgent, unlike the previous inspector general, but respected the decision of his predecessor and therefore sent it to lawmakers.

    Copies of the top-secret complaint were hand-delivered this week to the “Gang of Eight” — a group comprised of the House and Senate leaders from both parties as well as the four top lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

    Andrew Bakaj, the attorney for the person who made the complaint, has said that while he cannot discuss the details of the report or the identity of its author, there is no justification for keeping it from Congress since last spring.

    A former CIA officer and now the chief legal counsel at Whistleblower Aid, Bakaj said he has heard significant redactions were made to the complaint before it was given to members of Congress.

    “Given the extensive redactions we understand exist, even in the version provided to the Gang of Eight, it seems unlikely anyone could reasonably and in a non-partisan manner reach the conclusions issued by Sen. Cotton,” Bakaj wrote in a statement to The Associated Press.

    Gabbard coordinates the work of the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies. She has recently drawn attention for another matter — appearing on site last week when the FBI served a search warrant on election offices in Georgia that are central to Trump’s disproven claims about fraud in the 2020 election.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawhive, which started out selling to tech to law firms but then became one, raises $60 million in new funding | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Lawhive, a British startup that wants to use AI to transform the business model of law firms that perform routine legal work for individuals and small businesses, has raised $60 million in new venture capital funding to accelerate its expansion in the U.S.

    The Series B funding round was led by Mitch Rales, cofounder of Danaher Corporation, the $170 billion science and technology conglomerate. Other investors included TQ Ventures, GV (formerly Google Ventures), Balderton Capital, and Jigsaw. The funding comes less than a year after Lawhive raised a $40 million Series A round.

    Lawhive is not a pure software company. Instead, it is a legal services firm that employs a network of human lawyers who are assisted by a technology platform Lawhive has built. The company says this enables it to provide legal services more efficiently and at lower cost than a traditional general practice law firm. The company is among a wave of startups employing this new business model. Others include Robin AI, General Legal, Third Chair, and LegalOS. The model is distinct from other AI law startups such as Harvey, which just sell AI systems for lawyers to use.

    Founded in 2020, Lawhive has built what it calls an AI operating system for consumer law. The company handles routine legal matters including family law, landlord and tenant disputes, property transactions, and consumer rights cases. Its technology automates tasks such as document drafting, legal research, case management, and client intake. It says that about 500 lawyers now work through its platform across three regulated law firms—two in the U.K. and one in Arizona.

    Democratizing access to legal help

    “We’re the overnight success that took five years to build,” said Pierre Proner, Lawhive’s chief executive. The company’s annual revenue now exceeds $35 million and has grown seven-fold in the past year, according to Proner.

    Lawhive is targeting what it says is a large and underserved segment of the legal market—the kind of general legal services that individuals and small businesses need. The company estimates that the consumer legal market in the U.S. generates about $200 billion in revenue annually, but that there is an even larger potential market.

    “There’s a $200 billion existing market, but there’s a trillion dollars of unmet need, of people who have serious legal problems every year who can’t afford an attorney,” Proner said.

    Rales, who built Danaher into one of the world’s most successful industrial companies over four decades, said in a statement that he was drawn to Lawhive’s mission of making legal services more accessible. “Lawhive is democratizing legal services,” he said.

    A can’t beat ’em, join ’em pivot

    Lawhive started out trying to sell automation software to traditional retail law firms, but Proner said many small firms were reluctant to buy. He said lawyers at these firms were skeptical about adopting the technology, partly out of concern that spending less time on cases would make it harder to justify their fees to clients, even though many of these firms already charged fixed fees rather than using a model based on billable hours.  

    So Lawhive pivoted and decided to become a law firm itself, Proner said. He said this allowed Lawhive to “reimagine” the design of the law firm from the ground up, with AI at the heart of how the firm operates both in terms of producing legal work but also doing back office tasks such as invoicing and client onboarding. He says that in many small law firms these tasks account for up to 70% of the firm’s costs. He contrasted Lawhive’s approach with other legal AI companies that “are effectively designing software around how lawyers in law firms work. We’re doing the opposite.”

    Proner said lawyers working through Lawhive earn as much as 2.8 times what they would make at a traditional practice, because they can handle a far greater volume of cases. Consumer lawyers often juggle 80 to 200 clients at a time, and the AI tools allow them to move through that caseload more efficiently.

    For routine legal work, such as filing an uncontested divorce application, Proner said Lawhive’s technology allows for “almost full autonomy,” with human lawyers simply reviewing the filings for quality control.

    While there have been several high profile cases of lawyers been castigated by judges and issued hefty fines for submitting filings containing erroneous case citations due to errors made by AI software, he said that Lawhive has tried to design its AI software to minimize the chances of such mistakes. When the system is uncertain about something, it flags the issue for human review, Proner said. And for more complex disputes that require more judgment calls, the AI plays a more supportive role, he said.

    After starting in the U.K., Lawhive launched in the U.S. last year and now operates in 35 states, with plans to expand nationwide. The company has offices in Austin, Texas, and is opening a new headquarters in New York.

    The company plans to use the new funding primarily for U.S. expansion, Proner said. He said the company’s ambition is to grow another five- to sevenfold this year.

    This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

    [ad_2]

    Jeremy Kahn

    Source link

  • How Super Rugby’s new rules could widen the gap to test rugby

    [ad_1]

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Law Department nominee tells City Council he’ll be lawyer for entire city, not just Mamdani | amNewYork

    [ad_1]

    Steven Banks, Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s nominee for New York City Corporation Counsel, tesitfied before City Council on Feb. 4. Photo by John McCarten/NYC Council Media Unit

    Steven Banks, Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s choice to head the city’s Law Department, promised the New York City Council at his Wednesday confirmation hearing he’d be a “lawyer for the entire city” — not solely, or even primarily, an adviser to the mayor. 

    Banks, who served as the city’s “homelessness czar” under former Mayor Bill de Blasio, emphasized he plans to be readily accessible to council members and answer legal questions on bills they’re looking to pass — something members, including Speaker Julie Menin, said was lacking in former Mayor Eric Adams’ administration. 

