ReportWire

Tag: Laws

  • Attorney General Merrick Garland will name special counsel in Trump criminal probes

    Attorney General Merrick Garland will name special counsel in Trump criminal probes

    [ad_1]

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump claps as he announces that he will once again run for U.S. president in the 2024 U.S. presidential election during an event at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, November 15, 2022.

    Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

    U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland will appoint a special counsel on Friday to determine whether criminal charges should be filed against former President Donald Trump in connection with two pending investigations.

    News of the planned appointment of the special counsel, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal, came three days after Trump announced plans to run for president in 2024. The Republican faces multiple criminal investigations.

    NBC News soon after reported that the special counsel, whose name has not been announced, will make decisions for two Department of Justice investigations of Trump.

    One is focused on whether Trump broke the law and obstructed justice in connection with his removal of hundreds of documents from the White House, which were shipped to his residence at Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. The other probe is related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot by a mob of Trump supporters.

    Garland is scheduled to make a public statement at 2:15 p.m. ET Friday.

    Garland’s appointment of a special counsel could tamp down concerns that he would have a conflict of interest if he were the one to decide whether Trump should be proecuted. The attorney general was appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat who defeated Trump in his 2020 re-election bid.

    Biden could again face Trump again in the 2024 election.

    A White House official told NBC News on Friday, “DOJ makes decisions about its criminal investigations independently, and we are not involved, so I would refer you to DOJ for any questions on this.” 

    Barbara McQuade, an NBC News legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, in a Time magazine article on Thursday argued against the idea of a special counsel being appointed in the Trump probes, saying it could potentially delay prosecution so long that he would avoid being held accountable for potential crimes.

    “Practical consideration also militate against appointing a special counsel: time,” McQuade wrote.

    “Appointing a new lawyer to take over the investigation will create delay. A new lawyer would need to hire his own staff, all of whom would need time to get up to speed,” she wrote.

    “If Trump is seeking to regain the Oval Office, then DOJ must complete not only the investigations, but the trials before Jan. 20, 2025. That’s when a newly sworn in President Trump could take the ultimate act of partisanship in prosecution — and pardon himself.”

    This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden administration asks Supreme Court to allow student debt forgiveness plan to continue

    Biden administration asks Supreme Court to allow student debt forgiveness plan to continue

    [ad_1]

    U.S. President Joe Biden speaks about student loan debt at the White House on Aug. 24, 2022 in Washington, DC.

    Alex Wong | Getty

    The Biden administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to reinstate its federal student loan program after a federal appeals court issued a nationwide injunction against the plan.

    The administration’s request, which was previewed in another court filing Thursday, blasted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit for blocking the debt relief plan. That injunction was issued earlier in response to a lawsuit by a group of Republican-controlled states.

    “The Eighth Circuit’s erroneous injunction leaves millions of economically vulnerable borrowers in limbo, uncertain about the size of their debt and unable to make financial decisions with an accurate understanding of their future repayment obligations,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in Friday’s filing with the Supreme Court.

    Prelogar also wrote that if the Supreme Court declines to vacate the injunction, it could consider the filing as a petition to the high court to hear the Biden’s administration appeal of the decision by the lower court.

    And if the Supreme Court accepts the administration’s appeal, if could “set this case for expedited briefing and argument this Term,” she wrote. Keeping President Joe Biden‘s plan on hold while the appeal unfolds, Prelogar said, could keep borrowers in uncertainty about their debts until “sometime in 2024.”

    More from Personal Finance:
    Consumers are cutting back on gift buying
    Free returns may soon be a thing of the past
    Affluent shoppers embrace secondhand shopping

    Monday’s injunction by the 8th Circuit panel of three judges in St. Louis was the latest in a series of legal challenges to Biden’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for millions of Americans.

    The Biden administration stopped accepting applications for its relief earlier in the month after a federal district judge in Texas struck down its plan last week, calling it “unconstitutional.”

    In the case at issue in the 8th Circuit, another federal judge rejected the challenge to the debt relief program brought by the six states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina.

    The judge ruled that while the states raised “important and significant challenges to the debt relief plan,” they ultimately lacked legal standing to pursue the case.

    Standing refers to the idea that a person or entity will be affected by the action they seek to challenge in court.

    The GOP-led states appealed after their lawsuit was denied.

    The appeals panel ruled Monday that Missouri had shown a likely injury from the administration’s program, pointing out that a major loan servicer headquartered in the state, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA, would lose revenue under the plan. Missouri’s state Treasury Department receives money from MOHELA.

    Borrower defaults could rise amid ‘ongoing confusion’

    A top official at the U.S. Department of Education recently warned that there could be a historic rise in student loan defaults if its forgiveness plan is not allowed to go through.

    “These student loan borrowers had the reasonable expectation and belief that they would not have to make additional payments on their federal student loans,” U.S. Department of Education Undersecretary James Kvaal wrote in a court filing. “This belief may well stop them from making payments even if the Department is prevented from effectuating debt relief,” he wrote.

    “Unless the Department is allowed to provide one-time student loan debt relief,” he went on, “we expect this group of borrowers to have higher loan default rates due to the ongoing confusion about what they owe.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fired SpaceX employees accuse company of violating labor law

    Fired SpaceX employees accuse company of violating labor law

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Several SpaceX employees who were fired after circulating an open letter calling out CEO Elon Musk’s behavior have filed a complaint accusing the company of violating labor laws.

    The complaint, made Wednesday to the National Labor Relations Board, details the aftermath of what allegedly happened inside SpaceX after employees circulated the letter in June, which, among other things, called on executives to condemn Musk’s public behavior on Twitter — including making light of allegations he sexually harassed a flight attendant — and hold everyone accountable for unacceptable conduct.

    The letter was sent weeks after a media report surfaced that Musk paid $250,000 to the flight attendant to quash a potential sexual harassment lawsuit against him. The billionaire has denied the allegations.

    Employees in their letter urged SpaceX to uniformly enforce its policy against unacceptable behavior and commit to a transparent process for responses to claims of misconduct. A day later, Paige Holland-Thielen and four other employees who participated in organizing the letter were fired, according to the filing, which was made by Holland-Thielen to a regional NLRB office in California. Four additional employees were fired weeks later for their involvement in the letter.

    A company spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Musk, who is the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and is currently running Twitter, prefers to do things his own way even if that means running afoul of rules and regulations. He’s currently in a defiant fight with Civil Rights department, a California regulator that is suing Tesla for rampant racial discrimination.

    Some view Musk’s management style as autocratic and demanding, as evidenced by a recent email he sent to Twitter staff giving them until Thursday evening to decide whether they want to remain a part of the business. Musk wrote that employees “will need to be extremely hardcore” to build “a breakthrough Twitter 2.0″ and that long hours at high intensity will be needed for success.

    A number of engineers also said on Twitter they were fired last week after saying something critical of Musk, either publicly on Twitter or on an internal messaging board for Twitter employees.

    In a statement, Holland-Thielen said as a woman engineer at SpaceX, she experienced “deep cultural problems” and comforted colleagues who had experienced similar issues.

    “It was clear that this culture was created from the top level,” she said.

    Still, she said part of what she liked about the company was that any person could escalate issues to leadership and be taken seriously.

    “We drafted the letter to communicate to the executive staff on their terms and show how their lack of action created tangible barriers to the long term success of the mission,” Holland-Thielen said. “We never imagined that SpaceX would fire us for trying to help the company succeed.”

    The firings coincide with Musk’s $44 billion buyout of Twitter. Around the same time, the billionaire used a sexual term to make fun of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates’ belly and also posted a poop emoji during an online discussion with then-Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal.

    After terminating the first set of employees, SpaceX allegedly interrogated dozens of others over the next two months in private meetings, telling them they couldn’t disclose those conversations to anyone else due to attorney-client privilege, according to the complaint. Four additional employees who helped draft or share the letter were fired in July and August, the filing said, adding up to nine terminations in total.

    “Management used this ‘ends justifies the means’ philosophy to turn a blind eye to the ongoing mistreatment, harassment, and abuse reported by my colleagues, much of which was directly encouraged and inspired by the words and actions of the CEO,” said Tom Moline, who was also fired from SpaceX after organizing the letter.

