ReportWire

Tag: Legal proceedings

  • Trump’s claims of US running Venezuela raise questions

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has made broad but vague assertions that the United States is going to “run” Venezuela after the ouster of Nicolás Maduro but has offered almost no details about how it will do so, raising questions among some lawmakers and former officials about the administration’s level of planning for the country after Maduro was gone.

    Seemingly contradictory statements from Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have suggested at once that the U.S. now controls the levers of Venezuelan power or that the U.S. has no intention of assuming day-to-day governance and will allow Maduro’s subordinates to remain in leadership positions for now.

    This page requires Javascript.

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

    kAm#F3:@ D2:5 E96 &]$] H@F=5 C6=J @? 4FCC6?E k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>AG6?6KF6=2>25FC@D2?4E:@?65@:=3=@4<25675g75h22b52c`7gae73235gfda54h2`fQmD2?4E:@?D @? ‘6?6KF6=2’D @:= D64E@Ck^2m 2?5 4C:>:?2= 82?8D E@ H:6=5 =6G6C286 H:E9 |25FC@’D DF446DD@CD]k^Am

    kAm%96 F?46CE2:?EJ @? 567:?:E:G6 ?6IE DE6AD 😕 ‘6?6KF6=2 4@?EC2DED H:E9 E96 J62CD @7 5:D4FDD:@?D 2?5 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>A>25FC@G6?6KF6=23e6afa66g6abebe2`23he`g5gadf26dhQmA=2??:?8 E92E H6?E :?E@ &]$] >:=:E2CJ :?E6CG6?E:@?k^2m E92E 56A@D65 @E96C 2FE@4C2E:4 =6256CD[ ?@E23=J 😕 xC2B 😕 a__b[ H9:49 DE:== 5:5 ?@E @7E6? =625 E@ E96 9@A657@C @FE4@>6D]k^Am

    kAm%96 5:D4C6A2?4J 36EH66? H92E %CF>A 2?5 #F3:@ 92G6 D2:5 AF3=:4=J 92D ?@E D2E H6== H:E9 D@>6 7@C>6C 5:A=@>2ED]k^Am

    kAm“xE DEC:<6D >6 E92E H6 92G6 ?@ :562 H92ED@6G6C 2D E@ H92E’D ?6IE[” D2:5 s2? uC:65[ 2 C6E:C65 42C66C 5:A=@>2E[ 7@C>6C 2DD:DE2?E D64C6E2CJ @7 DE2E6 2?5 D2?4E:@?D 4@@C5:?2E@C H9@ D6CG65 F?56C 3@E9 s6>@4C2E:4 2?5 #6AF3=:42? 25>:?:DEC2E:@?D]k^Am

    kAm“u@C 8@@5 @A6C2E:@?2= C62D@?D[ E96C6 H6C6 G6CJ 76H A6@A=6 H9@ A’D C6>2C7@CE23=6 H2=< 324< DF886DED E92E 6G6? H:E9:? E92E D>2== 8C@FA @7 A6@A=6[ E96C6 😀 5:D28C66>6?E 23@FE 9@H E@ AC@4665[” D2:5 uC:65 H9@ 😀 ?@H H:E9 E96 pE=2?E:4 r@F?4:= E9:?< E2?<]k^Am

    kAm$FAA@CE6CD @7 E96 @A6C2E:@?[ >62?H9:=6[ 36=:6G6 E96C6 😀 =:EE=6 4@?7FD:@? @G6C E96 &]$] 8@2=]k^Am

    kAm“%96 AC6D:56?E DA62:D>D[” D2:5 #:49 v@=536C8[ 2 D2?4E:@?D AC@A@?6?E H9@ H@C<65 😕 E96 }2E:@?2= t?6C8J s@>:?2?46 r@F?4:= 2E E96 (9:E6 w@FD6 F?E:= =2DE J62C 2?5 😀 ?@H 2 D6?:@C 25G:D6C E@ E96 u@F?52E:@? 7@C s676?D6 @7 s6>@4C24:6D[ 2 92H<:D9 E9:?< E2?<]k^Am

    kAmv@=536C8 5@6D ?@E D66 #F3:@ 364@>:?8 “E96 DFA6C:?E6?56?E @7 D49@@=D” 3FE “67764E:G6=J[ E96 &]$] H:== 36 42==:?8 E96 D9@ED]”k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By MATTHEW LEE – AP Diplomatic Writer

    Source link

  • Smart seeks to overturn conviction for having teen murder husband

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Pamela Smart, who is serving life in prison for orchestrating the murder of her husband by her teenage student in 1990, is seeking to overturn her conviction over what her lawyers claim were several constitutional violations.

    The petition for habeas corpus relief was filed Monday in New York, where she is being held at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women, and, in New Hampshire, where the murder occurred.

    This page requires Javascript.

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

    kAm“|D] $>2CE’D EC:2= F?7@=565 😕 2? 6?G:C@?>6?E E92E ?@ 4@FCE 925 AC6G:@FD=J 4@?7C@?E65 — H2==E@H2== >65:2 4@G6C286 E92E 3=FCC65 E96 =:?6 36EH66? 2==682E:@? 2?5 6G:56?46[” y2D@? ~EE[ H9@ 😀 A2CE @7 $>2CE’D =682= E62>[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%9:D A6E:E:@? 492==6?86D H96E96C 2 72:C 25G6CD2C:2= AC@46DD E@@< A=246]”k^Am

    kAm%96 >@G6 4@>6D 23@FE D6G6? >@?E9D 27E6C k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^A2>D>2CE9FD32?5>FC56C65962C:?8A6E:E:@?b7e4bgfb73`abegab5h7_eef`dcgg3ddQm}6H w2>AD9:C6 v@G] z6==J pJ@EE6k^2m C6;64E65 2 C6BF6DE 7@C 2 D6?E6?46 C65F4E:@? 962C:?8] pJ@EE6 D2:5 D96 C6G:6H65 E96 42D6 2?5 564:565 :E H2D ?@E 56D6CG:?8 @7 2 962C:?8]k^Am

    kAmp DA@<6D>2? 7@C E96 }6H *@C< $E2E6 s6A2CE>6?E @7 r@CC64E:@?D 2?5 r@>>F?:EJ $FA6CG:D:@? D2:5 :E H@F=5 92G6 ?@ 4@>>6?E @? E96 A6E:E:@?]k^Am

    kAmp DA@<6>2? 7@C }6H w2>AD9:C6’D 2EE@C?6J 86?6C2= D2:5 :E H@F=5 ?@E 4@>>6?E @? A6?5:?8 =:E:82E:@? “@E96C E92? E@ ?@E6 E92E E96 $E2E6 >2:?E2:?D |D] $>2CE C646:G65 2 72:C EC:2= 2?5 E92E 96C 4@?G:4E:@?D H6C6 =2H7F==J @3E2:?65 2?5 FA96=5 @? 2AA62=]”k^Am