    Menin and others also questioned Banks on whether he and his attorneys would provide truly confidential legal advice to members and how he’d approach disagreements on laws between the council and the mayor — for example, if the council passed a law the mayor disagreed with, would Banks help the mayor block its implementation? 

    Banks said his Law Department’s goal would be to ensure major disagreements like that don’t happen, pledging to focus on working with all parties involved throughout the entire legislative writing process to put forward laws that accomplish the goals of the council, are in the best interest of the city and are legally sound. 

    When pressed on what he’d do if a disagreement did arise, Banks said he’d look to act in the best interest of New Yorkers and the city at large.

    “I look forward to representing the whole city, and I look forward to doing what I’ve always done when I’ve had clients that have different points of view: try to reconcile those points of view and ultimately represent the … proper point of view under the law,” Banks said. “I’m not beholden to any institution, any particular elected official. My fidelity is to the rule of law and making sure that the best interests of the city of York are served, regardless of what part of the city is advancing a particular point of view.”

    Banks, a former attorney in chief for the Legal Aid Society, was an architect in the landmark McCain v. Koch settlement, which established the permanent and enforceable right to shelter for families experiencing homelessness in New York City. 

    Banks said he’s committed to upholding both the right to shelter and sanctuary city protections, bringing a “unique perspective” to the department as someone who spent 33 years litigating against it while at the Legal Aid Society.

    New York City Council Member Sandra Ung and Council Speaker Julie Menin on Feb. 4 at confirmation hearing for Steven Banks, Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s nominee for Corporation Counsel. Photo by John McCarten/NYC Council Media Unit

    Members grilled Banks on how he’d handle the department’s current suits, too, like its defense of former Adams aide Timothy Pearson in misconduct suits and litigation against CityFHEPS, the city’s rental assistance program. 

    Acknowledging that the answer may not be “the most satisfying,” to members, Banks said he would review and reevaluate all current litigation and actions the department is taking.

    Banks said he will attempt to identify commonalities among the lawsuits against the city with the goal of addressing underlying liabilities prompting people to sue and hopes to reduce city attorneys’ caseloads.

    New York Attorney General Letitia James spoke in support of Banks’ nomination. She told council members she’d look forward to working with him in legal fights against the Trump administration and would “coordinate efforts” to protect New Yorkers. 

    “Given his decades of commitment to public service, he embodies the law as a source of common good for all of us,” James said at Wednesday’s meeting. “For his entire career, no matter the stakes or personal consequence, he has pursued justice for the most vulnerable in the city.”

    The council will vote on whether to confirm Banks at a later date.

    [ad_2]

    Isabella Gallo

    Source link

  • Out-of-state group funding pot law repeal

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A Virginia-based group is leading an initiative to repeal Massachusetts’ 2016 recreational cannabis law, and putting hundreds of thousands of dollars behind the effort, according to newly released campaign finance data.

    The anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, has contributed more than $1.5 million to proposed referendum that would effectively halt recreational cannabis sales by forcing the state’s $1.7 billion industry to convert to medical pot shops. It would also ban non-medical home growing.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmu:=:?8D H:E9 E96 DE2E6 ~77:46 @7 r2>A2:8?D 2?5 !F3=:4 u:?2?46 D9@H E96 pC=:?8E@?[ ‘:C8:?:232D65 8C@FA 4@?EC:3FE65 S`]dd >:==:@? 😕 $6AE6>36C E@ E96 r@2=:E:@? 7@C 2 w62=E9J |2DD249FD6EED x?4][ 2 4@>>:EE66 E92E 9:C65 A2:5 D:8?2EFC6 82E96C6CD E@ 4=62C 2 7:CDE 9FC5=6 E@ E96 32==@E]k^Am

    kAm“(6 2C6 DFAA@CE:?8 E9:D 677@CE 3642FD6 >@>6?EF> 😀 C:D:?8 24C@DD E96 4@F?ECJ E@ C6;64E =682= >2C:;F2?2[” E96 8C@FA’D 4@7@F?56C 2?5 rt~[ z6G:? $236E[ D2:5 😕 2 AC6A2C65 DE2E6>6?E] “p?5 ?@ H@?56Ci p>6C:42?D 😕 6G6CJ DE2E6 2C6 H2<:?8 FA E@ E96 >2DD:G6 92C>D E9:D ?6H q:8 %@3244@ :?5FDECJ 5@6D E@ 6G6CJE9:?8 7C@> >6?E2= 2?5 A9JD:42= 962=E9 E@ D@4:2= 4@96D:@? 2?5 @C56C]”k^Am

    kAm%96 8C@FA[ 4@7@F?565 3J 7@C>6C #9@56 xD=2?5 4@?8C6DD>2? !2EC:4< z6??65J[ 😀 32?:=2C C6A62= :?:E:2E:G6D 😕 @E96C DE2E6D H96C6 A@E 😀 =682=]k^Am

    kAm$236E 2C8F6D E92E E96 25G6?E @7 C64C62E:@?2= A@E 😕 |2DD249FD6EED 92D 4@?EC:3FE65 E@ :?4C62D65 5CF8 255:4E:@? 2?5 >6?E2= 962=E9 :DDF6D 2>@?8 J@FE9 H9:=6 6?C:49:?8 E96 42??23:D :?5FDECJ]k^Am

    kAmw6 4:E65 DEF5:6D 7C@> 4@?D6CG2E:G6 8C@FAD 4=2:>:?8 “G:@=6?E 4C:>6” 92D DA:<65 😕 E96 DE2E6 D:?46 A@E H2D =682=:K65]k^Am

    kAm“{682= H665 92D 366? 2 325 562= 7@C 6G6CJ@?6 6I46AE E96 :?5FDECJ[” $236E D2:5]k^Am

    kAmqFE #J2? s@>:?8F6K[ 6I64FE:G6 5:C64E@C @7 E96 |2DD249FD6EED r2??23:D r@2=:E:@? 2?5 9625 @7 2 4@>>:EE66 @AA@D:?8 E96 C6A62= 677@CE[k^Am