    Jeffery Pfeffer, a professor who specializes in organizational behavior at Stanford University’s business school, said that the allegations were hardly a surprise given Musk’s leadership style at Twitter. Musk’s success at companies like Tesla and SpaceX have created what he labeled as hubris under the false notion that it was “all about individual genius.”

    “Powerful people get to break the rules. They don’t think they are bound by the same conventions as other people,” Pfeffer said, criticizing Musk’s behavior. He said it showed the arrogance of Musk, one of the world’s richest men: “Why would he think he is a mere mortal?”

    ———

    Groves reported from Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Zombie Debt’: Homeowners face foreclosure on old mortgages

    ‘Zombie Debt’: Homeowners face foreclosure on old mortgages

    [ad_1]

    Rose Prophete thought the second mortgage loan on her Brooklyn home was resolved about a decade ago — until she received paperwork claiming she owed more than $130,000.

    “I was shocked,” said Prophete, who refinanced her two-family home in 2006, six years after arriving from Haiti. “I don’t even know these people because they never contacted me. They never called me.”

    Prophete is part of a wave of homeowners who say they were blindsided by the start of foreclosure actions on their homes over second loans that were taken out more than a decade ago. The trusts and mortgage loan servicers behind the actions say the loans were defaulted on years ago.

    Some of these homeowners say they weren’t even aware they had a second mortgage because of confusing loan structures. Others believed their second loans were rolled in with their first mortgage payments or forgiven. Typically, they say they had not received statements on their second loans for years as they paid down their first mortgages.

    Now they’re being told the loans weren’t dead after all. Instead, they’re what critics call “zombie debt” — old loans with new collection actions.

    While no federal government agency tracks the number of foreclosure actions on second mortgages, attorneys aiding homeowners say they have surged in recent years. The attorneys say many of the loans are owned by purchasers of troubled mortgages and are being pursued now because home values have increased and there’s more equity in them.

    “They’ve been holding them, having no communication with the borrowers,” said Andrea Bopp Stark, an attorney with the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center. “And then all of a sudden they’re coming out of the woodwork and are threatening to foreclose because now there is value in the property. They can foreclose on the property and actually get something after the first mortgages are paid off.”

    Attorneys for owners of the loans and the companies that service them argue that they are pursuing legitimately owed debt, no matter what the borrower believed. And they say they are acting legally to claim it.

    How did this happen?

    Court actions now can be traced to the tail end of the housing boom earlier this century. Some involve home equity lines of credit. Others stem from “80/20” loans, in which homebuyers could take out a first loan covering about 80% of the purchase price, and a second loan covering the remaining 20%.

    Splitting loans allowed borrowers to avoid large down payments. But the second loans could carry interest rates of 9% or more and balloon payments. Consumer advocates say the loans — many originating with since-discredited lenders — included predatory terms and were marketed in communities of color and lower-income neighborhoods.

    The surge in people falling behind on mortgage payments after the Great Recession began included homeowners with second loans. They were among the people who took advantage of federal loan modification programs, refinanced or declared bankruptcy to help keep their homes.

    In some cases, the first loans were modified but the second ones weren’t.

    Some second mortgages at that time were “charged off,” meaning the creditor had stopped seeking payment. That doesn’t mean the loan was forgiven. But that was the impression of many homeowners, some of whom apparently misunderstood the 80/20 loan structure.

    Other borrowers say they had difficulty getting answers about their second loans.

    In the Miami area, Pastor Carlos Mendez and his wife, Lisset Garcia, signed a modification on their first mortgage in 2012, after financial hardships resulted in missed payments and a bankruptcy filing. The couple had bought the home in Hialeah in 2006, two years after arriving from Cuba, and raised their two daughters there.

    Mendez said they were unable to get answers about the status of their second mortgage from the bank and were eventually told that the debt was canceled, or would be canceled.

    Then in 2020, they received foreclosure paperwork from a different debt owner.

    Their attorney, Ricardo M. Corona, said they are being told they owe $70,000 in past due payments plus $47,000 in principal. But he said records show the loan was charged off in 2013 and that the loan holders are not entitled to interest payments stemming from the years when the couple did not receive periodic statements. The case is pending.

    “Despite everything, we are fighting and trusting justice, keeping our faith in God, so we can solve this and keep the house,” Mendez said in Spanish.

    Second loans were packaged and sold, some multiple times. The parties behind the court actions that have been launched to collect the money now are often investors who buy so-called distressed mortgage loans at deep discounts, advocates say. Many of the debt buyers are limited liability companies that are not regulated in the way that big banks are.

    The plaintiff in the action on the Mendez and Garcia home is listed as Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, “not in its individual capacity but solely as a Trustee for BCMB1 Trust.”

    A spokeswoman for Wilmington said it acts as a trustee on behalf of many trusts and has “no authority with respect to the management of the real estate in the portfolio.” Efforts to find someone associated with BCMB1 Trust to respond to questions were not successful.

    Some people facing foreclosure have filed their own lawsuits citing federal requirements related to periodic statements or other consumer protection laws. In Georgia, a woman facing foreclosure claimed in federal court that she never received periodic notices about her second mortgage or notices when it was transferred to new owners, as required by federal law. The case was settled in June under confidential terms, according to court filings.

    In New York, Prophete is one of 13 plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit claiming that mortgage debt is being sought beyond New York’s six-year statute of limitations, resulting in violations of federal and state law.

    “I think what makes it so pernicious is these are homeowners who worked very hard to become current on their loans,” said Rachel Geballe, a deputy director at Brooklyn Legal Services, which is litigating the case with The Legal Aid Society. “They thought they were taking care of their debt.”

    The defendants in that case are the loan servicer SN Servicing and the law firm Richland and Falkowski, which represented mortgage trusts involved in the court actions, including BCMB1 Trust, according to the complaint. In court filings, the defendants dispute the plaintiff’s interpretation of the statute of limitations, say they acted properly and are seeking to dismiss the lawsuit.

    “The allegations in the various mortgage foreclosure actions are truthful and not misleading or deceptive,” Attorney Daniel Richland wrote in a letter to the judge. “Plaintiff’s allegations, by contrast, are implausible and thus warrant dismissal.”

    ———

    Associated Press writer Claudia Torrens and researcher Jennifer Farrar in New York contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Zombie Debt’: Homeowners face foreclosure on old mortgages

    ‘Zombie Debt’: Homeowners face foreclosure on old mortgages

    [ad_1]

    Rose Prophete thought the second mortgage loan on her Brooklyn home was resolved about a decade ago — until she received paperwork claiming she owed more than $130,000.

    “I was shocked,” said Prophete, who refinanced her two-family home in 2006, six years after arriving from Haiti. “I don’t even know these people because they never contacted me. They never called me.”

    Prophete is part of a wave of homeowners who say they were blindsided by the start of foreclosure actions on their homes over second loans that were taken out more than a decade ago. The trusts and mortgage loan servicers behind the actions say the loans were defaulted on years ago.

    Some of these homeowners say they weren’t even aware they had a second mortgage because of confusing loan structures. Others believed their second loans were rolled in with their first mortgage payments or forgiven. Typically, they say they had not received statements on their second loans for years as they paid down their first mortgages.

    Now they’re being told the loans weren’t dead after all. Instead, they’re what critics call “zombie debt” — old loans with new collection actions.

    While no federal government agency tracks the number of foreclosure actions on second mortgages, attorneys aiding homeowners say they have surged in recent years. The attorneys say many of the loans are owned by purchasers of troubled mortgages and are being pursued now because home values have increased and there’s more equity in them.

    “They’ve been holding them, having no communication with the borrowers,” said Andrea Bopp Stark, an attorney with the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center. “And then all of a sudden they’re coming out of the woodwork and are threatening to foreclose because now there is value in the property. They can foreclose on the property and actually get something after the first mortgages are paid off.”

    Attorneys for owners of the loans and the companies that service them argue that they are pursuing legitimately owed debt, no matter what the borrower believed. And they say they are acting legally to claim it.

    How did this happen?

    Court actions now can be traced to the tail end of the housing boom earlier this century. Some involve home equity lines of credit. Others stem from “80/20” loans, in which homebuyers could take out a first loan covering about 80% of the purchase price, and a second loan covering the remaining 20%.

