ReportWire

Tag: Laws

  • FBI finds more classified documents in search of Biden home in Delaware

    FBI finds more classified documents in search of Biden home in Delaware

    [ad_1]

    The FBI found more classified documents at the Wilmington, Delaware, home of President Joe Biden during a consensual search Friday that lasted nearly 13 hours, his personal lawyer and a prosecutor said Saturday evening

    The discovery was the fourth time since November that classified records or material has been found at a private address of Biden’s.

    His personal lawyer Bob Bauer, in a statement, said the Department of Justice seized “six items consisting of documents with classification markings and surrounding material.”

    Joseph D. Fitzpatrick, assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, told NBC News: “I can confirm that the FBI on Friday executed a planned, consensual search of the President’s residence in Wilmington, Delaware.”

    Some of the items dated from Biden’s tenure in the Senate, where he represented Delaware from 1973 to 2009, Bauer said. And some of the items were from his tenure as vice president in the Obama administration, from 2009 through 2017.

    In addition to those records, FBI agents, who did not have a warrant for the search, also seized some notes that Biden wrote by hand as vice president, according to the lawyer and the White House.

    Neither Biden nor first lady Jill Biden was present during the search, according to Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president.

    The items join other an undisclosed number of classified government records previously discovered by lawyers for the president.

    A small number of classified records first were found by Biden’s lawyers on Nov. 2 at a private office that he kept at a Washington, D.C., think tank after ending his tenure as vice president in the Obama administration in 2017.

    The White House only disclosed that discovery on Jan. 9.

    On Dec. 20, a small number of classified records were found in the garage of Biden’s Wilmington home.

    A single page of classified material was then found at the Wilmington residence on Jan 11. Then, the next day, five more pages of classified records were found in a room adjacent to Biden’s garage, when DOJ officials traveled there to take possession of the single page found the prior day.

    The White House has said that when the president’s lawyers found the previous documents, they immediately notified the National Archives and Records Administration and the DOJ.

    Friday’s search was the first time revealed publicly that federal law enforcement authorities have conducted a search for government documents at Biden’s private addresses.

    Attorney General Merrick Garland earlier this month appointed a special counsel to investigate Biden’s retention of government records after he was vice president.

    Former President Donald Trump is under criminal investigation by another special counsel for taking hundreds of classified records and other government documents from the White House when he left office. Trump is also being eyed for possible obstruction of justice by stonewalling efforts by government officials to recover those documents.

    The FBI in early August raided Trump’s home at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, where they found thousands of pages of government records. The FBI had a search warrant in that case.

    By law, presidents and vice presidents must return government documents to the National Archives when they leave office.

    Biden and the White House have been criticized for the two-month lag in disclosing the discovery of the first batch of classified documents at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington.

    That first discovery came six days before the midterm elections when the balance of political party control of both chambers of Congress was a stake.

    And critics have asked why searches of other private locations maintained by the president were not conducted until after the White House disclosed the first discovery.

    Bauer, in his statement Saturday said that the president’s legal team offered to provide “prompt access” to Biden’s private residence “to allow DOJ to conduct a search of the entire premises for potential vice-presidential records and potential classified material.”

    He said that the offer was made “in the interest of moving the process forward as expeditiously as possible.”

    “DOJ requested that the search not be made public in advance, in accordance with its standard procedures, and we agreed to cooperate,” Bauer said.

    He said that on Friday, the “DOJ completed a thorough search of all the materials in the President’s Wilmington home.”

    “It began at approximately 9:45 AM and concluded at around 10:30 PM and covered all working, living and storage spaces in the home,” Bauer said. “By agreement with DOJ, representatives of both the personal legal team and the White House Counsel’s Office were present.”

    Authorities had “full access to the President’s home,” which included “personally handwritten notes, files, papers, binders, memorabilia, to-do lists, schedules, and reminders going back decades.”

    “DOJ took possession of materials it deemed within the scope of its inquiry, including six items consisting of documents with classification markings and surrounding materials, some of which were from the President’s service in the Senate and some of which were from his tenure as Vice President,” Bauer said.

    “DOJ also took for further review personally handwritten notes from the vice-presidential years.”

    The lawyer said, “As noted in the Statement we released on January 14, we have attempted to balance the importance of public transparency where appropriate with the established norms and limitations necessary to protect the investigation’s integrity.”

    “We will continue to do so throughout the course of our cooperation with DOJ,” Bauer said.

    Sauber, Biden’s White House lawyer, in his own statement, said, “The President and his team are working swiftly to ensure DOJ and the Special Counsel have what they need to conduct a thorough review.”

    “Since the beginning, the President has been committed to handling this responsibly because he takes this seriously,” Sauber said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • $100 million New Jersey deli fugitive Peter Coker Jr. agrees to extradition to U.S. from Thailand

    $100 million New Jersey deli fugitive Peter Coker Jr. agrees to extradition to U.S. from Thailand

    [ad_1]

    Your Hometown Deli in Paulsboro, N.J.

    Google Earth

    A former fugitive wanted on criminal stock manipulation charges related to a money-losing New Jersey deli once valued at $100 million has agreed to be extradited from Thailand to the United States, Thai authorities said.

    Peter Coker Jr., 54, was arrested last week by Thai police in the resort area of Phuket, less than four months after he, his father, Peter Coker Sr., and an associate, James Patten, were indicted in New Jersey federal court.

    The charges relate to two publicly traded companies, Hometown International, which owned only a modest, now-closed deli in Paulsboro, New Jersey, and E-Waste, a shell company that had no assets.

    Coker Jr., who most recently was known to be living and working as a businessman in Hong Kong, is being held in a Bangkok jail for the next several weeks before his expected extradition, the Associated Press reported Friday.

    Thai police, in a statement, said Coker Jr., who is an American most recently known to be living in Hong Kong, had entered the country with a passport issued by the Caribbean island of St. Kitts and Nevis. That nation sells citizenship in exchange for investments there, the AP noted.

    “Mr. Coker Jr. voluntarily consented to be extradited to the U.S., which has simplified the court’s legal process,” Teerat Limpayaraya, a prosecutor in Thailand’s Attorney General’s office, told the AP.

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    “We have to complete a 30-day waiting period as required by Thai law before sending him back,” said Teerat.

    The prosecutor said also told the AP that Coker Jr. “was visibly frail when he was taken in and told us that he needs medical treatment for his liver disease. We believe that he entered Thailand with a possible plan to settle here.”

    U.S. prosecutors accuse the Cokers and Patten of a scheme to bid up the value of shares of Hometown International and E-Waste, both of which had high market capitalizations despite holding little if any assets of value, to make them more attractive to private firms as merger candidates. Both companies later found merger partners.

    Coker Jr. had served as chairman of Hometown International.

    While Pattan and Coker Sr., have made court appearances since their arrest, Coker Jr. was believed to be at large until his arrest last week.

    A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, which is prosecuting the case, confirmed Coker Jr.’s apprehension in Thailand, but declined to comment further.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FTC asks judge to hold ‘pharma bro’ Martin Shkreli in contempt of court for forming new drug firm

    FTC asks judge to hold ‘pharma bro’ Martin Shkreli in contempt of court for forming new drug firm

    [ad_1]

    Martin Shkreli, former chief executive officer of Turing Pharmaceuticals AG, center, pauses while speak to members of the media with his attorney Benjamin Brafman, right, outside federal court in the Brooklyn borough of New York, U.S., on Friday, Aug. 4, 2017.

    Peter Foley | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    The Federal Trade Commission on Friday asked that notorious “pharma bro” Martin Shkreli be held in contempt of court for forming a new drug company in violation of a judge’s ban on the convicted fraudster from working in the pharmaceuticals industry.

    Shkreli, who was released from prison last year, in February was banned “for life from directly or indirectly
    participating in any manner in the pharmaceutical industry” as a result of the FTC’s antitrust lawsuit against him and a prior drug company that he founded.

    That order stemmed from Manhattan federal court Judge Denise Cote’s ruling that Shkreli oversaw an illegal scheme to maintain a monopoly on the life-saving drug Daraprim, which continued even as he sat in prison for his conviction in an unrelated securities fraud case.

    In its court filing Friday, the FTC noted that Shkreli in July announced the formation of a new company, Druglike, “that appears to be involved in the drug industry.”

    The agency said that action, as well as Shkreli’s failure to pay his nearly $25 million share of a $64.6 million judgment he owes in the lawsuit, suggest that he is violating the court’s orders in the case.

    The FTC and a group of states that sued Shkreli said in the filing he has failed to comply with their requests to give them documents and submit to an interview as part of their probe into whether his involvement with Druglink violates the February 2022 court order banning him from the industry.