    kAm“%9:D C62==J :D?’E 23@FE AF3=:4 962=E9 @C D276EJ[” 96 D2:5] “xE’D 2 ?2E:@?2= @C82?:K2E:@? ECJ:?8 E@ AFD9 :ED 286?52 @? E96 DE2E6[ 2?5 FD6 :ED @FE@7DE2E6 5@?@CD E@ DAC625 >:D:?7@C>2E:@? 😕 2? 677@CE E@ @G6CEFC? 2 56>@4C2E:4 @FE4@>6] %96 DE2E6’D G@E6CD >256 :E 4=62C 😕 a_`e E96J @G6CH96=>:?8=J DFAA@CE =682=:K2E:@?]”k^Am

    kAms@>:?8F6K D2:5 =682= H665 92D 366? 2 H:?572== 7@C E96 DE2E6 2?5 =@42= 8@G6C?>6?ED H9:49 92G6 4@==64E65 9F?5C65D @7 >:==:@?D @7 5@==2CD 😕 E2I6D D:?46 C64C62E:@?2= D2=6D H6C6 7:CDE 2FE9@C:K65] w6 5:DAFE65 4=2:>D 3J E96 8C@FA E92E E96 42??23:D :?5FDECJ 92D 4@?EC:3FE65 E@ 4C:>6]k^Am

    kAm$FAA@CE6CD @7 E96 C6A62= 677@CE 4=62C65 2 >2;@C 9FC5=6 E@ E96 32==@E 27E6C E96J DF3>:EE65 >@C6 E92? fg[___ G@E6C D:8?2EFC6D E@ E96 $64C6E2CJ @7 $E2E6 q:== v2=G:?’D @77:46 7@C 46CE:7:42E:@? @7 E96 x?:E:2E:G6 !6E:E:@? 7@C 2 {2H #6=2E:G6 E@ #68F=2E:?8 |2C:;F2?2] v2=G:? 46CE:7:65 E96 D:8?2EFC6D =2DE H66<]k^Am

    kAm{2DE H66<[ E96 DE2E6 q2==@E {2H r@>>:DD:@? C6;64E65 2 4@>A=2:?E 2==68:?8 DFAA@CE6CD @7 E96 677@CE “7C2F5F=6?E=J” 4@==64E65 D:8?2EFC6D 7C@> G@E6CD 3J 9:C:?8 2 E9:C5A2CEJ 8C@FA E92E >256 5646AE:G6 4=2:>D 23@FE H92E E96 AC@A@D65 32==@E BF6DE:@? H@F=5 5@ :7 2AAC@G65]k^Am

    kAmq@E9 E96 $64C6E2CJ @7 $E2E6’D ~77:46 2?5 E96 |2DD249FD6EED ~77:46 @7 E96 pEE@C?6J v6?6C2= H6C6 C6A@CE65=J 4@?E24E65 3J G@E6CD 4@?46C?65 23@FE E96 E24E:4D 36:?8 FD65 3J E96 2?E:42??23:D 42>A2:8? E@ 4@==64E D:8?2EFC6D] }6:E96C H2D H:==:?8 E@ 4@>>6?E 23@FE 2?J 24E:G6 :?G6DE:82E:@?D]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED G@E6CD =682=:K65 C64C62E:@?2= 42??23:D E9C@F89 2 32==@E C676C6?5F> 😕 a_`e[ H9:49 A2DD65 H:E9 dbT @7 E96 G@E6]k^Am

    kAm#646?E A@==D 92G6 D9@H? DEC@?8 DFAA@CE 7@C C64C62E:@?2= A@E 😕 E96 DE2E6 2?5 ?2E:@?2==J]k^Am

    kAmrC:E:4D 2=D@ D2J 2==@H:?8 42??23:D E@ C6>2:? =682= H9:=6 DE@AA:?8 E96 C6E2:= >2C<6E H@F=5 7665 3=24<>2C<6E D2=6D @7 E96 5CF8[ 4C62E:?8 AF3=:4 D276EJ :DDF6D]k^Am

    kAm&?56C E96 DE2E6 4@?DE:EFE:@?[ E96 {68:D=2EFC6 😀 C6BF:C65 E@ 4@?D:56C E96 :?:E:2E:G6 A6E:E:@?D 367@C6 324<6CD @7 E96 C676C6?5F>D >FDE 4@?5F4E 2?@E96C C@F?5 @7 D:8?2EFC6 82E96C:?8] {2H>2<6CD 92G6 F?E:= |2J d E@ G@E6 @? E96 AC@A@D2=D]k^Am

    kAmx7 =2H>2<6CD 5@?’E E2<6 FA E96 4FCC6?E >62DFC6D[ 324<6CD @7 E96 C676C6?5F>D >FDE 82E96C 2?@E96C `a[cah D:8?2EFC6D E@ >2<6 E96 32==@E]k^Am

    kAmk6>mr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^6>mk^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Is ICE Leading Us Into a Constitutional Crisis?

    [ad_1]

    So they do not want a constitutional crisis, but what is the alternative? You tiptoe around it and hope that the government comes into compliance by baby steps?

    That’s right. It’s a very sensitive interaction. And, in some of these cases, with the threats, the government has come into compliance. But, at a certain point, it does seem as though the courts are going to have to take that next step, which is civil or criminal contempt against individuals. They also have the capacity to refer individuals for disciplinary measures, and they can disqualify particular Justice Department attorneys from handling certain cases before their courts—reputational hits for some of these individuals. I think that will be the next escalation.

    There was a lot of discussion last year about the Trump Administration ignoring the courts. My own feeling from following the issue had been that they would walk up to the line in most instances, and then, in the rare cases where the Supreme Court ruled against them, they would comply. It seems like the Trump Administration wants to show that it can be uncompliant, but it doesn’t want to actually spark something that would create a huge drama or constitutional crisis, pitting it against the Supreme Court. Is that your understanding?

    I do think they are playing a game of pushing it as close to the line as they can. I also think, in some instances, it is actually just gross incompetence or internal miscommunications. For instance, the Department of Justice lawyers might tell D.H.S. not to transfer somebody to another jurisdiction, but the communication doesn’t reach them in a timely fashion.

    In the higher-stakes cases, the Justice Department is doing something more egregious. They do appear to be defying court orders to effectuate a policy. The key case for that is the Alien Enemies Act case, which came before Judge Boasberg. This happened within the first several hours of the President’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, in March. It’s about the flights that took off to El Salvador to bring those people alleged to be Venezuelan gang members to the CECOT torture prison.