    Splitting loans allowed borrowers to avoid large down payments. But the second loans could carry interest rates of 9% or more and balloon payments. Consumer advocates say the loans — many originating with since-discredited lenders — included predatory terms and were marketed in communities of color and lower-income neighborhoods.

    The surge in people falling behind on mortgage payments after the Great Recession began included homeowners with second loans. They were among the people who took advantage of federal loan modification programs, refinanced or declared bankruptcy to help keep their homes.

    In some cases, the first loans were modified but the second ones weren’t.

    Some second mortgages at that time were “charged off,” meaning the creditor had stopped seeking payment. That doesn’t mean the loan was forgiven. But that was the impression of many homeowners, some of whom apparently misunderstood the 80/20 loan structure.

    Other borrowers say they had difficulty getting answers about their second loans.

    In the Miami area, Pastor Carlos Mendez and his wife, Lisset Garcia, signed a modification on their first mortgage in 2012, after financial hardships resulted in missed payments and a bankruptcy filing. The couple had bought the home in Hialeah in 2006, two years after arriving from Cuba, and raised their two daughters there.

    Mendez said they were unable to get answers about the status of their second mortgage from the bank and were eventually told that the debt was canceled, or would be canceled.

    Then in 2020, they received foreclosure paperwork from a different debt owner.

    Their attorney, Ricardo M. Corona, said they are being told they owe $70,000 in past due payments plus $47,000 in principal. But he said records show the loan was charged off in 2013 and that the loan holders are not entitled to interest payments stemming from the years when the couple did not receive periodic statements. The case is pending.

    “Despite everything, we are fighting and trusting justice, keeping our faith in God, so we can solve this and keep the house,” Mendez said in Spanish.

    Second loans were packaged and sold, some multiple times. The parties behind the court actions that have been launched to collect the money now are often investors who buy so-called distressed mortgage loans at deep discounts, advocates say. Many of the debt buyers are limited liability companies that are not regulated in the way that big banks are.

    The plaintiff in the action on the Mendez and Garcia home is listed as Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, “not in its individual capacity but solely as a Trustee for BCMB1 Trust.”

    A spokeswoman for Wilmington said it acts as a trustee on behalf of many trusts and has “no authority with respect to the management of the real estate in the portfolio.” Efforts to find someone associated with BCMB1 Trust to respond to questions were not successful.

    Some people facing foreclosure have filed their own lawsuits citing federal requirements related to periodic statements or other consumer protection laws. In Georgia, a woman facing foreclosure claimed in federal court that she never received periodic notices about her second mortgage or notices when it was transferred to new owners, as required by federal law. The case was settled in June under confidential terms, according to court filings.

    In New York, Prophete is one of 13 plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit claiming that mortgage debt is being sought beyond New York’s six-year statute of limitations, resulting in violations of federal and state law.

    “I think what makes it so pernicious is these are homeowners who worked very hard to become current on their loans,” said Rachel Geballe, a deputy director at Brooklyn Legal Services, which is litigating the case with The Legal Aid Society. “They thought they were taking care of their debt.”

    The defendants in that case are the loan servicer SN Servicing and the law firm Richland and Falkowski, which represented mortgage trusts involved in the court actions, including BCMB1 Trust, according to the complaint. In court filings, the defendants dispute the plaintiff’s interpretation of the statute of limitations, say they acted properly and are seeking to dismiss the lawsuit.

    “The allegations in the various mortgage foreclosure actions are truthful and not misleading or deceptive,” Attorney Daniel Richland wrote in a letter to the judge. “Plaintiff’s allegations, by contrast, are implausible and thus warrant dismissal.”

    ———

    Associated Press writer Claudia Torrens and researcher Jennifer Farrar in New York contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court allows Jan. 6 committee subpoena for phone records of Arizona GOP chief Kelli Ward

    Supreme Court allows Jan. 6 committee subpoena for phone records of Arizona GOP chief Kelli Ward

    [ad_1]

    Arizona Chairwoman Kelli Ward speaks during the Rally To Protect Our Elections conference on July 24, 2021 in Phoenix, Arizona.

    Brandon Bell | Getty Images

    The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request by Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward to block her phone records from being subpoenaed by the select House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

    The denial sets the stage for the Democratic-controlled House committee to obtain those records from her T-Mobile account.

    The order rejecting Ward’s and her husband Michaels’ request for an emergency injunction notes that Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have granted it.

    Justice Elena Kagan last month had temporarily blocked the subpoena to allow for her and the other justices to consider the request from the Wards, who argued that the subpoena harmed their First Amendment rights to political association.

    Ward had her records subpoenaed by the committee because of her role as a so-called alternate elector for then-President Donald Trump, who lost Arizona’s popular vote in the 2020 election, and hence its slate of actual Electoral College members. President Joe Biden won the state’s popular vote and its electors.

    The Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol by Trump supporters disrupted for hours a joint session of Congress that was meeting to certify the results of the Electoral College vote in favor of Biden.

    Ward’s lawyers had argued in her request to block the subpoena that, “If Dr. Ward’s telephone and text message records are disclosed, congressional investigators are going to contact every person who communicated with her during and immediately after the tumult of the 2020 election.”

    “That is not speculation, it is a certainty,” the lawyers wrote. “There can be no greater chill on
    public participation in partisan politics than a call, visit, or subpoena, from federal
    investigators.”

    Alexander Kolodin, a lawyer for Ward, on Monday said, “We were gratified to see that two justices were willing to find that First Amendment issues were implicated” by the subpoena.

    “We hope that will be a message to those in the future who think about abusing that right in order to retaliate against Americans for exercising their First Amendment rights to free association,” Kolodin said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Food sanitation company accused of employing at least 31 children on graveyard shifts in slaughterhouses

    Food sanitation company accused of employing at least 31 children on graveyard shifts in slaughterhouses

    [ad_1]

    A leading sanitation company is accused of employing dozens of children to clean the killing floors of slaughterhouses during graveyard shifts, the Department of Labor announced.

    Packers Sanitation Services, Inc., or PSSI, a company contracted to work at slaughterhouses and meatpacking facilities throughout the county, allegedly employed at least 31 kids — one as young as 13 — to work overnight cleaning shifts at three facilities in Nebraska and Minnesota, according to court documents filed on Wednesday.

    Those practices would violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, which prohibits “oppressive child labor” and minors from working in any kind of hazardous employment, according to the complaint. The Department of Labor’s Child Labor Regulations designates many roles in slaughterhouse and meatpacking facilities as hazardous for minors.

    In the court filing, U.S. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh asked the Federal District Court of Nebraska to issue a temporary restraining order and nationwide preliminary injunction against the company to stop it from employing minors while the Labor Department continues its investigation.

    Initial evidence indicates the company may also employ more kids under similar conditions at 400 other sites across the country, in addition to the 31 minors employed at three sites that investigators already confirmed, according to the complaint.

    The court partially granted the Department of Labor’s request in a Thursday filing. That order requires PSSI to “immediately cease and refrain from employing oppressive child labor” and comply with the Department of Labor’s investigation.

    A hearing is set for Nov. 23 to discuss whether the order will be extended, modified or dissolved.

    In a statement to NBC News, a spokesperson for PSSI said it “has an absolute company-wide prohibition against the employment of anyone under the age of 18 and zero tolerance for any violation of that policy —period.”

    The spokesperson added that the company mandates the use of the federal E-Verify system for new hires, “as well as extensive training, document verification, biometrics, and multiple layers of audits.”

    “While rogue individuals could of course seek to engage in fraud or identity theft, we are confident in our company’s strict compliance policies and will defend ourselves vigorously against these claims.”  

    The spokesperson added that executives were “surprised” by the DOL filing given that the company “has been cooperating with their inquiry, producing extensive documents and responses.”

    The Department of Labor did not immediately respond to an inquiry about PSSI’s claims of compliance and cooperation.

    The company, which has been owned by a series of private equity funds since 2007, says it employs 17,000 employees at more than 700 locations nationwide, according to its website.

    Late nights, early mornings and chemical burns

    The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division began its investigation into PSSI on Aug. 24, when it received a tip from law enforcement that the company may be employing children, the complaint said.