    kAmx? E96:C A6E:E:@?[ =2HJ6CD 7@C E96 dfJ62C@=5 $>2CE 2C8F6 E92E AC@D64FE@CD >:D=65 E96 ;FCJ 3J AC@G:5:?8 E96> H:E9 :?244FC2E6 EC2?D4C:AED @7 DFCC6AE:E:@FD=J C64@C565 4@?G6CD2E:@?D @7 |D] $>2CE E92E :?4=F565 H@C5D E92E H6C6 ?@E 2F5:3=6 @? E96 C64@C5:?8D] p>@?8 E96 H@C5D E96J 4=2:> H6C6?VE 2F5:3=6 3FE 😕 E96 EC2?D4C:AE H6C6 E96 H@C5 Q<:==65Q 😕 E96 D6?E6?46 “J@F 925 J@FC 9FD32?5 <:==65[Q E96 H@C5 Q3FDE65Q 😕 E96 D6?E6?46 “xV> 8@??2 36 3FDE65Q 2?5 E96 H@C5 Q>FC56CQ 😕 E96 D6?E6?46 “E9:D H@F=5 92G6 366? E96 A6C764E >FC56C]”k^Am

    kAm“|@56C? D4:6?46 4@?7:C>D H92E 4@>>@? D6?D6 92D 2=H2JD E@=5 FDi H96? A6@A=6 2C6 92?565 2 D4C:AE[ E96J :?6G:E23=J 962C E96 H@C5D E96J 2C6 D9@H?[” $>2CE’D 2EE@C?6J[ |2EE96H +6C?96=E[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “yFC@CD H6C6 ?@E 6G2=F2E:?8 E96 C64@C5:?8D :?56A6?56?E=J — E96J H6C6 36:?8 5:C64E65 E@H2C5 2 4@?4=FD:@?[ 2?5 E92E 5:C64E:@? 564:565 E96 G6C5:4E]”k^Am

    kAm{2HJ6CD 2=D@ 2C8F65 E96 4@?G:4E:@? D9@F=5 36 @G6CEFC?65 3642FD6 E96 G6C5:4E H2D E2:?E65 3J E96 >65:2 2EE6?E:@? 2?5 5F6 E@ 72F=EJ :?DECF4E:@?D E@ E96 ;FCJ] %96J 2C8F65 ;FC@CD H6C6 E@=5 E96J >FDE 7:?5 E92E $>2CE 24E65 H:E9 AC6>65:E2E:@? 2?5 ?@E E@=5 E96J >FDE 4@?D:56C @?=J 6G:56?46 AC6D6?E65 2E EC:2=]k^Am

    kAm%96J 2=D@ 2C8F65 E96 EC:2= 4@FCE 82G6 96C 2 >2?52E@CJ =:76 D6?E6?46 H:E9@FE A2C@=6 7@C 36:?8 2? 244@>A=:46 E@ 7:CDE568C66 >FC56C[ 56DA:E6 }6H w2>AD9:C6 ?@E >2?52E:?8 E92E D6?E6?46 7@C E96 492C86]k^Am

    kAm$>2CE H2D 2 aaJ62C@=5 9:89 D49@@= >65:2 4@@C5:?2E@C H96? D96 3682? 2? 2772:C H:E9 2 `dJ62C@=5 3@J H9@ =2E6C 72E2==J D9@E 96C 9FD32?5[ vC68@CJ $>2CE[ 😕 s6CCJ] %96 D9@@E6C H2D 7C665 😕 a_`d 27E6C D6CG:?8 2 adJ62C D6?E6?46] p=E9@F89 $>2CE 56?:65 A=:46 E@ 7:CDE568C66 >FC56C 2?5 @E96C 4C:>6D 2?5 D6?E6?465 E@ =:76 H:E9@FE A2C@=6]k^Am

    kAmxE E@@< F?E:= a_ac 7@C $>2CE E@ E2<6 7F== C6DA@?D:3:=:EJ 7@C 96C 9FD32?5’D 562E9] x? 2 G:56@ C6=62D65 😕 yF?6[ D96 D2:5 D96 DA6?E J62CD 567=64E:?8 3=2>6 “2=>@DE 2D :7 :E H2D 2 4@A:?8 >6492?:D>]”k^Am

    kAm$>2CE’D EC:2= H2D 2 >65:2 4:C4FD 2?5 @?6 @7 p>6C:42’D 7:CDE 9:89AC@7:=6 42D6D 23@FE 2 D6IF2= 2772:C 36EH66? 2 D49@@= 6>A=@J66 2?5 2 DEF56?E] %96 DEF56?E[ (:==:2> u=J??[ E6DE:7:65 E92E $>2CE E@=5 9:> D96 ?66565 96C 9FD32?5 <:==65 3642FD6 D96 762C65 D96 H@F=5 =@D6 6G6CJE9:?8 :7 E96J 5:G@C465 2?5 E92E D96 E9C62E6?65 E@ 3C62< FA H:E9 9:> :7 96 5:5?VE <:== 96C 9FD32?5] u=J?? 2?5 E9C66 @E96C E66?D 4@@A6C2E65 H:E9 AC@D64FE@CD 2?5 2== 92G6 D:?46 366? C6=62D65]k^Am

    kAmu=J?? 2?5 `fJ62C@=5 !2EC:4< #2?52== 6?E6C65 E96 $>2CED’ s6CCJ 4@?5@>:?:F> 2?5 7@C465 vC68@CJ $>2CE E@ 9:D 2?’D E9C@2E[ u=J?? 7:C65 2 9@==@HA@:?E 3F==6E :?E@ 9:D 9625] q@E9 A=62565 8F:=EJ E@ D64@?5568C66 >FC56C 2?5 H6C6 D6?E6?465 E@ ag J62CD E@ =:76] %96J H6C6 8C2?E65 A2C@=6 😕 a_`d] %H@ @E96C E66?286CD D6CG65 AC:D@? D6?E6?46D 2?5 92G6 366? C6=62D65]k^Am

    kAm%96 42D6 :?DA:C65 y@J46 |2J?2C5’D `hha 3@@< “%@ s:6 u@C” 2?5 E96 `hhd 7:=> @7 E96 D2>6 ?2>6[ DE2CC:?8 }:4@=6 z:5>2? 2?5 y@2BF:? !9@6?:I]k^Am

    Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    By MICHAEL CASEY – Associated Press

    Source link

  • Suspects plead not guilty in Southern California bombing plot

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — Three of the four suspects accused of plotting to bomb several Southern California business locations on New Year’s Eve have pleaded not guilty.

    Audrey Carroll, 30, and Zachary Page, 32, entered their pleas in federal court Monday. Tina Lai, 41, entered her plea in court a few days earlier. Their attorneys did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment.

    The fourth person, Dante Anthony-Gaffield, 24, will enter his plea Jan. 20.

    The suspects, all from the Los Angeles area, were arrested Dec. 12 in the Mojave Desert east of Los Angeles as they were rehearsing their plot, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said last month. Officials said they made the arrests before the suspects assembled a functional explosive device.

    Essayli said Carroll created a detailed plan to bomb five or more business locations owned by two companies across Southern California on New Year’s Eve described as “Amazon-type” logistical centers. He did not identify the alleged targets.