    Erez Reuveni, a D.O.J. lawyer and whistle-blower, revealed what happened behind the scenes, including text messages that corroborate his account. He alleges, with strong evidence, that it was a deliberate policy to, no matter what, get those people to El Salvador, even if there were court orders preventing their deportation. According to Reuveni, Emil Bove, a Trump loyalist at the D.O.J., had said in a meeting before the hearings that they would have to consider telling the courts, “Fuck you.” And then there’s contemporaneous text messaging between the D.O.J. attorneys during the oral hearing, in which they say that this is the “fuck you” moment. [Bove has testified that he does not recall saying this.] It’s just very clear, based on these allegations, what happened there. So I think that, to me, that would be the constitutional-crisis moment, that a case would get to the Supreme Court and they would do that to a Supreme Court order. They think they can get away with it more when it’s in district courts.

    This feels like one area among many where, even if we aren’t yet in a worst-case scenario, or we convince ourselves that we are not, if you told someone ten years ago what was going on, they would think, Oh, well, that is a worst-case scenario.

    Absolutely, yes, I think that’s right. Coming into this Administration, I was worried about some of the things that this Administration could do that would constitute crossing the red line. That would include open defiance of a court order. And here we are in the dozens. So I do think we’re in a new normal, and I do worry that the public has been desensitized to how concerning this is. But, going back to the subject of immigration, the defiance of these court orders is creating a lawless situation that I think judges are rightly concerned about. Another district court judge in Minnesota, Michael Davis, accused the government of attempting to undermine the regulatory and statutory authority of the immigration courts to coerce perpetual, infinite detention. So I think it really is setting up a parallel system of immigration detention that exists in defiance of the courts.

    Do you mean that they’re essentially normalizing a practice where detainees do not get their time in court?

    I’m definitely concerned about that. I think the reason the system is still holding is that we have instances in which the courts, by threatening civil and criminal contempt, are able to bring the government back into line. [The Times reported last weekend that hundreds of detainees have now been released from immigration detention after habeas petitions began filling up the federal-court dockets.] We have a court concluding that a government’s in flagrant violation of its orders, while still being able to coerce the government back into place. That’s the kind of knife’s edge we’re on right now.

    What’s happening in the courtroom is part of a broader slide towards lawlessness, because defiance of court orders is connected to another ICE policy: the agency repeatedly states that its entire system of arrest is based on reasonable suspicion. And that is legally invalid because arrests have to be based on probable cause. A D.C. district-court judge, Beryl Howell, chastised the agency for this in December, summarizing several instances in which D.H.S. had repeatedly said that ICE arrests were based on reasonable suspicion, and they continue to do it. They’ve done it as recently as the past couple of weeks.

    What’s the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause?

    Reasonable suspicion is similar to stop-and-frisk policies, in which a law-enforcement officer can stop somebody very briefly and ask them questions on the basis of a low threshold of evidence. But actually arresting somebody and putting them in custody requires a much higher level of proof, which is probable cause. In the immigration context, to apprehend and detain someone for a long time, they’d need to have more than a reasonable suspicion, meaning much greater evidence indicating that the person is in the country unlawfully. So, for them to state and restate again and again that they’re basing their arrests on reasonable suspicion is like a failing answer on the bar exam. And they’re doing that continually, despite the court calling them out for it.

    It is also important to note that D.H.S. has authorized ICE agents to enter homes without a judicial warrant. To me, these two policies are putting ICE operations on the road to a very different form of legal system than the one we’re used to. They’re breaking rules.

    [ad_2]

    Isaac Chotiner

    Source link

  • Out-of-state group funds pot law repeal

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A Virginia-based group is leading an initiative to repeal Massachusetts’ 2016 recreational cannabis law and putting hundreds of thousands of dollars behind the effort, according to newly released campaign finance data.

    The anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana has contributed more than $1.5 million to a proposed referendum that would effectively halt recreational cannabis sales by forcing the state’s $1.7 billion industry to convert to medical pot shops. It would also ban nonmedical home growing.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmu:=:?8D H:E9 E96 DE2E6 ~77:46 @7 r2>A2:8?D 2?5 !F3=:4 u:?2?46 D9@H E96 pC=:?8E@?[ ‘:C8:?:232D65 8C@FA 4@?EC:3FE65 S`]dd >:==:@? 😕 $6AE6>36C E@ E96 r@2=:E:@? 7@C 2 w62=E9J |2DD249FD6EED x?4][ 2 4@>>:EE66 E92E 9:C65 A2:5 D:8?2EFC6 82E96C6CD E@ 4=62C 2 7:CDE 9FC5=6 E@ E96 32==@E]k^Am

    kAm“(6 2C6 DFAA@CE:?8 E9:D 677@CE 3642FD6 >@>6?EF> 😀 C:D:?8 24C@DD E96 4@F?ECJ E@ C6;64E =682= >2C:;F2?2[” E96 8C@FA’D 4@7@F?56C 2?5 rt~[ z6G:? $236E[ D2:5 😕 2 AC6A2C65 DE2E6>6?E] “p?5 ?@ H@?56Ci p>6C:42?D 😕 6G6CJ DE2E6 2C6 H2<:?8 FA E@ E96 >2DD:G6 92C>D E9:D ?6H q:8 %@3244@ :?5FDECJ 5@6D E@ 6G6CJE9:?8 7C@> >6?E2= 2?5 A9JD:42= 962=E9 E@ D@4:2= 4@96D:@? 2?5 @C56C]”k^Am

    kAm%96 8C@FA[ 4@7@F?565 3J 7@C>6C #9@56 xD=2?5 r@?8C6DD>2? !2EC:4< z6??65J[ 😀 32?:=2C C6A62= :?:E:2E:G6D 😕 @E96C DE2E6D H96C6 A@E 😀 =682=]k^Am

    kAm$236E 2C8F6D E92E E96 25G6?E @7 C64C62E:@?2= A@E 😕 |2DD249FD6EED 92D 4@?EC:3FE65 E@ :?4C62D65 5CF8 255:4E:@? 2?5 >6?E2= 962=E9 :DDF6D 2>@?8 J@FE9D H9:=6 6?C:49:?8 E96 42??23:D :?5FDECJ]k^Am