    Officials executed search warrants at two plants owned by food processing company JBS USA — in Grand Island, Nebraska, and Worthington, Minnesota — and at a Turkey Valley Farms poultry processing plant in Marshall, Minnesota. Searches were also conducted at PSSI’s local offices in Grand Island and Worthington, which recruit workers, and the company’s Keiler, Wisconsin, corporate office.

    In a statement, JBS USA’s chief ethics and compliance officer Michael Koenig said the allegations against PSSI “represent a clear violation of our ethical policies” if true.

    “We are immediately launching an independent, third-party audit at all of our facilities to thoroughly evaluate this situation,” the statement continued. “JBS has zero tolerance for child labor, discrimination or unsafe working conditions for anyone working in our facilities.”

    Turkey Valley Farms general manager Les Goff said in a statement the company “takes these allegations very seriously” and is reviewing the matter internally.

    “We expect all contractors to share our commitment to the health and safety of any individuals working in our facilities and to adhere to these principles that foster a safe work environment as well as to all applicable federal and state labor laws,” the statement continued.

    “We are closely monitoring the Department of Labor’s actions with regard to Packers Sanitation Services Inc. and will take all appropriate action, based on the outcome of the investigation.”

    Labor department officials also subpoenaed school records, interviewed confidential sources — including minors who worked in the facilities — and conducted surveillance in which they allegedly saw minors entering the facilities to work night shifts as part of the investigation, the complaint stated.

    The investigation found that minors cleaned the killing floors and various machines — including meat and bone cutting saws and a grinding machine — during the graveyard shifts, according to the complaint.

    PSSI employed at least a dozen 17-year-olds across the three slaughterhouses, fourteen 16-year-olds, three 15-year-olds, one 14-year-old and one 13-year-old, the complaint said.

    Interviews with the kids — which were conducted in Spanish, their first language, according to the complaint — revealed that several children began their shifts at the facilities at 11 p.m. and worked until 5, 6 or 7 a.m. Some worked up to six or seven days a week.

    School records showed that one 14-year-old, who worked at the Grand Island facility from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. five to six days a week, from December 2021 to this past April, fell asleep in class and missed school after suffering injuries from chemical burns. At least two other minors also suffered chemical burns, the complaint states.

    ‘The children … cannot wait’

    The complaint said that during the investigation, PSSI managers “attempted to thwart or tamper” with the collection of evidence, including by attempting to obstruct investigators’ employee interviews by surrounding the rooms where they were being conducted and holding eye contact with the minors.

    Managers also attempted to hide or delete documents, including work-related text messages and incident/accident reports, the complaint states.

    Late last month, the Department of Labor began reviewing another 47 locations where PSSI employs workers — which investigators suspect include more children, the complaint alleges, pointing to photographs from clock-in records at eight other plants that appear to show children.

    “While Wage and Hour is continuing to pour over records to identify such children, it is slow, painstaking work. Yet, the children working overnight on the kill floor of these slaughterhouses cannot wait,” the complaint states.

    Previous issues with worker safety

    Incidents of injuries and even deaths employed by PSSI are not new.

    The company has had a troubled worker safety record in recent years: three PSSI workers have died on the job since 2018, including one who was decapitated cleaning a chicken chiller, according to Occupational Health and Safety Administration records highlighted in a March report by the watchdog group Private Equity Stakeholder Project.

    And four others had accidents that resulted in amputations, according to the report.

    Blackstone, the private equity fund that owns PSSI, vehemently disagreed with the report’s findings.

    “The so-called ‘report’ — which is riddled with errors and misinformation — is from a fringe, biased anti-private-equity shell group,” Blackstone spokesperson Matthew Anderson said in a statement. With regard to four total deaths at PSSI that were recorded by OSHA since 2018, Blackstone added, “In those cases: one was clearly determined to be a non-work-related death; in the second OSHA did not issue a citation to PSSI or otherwise fault our company; and in the other two matters existing PSSI safety protocols were not followed.”

    Last year, OSHA cited PSSI for 17 violations for failing to train workers about the dangers of liquid nitrogen after a nitrogen leak killed six people who worked for the Foundation Food Group at a poultry plant in Gainesville, Georgia. Those killed were not employees of PSSI, but PSSI was responsible for cleaning the plant and for making sure its own workers were safe there, OSHA said. 

    A PSSI spokesperson said the company’s employees were not on site  at the time of the leak and were not involved with the production process or mechanical maintenance of the equipment.

    2017 analysis by the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group, found that PSSI has some of the worst rates of workplace injuries in the country.

    PSSI described the report as flawed.

    When they are hired by PSSI, workers sign paperwork assuming the risk of death and injury on the job, NBC News reported last year. Many of its employees have felonies on their records and had difficulty finding work elsewhere — which advocates like the Private Equity Stakeholder Project argue discourages workers from reporting dangerous conditions out of fear that they could lose their jobs.

    According to a Department of Labor report that NBC News obtained through FOIA last year, OSHA opened inspections into PSSI 56 times in a span of five years, from 2015 through 2020, and issued 38 citations against the company.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals Court weighs death row inmate’s disability claims

    Appeals Court weighs death row inmate’s disability claims

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Attorneys for Tennessee death row inmate Byron Black told a state appeals court on Tuesday that he should not be executed because he is intellectually disabled.

    Black is appealing a ruling by a Nashville judge earlier this year that denied his motion to be declared intellectually disabled. The judge noted that a state and federal court have previously determined Black does not meet the criteria. But his attorneys argued on Tuesday that the criteria have changed, as has the law.

    Tennessee enacted a new law last year updating the standards to be used when determining intellectual disability. It also provides a way for inmates who have exhausted their direct appeals to reopen their cases in order to bring an intellectual disability claim. However, the defendant cannot file a new disability claim “if the issue of whether the defendant has an intellectual disability has been previously adjudicated on the merits.”

    Senior Assistant Attorney General Katharine Decker told a panel of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals on Tuesday that by the plain language of the statute, Black, 66, is barred from seeking a third adjudication of his intellectual disability claims.

    “Don’t we have a constitutional duty not to execute someone who is intellectually disabled?” Judge Camille McMullen asked.

    Decker replied that the new law is limited in terms of who it allows to pursue those claims.

    Judge Tom Greenholtz questioned whether the previous determination that Black was not mentally retarded qualifies as a determination that he is not intellectually disabled.

    “It’s just a different label,” Decker responded.

    “Is it though? It’s a different label with different criteria,” Greenholtz said. “For you to prevail, ‘mentally retarded’ and ‘intellectually disabled’ must mean exactly the same thing.”

    Federal Public Defender Kelley Henry, who represents Black, pointed to a different section of the new law, which reads, “Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, no defendant with intellectual disability at the time of committing first degree murder shall be sentenced to death.”

    “It would be an insult to the Tennessee Supreme Court and our legislature to deny people like Mr. Black a fair hearing,” she said.

    Henry suggested the court could decide the case without having to interpret whether the statute applies to Black. That’s because Nashville District Attorney Glenn Funk has already agreed that Black is intellectually disabled and should be resentenced to life in prison. Funk said he was persuaded by the fact that an expert who had previously testified for the state that Black didn’t meet the criteria for intellectually disabled has changed her opinion.

    “He believed justice, in this case, is that Mr. Black not be subject to execution,” Henry said of Funk.

    In Henry’s view, the state — via Funk — has already waived any argument that the statute doesn’t apply to Black, so the state can’t now make that argument via the Attorney General. She asked the Appeals Court to send the case back to the lower court judge for a hearing on Black’s claims “to prevent the execution of a man with an intellectual disability, which is the policy of this state.”

    Black was convicted in the 1988 shooting deaths of girlfriend Angela Clay, 29, and her two daughters, Latoya, 9, and Lakeisha, 6. Prosecutors said Black was in a jealous rage when he shot the three at their home. At the time, Black was on work release while serving time for shooting and wounding Clay’s estranged husband.

    Black had been scheduled to be executed in August before Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee paused all executions in order to investigate a problem the state had with lethal injection.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Speaker Pelosi says attack on husband will affect decision on remaining in leadership

    House Speaker Pelosi says attack on husband will affect decision on remaining in leadership

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) holds a press conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, September 22, 2022.

    Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the brutal home invasion attack on her husband last month will affect her decision on whether to remain in the Democratic leadership in Congress.

    But Pelosi, D-Calif., who police say was the actual intended target of the man charged in the attack, did not reveal in a new CNN interview whether that means she will leave her leadership post or stay in it.

    Pelosi, 82, has been the top House Democrat for two decades.

    Pelosi’s comment came as her party is battling to remain in control of both chambers of Congress in Tuesday’s midterm elections. Republicans are favored to win control of the House.

    Her 82-year-old husband, Paul Pelosi, had his skull fractured early Oct. 28 by an assailant wielding a hammer, after the other man broke into the Pelosi home in San Francisco, police have said.

    David DePape, 42, has been charged with attempted murder and other state crimes in the attack.

    Federal prosecutors have charged DePape with the federal crimes of attempted kidnapping of a federal official — Nancy Pelosi — and assaulting an immediate family member of a United States official with the intent to retaliate against the official.

    Authorities have said DePape was prepared to kidnap and detain Nancy Pelosi and break her kneecaps when he went to her residence. The speaker was in Washington, D.C., at the time of the break-in.

    During her interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Pelosi said her decision on whether to stay in leadership “will be affected about what happened the last week or two.”

    Cooper then asked, “Will your decision be impacted by the attack in any way?”

    “Yes,” Pelosi replied.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Iowa governor’s lawyer pushes for 6-week abortion ban

    Iowa governor’s lawyer pushes for 6-week abortion ban

    [ad_1]

    DES MOINES, Iowa — An Iowa judge should allow a law passed in 2018 that bans most abortions to take effect, three years after the measure was ruled unconstitutional, lawyers for Gov. Kim Reynolds argued Friday.

    Chris Schandevel, a lawyer for the Republican governor, said Judge Celene Gogerty should set aside a 2019 permanent injunction that prevented Iowa from enforcing a law that would block abortions once cardiac activity can be detected. That is usually around six weeks of pregnancy and before many women know they’re pregnant.

    Schandevel said the injunction rests entirely on an Iowa Supreme Court 2018 decision that guaranteed the right to an abortion under the Iowa Constitution and cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992 and 1973 that established abortion rights nationally.

    All three cases were overruled this year by more conservative courts and given that, Reynolds’ lawyers argued the judge should reverse the injunction and let the 2018 law take effect.

    “It would be inequitable to prevent the people of Iowa to have their voices heard through a validly enacted law, enacted as recently as 2018,” he said.

    Rita Bettis Austen, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, countered that there is no precedent or legal support in Iowa for a judge to reverse a final judgment entered three years ago,

    “This case is closed,” said Bettis Austen, who is representing Planned Parenthood, the state’s leading abortion provider, which challenged the law in court. “Iowa rules of civil procedure clearly govern this type of motion.”

    She said the rules only allow a court to vacate a final judgement within a year and do not allow such a reversal for a change in law.

    The judge said she would issue a ruling soon.

    The case should at least in the short term decide whether most abortions remain legal in Iowa. Reynolds, who is running for a second term as governor, opted for the court strategy instead of attempting to pass a law banning abortions in the midst of the midterm elections.

    A Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll released earlier this month showed that 61% of Iowans believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

    During the hearing, Schandevel said courts have an inherent authority over their own injunctions and can reverse them regardless of how long ago they were decided.

    Lawyers for both sides also argued about whether the law remains constitutional under Iowa’s current legal status.

    The Iowa Supreme Court, in its June decision overturning the state constitutional right to an abortion granted four years ago, did not decide on the level of scrutiny that judges must use to weigh new abortion bans. Instead, the court left that issue to be further considered.

    Since the 2018 decision granting Iowans a constitutional right to an abortion, Iowa courts have held abortion restrictions to the highest level of strict scrutiny, which requires laws to be narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling governmental interest.

    With that constitutional right struck down, Bettis Austen argued the undue burden level of scrutiny remains in Iowa until the courts change it. She noted that the Iowa Supreme Court has previously said bans on abortion early in pregnancy, including six-week bans, could not survive the undue burden test.

    Schandevel said it is appropriate for the judge to reject the undue burden test and instead analyze the law using rational basis review. That is the lowest level of court scrutiny that allows most laws to survive legal challenges.

    Under this test lawmakers need only to show they have a legitimate state interest in passing a law and that there is a rational connection between the law and its intended goals. Many courts have upheld abortion restrictions under the rational basis test.

    The abortion law approved by lawmakers and signed by Reynolds requires providers to perform tests to detect a fetal “heartbeat” — which usually occurs at about six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period — with exceptions for medical emergencies, rape and incest. Embryos don’t have hearts at this gestational stage, so an ultrasound actually measures electrical impulses, not a true heartbeat, providers say.

    Any decision Gogerty makes is likely to be appealed.

    Twelve states currently ban abortion at conception. Georgia currently enforces a six-week ban similar to what Iowa would have if allowed by the courts. Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota and Oklahoma have six-week bans that have been prohibited from enforcement by court orders. In Wisconsin, clinics have stopped providing abortions though there is a dispute over whether a ban is in effect.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump opposes watchdog for financial statements sought by New York Attorney General James in sweeping fraud lawsuit

    Trump opposes watchdog for financial statements sought by New York Attorney General James in sweeping fraud lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump throws caps as he attends a rally in Warren, Michigan, U.S., October 1, 2022.

    Dieu-nalio Chery | Reutersm

    Former President Donald Trump and related defendants are opposing New York Attorney General Letitia James’ call for an independent monitor to oversee the Trump Organization’s submission of financial statements to third parties as part of a bombshell fraud lawsuit, according to a new court filing.

    James has asked a judge to name a watchdog who would review financial information that the company and defendants give lenders, insurers and accountants pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

    The attorney general’s office requested the watchdog as part of a sweeping September lawsuit accusing Trump, three of his adult children, their company and others of a decadelong fraud related to financial statements.

    In their court filing Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers said James’ request for an outside monitor for the company is “a politically motivated attempt to nationalize a highly successful private enterprise.” The lawyers argued that it “is precluded under our Constitution and must and should therefore be rejected.”

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    James’ suit in Manhattan Supreme Court accuses the former president and the Trump Organization of repeatedly misstating the value of various real estate assets and his net worth on financial statements that were used to obtain loans, insurance policies and tax benefits.

    She claims Trump overstated his net worth by billions of dollars, and has asked federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the IRS to investigate him for possible federal crimes. James said evidence obtained during her three-year civil probe of Trump indicated possible crimes of bank fraud and making false statements to financial institutions.

    James’ suit seeks about $250 million in penalties.

    The Trump defense filing Wednesday flatly rejects her allegations of fraud.

    “Even the excerpted and selected transcripts and documents fail to show the Trump Parties have ever even been late on so much as one loan payment over the past decade much less engaged in any actual fraud,” the filing said.

    Trump’s lawyers accuse the attorney general of manufacturing “a bill of grievances based on nothing more than a misapplication of standard accounting principles and gross exaggeration of routine valuation differences between counter parties to complex commercial lending transactions,” according to the filing.

    The filing said the monitor she requests would possess “staggeringly overbroad” powers because the person would have access to “all of the Trump Parties’ financial records, compelling the Trump Parties to make onerous informational disclosures to the monitor, and grant the monitor operational oversight over the financial affairs of private businesses.”

    James’ request “would effectively allow the NYAG to nationalize the Trump business empire,” the lawyers claimed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Same-sex marriage is now legal in all of Mexico’s states

    Same-sex marriage is now legal in all of Mexico’s states

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — Lawmakers in the border state of Tamaulipas voted Wednesday night to legalize same-sex marriages, becoming the last of Mexico’s 32 states to authorize such unions.

    The measure to amend the state’s Civil Code passed with 23 votes in favor, 12 against and two abstentions, setting off cheers of “Yes, we can!” from supporters of the change.

    The session took place as groups both for and against the measure chanted and shouted from the balcony, and legislators eventually moved to another room to finish their debate and vote.

    The president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Arturo Zaldívar, welcomed the vote. “The whole country shines with a huge rainbow. Live the dignity and rights of all people. Love is love,” he said on Twitter.