    “Martin Shkreli’s failure to comply with the court’s order demonstrates a clear disregard for the law,” said Holly Vedova, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, in a statement.

    “The FTC will not hesitate to deploy the full scope of its authorities to enable a comprehensive investigation into any potential misconduct,” Vedova said.

    Benjamin Brafman, a lawyer for Shkreli, did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

    This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump and lawyer sanctioned almost $1 million for ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

    Trump and lawyer sanctioned almost $1 million for ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Thursday imposed nearly $1 million in sanctions on former President Donald Trump and his lawyer for filing a since-dismissed ‘frivolous’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and many others, which had claimed they tried to rig the 2016 presidential election in her favor by smearing Trump.

    “We are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose,” wrote Judge John Middlebrooks in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in his order sanctioning Trump.

    The judge in his order noted that “Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries.”

    “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer,” Middlebrooks wrote.

    “He knew full well the impact of his actions … As such, I find that sanctions should be imposed upon Mr. Trump and his lead counsel, Ms. [Alina] Habba.”

    Under the order, the Republican Trump and Habba, are jointly and severally liable for the total amount of sanctions the judge imposed: $937,989.39.

    “The amount of fees awarded in this case, while reasonable, is substantial,” Middlebrooks noted.

    He called the legal pleadings filed in the case by Habba “abusive litigation tactics,” and said the original lawsuit and a later, 186-page amended complaint “were drafted to advance political narrative; not to address legal harm caused by any Defendant.”

    “The Amended Complaint is a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion,” Middlebrooks wrote.

    “This is a deliberate attempt to harass; to tell a story without regard to facts.”

    Habba did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the order.

    Trump, who is seeking the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, filed his suit in March against Clinton, who was the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.

    The other 30 defendants included the Democratic National Commission, former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, the law firm Perkins Coie, the research firm Fusion GPS, the former FBI officials James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, as well as Christopher Steele, the ex-British intelligence agent who authored the notorious “Trump-Russia dossier” opposition research report before the election.

    The suit, which sought $70 million in damages, accused the defendants of conspiring to “weave a false narrative” during the 2016 election that Trump and his campaign were colluding with Russia in their efforts to win the race.

    The suit claimed that Clinton and other defendants falsified evidence, deceived law-enforcement agencies and engaged in other skulduggery that made “even the events of Watergate pale in comparison.”

    Middlebrooks earlier dismissed the lawsuit against Clinton and all other defendants “with prejudice,” which bars Trump from refiling the complaint.

    MIddlebrooks’ order is the latest in a series of embarrassing legal setbacks for Trump, which have included the criminal conviction last month in New York state court of his Manhattan-based real estate company, The Trump Organization, for a years-long tax avoidance scheme.

    Trump and his company also face a major civil lawsuit by New York’s attorney general for an alleged scheme to misstate the valuation of real estate assets for financial gain, and Trump also is being sued by the writer E. Jean Carroll, who accuses him of raping her in the mid-1990s in New York.

    A state grand jury in Georgia recently completed gathering evidence and hearing testimony as part of an ongoing criminal probe into whether Trump illegally tried to overturn the results of the state’s 2020 election, which he lost.

    And federal prosecutors are investigating Trump for his bid to reverse his loss in the national election to President Joe Biden, and his taking government documents to his Florida residence when he left office.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump mistook rape accuser E. Jean Carroll for ex-wife Marla Maples in deposition about photo

    Trump mistook rape accuser E. Jean Carroll for ex-wife Marla Maples in deposition about photo

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump, E. Jean Carroll, John Johnson and Ivana Trump at an NBC party, late 1980s.

    U.S. District Court in Manhattan

    Former President Donald Trump recently mistook his rape accuser E. Jean Carroll for his ex-wife Marla Maples when being questioned about a decades-old photo of him and Carroll by her attorney for a defamation lawsuit, a newly public court filing shows.

    Trump’s belief that the writer Carroll was actually his second wife Maples sharply undercuts the New York real estate mogul’s repeated claims that he would not have even had sex with Carroll because she is “not my type.”

    Carroll, 79, first alleged in a 2019 magazine article that Trump, who was president at the time, had raped her in a dressing room in the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in 1995 or 1996 after a chance encounter in the store.

    Trump, 76, denied her claims, accusing Carroll of lying. He also said Carroll was motivated by a desire to generate sales of a book and political animus in making the allegations.

    “She’s not my type,” Trump told The Hill news site in 2019.

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    Carroll is suing Trump, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, in two cases in federal court in Manhattan for allegedly defaming her by his characterization of her claims and her purported motivation. One case was filed in 2019, after Trump first denied her allegations, and the second was filed this fall, after he repeated his claims about her motivation.

    In the most recent case, she is also suing him for battery, for the alleged rape itself, under a new New York state law that opens a one-year window for adults to lodge claims of sexual abuse that otherwise would be too old to pursue because of the statute of limitations.

    During an Oct. 19 deposition at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, which was made public Wednesday, Trump was shown a photo from an NBC event around 1987.

    The image shows him from behind, facing Carroll and her then-husband, television journalist John Johnson, with Trump’s then-wife, the late Ivana Trump standing to his right.

    “It’s Marla,” said Trump about the photo.

    Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said, “You’re saying Marla is in this photo?”

    Trump replied: “That’s Marla, yeah. That’s my wife.”

    Real estate mogul, reality television star and former potential presidential candidate Donald Trump was first married to Czech former athlete Ivana Trump. After 15 years of marriage, the pair had a very public and very messy divorce in 1992, which cost him . This might have discouraged a lesser man from ever dating again, but “The Donald” is no shrinking violet. One year later he had a new bride on his arm in the person of actress and socialite Marla Maples, 17 years his junior.In 1997, the coup

    Ron Galella | WireImage | Getty Images

    His lawyer Alina Habba then interjected, “No, that’s Carroll.”

    Trump said, “Oh, I see.”

    Kaplan then said, “The person you just pointed to was E. Jean Carroll.”

    When Habba repeated to Trump, “That’s Carroll,” he replied, “That’s Carroll?”

    Elsewhere in the deposition, Trump said of Carroll, “She’s not my type.”

    “She is not a woman I would ever be attracted to,” he added later.

    The deposition was attached to a court filing last week by Carroll’s lawyers, but became public Wednesday after Trump’s lawyers dropped their opposition to it being made public.

    Last week, Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered other portions of the deposition unsealed, ruling that Trump did not have a legitimate reason to keep them out of the public record in the case.

    Trump married Maples in 1993, several months after the birth of their daughter, Tiffany. The couple, who began their romantic relationship while Trump was still married to Ivana, divorced six years later.

    Trump married his current wife, Melania Trump, in 2005.

    Kaplan has set trial in Carroll’s lawsuits to begin in April.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge unseals section of Trump deposition in rape-defamation lawsuit by writer E. Jean Carroll

    Judge unseals section of Trump deposition in rape-defamation lawsuit by writer E. Jean Carroll

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s note: This story includes a description of sexual assault.

    A federal judge in New York on Friday rejected an effort by lawyers for former President Donald Trump to keep sealed a portion of the transcript of his deposition in a lawsuit by a writer who accuses him of raping her in the mid-1990s.

    Trump’s arguments for keeping the nearly three dozen pages of his deposition sealed “are entirely baseless,” Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote in his order in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

    That deposition showed Trump making insulting comments about the writer who is suing him, E. Jean Carroll, her lawyer, and President Joe Biden, as well as grousing about what he called a series of “hoaxes” involving allegedly false claims made about him.

    The deposition which was conducted on Oct. 19 by lawyers for Carroll at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.

    Earlier Friday, Kaplan denied Trump’s bid to toss out one of the two lawsuits filed against him by Carroll, who says Trump raped her in a dressing room in the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan more than two decades ago.

    In his unsealing order, Kaplan said that Trump had no right to confidentiality for his testimony when he gave it. The judge noted that there is a presumptive right held by the public to court documents.

    The judge added that contrary to Trump’s argument, the portion of his transcript that was redacted in the public filing by Carroll’s lawyers “was directly relevant” to a disagreement between those attorneys and his over whether additional discovery should be conducted for her second lawsuit.

    Kaplan first ordered the transcript unsealed on Monday. But he then reversed his order after Trump’s lawyers asked him for three days to file arguments opposing the unsealing.

    Trump, while serving as president, publicly accused Carroll of making up the rape allegation, saying she was motivated by politics and a desire to sell a book containing her claims.

    Carroll then sued him for defamation.

    She sued him again in November when he made what she says were other defamatory statements about her in a social media post that Trump wrote in October. Her second lawsuit also alleges battery, a claim that was allowed under a new New York state law that allows adults a one-year grace period to file lawsuits alleging sexual abuse that occurred outside of the time frame allowed by the statute of limitations.