    A grand jury indicted the four on multiple counts of providing and attempting to provide material support to terrorists and possession of unregistered firearms. Carroll and Page were also indicted on one count of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction.

    Officials said they are members of an offshoot of an anti-capitalist and anti-government group dubbed the Turtle Island Liberation Front. The group calls for decolonization, tribal sovereignty and “the working class to rise up and fight back against capitalism,” according to the criminal complaint.

    They also are members of what one of the defendants characterized as a “radical” faction of the group that communicated using a chat called “Order of the Black Lotus,” according to the indictment.

    The term “Turtle Island” is used by some Indigenous peoples to describe North America in a way that reflects its existence outside of the colonial boundaries put in place by the U.S. and Canada. It comes from Indigenous creation stories where the continent was formed on the back of a giant turtle.

    Two of the group’s members also had discussed plans for future attacks targeting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and vehicles with pipe bombs, according to the criminal complaint.

    Photos included in the court documents show the desert campsite where they were arrested with what investigators said were bomb-making materials strewn across plastic folding tables.

    Trial for Carroll, Page, and Lai is scheduled to begin Feb. 17. Anthony-Gaffield’s trial will be scheduled once he enters his plea.

    If convicted, Carroll and Page could face a maximum sentence of life in federal prison, and Anthony-Gaffield and Lai could face a maximum sentence of 25 years in federal prison.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Florida awaiting federal approval for 3rd immigration detention center

    [ad_1]

    ORLANDO, Fla. — Florida is awaiting approval from federal officials to open a third immigration detention center, following “Alligator Alcatraz” and “Deportation Depot,” and the state also is looking into a potential fourth detention facility, Gov. Ron DeSantis said Monday.

    Florida officials were waiting for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to sign off on the third detention center in the state’s Panhandle, DeSantis said at a news conference outside the facility which was Florida’s second immigration detention center, dubbed “Deportation Deport,” at the former Baker Correctional Institution in northeast Florida.

    “So, if they approve, we will open,” DeSantis said. “If they don’t, then we will stand by, and that’s fine. But I think it should be approved since I don’t think they’re where they need to be on detention space.”

    The governor said there was “another option potentially” in South Florida, where state officials already have constructed an immigration detention center dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” at a remote airstrip in the Florida Everglades.

    When asked by email about the specific locations of the two potential detention facilities, DeSantis press secretary Molly Best said the Panhandle location would be announced once it’s approved by federal officials.

    “Until this and the proposed additional South Florida location have been approved and finalized, we are unable to provide additional details. Stay tuned!” Best said.

    DeSantis said that there had been 10,000 arrests of people in the U.S. illegally in Florida during the past year through a state initiative with federal law enforcement, and that local law enforcement had made an additional 10,000 arrests for a total of 20,000 arrests. Under the state initiative, 63% of those arrested had a criminal arrest or conviction, DeSantis said.

    Florida has led other states in constructing facilities to support President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, with DeSantis saying the Trump administration needs the additional capacity to hold and deport more immigrants. The Trump administration has trumpeted the Republican governors’ efforts to expand their immigration detention capacity, calling Florida’s partnership a model for other state-run holding facilities.

    Attorneys for detainees at the Everglades facility have called the conditions deplorable, writing in court documents that rainwater floods their tents and officers go cell-to-cell pressuring detainees to sign voluntary removal orders before they’re allowed to consult their attorneys.

    Three federal lawsuits in Florida are challenging practices at the Everglades facility.

    In one lawsuit, detainees are asking for the facility to be closed since immigration is a federal issue, and Florida agencies and private contractors hired by the state have no authority to operate it under federal law. In a second lawsuit, detainees were seeking a ruling that would ensure that they have access to confidential communications with their attorneys.

    In the third lawsuit, a federal judge in Miami last summer ordered the facility to wind down operations over two months because officials had failed to do a review of the detention center’s environmental impact. But an appellate court panel put that decision on hold for the time being, allowing the facility to stay open.

    ___

    Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky: @mikeysid.bsky.social

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 plaque made to honor law enforcement. It’s nowhere to be found at the Capitol

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Approaching the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the official plaque honoring the police who defended democracy that day is nowhere to be found.

    It’s not on display at the Capitol, as is required by law. Its whereabouts aren’t publicly known, though it’s believed to be in storage.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has yet to formally unveil the plaque. And the Trump administration’s Department of Justice is seeking to dismiss a police officers’ lawsuit asking that it be displayed as intended. The Architect of the Capitol, which was responsible for obtaining and displaying the plaque, said in light of the federal litigation, it cannot comment.

    Determined to preserve the nation’s history, some 100 members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have taken it upon themselves to memorialize the moment. For months, they’ve mounted poster board-style replicas of the Jan. 6 plaque outside their office doors, resulting in a Capitol complex awash with makeshift remembrances.

    “On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on Jan. 6, 2021,” reads the faux bronze stand-in for the real thing. “Their heroism will never be forgotten.”

    In Washington, a capital city lined with monuments to the nation’s history, the plaque was intended to become a simple but permanent marker, situated near the Capitol’s west front, where some of the most violent fighting took place as rioters breached the building.

    But in its absence, the missing plaque makes way for something else entirely — a culture of forgetting.

    Visitors can pass through the Capitol without any formal reminder of what happened that day, when a mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the building trying to overturn the Republican’s 2020 reelection defeat to Democrat Joe Biden. With memory left unchecked, it allows new narratives to swirl and revised histories to take hold.

    Five years ago, the jarring scene watched the world over was declared an “insurrection” by the then-GOP leader of the Senate, while the House GOP leader at the time called it his “saddest day” in Congress. But those condemnations have faded.

    Trump calls it a “day of love.” And Johnson, who was among those lawmakers challenging the 2020 election results, is now the House speaker.

    “The question of January 6 remains – democracy was on the guillotine — how important is that event in the overall sweep of 21st century U.S. history,” said Douglas Brinkley, a professor of history at Rice University and noted scholar.

    “Will January 6 be seen as the seminal moment when democracy was in peril?” he asked. Or will it be remembered as “kind of a weird one-off?”

    “There’s not as much consensus on that as one would have thought on the fifth anniversary,” he said.

    At least five people died in the riot and its aftermath, including Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot by police while trying to climb through a window toward the House chamber. More than 140 law enforcement officers were wounded, some gravely, and several died later, some by suicide.

    All told, some 1,500 people were charged in the Capitol attack, among the largest federal prosecutions in the nation’s history. When Trump returned to power in January 2025, he pardoned all of them within hours of taking office.

    Unlike the twin light beams that commemorated the Sept. 11, 2001, attack or the stand-alone chairs at the Oklahoma City bombing site memorial, the failure to recognize Jan. 6 has left a gap not only in memory but in helping to stitch the country back together.

    “That’s why you put up a plaque,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa. “You respect the memory and the service of the people involved.”

    The speaker’s office over the years has suggested it was working on installing the plaque, but it declined to respond to a request for further comment.

    Lawmakers approved the plaque in March 2022 as part of a broader government funding package. The resolution said the U.S. “owes its deepest gratitude to those officers,” and it set out instructions for an honorific plaque listing the names of officers “who responded to the violence that occurred.” It gave a one-year deadline for installation at the Capitol.