    A day earlier, lawmakers in the southern state of Guerrero approved similar legislation allowing same-sex marriages.

    In 2015, the Supreme Court declared state laws preventing same-sex marriage unconstitutional, but some states took several years to adopt laws conforming with the ruling.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bitcoiners Should Work With The FATF, Not Against It

    Bitcoiners Should Work With The FATF, Not Against It

    [ad_1]

    This is an opinion editorial by Kevin Murcko, CEO and founder of Coinmetro.

    On October 12, 2022, I was honored to speak at Bitcoin Amsterdam’s panel session titled “FATF And The Threat To Bitcoin Privacy.” With my fellow speakers, we dove into the evolving role of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and its relationship to Bitcoin. It’s so important that we understand both sides of the argument if we are to create a world where both the ideological and the practical implementation of Bitcoin will match the original intentions outlined in Satoshi Nakamoto’s now-famous white paper.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Murcko

    Source link

  • Trump company set for criminal trial in an off-books pay scheme

    Trump company set for criminal trial in an off-books pay scheme

    [ad_1]

    More than three years after Manhattan prosecutors started investigating Donald Trump — after going to the Supreme Court twice to gain access to his tax records — the only criminal trial to arise from their efforts is about to begin.

    No, the former president isn’t going on trial. His company is.

    The Trump Organization, the holding company for Trump’s buildings, golf courses and other assets, is accused of helping some top executives avoid income taxes on the compensation they got in addition to their salaries, like rent-free apartments and luxury cars.

    Trump signed some of the checks at the center of the case but he is not charged with anything and is not expected to testify or attend the trial, which starts Monday with jury selection.

    If convicted, the Trump Organization could be fined more than $1 million — but that’s not the only potential fallout.

    Trump’s ardent supporters aren’t likely to abandon him, no matter the outcome, but a guilty verdict could hamper his company’s ability to get loans and make deals. New York City, for one, could use the legal cloud as new justification for seeking to oust the company from running a city-owned golf course.

    Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, has said that his office’s investigation of Trump is “active and ongoing,” and that no final decision has been made on whether he could face criminal charges in the future.

    Trump, a Republican, has decried the probe as a “political witch hunt.”

    The Trump Organization has said it did nothing wrong and that it looks forward “to having our day in court.”

    Judge Juan Manuel Merchan expects the criminal tax fraud trial, heavy on financial records and expert testimony, to take at least four weeks once a jury is seated. Given Trump’s fame as a businessman and polarizing politician, it could take a while to find jurors who feel they can judge the case impartially.

    The star witness for the prosecution is expected to be Allen Weisselberg, one of Trump’s most trusted senior executives.

    Weisselberg pleaded guilty in August to taking in over $1.7 million worth of untaxed perks from the company, including school tuition for his grandchildren, a Manhattan apartment and Mercedes cars for him and his wife.

    His testimony comes as part of a plea agreement that requires him to serve up to five months in New York City’s Rikers Island jail complex, though he could be released after a little more than three with good behavior. The former Trump Organization chief financial officer must also pay nearly $2 million in taxes, penalties and interest and complete five years of probation.

    Weisselberg, 75, has intimate knowledge of the Trump Organization’s financial dealings from nearly five decades at the company, but he is not expected to implicate Trump or any members of the Trump family in his testimony.

    In pleading guilty, Weisselberg pinned blame for the scheme on himself and other top Trump Organization executives, including senior vice president and controller, Jeffrey McConney.

    McConney was granted limited immunity to testify last year before a grand jury and could also make an appearance on the witness stand at the trial. The company’s director of security, Matthew Calamari Jr., the son of chief operating officer Matthew Calamari Sr., also received immunity for grand jury testimony.

    When the Trump Organization and Weisselberg were indicted in 2021, prosecutors called the tax scheme “sweeping and audacious” and said it was “orchestrated by the most senior executives.”

    Besides Weisselberg, two other Trump Organization executives, who were not identified by name, also received substantial under-the-table compensation, including lodging and the payment of automobile leases, the indictment said.

    “The purpose of the scheme was to compensate Weisselberg and other Trump Organization executives in a manner that was ‘off the books,’” the indictment said.

    The Trump Organization is the entity through which the former president manages his many ventures, including his real estate investments, his many marketing deals and his TV pursuits.

    Trump’s sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, have been in charge of day-to-day operations since he became president. Because the criminal trial involves charges against the corporate entity, not any individuals, the Trumps won’t be held personally liable if a jury returns a guilty verdict.

    The criminal case is one of two legal cases working their way through the New York courts that threaten to chip away at the gold-plated façade of Trump’s empire.

    Last month, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil lawsuit accusing Trump and the Trump Organization of misleading banks and others for years about the value of his assets. The civil suit seeks $250 million and a permanent ban on Trump doing business in the state.

    A court hearing is scheduled in that matter for Oct. 31 as James seeks an independent monitor to oversee the Trump Organization’s activities after she alleged the company was taking steps to dodge potential penalties, such as incorporating a new entity named Trump Organization II.

    Those aren’t the only legal challenges Trump faces as he weighs a potential comeback campaign for president.

    Last week, Trump gave sworn deposition testimony in a lawsuit brought by magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, who says he raped her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room.

    Meanwhile, the FBI is continuing to investigate Trump’s storage of sensitive government documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

    A special grand jury in Georgia is investigating whether Trump and others attempted to influence state election officials.

    On Friday, the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection issued a subpoena to Trump.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alex Jones seeks new trial after $1 billion Sandy Hook verdict

    Alex Jones seeks new trial after $1 billion Sandy Hook verdict

    [ad_1]

    Alex Jones arrives at the court house as he faces a second defamation trial over Sandy Hook claims in Waterbury, Connecticut, September 22, 2022.

    Michelle McLoughlin | Reuters

    Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has asked a Connecticut judge to throw out a nearly $1 billion verdict against him and order a new trial in a lawsuit by Sandy Hook families, who say they were subjected to harassment and threats from Jones’ lies about the 2012 Newtown school shooting.

    Jones filed the requests Friday, saying Judge Barbara Bellis’ pretrial rulings resulted in an unfair trial and “a substantial miscarriage of justice.”

    “Additionally, the amount of the compensatory damages award exceeds any rational relationship to the evidence offered at trial,” Jones’ lawyers, Norm Pattis and Kevin Smith, wrote in the motion.

    Christopher Mattei, a lawyer for the 15 plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Jones, declined to comment on the filing Saturday, but said he and other attorneys for the Sandy Hook families will be filing a brief opposing Jones’ request.

    Twenty first graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School died in the attack on Dec. 14, 2012.

    An FBI agent who responded to the shooting and relatives of eight children and adults killed in the massacre sued Jones for defamation and infliction of emotional distress over his pushing the bogus narrative that the shooting was a hoax staged by “crisis actors” to impose more gun control.

    Six jurors in Waterbury, Connecticut, ordered Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, on Oct. 12 to pay $965 million in compensatory damages to the plaintiffs and said punitive damages also should be awarded. Bellis has scheduled hearings for early next month to determine the amount of the punitive damages.

    During the trial, victims’ relatives said in often-emotional testimony that they were threatened and harassed for years by people who believed the lies told on Jones’ show. Strangers showed up at the families’ homes to record them and confronted them in public. People hurled abusive comments on social media. Relatives said they received death and rape threats.

    The verdicts came after another jury in Texas in August ordered Jones and his company to pay nearly $50 million in damages to the parents of another slain Sandy Hook child. A third trial over the hoax claims, involving two more Sandy Hook parents, is expected to be held near the end of the year in Texas.

    Jones, who has acknowledged in recent years that the shooting did occur, has blasted the lawsuits and trials on his Austin, Texas-based Infowars show, calling them unfair and a violation of his free speech rights.

    But he lost his right to present those defenses when the judges in Connecticut and Texas found him liable for damages by default without trials, for what they called Jones’ repeated failures to turn over some evidence including financial documents and website analytics to the Sandy Hook lawyers.

    With liability already established, the trials in both states focused only on how much Jones should pay in damages.

    Pattis, Jones’ lawyer, wrote in the motions filed Friday that there was a lack of evidence directly connecting Jones with the people who harassed and threatened the Sandy Hook families. Pattis said the trial resembled a “memorial service, not a trial.”