    Trial in the cases has been set for April.

    “It’s a false accusation,” Trump said in his deposition, according to the newly disclosed transcript. “Never happened, never would happen.”

    “I will sue her after this is over, and that’s the thing I really look forward to doing,” Trump told Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, who is not related to the judge.

    “And I’ll sue you too.”

    Trump during the deposition was asked about the Oct. 12 post he made on his social media site, which refers to the “Ms. Bergdorf Goodman case,” calling it “a complete con job.”

    The post referenced a June 2019 interview Carroll gave CNN’s Anderson Cooper that described her account of the alleged sexual assault. She said it occurred after a chance meeting with Trump while she was shopping, and he allegedly asked her for help buying a present “for a girl.”

    “She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City department store and within minutes ‘swooned’ her,” Trump had written, Kaplan noted in her questioning.

    Trump in his deposition confirmed Kaplan had read that, and the rest of the post accurately, saying, “Great statement, yeah. True. True.”

    “I wrote it all myself,” he added.

    Asked if he had talked to anyone about what to say in his post, Trump replied, “No, I didn’t need to. I’m not Joe Biden.”

    Trump called Carroll a “wack job” during his deposition.

    “I think she’s sick, mentally sick,” he said.

    Kaplan then asked him about his use of the word “swooned,” which she called “a strange word.”

    “What does ‘swooned her’ mean?” the attorney asked.

    Trump replied, “That would be a word, maybe accurate or not, having to do with talking to her and talking her — to do an act that she said happened, which didn’t happen.”

    “And it’s a nicer word than the word that starts with an F, and this would be a word that I used because I thought it would be inappropriate to use the other word,” Trump said. “And it didn’t happen.”

    When Kaplan said that the dictionary defined “swooned” as “to faint with extreme emotion,” Trump replied, “Well, sort of that’s what she said I did to her.”

    “She fainted with great emotion,” Trump said. “She actually indicated that she loved it. OK?,” he said, referring to Carroll’s CNN interview.

    “She loved it until commercial break,” Trump said. “In fact, I think she said it was sexy, didn’t she? She said it was very sexy to be raped. Didn’t she say that?”

    Kaplan then asked if Trump was testifying that Carroll “said that she loved being sexually assaulted by you.”

    Trump answered: “Well, based on her interview with Anderson Cooper, I believe that’s what took place. And we can define that. You’ll have to show that. I’m sure you’re going to show that. But she was interviewed by Anderson Cooper, and I think she said that rape was sexy — which it’s not, by the way.”

    He added, “But I think she said that rape was sexy.”

    In fact, Carroll had said in that interview that she believed “most people” thought of rape as “sexy.” She did not say she believed that herself.

    In that interview, Carroll said she was “panicked” when Trump shut the door of the dressing room and pushed her against a wall and began kissing her before pulling down her tights.

    “And it was against my will. And it hurt. And it was a fight,” Carroll said in the interview.

    She later said in the same interview, “I was not thrown on the ground and ravished. Which the word ‘rape’ carries so many sexual connotations.”

    “This was not — this was not sexual. It just hurt,” Carroll said.

    Cooper responded, “I think most people think of rape as … a violent assault.”

    Carroll then said, “I think most people think of rape as being sexy.”

    When her lawyer Kaplan asked Trump if it was not true that Carroll had said it was a view of many other people about rape being sexy, he said, “Oh, I don’t know … All I know is, I believe she said rape is sexy or something to that effect, but you’ll have to watch the interview. It’s been a while.”

    Trump later in the deposition noted that in his social media post he made what he called the “not politically correct statement” about Carroll.

    “She’s not my type,” Trump told Kaplan. “She is not a woman I would ever be attracted to,” he added later.

    “She’s accusing me of rape, a woman I have no idea who she is,” Trump said. “The worst thing you can do, the worst charge.”

    “And you know it’s not true too,” he told Kaplan. “You’re a political operative too. You’re a disgrace.”

    He later suggested that Kaplan had some kind of influence with the judge in the case to get him to grant her permission to depose him for the lawsuit. It is standard in lawsuits for attorneys to depose the parties in a case.

    “I knew that we’d be wasting a day doing this, a whole day doing this,” Trump said. “You’ve got to be connected to get this kind of time. But a whole day of doing this stuff on something that never happened.”

    Kaplan noted that Trump had said in his social media post that Carroll’s allegation was “a hoax and a lie, just like all the other hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years.”

    When the lawyer asked if he meant Carroll had fabricated her claim, Trump said, “Totally, 100 percent.” He admitted that he used the term “hoax” a lot.

    “I’ve had a lot of hoaxes played on me. This is one of them,” Trump said.

    Asked what some of those were, Trump said, “The Russia Russia Russia hoax … Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine hoax.”

    He pointed to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential connections between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

    Trump also said the use of mail ballots during the 2020 election, which he lost to Biden, was a hoax.

    “I think they’re very dishonest. Mail-in ballots, very dishonest,” Trump said.

    Asked by Kaplan if he had himself voted by mail, Trump answered over the objections of his own lawyer, Alina Habba.

    “I do. I do,” Trump said. “Sometimes I do. But I don’t know what happens to it once you give it. I have no idea.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California forces companies to show pay on job listings, revealing big tech salaries

    California forces companies to show pay on job listings, revealing big tech salaries

    [ad_1]

    Steve Proehl | Corbis Unreleased | Getty Images

    A new law that went into effect this week requires most California employers to disclose salaries on job listings.

    The law affects every company with more than 15 employees looking to fill a job that could be performed from the state of California. It covers hourly and temporary work, all the way up to openings for highly paid technology executives.

    That means it’s now possible to know the salaries top tech companies pay their workers. For example:

    Notably, these salary listings do not include any bonuses or equity grants, which many tech companies use to attract and retain employees.

    California is the latest and biggest of the states and cities that have enacted pay transparency laws, including Colorado and New York City. But more than 20% of Fortune 500 companies are based in California, including leaders in technology and media, and advocates hope that California’s new law will be the tipping point that turns posting salary information into standard practice.

    In the U.S., there are now 13 cities and states that require employers to share salary information, covering about 1 in 4 workers, according to Payscale, a software firm focusing on salary comparison.

    California’s pay transparency law is intended to reduce gender and race pay gaps and help minorities and women better compete in the labor market. For example, people can compare their current pay with job listings with the same job title and see if they’re being underpaid.

    Women earn about 83 cents for every dollar a man earns, according to the U.S. Census.

    “You’re going to need a lot of different elements in place in order for men and women to get paid the same for the same amount of work and the same experience,” said Monique Limón, the California state senator who sponsored the new law. “And one of those is transparency around salary ranges.”

    But the new disclosures under the law might not tell the whole story of what a job pays. Companies can choose to display wide pay ranges, violating the spirit of the law, and the law doesn’t require companies to reveal bonuses or equity compensation.

    The law could also penalize ambitious workers who are gunning for more money because of their experience or skills, the California Chamber of Commerce said last year when opposing the bill. Some employers might be wary of posting pay to prevent bidding wars for top talent.

    In a comment to CNBC, a Meta spokesperson said, “To ensure fairness and eliminate bias in our compensation systems, we regularly conduct pay equity analysis, and our latest analysis confirms that we continue to have pay equity across genders globally and by race in the US for people in similar jobs.” The firm also noted that it generally pays full-time employees in equity as well as cash.

    Apple and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    The new law

    There are two primary components to California Senate Bill No. 1162, which was passed in September and went into effect Jan. 1.

    First is the pay transparency component on job listings, which applies to any company with more than 15 employees if the job could be done in California.

    The second part requires companies with more than 100 employees to submit a pay data report to the state of California with detailed salary information broken down by race, sex and job category. Companies have to provide a similar report on the federal level, but California now requires more details.

    Employers are required to maintain detailed records of each job title and its wage history, and California’s labor commissioner can inspect those records. California can enforce the law through fines and can investigate violations. The reports won’t be published publicly under the new law.

    Limón said the bill helps narrow pay gaps by giving information to people so they can negotiate their pay better or determine if they are being underpaid for their experience and skills. It will also help the state make sure companies are following existing equal pay laws.

    “The reason this is important is that we are not able to address problems that we cannot see,” she said.

    Limón said she also hopes that the requirement will help California companies recruit the best talent and compete against other states that don’t require employers to post salaries.

    Pay transparency laws could also spur companies to raise wages after they see that rivals are offering higher salaries. Some companies could even choose to post salary ranges on job listings where it’s not required.

    Ultimately, she said, helping to ensure women and people of color are getting paid equally will help California’s economy.