    This summer, two officers who fought the mob that day sued over the delay.

    “By refusing to follow the law and honor officers as it is required to do, Congress encourages this rewriting of history,” said the claim by officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges. “It suggests that the officers are not worthy of being recognized, because Congress refuses to recognize them.”

    The Justice Department is seeking to have the case dismissed. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and others argued Congress “already has publicly recognized the service of law enforcement personnel” by approving the plaque and displaying it wouldn’t alleviate the problems they claim to face from their work.

    “It is implausible,” the Justice Department attorneys wrote, to suggest installation of the plaque “would stop the alleged death threats they claim to have been receiving.”

    The department also said the plaque is required to include the names of “all law enforcement officers” involved in the response that day — some 3,600 people.

    Lawmakers who’ve installed replicas of the plaque outside their offices said it’s important for the public to know what happened.

    “There are new generations of people who are just growing up now who don’t understand how close we came to losing our democracy on Jan 6, 2021,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the Jan. 6 committee, which was opposed by GOP leadership but nevertheless issued a nearly 1,000-page report investigating the run-up to the attack and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

    Raskin envisions the Capitol one day holding tours around what happened. “People need to study that as an essential part of American history,” he said.

    “Think about the dates in American history that we know only by the dates: There’s the 4th of July. There’s December 7th. There’s 9/11. And there’s January 6th,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-calif., who also served on the committee and has a plaque outside her office.

    “They really saved my life, and they saved the democracy and they deserve to be thanked for it,” she said.

    But as time passes, there are no longer bipartisan memorial services for Jan. 6. On Tuesday, the Democrats will reconvene members from the Jan. 6 committee for a hearing to “examine ongoing threats to free and fair elections,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York announced. It’s unlikely Republicans will participate.

    The Republicans under Johnson have tapped Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia to stand up their own special committee to uncover what the speaker calls the “full truth” of what happened. They’re planning a hearing this month.

    “We should stop this silliness of trying to whitewash history — it’s not going to happen,” said Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., who helped lead the effort to display the replica plaques.

    “I was here that day so I’ll never forget,” he said. “I think that Americans will not forget what happened.”

    The number of makeshift plaques that fill the halls is a testimony to that remembrance, he said.

    Instead of one plaque, he said, they’ve “now got 100.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Paris court to rule in case involving alleged cyberbullying of Brigitte Macron

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — A Paris court is to rule on Monday in a case involving 10 people accused of cyberbullying French first lady Brigitte Macron by spreading false online claims about her gender and sexuality, allegations her daughter said damaged her health and family life.

    The defendants, eight men and two women aged 41 to 65, are accused of posting “numerous malicious comments” falsely claiming that President Emmanuel Macron ’s wife was born a man and linking the 24-year age gap with her husband to pedophilia. Some of the posts were viewed tens of thousands of times.

    Brigitte Macron did not attend the two-day trial in October.

    Her daughter, Tiphaine Auzière, testified about what she described as the “deterioration” of her mother’s life since the online harassment intensified. “She cannot ignore the horrible things said about her,” Auzière told the court. She said the impact has extended to the entire family, including Macron’s grandchildren.

    Defendant Delphine Jegousse, 51, who is known as Amandine Roy and describes herself as a medium and an author, is considered as having played a major role in spreading the rumor after she released a four-hour video on her YouTube channel in 2021.

    The X account of Aurélien Poirson-Atlan, 41, known as Zoé Sagan on social media, was suspended in 2024 after his name was cited in several judicial investigations.

    Other defendants include an elected official, a teacher and a computer scientist. Several told the court their comments were intended as humor or satire and said they did not understand why they were being prosecuted. They face up to two years in prison if convicted.

    The case follows years of conspiracy theories falsely alleging that Brigitte Macron was born under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux, which is actually the name of her brother. The Macrons have also filed a defamation suit in the United States against conservative influencer Candace Owens.

    The Macrons, who have been married since 2007, first met at the high school where he was a student and she was a teacher. Brigitte Macron, 24 years her husband’s senior, was then called Brigitte Auzière, a married mother of three.

    Emmanuel Macron, 48, has been France’s president since 2017.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals panel says California’s ban on open carry is unconstitutional

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal appeals panel has ruled that a California law prohibiting open carry of firearms in heavily populated counties is unconstitutional.

    The ruling was issued Friday by two judges on a three-judge panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges found that the state’s policy of limiting open carry to counties with a population of less than 200,000 is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

    “California’s legal regime is a complete ban on open carry in urban areas — the areas of the state where 95% of the people live,” they said in the decision.

    The dissenting judge disagreed and said California could limit open carry in more populated areas because it allows for concealed carry throughout the state.

    The ruling comes in a long-running debate over gun laws in the United States and in California, which has passed a series of restrictions.

    It came after Mark Baird, a Siskiyou County resident, filed a lawsuit asking the courts to restore the historical practice of open carry being allowed.

    Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said he expected state officials will seek a review of the ruling by the full appeals court.

    “It’s a very significant opinion,” Michel said, adding that a key question in the case is how a 2022 Supreme Court decision expanding gun rights should be applied.

    The press office for Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement on social media that the state’s law was carefully crafted to comply with the Second Amendment.

    “California just got military troops with weapons of war off of the streets of our cities, but now Republican activists on the Ninth Circuit want to replace them with gunslingers and return to the days of the Wild West,” the statement said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to know about the Uvalde school shooting’s first trial over police response

    [ad_1]

    HOUSTON — Former Uvalde, Texas, schools police Officer Adrian Gonzales was among the first officers to arrive at Robb Elementary after a gunman opened fire on students and teachers.

    Prosecutors allege that instead of rushing in to confront the shooter, Gonzales failed to take action to protect students. Many families of the 19 fourth-grade students and two teachers who were killed believe that if Gonzales and the nearly 400 officers who responded had confronted the gunman sooner instead of waiting more than an hour, lives might have been saved.

    More than 3½ years since the killings, the first criminal trial over the delayed law enforcement response to one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history is set to begin.

    It’s a rare case in which a police officer could be convicted for allegedly failing to act to stop a crime and protect lives.

    Here’s a look at the charges and the legal issues surrounding the trial.

    Gonzales was charged with 29 counts of child endangerment for those killed and injured in the May 2022 shooting. The indictment alleges he placed children in “imminent danger” of injury or death by failing to engage, distract or delay the shooter and by not following his active shooter training. The indictment says he did not advance toward the gunfire despite hearing shots and being told where the shooter was located.

    Each child endangerment count carries a potential sentence of up to two years in prison.

    State and federal reviews of the shooting cited cascading problems in law enforcement training, communication, leadership and technology and questioned why officers from multiple agencies waited so long before confronting and killing the gunman, Salvador Ramos.

    Gonzales’ attorney, Nico LaHood, said his client is innocent and public anger over the shooting is being misdirected.

    “He was focused on getting children out of that building,” LaHood, said. “He knows where his heart was and what he tried to do for those children.”