    “Yes, the families in this case suffered horribly as a result of the murder of their children,” Pattis wrote, adding that Jones did not send people to harass and threaten the families.

    “There was no competent evidence offered at this trial that he ever did,” he wrote. “Instead, there was a shocking abuse of a disciplinary default and its transformation into a series of half-truths that misled a jury and resulted in substantial injustice.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chess grandmaster Hans Niemann sues champion Magnus Carlsen, others for $100 million over cheating claim

    Chess grandmaster Hans Niemann sues champion Magnus Carlsen, others for $100 million over cheating claim

    [ad_1]

    Chess grandmaster Hans Niemann filed a $100 million lawsuit against world champion Magnus Carlsen and others for alleged defamatory statements claiming that Niemann cheated in competition.

    The suit claims that the defendants, including Chess.com, inflicted “devastating damages” against Niemann by “egregiously defaming him” and “unlawfully colluding” to bar him from the professional chess world.

    “My lawsuit speaks for itself,” Niemann said Thursday in a Twitter post.

    Niemann, 19, has admitted to cheating on two occasions, once when he was 12 years old and a second time when he was 16. But he denied claims that he cheated in an over-the-board match against Magnus Carlsen this year.

    Carlsen withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup in September after losing to Niemann, and eventually came forward with concerns that Niemann had cheated in the match in which he defeated Carlsen.

    “When Niemann was invited last minute to the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I strongly considered withdrawing prior to the event. I ultimately chose to play,” Carlsen, 31, said in a statement posted to Twitter in late September. “I had the impression that he wasn’t tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do.”

    The suit claims that Carlsen’s comments were a retaliatory attempt to keep Niemann from damaging his reputation.

    “Enraged that the young Niemann, fully 12 years his junior, dared to disrespect the ‘King of Chess,’ and fearful that the young prodigy would further blemish his multi-million dollar brand by beating him again Carlsen viciously and maliciously retaliated against Niemann,” the suit, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri where the match took place, alleges.

    World chess champion Norway’s Magnus Carlsen poses with the FIDE world chess championship trophy after beating challenger.

    TOLGA AKMEN | AFP | Getty Images

    Chess.com subsequently banned Niemann after reporting that an internal investigation revealed evidence of more cheating than Niemann’s public statements had expressed.

    “We have shared detailed evidence with him concerning our decision, including information that contradicts his statements regarding the amount and seriousness of his cheating on Chess.com,” representatives from the Chess website wrote in the “Hans Niemann Report” published in early October. “We have invited Hans to provide an explanation and response with the hope of finding a resolution where Hans can participate on Chess.com.”

    Niemann’s lawsuit alleges a conspiracy between the defendants, including Chess.com, popular Chess.com streamer Hikaru Nakamura and Carlsen, whose “Play Magnus” platform is set to be bought by Chess.com. In the “Hans Niemann Report,” the website denies that Carlsen asked or influenced the decision to shut down Niemann’s account.

    The report from Chess.com did not find evidence of cheating in Niemann’s over-the-board matches, including the match against Carlsen, though the website notes that its cheating detection is primarily used for online matches.

    The report does, however, allege that Niemann likely cheated in over 100 online chess games, including several prize money events. It also shows that Niemann’s Chess.com “Strength Score” sits in the range of over a dozen anonymous grandmasters who have admitted to cheating. The report also notes that Niemann is by far the fastest-rising player by yearly gain in classical over-the-board chess.

    Niemann’s defamation and collusion suit calls him an “American chess prodigy,” but Chess.com throws doubt on that claim. The report states that, of the 13 grandmasters under the age of 25, Niemann is the only one who became a grandmaster after the age of 16. In general they call him “statistically extraordinary.”

    The report notes Chess.com‘s “best-in-class” cheat detection, which has elicited cheating confessions from four players in the global top 100. The report says that Niemann himself called it “the best cheat detection in the world.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 Capitol riot committee subpoenas former President Donald Trump

    Jan. 6 Capitol riot committee subpoenas former President Donald Trump

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump was issued a subpoena Friday by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

    The committee, which voted unanimously on the move, is demanding Trump’s testimony under oath next month as well as records relevant to the probe into the attack, which the panel noted came after weeks of him denying losing the 2020 election to President Joe Biden.

     The panel had said on Oct. 13 that it would subpoena Trump, whose supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as a joint session of Congress met to confirm Biden’s victory.

    “We recognize that a subpoena to a former President is a significant and historic action,” the panel’s leaders wrote Trump in a letter Friday.

    “We do not take this action lightly.”

    Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Republican Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming, in the letter cited what they called Trump’s central role in a deliberate, “multi-part effort” to reverse his loss in the 2020 presidential election, and to remain in power.

    The subpoena says that Trump would be deposed on Nov. 14, after the midterm elections.

    It is not clear whether Trump will comply with the subpoena.

    The records being sought by the House committee pursuant to the subpoena are due Nov. 4.

    The records would include documentation of telephone calls, text messages, or communications sent through the encrypted messaging app Signal, as well as photos, videos and handwritten notes relevant to the scope of the probe.

    Pro-Trump protesters storm the U.S. Capitol to contest the certification of the 2020 U.S. presidential election results by the U.S. Congress, at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., U.S. January 6, 2021.

    Ahmed Gaber | Reuters

    The panel specifically asked for communications to, and memorandum from, 13 Trump allies and fellow deniers of Biden’s victory, among them former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, Republican gadfly Roger Stone, retired Army Lt. General Michael Flynn, and former White House aide Stephen Bannon.

    Bannon was sentenced to four months in jail earlier Friday for refusing to comply with his own subpoenas from the committee. He remains free pending appeal.

    In their letter to Trump, committee leaders Thompson and Cheney accused him of “maliciously” making false allegations of election fraud, “attempting to corrupt the Department of Justice” to endorse those claim, pressuring state officials to change election results, and overseeing efforts to submit false electors to the Electoral College.

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    The letter also noted that he had pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, to refuse to count Electoral College votes during the joint session of Congress.

     “As demonstrated in our hearings, we have assembled overwhelming evidence, including from dozens of your former appointees and staff, that you personally orchestrated and oversaw a multi-part effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election and to obstruct the peaceful transition of power,” the letter said.

    “You were at the center of the first and only effort by any U.S. President to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transition of power, ultimately culminating in a bloody attack on our own Capitol and on the Congress itself,” the letter said.

    The committee’s leaders pointed to the fact that seven presidents had testified to Congress after leaving office, most recently Gerald Ford, a Republican.

    And at least two presidents, Ford and Abraham Lincoln, testified before Congress while serving in the White House, the letter noted.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Steve Bannon set to be sentenced for contempt of Congress

    Steve Bannon set to be sentenced for contempt of Congress

    [ad_1]

    Former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon speaks to the media after the opening day of his trial on contempt of Congress charges stemming from his refusal to cooperate with the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, at U.S. District Court in Washington, July 18, 2022.

    Joshua Roberts | Reuters

    Former top Trump White House advisor Steve Bannon is set to be sentenced Friday for defying a subpoena from the congressional probe of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

    The proceeding, set for 9 a.m. ET in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., could make Bannon one of the highest-profile figures to be locked up on charges related to the insurrection. He is expected to appeal his conviction.

    Federal prosecutors want the court to sentence Bannon to six months in jail — the top end of the federal sentencing guidelines range — and the maximum fine of $200,000.

    A right-wing media figure and onetime close ally of former President Donald Trump, Bannon “consistently acted in bad faith” as he tried to impede the House select committee’s investigation, prosecutors argued.

    Bannon has asked federal Judge Carl Nichols for a sentence of probation. His lawyers also argued that the court should delay any sentence imposed until an appeals court could hear the case.

    Bannon’s sentence came one year to the day since the House voted to hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a House select committee’s subpoena for documents and testimony. Bannon was indicted in November on two criminal counts and convicted after a federal trial in July.

    Bannon’s lawyer had argued that the subpoena would violate Trump’s executive privilege, the presidential power to withhold certain information from the public.

    But Bannon reversed course days before his trial, saying he was willing to testify because Trump had agreed to waive his executive privilege claim.