    “The consequence is not just for an individual; there are economic consequences for the state for people being underpaid,” Limón said. “That means that their earning power and how they’re able to contribute to this economy in California, whether it’s through a sales market, a housing market, through investment, is limited, because they are not being paid equitably.”

    Loopholes

    The new law doesn’t require employers to post total compensation, meaning that companies can leave out information about stock grants and bonuses, offering an incomplete picture for some highly paid jobs.

    For high-paying jobs in the technology industry, equity compensation in the form of restricted stock units can make up a large percentage of an employee’s take-home pay. In industries such as finance, bonuses make up a big portion of annual pay.

    “Especially for tech employees, ultimately people want to know how much they’re getting in total compensation,” said Zuhayeer Musa, co-founder of Levels.fyi, a firm focused on recruiting and coaching for technology workers which crowdsources compensation. “Sometimes stock compensation can be more than 50% of your actual total comp.”

    Musa said stock from big tech companies is basically liquid because it can be immediately sold on the stock market.

    The new law also allows companies to provide wide ranges for pay, sometimes ranging over $100,000 or more between the lowest salary and the highest salary for a position. That seemingly violates the spirit of the law, but companies say the ranges are realistic because base pay can vary widely depending on skills, qualifications, experience and location.

    Companies may be open to hiring candidates with a range of experience — starting from entry level to a more senior person — for a particular opening, said Lulu Seikaly, senior corporate attorney at Payscale.

    Seikaly said she recommends clients post job listings with a specific seniority level to narrow the potential pay range.

    “When we talk to customers, and they ask what do you think is a good-faith range, we tell them that’s a business decision, but the way we would do it, especially from the legal side, if you post by levels, that’s going to cover you a lot more than posting one wide range,” Seikaly said.

    Some California companies are not listing salaries for jobs clearly intended to be performed in other states, but advocates hope California’s new law could spark more salary disclosures around the country. After all, a job listing with an explicit starting salary or range is likely to attract more candidates than one with unclear pay.

    “I was telling some folks this morning that pay transparency right now is kind of the exception,” Seikaly said. “Give it five to 10 years, I think it’ll end up being the norm.”

    Gender pay gap remains despite more women entering the work force

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chief Justice John Roberts say judges’ safety is ‘essential’ to the U.S. court system

    Chief Justice John Roberts say judges’ safety is ‘essential’ to the U.S. court system

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Supreme Court justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan pose for their group portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., October 7, 2022. 

    Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

    With security threats to Supreme Court justices still fresh memories, Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday praised programs that protect judges, saying that “we must support judges by ensuring their safety.”

    Roberts and other conservative Supreme Court justices were the subject of protests, some at their homes, after the May leak of the court’s decision that ultimately stripped away constitutional protections for abortion. Justice Samuel Alito has said that the leak made conservative justices “targets for assassination.” And in June, a man carrying a gun, knife and zip ties was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house after threatening to kill the justice, whose vote was key to overturning the court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

    Roberts, writing in an annual year-end report about the federal judiciary, did not specifically mention the abortion decision, but the case and the reaction to it seemed to be clearly on his mind.

    “Judicial opinions speak for themselves, and there is no obligation in our free country to agree with them. Indeed, we judges frequently dissent — sometimes strongly — from our colleagues’ opinions, and we explain why in public writings about the cases before us,” Roberts wrote.

    Polls following the abortion decision show public trust in the court is at historic lows. And two of Roberts’ liberal colleagues who dissented in the abortion case, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, have said the court needs to be concerned about overturning precedent and appearing political.

    After the leak and threat to Kavanaugh, lawmakers passed legislation increasing security protection for the justices and their families. Separately, in December, lawmakers passed legislation protecting the personal information of federal judges including their addresses.

    The law is named for the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, 20-year-old Daniel Anderl, who was killed at the family’s New Jersey home by a man who previously had a case before her.

    Roberts thanked members of Congress “who are attending to judicial security needs.” And he said programs that protect judges are “essential to run a system of courts.”

    In writing about judicial security, Roberts told the story of Judge Ronald N. Davies, who in September 1957 ordered the integration of Little Rock Central High School in Arkansas. Davies’ decision followed the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling that segregated schools were unconstitutional and rejected Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus’ attempt to stop school integration.

    Davies “was physically threatened for following the law,” but the judge was “uncowed,” Roberts said.

    “A judicial system cannot and should not live in fear. The events of Little Rock teach about the importance of rule by law instead of by mob,” he wrote.

    Roberts noted that officials are currently working to replicate the courtroom Davies presided over in 1957. Roberts said the judge’s bench used by Davies and other artifacts from the courtroom have been preserved and will be installed in the re-created courtroom in a federal courthouse in Little Rock “so that these important artifacts will be used to hold court once again.”

    Before that happens, however, the judge’s bench will be on display as part of an exhibit at the Supreme Court beginning in the fall and for the next several years, he said.

    “The exhibit will introduce visitors to how the system of federal courts works, to the history of racial segregation and desegregation in our country, and to Thurgood Marshall’s towering contributions as an advocate,” Roberts said. Marshall, who argued Brown v. Board of Education, became the Supreme Court’s first Black justice in 1967.

    The Supreme Court is still grappling with complicated issues involving race. Two cases this term deal with affirmative action, and the court’s conservative majority is expected to use them to reverse decades of decisions that allow colleges to take account of race in admissions. In another case, the justices could weaken the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement.

    The justices will hear their first arguments of 2023 on Jan. 9.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kari Lake loses lawsuit over her defeat in Arizona governor’s race

    Kari Lake loses lawsuit over her defeat in Arizona governor’s race

    [ad_1]

    Republican candidate for Arizona Governor Kari Lake speaks at the Republican Party of Arizona’s 2022 U.S. midterm elections night rally in Scottsdale, Arizona, U.S., November 8, 2022. 

    Brian Snyder | Reuters

    A judge has thrown out Republican Kari Lake’s challenge of her defeat in the Arizona governor’s race to Democrat Katie Hobbs, rejecting her claim that problems with ballot printers at some polling places on Election Day were the result of intentional misconduct.

    In a decision Saturday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson, who was appointed by then-Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, found that the court did not find clear and convincing evidence of the widespread misconduct that Lake had alleged had affected the result of the 2022 general election.

    The judge said Lake’s witnesses didn’t have any personal knowledge of intentional misconduct.

    “The Court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence,” Thompson said.

    Lake, who lost to Hobbs by just over 17,000 votes, was among the most vocal 2022 Republicans promoting former President Donald Trump’s election lies, which she made the centerpiece of her campaign. While most of the other election deniers around the country conceded after losing their races in November, Lake has not. Instead, she asked the judge to either declare her the winner or order a revote in Maricopa County.

    Lawyers for Lake focused on problems with ballot printers at some polling places in Maricopa County, home to more than 60% of Arizona’s voters. The defective printers produced ballots that were too light to be read by the on-site tabulators at polling places. Lines backed up in some areas amid the confusion.

    County officials say everyone had a chance to vote and all ballots were counted, since ballots affected by the printers were taken to more sophisticated counters at the elections department headquarters. They are in the process of investigating the root cause of the printer problems.

    Lake’s attorneys also claimed the chain of custody for ballots was broken at an off-site facility, where a contractor scans mail ballots to prepare them for processing. They claim workers at the facility put their own mail ballots into the pile, rather than sending their ballots through normal channels, and also that paperwork documenting the transfer of ballots was missing. The county disputes the claim.

    Lake faced extremely long odds in her challenge, needing to prove not only that misconduct occurred, but also that it was intended to deny her victory and did in fact result in the wrong woman being declared the winner.

    Her attorneys pointed to a witness who examined ballots on behalf of her campaign and discovered 14 ballots that had 19-inch (48-centimeter) images of the ballot printed on 20-inch paper, meaning the ballots wouldn’t be read by a tabulator. The witness insisted someone changed those printer configurations, a claim disputed by elections officials.

    County officials say the ballot images were slightly smaller as a result of a shrink-to-fit feature being selected on a printer by a tech employee who was looking for solutions to Election Day issues. They say about 1,200 ballots were affected by turning on the feature and that those ballots were duplicated so that they could be read by a tabulator. Ultimately, these ballots were counted, officials said.

    A person who takes public opinion polls testified on behalf of Lake, claiming technical problems at polling places had disenfranchised enough voters that it would have changed the outcome of the race in Lake’s favor. But an expert who was called to testify by election officials said there was no evidence to back up the pollster’s claim that 25,000 to 40,000 people who would normally have voted actually didn’t cast ballots as a result of Election Day problems.