    Jury selection in Gonzales’ trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 5 in Corpus Christi, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) southeast of Uvalde. The trial was moved after defense attorneys argued Gonzales could not receive a fair trial in Uvalde.

    Gonzales, 52, and former Uvalde schools police chief Pete Arredondo are the only officers charged. Arredondo was charged with multiple counts of child endangerment and abandonment. His trial has not been scheduled, and he is also seeking a change of venue.

    Prosecutors have not explained why only Gonzales and Arredondo were charged. Uvalde County District Attorney Christina Mitchell did not respond to a request for comment.

    It’s “extremely unusual” for an officer to stand trial for not taking an action, said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a University of Houston Law Center professor.

    “At the end of the day, you’re talking about convicting someone for failing to act and that’s always a challenge,” Thompson said, “because you have to show that they failed to take reasonable steps.”

    Phil Stinson, a criminal justice professor at Bowling Green State University who maintains a nationwide database of roughly 25,000 cases of police officers arrested since 2005, said a preliminary search found only two similar prosecutions.

    One involved a Florida sheriff’s deputy, Scot Peterson, who was charged after the 2018 Parkland school massacre for allegedly failing to confront the shooter — the first such prosecution in the U.S. for an on-campus shooting. He was acquitted by a jury in 2023.

    The other was the 2022 conviction of former Baltimore police officer Christopher Nguyen for failing to protect an assault victim. The Maryland Supreme Court overturned that conviction in July, ruling prosecutors had not shown Nguyen had a legal duty to protect the victim.

    The justices in Maryland cited a prior U.S. Supreme Court decision on the public duty doctrine, which holds that government officials like police generally owe a duty to the public at large rather than to specific individuals unless a special relationship exists.

    Michael Wynne, a Houston criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor not involved in the case, said securing a conviction will be difficult.

    “This is clearly gross negligence. I think it’s going to be difficult to prove some type of criminal malintent,” Wynne said.

    But Thompson, the law professor, said prosecutors may nonetheless be well positioned.

    “You’re talking about little children who are being slaughtered and a very long delay by a lot of officers,” she said. “I just feel like this is a different situation because of the tremendous harm that was done to so many children.”

    ___

    Associated Press writer Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas, contributed.

    ___

    Follow Juan A. Lozano: https://x.com/juanlozano70

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal ruling blocks Hawaii’s climate change tourist tax on cruise ships

    [ad_1]

    HONOLULU — A federal appeals court ruling on New Year’s Eve blocked Hawaii from enforcing a climate change tourist tax on cruise ships passengers, a levy that was set to go into effect at the start of 2026.

    Cruise Lines International Association challenged the tax in a lawsuit, arguing that the new law violates the U.S. Constitution by taxing cruise ships for entering Hawaii ports. They also argued it would make cruises more expensive. The lawsuit notes the law authorizes counties to collect an additional 3% surcharge, bringing the total to 14% of prorated fares.

    The levy increases rates on hotel room and vacation rental stays but also imposes a new 11% tax on the gross fares paid by a cruise ship’s passenger, prorated for the number of days the vessels are in Hawaii ports. The lawsuit notes the law authorizes counties to collect an additional 3% surcharge, bringing the total to 14% of prorated fares.

    In the nation’s first such levy to help cope with a warming planet, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signed legislation in May that raises tax revenue to deal with eroding shorelines, wildfires and other climate problems. Officials estimate the tax would generate nearly $100 million annually.

    U.S. District Judge Jill A. Otake last week upheld the law and the plaintiffs appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. government intervened in the case and also appealed Otake’s ruling.

    The order by two 9th Circuit judges granted both requests for an injunction pending the appeals.

    “We remain confident that Act 96 is lawful and will be vindicated when the appeal is heard on the merits,” Toni Schwartz, spokesperson for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, said in an email.

    The order temporarily halts enforcement of the law on cruise ships while the appeals process moves forward, her email noted.

    The lawsuit challenged only the law’s cruise ship provisions.

    Cruise Lines International Association spokesperson Jim McCarthy said he wasn’t sure he could get comment from the plaintiffs given the timing of the ruling before a holiday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mississippi man serving an illegal sentence granted clemency, weeks after his brother

    [ad_1]

    JACKSON, Miss. — A man handed an illegal prison sentence years longer than the maximum penalty for his crime has been granted clemency by Mississippi’s governor, weeks after the man’s brother received clemency in a similar case.

    Gov. Tate Reeves announced Wednesday that he was granting clemency to Maurice Taylor. The man’s brother, Marcus Taylor, received clemency earlier this month from the governor for another illegal sentence.

    In February 2015, both brothers accepted plea bargains and pled guilty to conspiracy to sell a Schedule III substance.

    At the time, the maximum penalty for conspiracy to sell a Schedule III substance was five years. Yet Maurice Taylor was sentenced to 20 years in prison with five years suspended, and Marcus Taylor to 15 years.

    “Like his brother, Maurice Taylor received a sentence more than three times longer than allowed under Mississippi law,” Reeves wrote in his announcement. “When justice is denied to even one Mississippian, it is denied to us all.”

    In May, the Mississippi Court of Appeals had ruled that Marcus Taylor’s sentence was illegal, but did not commute his sentence because Taylor had missed the deadline to apply for post-conviction relief. After rehearing that case in November, the court reversed course and ordered his release.

    In Wednesday’s order, Reeves wrote that Maurice Taylor’s post-conviction counsel contacted his office for the first time a few weeks ago, providing legal documents in his case. Maurice Taylor must be released within five days, according to Reeves’ order.

    The Associated Press was not immediately able to identify and contact Maurice Taylor’s post-conviction counsel.

    The brothers are the only people to receive clemency from Reeves.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California delays revoking 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses until March after immigrants sue

    [ad_1]

    A week after immigrant groups filed a lawsuit, California said Tuesday it will delay the revocations of 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses until March to allow more time to ensure that truckers and bus drivers who legally qualify for the licenses can keep them.

    But U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the state may lose $160 million if it doesn’t meet a Jan. 5 deadline to revoke the licenses. He already withheld $40 million in federal funding because he said California isn’t enforcing English proficiency requirements for truckers.

    California only sent out notices to invalidate the licenses after Duffy pressured the state to make sure immigrants who are in the country illegally aren’t granted the licenses. An audit found problems like licenses that remained valid long after an immigrant’s authorization to be in the country expired or licenses where the state couldn’t prove it checked a driver’s immigration status.

    “California does NOT have an ‘extension’ to keep breaking the law and putting Americans at risk on the roads,” Duffy posted on the social platform X.

    The Transportation Department has been prioritizing the issue ever since a truck driver who was not authorized to be in the U.S. made an illegal U-turn and caused a crash in Florida that killed three people in August.

    California officials said they are working to make sure the federal Transportation Department is satisfied with the reforms they have put in place. The state had planned to resume issuing commercial driver’s licenses in mid-December, but the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration blocked that.

    “Commercial drivers are an important part of our economy — our supply chains don’t move, and our communities don’t stay connected without them,” said DMV Director Steve Gordon.