    Prosecutors called that a stunt. In a court filing Monday, they wrote that after Bannon’s gambit failed to delay the trial, “he never made any further attempt to comply with the subpoena—continuing up to this day.”

    Attorneys for Bannon argued in part that Bannon should receive a light sentence because he was merely following his lawyer’s advice when he defied the select committee’s subpoena.

    “The facts of this case show that Mr. Bannon’s conduct was based on his good-faith reliance on his lawyer’s advice,” the defendant’s attorneys wrote in a court filing this week.

    But the Justice Department prosecutors said that Bannon “pursued a bad-faith strategy of defiance and contempt” from “the moment” he was served the subpoena.

    “A person could have shown no greater contempt than the Defendant did in his defiance of the Committee’s subpoena,” they told the court.

    “The rioters who overran the Capitol on January 6 did not just attack a building—they assaulted the rule of law upon which this country was built and through which it endures. By flouting the Select Committee’s subpoena and its authority, the Defendant exacerbated that assault,” their memo said.

    This is developing news. Please check back for updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump deposed in rape-defamation lawsuit by writer E. Jean Carroll

    Trump deposed in rape-defamation lawsuit by writer E. Jean Carroll

    [ad_1]

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held at the Hilton Anatole on August 06, 2022 in Dallas, Texas. CPAC began in 1974, and is a conference that brings together and hosts conservative organizations, activists, and world leaders in discussing current events and future political agendas. 

    Brandon Bell | Getty Images

    Former President Donald Trump was deposed Wednesday for a civil lawsuit accusing him of defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of raping her, her representation confirmed.

    Trump on Oct. 12 lost his bid to delay being questioned under oath by Carroll’s lawyers when a federal judge brushed aside arguments that a pending appeal in the lawsuit warranted putting the case on hold.

    The timing of Trump’s deposition and its location were not immediately available Wednesday.

    “As we have said all along, my client was pleased to set the record straight today. This case is nothing more than a political ploy like many others in the long list of witch hunts against Donald Trump,” Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, said in a statement.

    Carroll was scheduled to have been deposed for the case last Friday.

    A trial in the case is scheduled for February.

    Even if that trial is put on hold, or outright canceled as the result of the pending appeal, Carroll plans to sue the 76-year-old Trump in New York state court next month under a new law that lifted the statute of limitations for claims of rape and sexual abuse.

    Carroll’s lawyers could use Trump’s Wednesday deposition in that planned suit.

    The deposition comes two months after Trump refused to answer questions under oath in a deposition by attorneys for New York Attorney General Letitia James in connection with a civil investigation of his company, the Trump Organization. Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 440 times in that deposition.

    James last month sued Trump, his company, three of his adult children and others, alleging widespread fraud involving allegedly false financial statements related to the company’s business. James is seeking at least $250 million in damages in that case, as well as sanctions.

    Carroll, 78, in a 2019 New York magazine article, accused Trump of raping her in a dressing room in the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in the mid-1990s after a chance encounter in the store.

    Trump, who was president at the time the article appeared, responded that Carroll was lying and motivated by money and political considerations to concoct the account.

    Carroll then sued Trump for defamation in New York state court.

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    The case was transferred a year later to U.S. District Court in Manhattan as the Department of Justice, then under the control of the Trump-appointed Attorney General William Barr, sought to replace Trump as the defendant in the case. The department argued that because Trump was president at the time he allegedly defamed Carroll, the government had the power to step in and act as the defendant because he was a government employee.

    If the DOJ was allowed to do so, it would effectively end the lawsuit. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the federal government has the power to deny plaintiffs the right to sue it.

    Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected that bid. “The President of the United States is not an employee of the Government within the meaning of the relevant statutes,” he said in a ruling.

    “Even if he were such an employee, President Trump’s allegedly defamatory statements concerning Ms. Carroll would not have been within the scope of his employment,” wrote Kaplan, who is not related to Carroll’s attorney.

    The DOJ appealed Kaplan’s ruling.

    In September, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Kaplan’s ruling on the question of whether Trump was acting as a government employee at the time he replied to Carroll’s article. But the appeals court also asked its sister appeals court in Washington, D.C., to rule on whether Trump made the statements about Carroll within the scope of his employment, as defined by local District of Columbia law.

    The D.C. federal appeals court has not yet ruled on that question.

    Kaplan, in his decision last week, said that Trump was not entitled to delay his deposition pending the outcome in the D.C. court because he had not shown a required strong likelihood of success on that question.

    Kaplan also wrote that there was reason to believe that Trump was continuing to engage in delaying tactics in the litigation and that the “advanced age” of both Trump and Carroll was a reason not to further postpone action in the case.

    “The defendant should not be permitted to run the clock out on plaintiff’s attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong,” Kaplan wrote.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Japan PM orders probe of Unification Church problems

    Japan PM orders probe of Unification Church problems

    [ad_1]

    TOKYO — Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida ordered an investigation Monday into the Unification Church in an apparent move to calm the public outrage over his governing party’s cozy ties with the controversial group, which were revealed in the wake of Shinzo Abe’s assassination.

    Former Prime Minister Abe was shot to death during an outdoor campaign speech in July. The suspect, Tetsuya Yamagami, told police he killed Abe because of his apparent link to a religious group he hated. A letter and social media postings attributed to Yamagami said his mother’s large donations to the church bankrupted his family and ruined his life.

    Kishida said a government hotline set up to receive complaints and inquiries related to the church has resulted in more than 1,700 cases that have been handled by police and legal experts.

    “Many victims face financial difficulty and their families were destroyed, but the government has not been able to provide adequate support and I take it seriously,” Kishida said. He also pledged to do more to support the alleged victims, including a possible revision to the consumer contract law to prevent future problems.

    The Unification Church, founded in South Korea in 1954 by Sun Myung Moon, obtained a religious organization status in Japan in 1968 amid anti-communist movement supported by Abe’s grandfather and former Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi.

    Since the 1980s, the church has faced accusations of devious business and recruitment tactics, including brainwashing members into turning over huge portions of their salaries to Moon.

    The group acknowledged there have been cases of “excessive” donations. It says issues have been mitigated since it adopted stricter compliance in 2009, and recently pledged further reforms.

    A government panel submitted a report earlier Monday that found many financial problems and lawsuits stemming from the church’s methods. The report called for an investigation while considering revoking the group’s legal status, though officials are seen as reluctant to go that far.

    Kishida told a parliamentary committee meeting Monday that he has instructed the Education and Culture Minister Keiko Nagaoka, primarily in charge of overseeing religious groups, to prepare for an investigation into the church under the Religious Corporations Act.

    The police investigation of Abe’s killing led to revelations of widespread ties between the South Korea-based church and the members of the governing Liberal Democratic Party, including Abe, over their shared interests in conservative causes. The case also shed a light on the suffering of adherents’ children, some of whom have come out and said they were forced to join the church and were left in poverty or neglected because of their parents’ devotion.

    Many critics consider the church to be a cult because of problems with followers and their families over their financial and mental hardships.

    An LDP survey in September found nearly half of its lawmakers had ties to the church, including Cabinet ministers. Kishida has pledged to cut all such ties, but many Japanese want a further explanation of how the church may have influenced party policies.

    Kishida has come under fire and his government’s support ratings have nosedived over his handling of the church controversy and for holding a state funeral for Abe, one of Japan’s most divisive leaders who is now seen as a key link to the governing party’s church ties.

    Nagaoka, the culture minister, said she will set up a panel of legal and religious experts next week to discuss a rare investigation into a religious group.

    Members of the National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales, who watch the church, submitted a request last week to the culture and justice ministries and the top prosecutor to issue a disbandment order to the church.

    A group of about 40 individuals and organizations, including anti-cult activists and so-called second-generation followers, started a petition drive seeking to revoke the church’s legal status as a religious organization. The petition has collected nearly 25,000 signatures within hours of the launch.

    The church has acknowledged that Yamagami’s mother donated more than 100 million yen ($700,000), including life insurance and real estate, to the group. It said it later returned about half at the request of the suspect’s uncle.

    Experts say Japanese followers are asked to pay for their ancestral sins committed during their colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula, and that 70% of the church’s funding comes from Japan.

    [ad_2]

    Source link