    kAmw6 4:E65 DEF5:6D 7C@> 4@?D6CG2E:G6 8C@FAD 4=2:>:?8 “G:@=6?E 4C:>6” 92D DA:<65 😕 E96 DE2E6 D:?46 A@E H2D =682=:K65]k^Am

    kAm“{682= H665 92D 366? 2 325 562= 7@C 6G6CJ@?6 6I46AE E96 :?5FDECJ[” $236E D2:5]k^Am

    kAm#J2? s@>:?8F6K 😀 E96 6I64FE:G6 5:C64E@C @7 E96 |2DD249FD6EED r2??23:D r@2=:E:@? 2?5 9625 @7 2 4@>>:EE66 @AA@D:?8 E96 C6A62= 677@CE]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D C62==J :D?’E 23@FE AF3=:4 962=E9 @C D276EJ[” 96 D2:5] “xE’D 2 ?2E:@?2= @C82?:K2E:@? ECJ:?8 E@ AFD9 :ED 286?52 @? E96 DE2E6 2?5 FD6 :ED @FE@7DE2E6 5@?@CD E@ DAC625 >:D:?7@C>2E:@? 😕 2? 677@CE E@ @G6CEFC? 2 56>@4C2E:4 @FE4@>6] %96 DE2E6’D G@E6CD >256 :E 4=62C 😕 a_`e E96J @G6CH96=>:?8=J DFAA@CE =682=:K2E:@?]”k^Am

    kAms@>:?8F6K D2:5 =682= H665 92D 366? 2 H:?572== 7@C E96 DE2E6 2?5 =@42= 8@G6C?>6?ED[ H9:49 92G6 4@==64E65 9F?5C65D @7 >:==:@?D @7 5@==2CD 😕 E2I6D D:?46 C64C62E:@?2= D2=6D H6C6 7:CDE 2FE9@C:K65] w6 5:DAFE65 4=2:>D 3J E96 8C@FA E92E E96 42??23:D :?5FDECJ 92D 4@?EC:3FE65 E@ 4C:>6]k^Am

    kAm$FAA@CE6CD @7 E96 C6A62= 677@CE 4=62C65 2 >2;@C 9FC5=6 E@ E96 32==@E 27E6C E96J DF3>:EE65 >@C6 E92? fg[___ G@E6C D:8?2EFC6D E@ $64C6E2CJ @7 $E2E6 q:== v2=G:?’D @77:46 7@C 46CE:7:42E:@? @7 E96 x?:E:2E:G6 !6E:E:@? 7@C 2 {2H #6=2E:G6 E@ #68F=2E:?8 |2C:;F2?2] v2=G:? 46CE:7:65 E96 D:8?2EFC6D]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6 q2==@E {2H r@>>:DD:@? C6;64E65 2 4@>A=2:?E 2==68:?8 DFAA@CE6CD @7 E96 677@CE “7C2F5F=6?E=J” 4@==64E65 D:8?2EFC6D 7C@> G@E6CD 3J 9:C:?8 2 E9:C5A2CEJ 8C@FA E92E >256 5646AE:G6 4=2:>D 23@FE H92E E96 AC@A@D65 32==@E BF6DE:@? H@F=5 5@ :7 2AAC@G65]k^Am

    kAmq@E9 E96 $64C6E2CJ @7 $E2E6’D ~77:46 2?5 E96 |2DD249FD6EED ~77:46 @7 E96 pEE@C?6J v6?6C2= H6C6 C6A@CE65=J 4@?E24E65 3J G@E6CD 4@?46C?65 23@FE E96 E24E:4D 36:?8 FD65 3J E96 2?E:42??23:D 42>A2:8? E@ 4@==64E D:8?2EFC6D] }6:E96C H2D H:==:?8 E@ 4@>>6?E 23@FE 2?J 24E:G6 :?G6DE:82E:@?D]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED G@E6CD =682=:K65 C64C62E:@?2= 42??23:D E9C@F89 2 32==@E C676C6?5F> 😕 a_`e[ H9:49 A2DD65 H:E9 dbT @7 E96 G@E6]k^Am

    kAm#646?E A@==D 92G6 D9@H? DEC@?8 DFAA@CE 7@C C64C62E:@?2= A@E 😕 E96 DE2E6 2?5 ?2E:@?2==J]k^Am

    kAmrC:E:4D 2=D@ D2J 2==@H:?8 42??23:D E@ C6>2:? =682= H9:=6 DE@AA:?8 E96 C6E2:= >2C<6E H@F=5 7665 3=24< >2C<6E D2=6D @7 E96 5CF8[ 4C62E:?8 AF3=:4 D276EJ :DDF6D]k^Am

    kAm&?56C E96 DE2E6 4@?DE:EFE:@?[ E96 {68:D=2EFC6 😀 C6BF:C65 E@ 4@?D:56C E96 :?:E:2E:G6 A6E:E:@?D 367@C6 324<6CD @7 E96 C676C6?5F>D >FDE 4@?5F4E 2?@E96C C@F?5 @7 D:8?2EFC6 82E96C:?8] {2H>2<6CD 92G6 F?E:= |2J d E@ G@E6 @? E96 AC@A@D2=D]k^Am

    kAmx7 =2H>2<6CD 5@?’E E2<6 FA E96 4FCC6?E >62DFC6D[ 324<6CD @7 E96 C676C6?5F>D >FDE 82E96C `a[cah D:8?2EFC6D E@ >2<6 E96 32==@E]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Watchdog claims proof of ‘harm’ nonexistent in suit against Trump’s ban on trans surgeries for minors

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    FIRST ON FOX: A Trump-aligned lawfare group filed records requests attempting to uncover the “harm” that Democrat states said was being incurred as the result of one of President Trump’s Day One executive order banning sex changes for minors.

    However, those states either ignored their requests or said they could not find any responsive records documenting the very harms their lawsuit warns are already unfolding.  