    The Sikh Coalition, a national group defending the civil rights of Sikhs, and the San Francisco-based Asian Law Caucus filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the California drivers. They said immigrant truck drivers were being unfairly targeted. The driver in the Florida crash and the driver in another fatal crash in California in October are both Sikhs.

    Immigrants account for about 20% of all truck drivers, but these non-domiciled licenses immigrants can receive only represent about 5% of all commercial driver’s licenses or about 200,000 drivers. The Transportation Department also proposed new restrictions that would severely limit which noncitizens could get a license, but a court put the new rules on hold.

    Mumeeth Kaur, the legal director of the Sikh Coalition, said this delay “is an important step towards alleviating the immediate threat that these drivers are facing to their lives and livelihoods.”

    Duffy previously threatened to withhold millions of dollars in federal funding from California, Pennsylvania and Minnesota after audits found significant problems under the existing rules like commercial licenses being valid long after an immigrant truck driver’s work permit expired. He dropped the threat to withhold $160 million from California after the state said it would revoke the licenses because the state was complying.

    Trucking trade groups have praised the effort to get unqualified drivers who shouldn’t have licenses or can’t speak English off the road. They also applauded the Transportation Department’s moves to go after questionable commercial driver’s license schools.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge halts Georgia execution over inmate’s concerns about clemency process

    [ad_1]

    KENNESAW, Ga. — A Georgia judge on Monday ordered a temporary pause to a December execution that was already put on hold, saying questions about the state’s clemency process must be addressed before Stacey Humphreys ‘ death sentence could be carried out.

    Humphreys, 52, was facing scheduled execution Dec. 17 but the procedure was paused just days before he was to have received a lethal injection.

    He was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in the 2003 shooting deaths of Cyndi Williams, 33, and Lori Brown, 21, at the real estate office where they worked in Cobb County, northwest of Atlanta.

    At issue: Humphreys’ lawyers contend that two members of Georgia’s parole board have conflicts of interest which would taint their participation in a clemency hearing.

    Humphreys’ lawyers earlier this month filed a petition asking a judge to order the two members of the parole board to recuse themselves from considering his clemency petition.

    The lawyers said one of those board members, Kimberly McCoy, was previously a victim advocate with the Cobb County district attorney’s office at the time of Humphreys’ trial and was assigned to work with victims in the case.

    Another board member, Wayne Bennett, was the sheriff in Glynn County, where the trial was moved because of pretrial publicity. Humphreys’ lawyers say Bennett oversaw security for the jurors and Humphreys himself during the case.

    In an order filed Monday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney wrote that “pressing ‘pause’ on the execution machinery until we answer the non-frivolous question raised by Petitioner concerning the proper composition of the Board for his clemency hearing is the correct course of action.”

    He ordered lawyers for both sides to file additional legal briefs on the issue by Jan. 19.

    Additionally, the judge wrote in his order that Humphreys deserves to have the conflict of interest question researched and argued thoroughly so that a parole board free of conflicts of interest can decide his case at a clemency hearing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court orders release of prominent Turkish journalist from prison pending appeal

    [ad_1]

    ANKARA, Turkey — A Turkish court on Monday ordered the release of veteran journalist Fatih Altayli from prison pending the outcome of his appeal against a conviction for allegedly threatening President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

    Altayli, 63, a longtime columnist whose YouTube programs drew hundreds of thousands of viewers daily, was sentenced last month to four years and two months in prison. He had been arrested in June on charges of threatening the president during one of his broadcasts — a case critics described as an attempt to silence a prominent government opponent.

    The regional appeals court ruled for his release from prison, citing the absence of any flight risk, the fact that evidence had already been collected, and the time he had already spent in detention, according to state-run Anadolu Agency.

    Altayli’s arrest stemmed from remarks on his program “Fatih Altayli Comments,” in which he discussed a survey showing more than 70% of the public opposed a lifetime presidency for Erdogan, who has ruled for over two decades. Altayli said he was not surprised by the result, noting that Turkish society favored checks on authority.

    “Look at the history of this nation,” he said. “This is a nation which strangled its sultan when they didn’t like him or want him. There are quite a few Ottoman sultans who were assassinated, strangled, or whose deaths were made to look like suicide.”

    Altayli has strongly denied that his comments amounted to a threat against Erdogan.

    Following his arrest, he continued to provide commentary through letters relayed by his lawyers, though he later suspended the program.

    With much of Turkey’s mainstream media owned by pro-government businesses or directly controlled by the state, many independent journalists have turned to YouTube as a platform for uncensored reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Myanmar holds first election since military seized power but critics say the vote is a sham

    [ad_1]

    YANGON, Myanmar — Voters went to the polls Sunday for the initial phase of Myanmar’s first general election in five years, held under the supervision of its military government while a civil war rages throughout much of the country.

    Final results won’t be known until after two more rounds of voting are completed later in January. It’s widely expected that Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, who has governed Myanmar since an army takeover in 2021, will then assume the presidency.

    The military government has presented the vote as a return to democracy, but its bid for legitimacy is marred by the absence of formerly popular opposition parties and reports that soldiers used threats to force voters’ participation.

    While more than 4,800 candidates from 57 parties are competing for seats in national and regional legislatures, only six are competing nationwide with the possibility to gain political clout in parliament. The military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party is by far the strongest contender.

    Voting is taking place in three phases, with Sunday’s first round being held in 102 of Myanmar’s 330 townships. Subsequent phases will take place on Jan. 11 and Jan. 25, but 65 townships won’t participate in the election because of ongoing armed conflicts.

    Final results are expected to be announced by February. It wasn’t clear if or when the authorities would release aggregate figures of Sunday’s voting, although counts were publicly announced at local polling stations.

    Critics of the current system say that the election is designed to add a facade of legitimacy to the status quo. Military rule began when soldiers ousted the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi in February 2021. It blocked her National League for Democracy party from serving a second term despite winning a landslide victory in the 2020 election.

    They argue that the results will lack legitimacy because of the exclusion of major parties and government repression.

    The expected victory of the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party makes the nominal transition to civilian rule a chimera, say opponents of military rule and independent analysts.

    “An election organized by a junta that continues to bomb civilians, jail political leaders, and criminalize all forms of dissent is not an election — it is a theater of the absurd performed at gunpoint,” Tom Andrews, the U.N.-appointed human rights expert for Myanmar, posted on X.

    However, the election may provide an excuse for neighbors like China, India and Thailand to say that the vote represents progress toward stability. Western nations have maintained sanctions against Myanmar’s ruling generals because of the military’s anti-democratic actions and the brutal war against opponents.

    According to a count carried out at one polling station in Yangon after the polls closed, only 524 of 1,431 registered voters — just under 37% — cast their ballots.

    Of those, 311 voted for the pro-military Union Solidarity and Development Party, suggesting that opposition calls for a voter boycott may have been heeded.

    Khin Marlar, 51, who cast her ballot in Yangon’s Kyauktada township, said that she felt that she should vote, because she hoped that peace would follow afterward. She explained that she had fled her village in the town of Thaungta in the central Mandalay region because of the fighting.

    “I am voting with the feeling that I will go back to my village when it is peaceful,” she told The Associated Press.