    Thompson had previously dismissed eight of the 10 claims Lake raised in her lawsuit. Among those was Lake’s allegation that Hobbs, in her capacity as secretary of state, and Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer engaged in censorship by flagging social media posts with election misinformation for possible removal by Twitter. He also dismissed her claims of discrimination against Republicans and that mail-in voting procedures are illegal.

    Hobbs takes office as governor on Jan. 2.

    Earlier on Friday, another judge dismissed Republican Abraham Hamadeh’s challenge of results in his race against Democrat Kris Mayes for Arizona attorney general. The court concluded that Hamadeh, who finished 511 votes behind Mayes and hasn’t conceded the race, didn’t prove the errors in vote counting that he had alleged.

    A court hearing is scheduled Thursday to present results of recounts in the races for attorney general, state superintendent and for a state legislative seat.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 committee sends DOJ historic criminal referral of Trump over Capitol riot

    Jan. 6 committee sends DOJ historic criminal referral of Trump over Capitol riot

    [ad_1]

    The Jan. 6 select House committee in a unanimous vote Monday referred former President Donald Trump to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation and potential prosecution for his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

    The committee’s historic referral says there is sufficient evidence to refer Trump for four crimes: obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the government, making knowingly and willfully materially false statements to the federal government, and inciting or assisting an insurrection.

    “We propose to the committee advancing referrals where the gravity of the specific offense, the severity of its actual harm, and the centrality of the offender to the overall design of the unlawful scheme to overthrow the election, compel us to speak,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, as he addressed his fellow panel members.

    “Ours is not a system of justice where foot soldiers go to jail and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass,” Raskin said.

    While the Justice Department, which is already conducting an investigation of Trump, takes criminal referrals seriously, it is not obligated to charge anyone with a crime.

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    However, the House panel’s referral underscores how seriously the committee views Trump’s actions after the election, in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, invasion of the halls of Congress by a mob of his supporters.

    The nine-member panel is comprised of seven Democrats and two Republicans, Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. Cheney was defeated in the GOP primary earlier this year, losing to Rep.-elect Harriet Hageman, while Kinzinger did not seek re-election this year.

    Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, has not been charged with any crimes related to the 2020 election and the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    Five people died as an immediate result of the riot, one of them a Capitol Police officer, Brian Sicknick. Nearly 140 other Capitol and Washington, D.C., police officers were injured in the attack, and several cops took their own lives on the heels of the riot.

    If Trump were to be charged and convicted of insurrection, he theoretically could be barred from holding federal office again under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Trump last month announced that he will seek the Republican nomination for president in 2024.

    The committee on Monday also recommended that the DOJ investigate and potentially prosecute Trump’s election law attorney John Eastman for his role in advancing a plan to overturn the election results. Eastman’s referral was for his alleged violation of two criminal statutes: impeding an official proceeding of the United States government, and conspiring to defraud the United States.

    Eastman was the author of a two-page memo that outlined a plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify several states’ Electoral College electors when Congress met for that purpose on Jan. 6.

    U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) carries the comittee’s final report as he departs after the final public meeting of the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., December 19, 2022. 

    Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

    Panel member Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, said the committee would refer four members of Congress “for appropriate sanction by the House Ethics Committee for failure to comply with lawful subpoenas.” He did not name them, but House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is among the members who defied a subpoena from the committee.

    As it made its referrals, the committee released a 154-page executive summary of its investigation.

    The committee’s actions Monday come after nearly 18 months of investigation, which included more than 1,200 witness interviews, the examination of hundreds of thousands of documents, the issuance of more than 100 subpoenas, and public hearings.

    The DOJ already is conducting a criminal probe of Trump for those actions, which involved an effort to reverse his losses to President Joe Biden in several swing states, and to pressure Pence to refuse to accept Congress’ certification of Biden’s victory in the Electoral College.

    The members of the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol sit beneath a video of former U.S. President Donald Trump talking about the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election as they hold their final public meeting to release their report on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., December 19, 2022. 

    Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

    The DOJ also is separately investigating him for his removal of government documents from the White House when he left office in January 2021.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, in a statement Monday lauded the committee’s work.

    “With painstaking detail, this executive summary documents the sinister plot to subvert the Congress, shred the Constitution and halt the peaceful transfer of power,” Pelosi said, adding that she respects the panel’s findings.

    “Our Founders made clear that, in the United States of America, no one is above the law,” Pelosi said. “This bedrock principle remains unequivocally true, and justice must be done.”

    Jack Smith, who was appointed special counsel for the DOJ last month to handle its investigations of Trump, said at the time of that appointment, “I intend to conduct the assigned investigations, and any prosecutions that may result from them, independently and in the best traditions of the Department of Justice.”

    Smith added at that time: “The pace of the investigations will not pause or flag under my watch. I will exercise independent judgement and will move the investigations forward expeditiously and thoroughly to whatever outcome the facts and the law dictate.”

    Trump has called the investigations into his conduct after the 2020 election “witch hunts,” and defended his actions as legitimate.

    He has falsely claimed he won the election, and that Biden’s victory was the result of widespread voter fraud in the swing states he lost.

    Trump also has claimed that Pence had the authority to reject the Electoral College votes of those contested swing states. However, Pence concluded he did not have that power, a conclusion that is backed by a wide array of constitutional scholars and others.

    A Trump spokesman over the weekend told NBC News in a statement,  “The January 6th un-Select Committee held show trials by Never Trump partisans who are a stain on this country’s history.”

    “This Kangaroo court has been nothing more than a vanity project that insults Americans’ intelligence and makes a mockery of our democracy,” the spokesman said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge does not hold Trump office in contempt of court despite DOJ request

    Judge does not hold Trump office in contempt of court despite DOJ request

    [ad_1]

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a rally to support Republican candidates ahead of midterm elections, in Dayton, Ohio, November 7, 2022.

    Gaelen Morse | Reuters

    A federal judge on Friday did not grant a Justice Department request to hold former President Donald Trump‘s office in contempt of court for allegedly failing to comply with a grand jury subpoena, NBC News reported.

    The department wanted Judge Beryl Howell to find Trump’s office in contempt for not fully complying with the subpoena issued in May, which demanded he return classified documents still in his possession, according to a person familiar with the issue who spoke to NBC News.

    The Justice Department had no comment on Howell’s rejection of the request, which came after a closed hearing was scheduled for the matter in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    The hearing was sealed because it relates to grand jury proceedings. NBC News was part of a media coalition seeking access to the hearing.

    Trump’s lawyers Evan Corcoran, Jim Trusty and Timothy Parlatore were seen entering Howell’s chambers around the time of the scheduled hearing at 2 p.m. ET, NBC reported.

    The trio then was leaving the courthouse at just before 3:30 p.m.

    Federal prosecutors are conducting a criminal investigation of Trump for his failure to return government documents when he left the White House, as well as for possible obstruction of justice.

    An August FBI raid of his residence at the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, found thousands of such records, more than 100 of which were marked classified or highly classified.

    Trump last month announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.

    Trump’s spokesperson, in a statement Friday, said, “The President and his counsel will continue to be transparent and cooperative, even in the face of the highly weaponized and corrupt witch-hunt from the Department of Justice.”

    “Hillary Clinton was allowed to delete and acid wash 33,000 emails after they were subpoenaed by Congress, yet absolutely nothing has happened to hold her accountable,” the spokesperson said.

    “If the Department of Justice can go after President Trump, they will surely come after any American who they disagree with.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Organization convicted in New York criminal tax fraud case

    Trump Organization convicted in New York criminal tax fraud case

    [ad_1]

    The entrance to Trump Tower on 5th Avenue is pictured in the Manhattan borough of New York City, May 19, 2021.

    Shannon Stapleton | Reuters

    Two subsidiaries of the Trump Organization were convicted Tuesday of multiple crimes, including tax fraud, falsifying business records and conspiracy by a jury in New York City.

    The convictions come weeks after the company’s owner, former President Donald Trump, declared his candidacy for the White House in the 2024 election.

    Trump was not personally a defendant in the case, which related to a scheme by his company to avoid taxes on compensation to its then-chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg and other executives since 2005.

    A jury in Manhattan Supreme Court began deliberations in the case this week after a trial that featured testimony by Weisselberg, who earlier pleaded guilty.

    The Trump Organization faces fines of up to $1.6 million at sentencing in the case.

    This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tough Oregon gun law faces legal challenge, could be delayed

    Tough Oregon gun law faces legal challenge, could be delayed

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Ore. — Midterm voters in Oregon narrowly passed one of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, buoying the hopes of gun control supporters, but the new permit-to-purchase mandate and ban on high-capacity magazines now faces a lawsuit that could put it on ice just days before it’s set to take effect.