    After 15 states, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Democrat Gov. Josh Shapiro sued the president and his Department of Justice over the executive order that was issued on Aug. 1, America First Legal subsequently filed records requests to those states that were suing in an attempt to uncover whether the claims of injury are true and accurate. Only three states, Massachusetts, Illinois and Nevada, have provided any sort of response thus far. Furthermore, the responses that did arrive indicated there were no responsive records relating to AFL’s request even though they asked for documents pertaining to precisely what the lawsuit in question alleges. 

    “States suing the Trump Administration appear to lack evidence of actual harm supporting their allegations,” said Dan Epstein, Vice President of America First Legal. “The Trump Administration’s executive order sought to protect minors from permanent physical damage. Protecting children should not be subject to politics.”

    TRUMP ADMIN FINDS CALIFORNIA BAN ON NOTIFYING PARENTS OF GENDER TRANSITIONS VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW

    President Trump took on transgender activism early in his second term, including through Executive Order 14187, which prohibits sex-change surgeries for anyone under the age of 19. (Getty Images/AP)

    While a nationwide preliminary injunction was issued just a few months after the issuance of Trump’s executive order prohibiting physicians from performing sex change surgeries on individuals under the age of 19, according to Epstein, the plaintiffs must still must show “standing” in order for a court to provide a remedy and just because the plaintiffs filed their suit early does not mean this responsibility disappears. 

    “Because standing is necessary for any federal court to provide a remedy, plaintiffs must plead concrete evidence of harm in their complaint,” Epstein asserted. “Here, plaintiffs’ complaint failed to show an actual, traceable loss tied to the federal action, beyond merely speculative claims of harm or generalized concerns. Filing suit early does not eliminate this requirement to establish standing.”

    Fox News Digital reached out to the health departments and Attorneys General offices in Massachusetts, Illinois and Nevada, to request information about the documents being relied on by plaintiffs in their suit against Trump’s executive order. In particular, Fox News Digital also asked if the state health departments had no responsive records, or whether there might be anywhere else that they could be kept, but again did not receive a response. 

    In the lawsuit challenging Trump’s Executive Order 14187, which bans federal taxpayer dollars from being used to “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another,” the blue state plaintiffs allege the executive order was fostering “an atmosphere of fear and intimidation experienced by transgender individuals, their families and caregivers, and the medical professionals who seek only to provide necessary, lawful care to their patients.”

    PRIVACY CONCERNS, DISCRIMINATION, DOCTOR PUSHBACK: THE COMPLIANCE TRAPS LOOMING BEHIND SEX-SEPARATED SPORTS

    Demonstrators during the Rise Up for Trans Youth rally against President Donald Trump's executive actions targeting transgender people at Union Square in New York, US, on Saturday, Feb. 7, 2025. Three of New York's most prominent hospitals are curbing gender-affirming care for minors after President Donald Trump's executive orders put at risk billions of dollars in federal funding. 

    Demonstrators during the Rise Up for Trans Youth rally against President Donald Trump’s executive actions targeting transgender people at Union Square in New York, US, on Saturday, Feb. 7, 2025. Three of New York’s most prominent hospitals are curbing gender-affirming care for minors after President Donald Trump’s executive orders put at risk billions of dollars in federal funding.  (Photographer: Stephanie Keith/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    AFL’s records requests sought any documents showing the states had actually experienced the harms they claim in their lawsuit against Trump’s Executive Order 14187 — including evidence of prosecutions or penalties for providers, clinic closures, reduced services, and increased medical or mental-health crises for transgender adolescents. 

    The group also asked for records showing higher costs for things like counseling, crisis services, or hospitalizations, worsened mental and physical health outcomes, or the states’ inability to meet legal obligations to provide medical care for minors in state custody. AFL also asked, in its final tenth point, for any internal communications specifically referencing the executive order and its alleged effects.

    The only states who have gotten back to AFL’s records request are Massachusetts, Illinois and Nevada. Massachusetts and Nevada said they had zero records pertaining to any of their requests, while Illinois responded that they had no records responsive to every one of AFL’s requests except for their last and most broad one, which asked for records and communication mentioning the terms “Executive Order 14187,” the order’s formal title, or “affect shape harm.”

    The records handed over by Illinois’ public health department included notices that agency personnel received notifying them that funds could not be used for services that violate President Trump’s Executive Order 14187, as well as notices to grantees telling them they may incur new costs that support programs or activities in conflict with the executive order. 

    Illinois’ records also showed that a program director at a nonprofit healthcare group expressed concern about an inability to register new clients because the president’s directive prevented staff from asking a patient’s gender identity or preferred pronouns, which were required fields in the healthcare group’s client database. Because clients have to be enrolled in the database to receive HIV/AIDS services, the director feared this could impact those services.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP   

    Illinois records showed a slow-down in grant releases as well, while everyone got up to date with the new requirements of Trump’s executive order.

    Fifteen states, D.C. and Gov. Josh Shapiro have sued the Trump admin over the president's executive order prohibiting transgender surgeries for those under the age of 19.

    Fifteen states, D.C. and Gov. Josh Shapiro have sued the Trump admin over the president’s executive order prohibiting transgender surgeries for those under the age of 19. (Getty Images)

    Fox News Digital reached out repeatedly to the public health departments and Attorneys General offices for comment on AFL’s accusations that their lawsuit is without evidence, but only received a response from Massachusetts’ Department of Public health, which referred Fox News Digital to the state’s Attorney General office.

    “AFL has previously exposed other states’ lack of standing in their own respective cases against the Trump Administration. Specifically, AFL uncovered Colorado, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Arizona’s lack of evidence supporting their claims of injury in an attempt to block the Trump Administration’s sharing of Medicaid beneficiary data with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,” a press release from the lawfare group said. “These states’ responses to AFL’s records requests repeatedly reveal a lack of standing. AFL will continue to expose baseless litigation efforts aimed at undermining the America First agenda.”

    Trump’s Executive Order 14187 is also being challenged for alleged discrimination in a lawsuit against the Health and Human Services Department led by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Essex resident heading up Stop Child Predators

    [ad_1]

    ESSEX — For Maureen Flatley , there is possibly no task greater than protecting children.