    A resident of southern Mon state, who asked to be identified only by her first name, Khin, for fear of arrest by the military, told the AP that she felt compelled to go to a polling station because of pressure from local authorities.

    “I have to go and vote even though I don’t want to, because soldiers showed up with guns to our village to pressure us yesterday,” Khin said, echoing reports from independent media and rights groups.

    Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s 80-year-old former leader, and her party aren’t participating in the polls. She is serving a 27-year prison term on charges widely viewed as spurious and politically motivated. Her party, the National League for Democracy, was dissolved in 2023 after refusing to register under new military rules.

    Other parties also refused to register or declined to run under conditions they deem unfair, and opposition groups have called for a voter boycott.

    Amael Vier, an analyst for the Asian Network for Free Elections, noted a lack of genuine choice, pointing out that 73% of voters in 2020 cast ballots for parties that no longer exist.

    According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, more than 22,000 people are currently detained for political offenses, and more than 7,600 civilians have been killed by security forces since 2021.

    Armed resistance arose after the army used lethal force to crush nonviolent protests against its 2021 takeover. The ensuing civil war has left more than 3.6 million people displaced, according to the U.N.

    A new Election Protection Law imposes harsh penalties and restrictions for virtually all public criticism of the polls.

    There were no reports of major interference with the polls, though opposition organizations and armed resistance groups had vowed to disrupt the electoral process.

    Both the military and its opponents believe power is likely to remain with Min Aung Hlaing, who led the 2021 seizure of power.

    “I am the commander in chief. I am a civil servant. I cannot say that I want to serve as a president. I am not the leader of a political party,” he told journalists after casting his vote. “There is a process for electing a president from parliament only when it is convened. I think it is appropriate to speak about it only then.”

    ___

    Grant Peck reported from Bangkok.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California drops lawsuit seeking to reinstate federal funding for the state’s bullet train

    [ad_1]

    OAKLAND, Calif. — California this week dropped a lawsuit officials filed against the Trump administration over the federal government’s withdrawing of $4 billion for the state’s long-delayed high-speed rail project.

    The U.S. Transportation Department slashed funds for the bullet train aimed at connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles in July. The Trump administration has said the California High-Speed Rail Authority had “ no viable plan ” to complete a large segment of the project in the farm-rich Central Valley.

    The authority quickly filed a lawsuit, with Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the federal government’s decision “a political stunt to punish California.”

    The authority said this week that it would focus on other funding sources to complete the project, which is estimated to cost more than $100 billion.

    “This action reflects the State’s assessment that the federal government is not a reliable, constructive, or trustworthy partner in advancing high-speed rail in California,” an authority spokesperson said in a statement.

    The Transportation Department did not respond to a request for comment. President Donald Trump and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy have both previously criticized the project as a “train to nowhere.”

    “The Railroad we were promised still does not exist, and never will,” Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social in July. “This project was Severely Overpriced, Overregulated, and NEVER DELIVERED.”

    The authority’s decision to drop the lawsuit comes as the group seeks private investors to support the bullet train. The project recently secured $1 billion in annual funding from the state’s cap-and-trade program through 2045.

    The program sets a declining limit on total planet-warming emissions in the state from major polluters. Companies must reduce their emissions, buy allowances from the state or other businesses, or fund projects aimed at offsetting their emissions. Money the state receives from the sales funds climate-change mitigation, affordable housing and transportation projects, as well as utility bill credits for Californians.

    The rail authority said its shift in focus away from federal funding offers “a new opportunity.”

    “Moving forward without the Trump administration’s involvement allows the Authority to pursue proven global best practices used successfully by modern high-speed rail systems around the world,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Virginia offshore wind developer sues over Trump administration order halting projects

    [ad_1]

    The developers of a Virginia offshore wind project are asking a federal judge to block a Trump administration order that halted construction of their project, along with four others, over national security concerns

    NORFOLK, Va. — The developers of a Virginia offshore wind project are asking a federal judge to block a Trump administration order that halted construction of their project, along with four others, over national security concerns.

    Dominion Energy Virginia said in its lawsuit filed late Tuesday that the government’s order is “arbitrary and capricious” and unconstitutional. The Richmond-based company is developing Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, a project it says is essential to meet dramatically growing energy needs driven by dozens of new data centers.

    The Interior Department did not detail the security concerns in blocking the five projects on Monday. In a letter to project developers, Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management set a 90-day period — and possibly longer — “to determine whether the national security threats posed by this project can be adequately mitigated.”

    The other projects are the Vineyard Wind project under construction in Massachusetts, Revolution Wind in Rhode Island and Connecticut and two projects in New York: Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind. Democratic governors in those states have vowed to fight the order, the latest action by the Trump administration to hobble offshore wind in its push against renewable energy sources.

    Dominion’s project has been under construction since early 2024 and was scheduled to come online early next year, providing enough energy to power about 660,000 homes. The company said the delay was costing it more than $5 million a day in losses solely for the ships used in round-the-clock construction, and that customers or the company would eventually bear the cost.

    Dominion called this week’s order “the latest in a series of irrational agency actions attacking offshore wind and then doubling down when those actions are found unlawful.”

    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

    U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker set a hearing for 2 p.m. Monday on Dominion’s request for a temporary restraining order.

    ___

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Immigrant truckers file suit over California’s plans to revoke commercial licenses

    [ad_1]

    A group of immigrant truckers sued California’s Department of Motor Vehicles on Tuesday, alleging the state violated thousands of workers’ rights when officials took action to revoke their commercial driver’s licenses.

    California officials said last month that the state notified about 17,000 truckers that their commercial driver’s licenses would be revoked because the expiration dates went past when the drivers were legally allowed to be in the U.S. That number has since grown to 21,000.

    The move came after the Trump administration started cracking down on states’ issuance of the licenses to immigrants. The federal government has threatened to withhold money from California, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and New York over the issue.

    The Sikh Coalition, a national group defending the civil rights of Sikhs, and the San Francisco-based Asian Law Caucus filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the California drivers.

    “These drivers have spent years anchoring their lives to these careers, only to now face potential economic ruin through no fault of their own — they deserve better, and California must do better,” said Munmeeth Kaur, the Sikh Coalition’s legal director, in a statement.

    The state’s plan to revoke the truckers’ licenses violates their due process rights and threatens their livelihoods, the groups allege. They’re asking the Alameda County Superior Court to pause the license cancellations.

    The California DMV said it doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

    Concerns about immigrant truck drivers gained attention after a tractor-trailer driver who was not authorized to be in the U.S. made an illegal U-turn and caused an August crash in Florida that killed three people. A fiery California crash that also killed three people in October and involved a truck driver in the country illegally added to the worries.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge green lights New York’s driver’s license law, rejecting a Trump administration challenge

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A federal judge gave a green light Tuesday to New York’s so-called Green Light Law, rejecting the Trump administration’s bid to stop the state from giving people driver’s licenses without having them prove they are in the country legally.

    U.S. District Judge Anne M. Nardacci in Albany ruled that the Republican administration — which challenged the law under President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration — had failed to support its claims that the state law usurps federal law or that it unlawfully regulates or unlawfully discriminates against the federal government.