    A federal judge in Portland will hear oral arguments Friday on whether Measure 114, which is scheduled to go into law Dec. 8, violates Americans’ constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Depending on the outcome, the groundbreaking law could be delayed for months or longer as it works its way through the courts, legal experts said.

    The Oregon ballot measure is part of a national trend of gun policy being decided by voters because “significant reform is stalled and that has put all the battles over gun control and gun safety at the state level,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor and expert in gun policy at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.

    “Ballot measures are one way for people to seize the reins of policy-making. People can act for themselves to change the law and on an issue like gun safety there is a really growing and active gun safety movement in America,” he said. “That’s not something we probably would have said 20 years ago.”

    Measure 114, which passed by a slim majority in November, was born out of concern about the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida and gained public momentum last spring following massacres at a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y. and at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, said Mark Knutson, chairman of the interfaith Lift Every Voice Oregon campaign and pastor at Portland’s Augustana Lutheran Church.

    “The arc of the moral universe is bending towards justice, and justice today is going to be ending gun violence in this country,” he said. “That’s why I trust this process will work … and a year and a half, two years from now, it’ll be 70% of the population saying this was the right thing to do — not the 51% that passed it.”

    The biggest legal flash point is a ban on magazines over 10 rounds unless they are owned by law enforcement or a military member or were owned before the measure’s passage. Those who already own high-capacity magazines can only possess them in their homes or use them at a firing range, in shooting competitions or for hunting as allowed by state law after the measure takes effect.

    The law also requires gun buyers to obtain a permit to purchase a new gun. Permit applicants must take a state-approved, hands-on gun safety training course with live or dry rounds, submit a photo ID and undergo fingerprinting and a criminal background check. The state will keep a list of permit-holders that’s exempt from public disclosure; the $65 permits will be good for five years and can be used to buy multiple guns in that five-year period with a fresh background check.

    The lawsuit filed by the Oregon Firearms Federation, a local sheriff and a gun store owner asks the court to declare the law unconstitutional and issue an injunction to prevent it from going into effect next week. Alternatively, the plaintiffs seek a partial order on the high-capacity magazine ban.

    John Kaempf, attorney for the plaintiffs, declined to comment before Friday’s hearing.

    His filing cites a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June which struck down a New York law that placed limits on carrying guns outside the home. That 6-3 ruling indicated a shift in the way the nation’s high court will evaluate Second Amendment infringement claims and resulted in the court sending a similar ban on high-capacity magazines in California back to a lower court for review.

    Legal experts say Oregon’s ban on high-capacity magazines will face the same scrutiny and the court will also take a close look at Oregon’s “permit to purchase” mandate to determine if the additional steps now required to gain access to firearms are also a Second Amendment violation, said Norman Williams, a constitutional law professor at Willamette University College of Law in Salem, Oregon.

    While supporters of Measure 114 have cited the recent mass shootings in Colorado and Virginia as further evidence the law is needed and timely, Williams says that likely won’t have much bearing on the courts’ rulings in this case.

    “It’s going to take the federal courts months, if not years, to sort out what parts of Measure 114 are constitutional and what parts, if any, aren’t … and I think this is the type of measure that the U.S. Supreme Court itself might have some interest in reviewing,” he said.

    “Proponents of gun safety regulations, in emphasizing the continuing gun violence in our society, are in some sense making an argument that doesn’t resonate with the federal judges considering the constitutionality of these measures.”

    Details about the permit process and hands-on training are still being worked out and some local agencies have complained they don’t have the budget or staff necessary to enforce the law’s provisions. Several local sheriffs have said publicly they won’t enforce the law in their jurisdictions.

    State lawmakers are likely to advance legislation to aid the law’s implementation and provide funding in the upcoming session, said Elizabeth McKanna, chair of the Measure 114 legislative committee.

    The uncertainty around Measure 114’s future has driven a surge in firearms sales that began after it passed as gun owners worry they might not be able to obtain a new permit for weeks or months if some or all of it goes into effect.

    As of this week, Oregon State Police had more than 35,000 pending background check transactions for gun purchases and was averaging 3,000 requests a day compared to less than 900 a day the week before Measure 114 passed, according to agency data. On Black Friday, the agency received 6,000 background check requests alone, OSP Capt. Kyle Kennedy said in an email.

    Shaun Lacasse, vice president of The Gun Room Inc., said the increase in background checks reflects the increase in gun sales he’s seen at his store in response to anxiety about the impacts of the new law.

    “How long is it going to take for all of that system to get started and be implemented? It’s going to be months — many many months — before the first permits are even going to be able to be issued,” said Lacasse, who said sales at his Portland business have at least quadrupled since the law passed.

    “We don’t how long we’re going to have to be in purgatory until this is all sorted out.”

    Meanwhile, OSP is “working diligently” with local law enforcement agencies to implement the law next week, Kennedy said.

    ————

    Follow Gillian Flaccus on Twitter here.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hong Kong publisher Lai faces Security Law in delayed trial

    Hong Kong publisher Lai faces Security Law in delayed trial

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG — Jimmy Lai broke into Hong Kong’s rambunctious media world 30 years ago armed with the belief that delivering information equates with protecting freedom.

    Lai’s own freedom is at stake as he fights charges of endangering national security as former publisher of his now-defunct pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily.

    Already serving a 20-month term for other offenses, the 74-year-old Lai could face up to life in prison if he is convicted under a sweeping National Security Law that Beijing has imposed on the former British colony, silencing or jailing many pro-democracy activists.

    The high-profile trial was to begin Thursday but was postponed due to a request from Hong Kong’s Department of Justice based on its objection over whether Lai’s British lawyer will be allowed to defend him. Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing leader John Lee has asked China to issue a ruling that could block veteran barrister Timothy Owen from representing Lai.

    If Beijing intervenes, that would mark the sixth time the Communist-ruled government has stepped in despite its promise to respect Hong Kong’s judicial independence and civil liberties for at least 50 years after China took over from Britain in 1997.

    The Department of Justice has asked for the trial, which will be overseen by three judges, to be suspended pending a decision from Beijing about Lai’s defense lawyer.

    Lai’s legal troubles derailed a stunning career for a man smuggled into Hong Kong from the Chinese mainland at age 12.

    After getting only a primary school education, he started out working in a glove factory and sprinted up the ranks to found the casual clothing chain Giordano in 1981. Following the crackdown on 1989 student-led pro-democracy protests centered on Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, he became an outspoken advocate for democracy, founding Next Magazine the year after.

    Attacks on Giordano by the Chinese government prompted Lai to sell his shares in the business and devote himself to the media world.

    In 1995, Lai launched the Apple Daily, which quickly became one of the city’s top selling newspapers with its sometimes outrageous coverage of politics and celebrities. The publication survived a newspaper price war and expanded into Taiwan in the 2000s.

    Apple Daily pioneered the use of short animated films online to accompany news reports. Its investigative scoops and critical reports on the government attracted a strong following. Apple Daily also adopted a strong pro-democracy stance, often urging readers to join protests.

    Lai participated in mass protests in Hong Kong in 2019, meeting with then-U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss since-withdrawn legislation that would have allowed criminal suspects to be extradited to mainland China.

    Opposition to the bill morphed into months of sometimes violent protests as demands for greater democracy in Hong Kong escalated.

    The protest movement, which eventually was snuffed out, lacked any clear leader, but Lai’s high profile made him a target of the authorities.

    Apple Daily denounced the enactment of the National Security Law in June 2020. Lai told The Associated Press that “Hong Kong is dead,” but said he would stay.

    “If I leave, not only do I disgrace myself, I’d discredit Apple Daily, I’d undermine the solidarity of the democratic movement,” he said.

    In August that year, Lai was arrested on suspicion of colluding with foreign forces. More than 200 officers raided the offices of Next Digital, Apple Daily’s parent company. Arrests of its top executives, editors and journalists and the freezing of $2.3 million worth of assets forced the newspaper to shut down in June 2021. It sold a million copies of its final edition.

    In recent hearings, Lai has appeared tanned, possibly due to outdoors time in Stanley Prison — the city’s largest maximum security lockup — and in good spirits. People who have been in touch with him have noted that he is turning to his Roman Catholic faith in prison, with a friend who wished to remain anonymous due to the issue’s sensitivity saying Lai drew the figure of Jesus on the cross in the letters he sent to others.

    Lai is charged with two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one charge of collusion under the National Security Law. His trial is Hong Kong’s first to center on allegations of “collusion with foreign forces.” Lai also was charged with sedition under a colonial-era law that has been used to quash dissent.

    Next month, Lai is due to be sentenced for alleged fraud related to subletting office space to a company he also controlled.

    In an interview in July 2020, Lai seemed unfazed.