    Flatley, who has lived in Essex since 2002, was recently named president of the Washington, D.C.-based organization Stop Child Predators. She comes to the position as the organization celebrates 20 years of child protection advocacy.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmu=2E=6J 2:>D E@ 5C:G6 E96 8C@FA’D 25G@424J H@C<[ H9:=6 :ED 7@F?56C[ $E24:6 #F>6?2A[ 4@?E:?F6D 😕 96C C@=6 2D 49:67 6I64FE:G6 @77:46C]k^Am

    kAm$E@A r9:=5 !C652E@CD 😀 2 ?2E:@?2= ?@?AC@7:E @C82?:K2E:@? 565:42E65 E@ 25G2?4:?8 “67764E:G6 2?5 6G:56?4632D65 49:=5 AC@E64E:@? A@=:4:6D]” %96 8C@FA 7@4FD6D @? D@=FE:@?D E@ 4@>32E 49:=5 6IA=@:E2E:@? 2?5 56G6=@A:?8 A@=:4:6D E92E C6>@G6 AC652E@CD 7C@> 4:C4F=2E:@?]k^Am

    kAm“!C@E64E:?8 49:=5C6? C6BF:C6D 4=2C:EJ 23@FE H92E 24EF2==J H@C62?D D6C:@FD :?G6DE>6?ED 😕 =2H 6?7@C46>6?E[ DEC6?8E96?:?8 AF3=:4AC:G2E6 A2CE?6CD9:AD H:E9 >2?52E65 C6A@CE6CD 2?5 6?DFC:?8 C62= 244@F?E23:=:EJ E9C@F89 2CC6DED[ AC@D64FE:@?D 2?5 4@?G:4E:@?D]”k^Am

    kAmu=2E=6J D2:5 E96 >@DE=J G@=F?E66C @C82?:K2E:@? @A6C2E6D @? 2 3F586E @7 36EH66? S`d_[___ 2?5 Sa__[___ 6249 J62C] $96 3C:?8D 564256D @7 6IA6C:6?46 😕 49:=5 AC@E64E:@? 2?5 😕 677@CED E@ C67@C> 8@G6C?>6?E 2?5 AF3=:4 A@=:4J]k^Am

    kAmu=2E=6J H2D 2 AC:?4:A2= 2C49:E64E @7 |2D92’D {2H 😕 a__e] %96 =2H :?4C62D65 4:G:= A6?2=E:6D 7@C 5@H?=@25:?8 49:=5 D6IF2= 23FD6 >2E6C:2=]k^Am

    kAm“%96 >@DE :>A@CE2?E C@=6 $E@A r9:=5 !C652E@CD D6CG6D 😀 E@ 7@4FD A@=:4J >2<6CD 2?5 E96 AF3=:4 @? E96 4C:E:42= C@=6 =2H 6?7@C46>6?E A=2JD 😕 >:E:82E:?8 E9:D D6C:@FD AC@3=6>[” u=2E=6J D2:5]k^Am

    kAmu=2E=6J 92D E6DE:7:65 367@C6 r@?8C6DD 2?5 2E A@=:4J 4@?76C6?46D 😕 (2D9:?8E@?[ s]r] @? 4@>32E:?8 :?E6C?6E D6IF2= 6IA=@:E2E:@?]k^Am

    kAm$E6A96? w282? 42? 36 C624965 2E hfgefdaf_g @C 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@iD9282?o8=@F46DE6CE:>6D]4@>QmD9282?o8=@F46DE6CE:>6D]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    kAm$E6A96? w282? >2J 36 4@?E24E65 2E hfgefdaf_g[ @C k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@iD9282?o8=@F46DE6CE:>6D]4@>QmD9282?o8=@F46DE6CE:>6D]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Stephen Hagan | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Corrupt ex-cop pleads guilty to charges in drug trafficking scheme – amNewYork

    [ad_1]

    FILE – The NYPD logo.

    Photo by Getty Images/Tillsonbrug

    A former NYPD officer on Thursday pleaded guilty to charges stemming from his involvement in a drug trafficking scheme while serving on the force. 

    Andrew Nguyen, 42, was charged with bribery, narcotics trafficking conspiracy, using a firearm to further drug trafficking, fraud and robbery last fall. According to his eight-count indictment, the ex-cop took more than $30,000 in exchange for transporting drugs, including approximately eight kilograms of cocaine; providing unauthorized armed protection for a drug trafficking enterprise; and submitting false reports to the NYPD to help a co-conspirator avoid repayment of a drug-trafficking-related debt.

    Nguyen entered a guilty plea to three of the indictment’s eight counts — bribery and narcotics distribution conspiracy, and a firearm charge — before U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres Thursday.

    He told Torres that he abused his position and access as an NYPD officer to support and protect people trafficking drugs in The Bronx and Manhattan between 2020 and 2023, including using an unsanctioned police vehicle to conduct an unsanctioned car stop to support the scheme.

    “I knew what I was doing was wrong,” Nguyen, who was primarily stationed at Bronx Transit District 12, told the court. “I am deeply sorry.”

    Family members of Nguyen filled the first two rows of the courtroom with tears in their eyes, passing tissues between each other throughout the proceedings. Nguyen’s attorney, Martin Bell of the firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, explained what would happen during the plea hearing and what the next steps would be before the proceeding to his relatives in the courtroom.

    Nguyen will be sentenced on June 22. The maximum sentence for the crimes Nguyen pleaded guilty to is life in prison. The minimum required sentence is five years. 

    His plea deal, which his attorney and prosecutors, U.S. Attorneys Jonathan Rebold and Matthew King agreed to, includes a recommended sentence of 12.25 years to 14 years, though the judge is not bound to that recommendation. 

    Beyond the crimes Nguyen pleaded guilty to, charging papers allege wire fraud, robbery and an attempt to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute it. They also charge he considered, but ultimately decided against, carrying out a string of other actions to support the drug trafficking scheme and traffickers — including kidnapping drug dealers who owed money to a man he was conspiring with.

    Nguyen was arrested on Nov. 4, 2025, and was released on a $400,000 bond on Nov. 12, 2025. 

    He was fired from the NYPD in December 2023 for an unrelated incident: stealing a pair of children’s Nikes that a coworker placed in his precinct’s property room. 