    “If I have to go to prison, I don’t mind. I don’t care,” he said. “I cannot worry, because you never know what kind of measures they will take against me.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court: Cop who shot Castile wrongly denied teaching license

    Court: Cop who shot Castile wrongly denied teaching license

    [ad_1]

    MINNEAPOLIS — The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Monday that a state board must reconsider its rejection of a substitute teaching license for the former police officer who shot and killed Philando Castile in 2016.

    Jeronimo Yanez applied to be a substitute teacher in 2020, but his application was denied based on “immoral character or conduct.” The appeals court ruled that this reason was unconstitutionally vague and the Minnesota Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board must reconsider — focusing narrowly on whether Yanez’s conduct makes him unfit to teach.

    The appeals court said that upon reconsideration, the board must identify factors it is using to determine whether Yanez’s conduct “violated moral standards for the teaching profession.” The board must also avoid characterizing policing practices — such as a pretextual reason for a traffic stop — as immoral.

    “The board’s decision must focus exclusively on Yanez’s conduct and his fitness to be a teacher, not fitness to be a police officer,” the appeals court ruled.

    Messages left with Yanez’s attorney and with the licensing board were not immediately returned Monday.

    Yanez, a former St. Anthony police officer, shot Castile during a traffic stop after Castile, who was Black, said he had a gun. Authorities later discovered that Castile, a 32-year-old elementary school cafeteria worker, had a permit for the firearm.

    The case got widespread attention after Castile’s girlfriend, who was in the car with her young daughter, began livestreaming the shooting’s aftermath on Facebook.

    Yanez was charged with manslaughter but was acquitted by a jury. The shooting and Yanez’s subsequent acquittal led to massive public outcry and protests in Minnesota and beyond.

    Yanez left the police department after his trial. In February 2020, he applied for a substitute teaching license, according to the appeals court ruling. At the time of his application, he was teaching Spanish part-time at a parochial school. The school’s principal supported his license application.

    During the application process, the board’s disciplinary committee investigated Yanez’s case and recommended that his application be denied.

    He appealed to an administrative-law judge, who also recommended that his application be denied after a hearing in which St. Paul Public Schools Superintendent Joseph Gothard testified that Yanez’s actions were hurtful and offensive to the community. An expert who testified for Yanez said the traffic stop was lawful and that he agreed the deadly use of force was reasonable.

    The administrative-law judge found Yanez prejudged Castile as a robbery suspect because of his “wide set nose” — initiating a pretextual traffic stop that indicated “racial bias, microaggressions, and negativity bias that are detrimental to students, especially students of color.”

    The administrative-law judge also found that Yanez failed to establish that his use of deadly force was reasonable and necessary. The board ultimately denied Yanez’s application.

    Yanez argued on appeal that denying his application due to “immoral character or conduct” was unconstitutionally vague. The appeals court agreed, saying that other jurisdictions have found that immorality means different things to different people, and that the conduct in question must be directly related to a teacher’s ability to teach.

    The appeals court said that the phrase is nebulous and “vulnerable to the caprice of ever-changing public opinion and the potential for arbitrary, biased enforcement” but that it could survive constitutional scrutiny if narrowed to “relate to professional morals in the occupation of teaching.”

    Castile’s mother, Valerie Castile, said Monday that she didn’t know Yanez was trying to obtain a substitute teaching license, and that she doesn’t think he belongs in the classroom.

    She said children – particularly students of color — might have trouble focusing on what Yanez is teaching and could worry that they were in danger. She said parents would also need to be notified if he was in a classroom.

    “The community knows about what he did and I don’t think the kids would be comfortable even having him there,” she said. “We have to think about our children’s comfort levels. … We have to think about those children and the trauma they suffered because of what he did.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Writer who accused Trump of 1990s rape files new lawsuit

    Writer who accused Trump of 1990s rape files new lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A writer who accused former President Donald Trump of rape filed an upgraded lawsuit against him Thursday in New York, minutes after a new state law took effect allowing victims of sexual violence to sue over attacks that occurred decades ago.

    E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer filed the legal papers electronically as the Adult Survivor’s Act temporarily lifted the state’s usual deadlines for suing over sexual assault. She sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for pain and suffering, psychological harms, dignity loss and reputation damage.

    Carroll, a longtime advice columnist for Elle magazine, first made the claim in a 2019 book, saying Trump raped her in the dressing room of a Manhattan luxury department store in 1995 or 1996.

    Trump responded to the book’s allegations by saying it could never have happened because Carroll was “not my type.”

    His remarks led Carroll to file a defamation lawsuit against him, but that lawsuit has been tied up in appeals courts as judges decide whether he is protected from legal claims for comments made while he was president.

    Previously, Carroll had been barred by state law from suing over the alleged rape because too many years had passed since the incident.

    New York’s new law, however, gives sex crime victims who missed deadlines associated with statute of limitations a second chance to file a lawsuit. A window for such suits will open for one year, after which the usual time limits will be reinstated.

    At least hundreds of lawsuits are expected, including many filed by women who say they were assaulted by co-workers, prison guards, medical providers or others.

    In her new claims, Carroll maintains that Trump committed battery “when he forcibly raped and groped her” and that he defamed her when he denied raping her last month.

    Trump said in his statement that Carroll “completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her. It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years.”

    Carroll’s new ability to sue Trump for rape could help her sidestep a potentially fatal legal flaw in her original defamation case.

    If the courts ultimately hold that Trump’s original disparaging comments about Carroll’s rape allegation were part of his job duties, as president, she would be barred from suing him over those remarks, as federal employees are protected from defamation claims. No such protection would cover things he did prior to becoming president.

    Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who presides over the defamation lawsuit Carroll filed three years ago, may decide to include the new claims in a trial likely to occur in the spring.

    Trump’s current lawyers said this week that they do not yet know whether they will represent him against the new allegations.

    Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, who is not related to the judge, said at a court hearing this week that the new claims should not require much additional gathering of evidence. She already put a copy of the new claims in the original case file last week. Trump and Carroll also have already been deposed.

    In a statement regarding the new lawsuit, Kaplan said her client “intends to hold Donald Trump accountable not only for defaming her, but also for sexually assaulting her, which he did years ago in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman.”

    “Thanksgiving Day was the very first day Ms. Carroll could file under New York law so our complaint was filed with the court shortly after midnight,” she added.

    Attorney Michael Madaio, a lawyer for Trump, said at the hearing that the new allegations are significantly different than the original defamation lawsuit and would require “an entirely new set” of evidence gathering.

    A lawyer for Trump did not respond to a message seeking comment on Wednesday. Another message seeking comment was sent to the lawyer after the lawsuit was filed less than 10 minutes into the new day.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justices asked to hear dog toy dispute. Will they bite?

    Justices asked to hear dog toy dispute. Will they bite?

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The company that makes Jack Daniel’s is howling mad over a squeaking dog toy that parodies the whiskey’s signature bottle. Now, the liquor company is barking at the door of the Supreme Court.

    Jack Daniel’s has asked the justices to hear its case against the manufacturer of the plastic Bad Spaniels toy. The high court could say as soon as Monday whether the justices will agree. A number of major companies from the makers of Campbell Soup to outdoor brand Patagonia and jeans maker Levi Strauss have urged the justices to take what they say is an important case for trademark law.

    The toy that has Jack Daniel’s so doggone mad mimics the square shape of its whisky bottle as well as its black-and-white label and amber-colored liquor while adding what it calls “poop humor.” While the original bottle has the words “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the parody proclaims: “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet.” Instead of the original’s note that it is 40% alcohol by volume, the parody says it’s “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.”

    The back of the toy, which retails for about $13 to $20, says in small font “this product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery.”

    The toy’s maker says Jack Daniel’s can’t take a joke. “It is ironic that America’s leading distiller of whiskey both lacks a sense of humor and does not recognize when it — and everyone else — has had enough,” lawyers for Arizona-based VIP Products wrote the high court. They told the justices that Jack Daniel’s has “waged war” against the company for “having the temerity to produce a pun-filled parody” of its bottle.

    But Jack Daniel’s lead attorney, Lisa Blatt, made no bones about the company’s position in her filing.

    “To be sure, everyone likes a good joke. But VIP’s profit-motivated ‘joke’ confuses consumers by taking advantage of Jack Daniel’s hard-earned goodwill,” she wrote for the Louisville, Kentucky-based Brown-Forman Corp., Jack Daniel’s parent company.

    Blatt wrote that a lower court decision provides “near-blanket protection” to humorous trademark infringement. And she said it has “broad and dangerous consequences,” pointing to children who were hospitalized after eating marijuana-infused products that mimicked candy packaging.

    If VIP Products is allowed to confuse consumers with dog toys, “other funny infringers can do the same with juice boxes or marijuana-infused candy,” Blatt wrote.

    The toy is part of a line of VIP Products called Silly Squeakers that mimic liquor, beer, wine and soda bottles. They include Mountain Drool, which parodies Mountain Dew, and Heini Sniff’n, which parodies Heineken. A court in 2008 barred the company from selling its Budweiser parody, ButtWiper.

    After the company began selling its Bad Spaniels toy in 2014, Jack Daniel’s told the company to stop, but VIP went to court to be allowed to continue to sell its product. Jack Daniel’s won the first round in court but lost an appeal. The case reached the Supreme Court at an earlier stage, but the justices didn’t bite.

    Bad Spaniels isn’t the only parody puppy toy to draw the ire of the brand it imitated. Luxury bag maker Louis Vuitton sued the makers of Chewy Vuiton over their plush purse dog toys. In 2007 a federal appeals court sided with the chew toy’s manufacturers, Nevada-based Haute Diggity Dog. Louis Vuitton didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court.

    The case is Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 22-148.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justices asked to hear dog toy dispute. Will they bite?

    Justices asked to hear dog toy dispute. Will they bite?

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The company that makes Jack Daniel’s is howling mad over a squeaking dog toy that parodies the whiskey’s signature bottle. Now, the liquor company is barking at the door of the Supreme Court.

    Jack Daniel’s has asked the justices to hear its case against the manufacturer of the plastic Bad Spaniels toy. The high court could say as soon as Monday whether the justices will agree. A number of major companies from the makers of Campbell Soup to outdoor brand Patagonia and jeans maker Levi Strauss have urged the justices to take what they say is an important case for trademark law.

    The toy that has Jack Daniel’s so doggone mad mimics the square shape of its whisky bottle as well as its black-and-white label and amber-colored liquor while adding what it calls “poop humor.” While the original bottle has the words “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the parody proclaims: “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet.” Instead of the original’s note that it is 40% alcohol by volume, the parody says it’s “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.”

    The back of the toy, which retails for about $13 to $20, says in small font “this product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery.”

    The toy’s maker says Jack Daniel’s can’t take a joke. “It is ironic that America’s leading distiller of whiskey both lacks a sense of humor and does not recognize when it — and everyone else — has had enough,” lawyers for Arizona-based VIP Products wrote the high court. They told the justices that Jack Daniel’s has “waged war” against the company for “having the temerity to produce a pun-filled parody” of its bottle.

    But Jack Daniel’s lead attorney, Lisa Blatt, made no bones about the company’s position in her filing.

    “To be sure, everyone likes a good joke. But VIP’s profit-motivated ‘joke’ confuses consumers by taking advantage of Jack Daniel’s hard-earned goodwill,” she wrote for the Louisville, Kentucky-based Brown-Forman Corp., Jack Daniel’s parent company.

    Blatt wrote that a lower court decision provides “near-blanket protection” to humorous trademark infringement. And she said it has “broad and dangerous consequences,” pointing to children who were hospitalized after eating marijuana-infused products that mimicked candy packaging.

    If VIP Products is allowed to confuse consumers with dog toys, “other funny infringers can do the same with juice boxes or marijuana-infused candy,” Blatt wrote.

    The toy is part of a line of VIP Products called Silly Squeakers that mimic liquor, beer, wine and soda bottles. They include Mountain Drool, which parodies Mountain Dew, and Heini Sniff’n, which parodies Heineken. A court in 2008 barred the company from selling its Budweiser parody, ButtWiper.

    After the company began selling its Bad Spaniels toy in 2014, Jack Daniel’s told the company to stop, but VIP went to court to be allowed to continue to sell its product. Jack Daniel’s won the first round in court but lost an appeal. The case reached the Supreme Court at an earlier stage, but the justices didn’t bite.

    Bad Spaniels isn’t the only parody puppy toy to draw the ire of the brand it imitated. Luxury bag maker Louis Vuitton sued the makers of Chewy Vuiton over their plush purse dog toys. In 2007 a federal appeals court sided with the chew toy’s manufacturers, Nevada-based Haute Diggity Dog. Louis Vuitton didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court.

    The case is Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 22-148.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FTX will sell or restructure global empire, CEO says

    FTX will sell or restructure global empire, CEO says

    [ad_1]

    FTX’s new CEO said on Saturday that the bankrupt crypto exchange is looking to sell or restructure its global empire, even as Bahamian regulators and FTX squabble in court filings and press releases about whether the bankruptcy filing should proceed in New York or in Delaware.

    “Based on our review over the past week, we are pleased to learn that many regulated or licensed subsidiaries of FTX, within and outside of the United States, have solvent balance sheets, responsible management and valuable franchises,” FTX chief John Ray, said in a statement.

    Ray, who replaced FTX’s founder Sam Bankman-Fried when the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Nov. 11, added that it is “a priority” in the coming weeks to “explore sales, recapitalizations or other strategic transactions with respect to these subsidiaries, and others that we identify as our work continues.”

    Ray’s statement came with a flurry of Saturday morning filings in Delaware bankruptcy court. In those filings, FTX asked for permission to pay outside vendors, consolidate bank accounts, and establish new ones.

    The exact timing of a possible sale is unclear. FTX indicated that it has not set a specific timetable for the completion of this process and said that it “does not intend to disclose further developments unless and until it determines that further disclosure is appropriate or necessary.”

    Both FTX and Bahamas securities regulators are seeking jurisdiction over the bankruptcy process in two different U.S. courts. Last week, Bahamian regulators moved potentially hundreds of millions of “digital assets” from FTX custody into their own, acknowledging the deed in a press release after FTX attorneys accused them of doing so in an emergency court filing.

    Ray singled out some of the company’s healthier subsidiaries for praise. One example was LedgerX, a Commodity Futures Trading Commission-regulated derivatives platform. LedgerX was one of the few FTX-related properties that are not a part of its bankruptcy proceedings and remains operational today. The platform, which FTX acquired in 2021, lets traders buy options, swaps and futures on bitcoin and ethereum.

    The new FTX CEO asked that employees, vendors, customers, regulators and government stakeholders “be patient” with them.

    FTX said in a filing that there could be more than one million creditors in these Chapter 11 cases.

    FTX and its accountants had identified 216 bank accounts, across 36 banks, with positive balances globally. Cash balances across all entities totaled some $564 million, with $265.6 million of that in the custody of LedgerX on a restricted basis.

    FTX attorneys also want to employ a “cash pooling system,” merging all the cash assets of each disparate FTX entity into one consolidated balance statement and in new bank accounts, which FTX is currently in the process of opening.

    Notably, FTX attorneys wrote that they were “working, and will continue to work, closely with [existing FTX banks] to ensure that prior authorized signatories do not have access” to any prior FTX accounts that will continue to be used. Prior reporting and court filings have indicated that Sam Bankman-Fried held nearly absolute control over cash management and account access.

    FTX’s bank accounts reflect the global influence of the crypto-asset empire. Institutions in Cyprus, Dubai, Japan and Germany held a wide array of global currencies. FTX subsidiaries held more than a dozen accounts at Signature Bank, an American institution that made an aggressive foray into servicing crypto customers in 2021. With the exception of one Bank of America account for Blockfolio, major American banks are unaccounted for on the list. Blockfolio was acquired by FTX in the summer of 2020.

    In another petition, FTX lawyers moved to access $9.3 million for vendor payments that FTX called “critical.” No list was provided, but the FTX motion established criteria for “critical vendor” status.

    In welcome news for customers, FTX attorneys applied to the court for permission to redact “certain confidential information,” including the names and “all associated identifying information” of FTX’s customers. “Public dissemination of [FTX’s] customer list could give […] competitors an unfair advantage to contact and poach their customers,” the filing read, potentially jeopardizing FTX’s ability to sell off assets or businesses.

    FTX lawyers want the proceedings to continue in Delaware. Bahamas regulators, on the other hand, claim they do not recognize the authority of those Chapter 11 proceedings and want to hold a Chapter 15 process in New York.

    Chapter 15 bankruptcy is the route that the defunct hedge fund Three Arrows Capital has pursued. The implosion of Three Arrows launched a spiraling crisis that has taken down Voyager, Celsius, and ultimately FTX.

    The Chapter 11 process that FTX seeks would allow for restructuring or sale of the company to the highest bidder, although it isn’t clear who that might be. Rival exchange Binance initially made an offer before pulling it. That turnaround deepened a liquidity crisis at FTX and revealed a multibillion-dollar hole.

    FTX’s first hearing in its bankruptcy court case is set for Tuesday in Delaware.

    [ad_2]

    Source link