    After being kicked off the force, Nguyen worked as a public bus driver in Westchester, a job he lost during the course of the court proceedings. Since then, he has been working in the delivery industry.

    Nguyen will be held in custody until he is sentenced. 

    [ad_2]

    Isabella Gallo &#38; Nina Pullano

    Source link

  • US appeals court says Secretary Noem’s decision to end protections for Venezuelans in US was illegal

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals court ruled late Wednesday that the Trump administration acted illegally when it ended legal protections that gave hundreds of thousands of people from Venezuela permission to live and work in the United States.A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that found Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority when she ended temporary protected status for Venezuelans.The decision, however, will not have any immediate practical effect after the U.S. Supreme Court in October allowed Noem’s decision to take effect pending a final decision by the justices.An email late Wednesday night to the Department of Homeland Security was not immediately returned.The 9th Circuit panel also upheld the lower court’s finding that Noem exceeded her authority when she decided to end TPS early for hundreds of thousands of people from Haiti.A federal judge in Washington is expected to rule any day now on a request to pause the termination of TPS for Haiti while a separate lawsuit challenging it proceeds. The country’s TPS designation is scheduled to end on Feb. 3.Ninth Circuit Judges Kim Wardlaw, Salvador Mendoza, Jr. and Anthony Johnstone said in Wednesday’s ruling that the TPS legislation passed by Congress did not give the secretary the power to vacate an existing TPS designation. All three judges were nominated by Democratic presidents.“The statute contains numerous procedural safeguards that ensure individuals with TPS enjoy predictability and stability during periods of extraordinary and temporary conditions in their home country,” Judge Kim Wardlaw, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, wrote for the panel.Wardlaw said Noem’s “unlawful actions have had real and significant consequences” for Venezuelans and Haitians in the United States who rely on TPS.“The record is replete with examples of hard-working, contributing members of society — who are mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and partners of U.S. citizens, pay taxes, and have no criminal records — who have been deported or detained after losing their TPS,” she wrote.Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, authorized by Congress as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, allows the Homeland Security secretary to grant legal immigration status to people fleeing countries experiencing civil strife, environmental disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return to that home country.Designations are granted for terms of six, 12 or 18 months, and extensions can be granted so long as conditions remain dire. The status prevents holders from being deported and allows them to work, but it does not give them a path to citizenship.In ending the protections, Noem said that conditions in both Haiti and Venezuela had improved and that it was not in the national interest to allow immigrants from the two countries to stay on for what is a temporary program.Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. The country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.Haiti was first designated for TPS in 2010 after a catastrophic magnitude 7.0 earthquake killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of people, and left more than 1 million homeless. Haitians face widespread hunger and gang violence.Mendoza wrote separately that there was “ample evidence of racial and national origin animus” that reinforced the lower court’s conclusion that Noem’s decisions were “preordained and her reasoning pretextual.”“It is clear that the Secretary’s vacatur actions were not actually grounded in substantive policy considerations or genuine differences with respect to the prior administration’s TPS procedures, but were instead rooted in a stereotype-based diagnosis of immigrants from Venezuela and Haiti as dangerous criminals or mentally unwell,” he wrote.Attorneys for the government have argued the secretary has clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program and those decisions are not subject to judicial review. They have also denied that her actions were motived by racial animus.

    A federal appeals court ruled late Wednesday that the Trump administration acted illegally when it ended legal protections that gave hundreds of thousands of people from Venezuela permission to live and work in the United States.

    A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that found Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority when she ended temporary protected status for Venezuelans.

    The decision, however, will not have any immediate practical effect after the U.S. Supreme Court in October allowed Noem’s decision to take effect pending a final decision by the justices.

    An email late Wednesday night to the Department of Homeland Security was not immediately returned.

    The 9th Circuit panel also upheld the lower court’s finding that Noem exceeded her authority when she decided to end TPS early for hundreds of thousands of people from Haiti.

    A federal judge in Washington is expected to rule any day now on a request to pause the termination of TPS for Haiti while a separate lawsuit challenging it proceeds. The country’s TPS designation is scheduled to end on Feb. 3.

    Ninth Circuit Judges Kim Wardlaw, Salvador Mendoza, Jr. and Anthony Johnstone said in Wednesday’s ruling that the TPS legislation passed by Congress did not give the secretary the power to vacate an existing TPS designation. All three judges were nominated by Democratic presidents.

    “The statute contains numerous procedural safeguards that ensure individuals with TPS enjoy predictability and stability during periods of extraordinary and temporary conditions in their home country,” Judge Kim Wardlaw, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, wrote for the panel.

    Wardlaw said Noem’s “unlawful actions have had real and significant consequences” for Venezuelans and Haitians in the United States who rely on TPS.

    “The record is replete with examples of hard-working, contributing members of society — who are mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and partners of U.S. citizens, pay taxes, and have no criminal records — who have been deported or detained after losing their TPS,” she wrote.

    Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, authorized by Congress as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, allows the Homeland Security secretary to grant legal immigration status to people fleeing countries experiencing civil strife, environmental disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return to that home country.

    Designations are granted for terms of six, 12 or 18 months, and extensions can be granted so long as conditions remain dire. The status prevents holders from being deported and allows them to work, but it does not give them a path to citizenship.

    In ending the protections, Noem said that conditions in both Haiti and Venezuela had improved and that it was not in the national interest to allow immigrants from the two countries to stay on for what is a temporary program.

    Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. The country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.

    Haiti was first designated for TPS in 2010 after a catastrophic magnitude 7.0 earthquake killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of people, and left more than 1 million homeless. Haitians face widespread hunger and gang violence.

    Mendoza wrote separately that there was “ample evidence of racial and national origin animus” that reinforced the lower court’s conclusion that Noem’s decisions were “preordained and her reasoning pretextual.”

    “It is clear that the Secretary’s vacatur actions were not actually grounded in substantive policy considerations or genuine differences with respect to the prior administration’s TPS procedures, but were instead rooted in a stereotype-based diagnosis of immigrants from Venezuela and Haiti as dangerous criminals or mentally unwell,” he wrote.

    Attorneys for the government have argued the secretary has clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program and those decisions are not subject to judicial review. They have also denied that her actions were motived by racial animus.

    [ad_2]

    Source link