    The Justice Department sued the state over the law in February, naming Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state’s attorney general, Letitia James, as defendants. At a news conference announcing the lawsuit, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi accused the officials, both Democrats, of prioritizing “illegal aliens over American citizens.”

    “As I said from the start, our laws protect the rights of all New Yorkers and keep our communities safe,” James said in a statement Friday. “I will always stand up for New Yorkers and the rule of law.”

    A message seeking comment was left for the Justice Department.

    Nardacci, appointed to the bench by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, wrote that her job was not to evaluate the desirability of the Green Light Law as a policy matter. Rather, she said in a 23-page opinion, it was to assess whether the Trump administration’s arguments established that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which gives federal laws precedence over state laws.

    The administration, she wrote, has “failed to state such a claim.”

    The Green Light Law was enacted partly to improve public safety on the roads, as people without licenses sometimes drove without one, or without having passed a road test. The state also makes it easier for holders of such licenses to get auto insurance, thus cutting down on crashes involving uninsured drivers.

    Under the law, people who don’t have a valid Social Security number can submit alternative forms of ID that include valid passports and driver’s licenses issued in other countries. Applicants must still get a permit and pass a road test to qualify for a “standard driver’s license.” It does not apply to commercial driver’s licenses.

    The Justice Department’s lawsuit sought to strike down the law as “a frontal assault on the federal immigration laws, and the federal authorities that administer them.” It highlighted a provision that requires the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles commissioner to inform people who are in the country illegally when a federal immigration agency has requested their information.

    In 2020, during Trump’s first term, his administration sought to pressure New York into changing the law by barring anyone from the state from enrolling in trusted traveler programs, meaning they would spend longer amounts of time going through security lines at airports.

    The governor at the time, Andrew Cuomo, offered to restore federal access to driving records on a limited basis, but said he wouldn’t let immigration agents see lists of people who had applied for the special licenses available to immigrants who couldn’t prove legal residency in the U.S. The administration ultimately restored New Yorkers’ access to the trusted traveler program after a brief legal fight.

    In the lawsuit rejected Tuesday, the administration argued that it could be easier to enforce federal immigration priorities if federal authorities had unfettered access to New York’s driver information. Nardacci, echoing a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a county clerk’s earlier challenge to the law, wrote that such information “remains available to federal immigration authorities” through a lawful court order or judicial warrant.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs seeks immediate release from prison in appeals argument

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Lawyers for hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs urged a federal appeals court in New York late Tuesday to order his immediate release from prison and reverse his conviction on prostitution-related charges or direct his trial judge to lighten his four-year sentence.

    The lawyers said in a filing with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan that Combs was treated harshly at sentencing by a federal judge who let evidence surrounding charges he was acquitted of unjustly influence the punishment.

    Combs, 56, incarcerated at a federal prison in New Jersey and scheduled for release in May 2028, was acquitted of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking at a trial that ended in July. Combs was convicted under the Mann Act, which bans transporting people across state lines for any sexual crime.

    Lawyers for Combs said Judge Arun Subramanian acted like a “thirteenth juror” in October when he sentenced Combs to four years and two months in prison. They said he erred by letting evidence surrounding the acquitted charges influence the sentence he imposed.

    They noted that Combs was convicted of two lesser counts, prostitution offenses that didn’t require force, fraud, or coercion. They asked the appeals court, which has not yet heard oral arguments, to acquit Combs, order his immediate release from prison or direct Subramanian to reduce his sentence.

    “Defendants typically get sentenced to less than 15 months for these offenses — even when coercion, which the jury didn’t find here, is involved,” the lawyers wrote.

    “The judge defied the jury’s verdict and found Combs ‘coerced,’ ‘exploited,’ and ‘forced’ his girlfriends to have sex and led a criminal conspiracy. These judicial findings trumped the verdict and led to the highest sentence ever imposed for any remotely similar defendant,” the lawyers wrote.

    At sentencing, Subramanian said that when calculating the prison term, he considered Combs’ treatment of two former girlfriends who testified that the Bad Boy Records founder beat them and coerced them into having sex with male sex workers while he watched and filmed the encounters, sometimes masturbating.

    At the trial, former girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura testified that Combs ordered her to have “disgusting” sex with strangers hundreds of times during their decade-long relationship that ended in 2018. Jurors saw video of him dragging and beating her in a Los Angeles hotel hallway after one such multiday “freak-off.”

    The second former girlfriend, who testified under the pseudonym “ Jane,” said she was pressured into sex with male workers during what Combs called “hotel nights,” drug-fueled sexual encounters from 2021 to 2024 that also could last days.

    At sentencing, Subramanian said he “rejects the defense’s attempt to characterize what happened here as merely intimate, consensual experiences, or just a sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll story.”

    He added: “You abused the power and control that you had over the lives of women you professed to love dearly. You abused them physically, emotionally, and psychologically. And you used that abuse to get your way, especially when it came to freak-offs and hotel nights.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Miami Heat’s Terry Rozier asks judge to throw out betting charges

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier ’s lawyers are asking a judge to throw out sports gambling charges that have kept him off the court this season, arguing that the government overreached by turning a private dispute over bettors’ use of non-public information into a federal case.

    In a motion to dismiss made public on Tuesday, Rozier’s lawyers argued that the government’s theory of the case — that he prevented sportsbooks from making informed decisions about accepting certain bets — runs afoul of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the federal wire fraud statute.

    Rozier, 31, is accused of helped gamblers cash in by tipping off a friend that he would leave a March 2023 game early because of a supposed injury. The friend, Deniro “Niro” Laster, who is also charged, shared or sold the information to others, who placed more than $250,000 in prop bets, prosecutors said.

    “The government has billed this case as involving ‘insider betting’ and ‘rigging’ professional basketball games,” Rozier’s lawyers, James M. Trusty and A. Jeff Ifrah, wrote in the motion. “But the indictment alleges something less headline-worthy: that some bettors broke certain sportsbooks’ terms of use against wagering based on non-public information and ‘straw betting.’”

    Rozier was on the Charlotte Hornets at the time and the information about his early exit was not listed on the team’s injury report, nor was it shared with the public or the sportsbooks that accept wagers on NBA games and player performances, prosecutors said.

    Rozier pleaded not guilty in federal court in Brooklyn on Dec. 8 to wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy charges. He was released on $3 million bond and is due back in court for a hearing before U.S. District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on March 3.

    His charges were part of a sweep of more than 30 other people in a takedown of two sprawling gambling operations: one that authorities said leaked inside information about NBA athletes and another involving rigged, Mafia-backed poker games.

    The charges have raised questions about the integrity of NBA games in an era of legalized betting and myriad prop bets, prompting the league to tweak its injury reporting requirements.

    A message seeking comment on Rozier’s motion to dismiss the case was left for federal prosecutors.

    In the motion, Rozier’s lawyers wrote that under the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in United States v. Ciminelli, prosecutors can’t make a wire fraud case out of allegations that defendants conspired to deprive a person — or, in this case, sportsbooks — of the right to information needed to make discretionary economic decisions.

    They also questioned whether federal prosecutors have the authority to bring such a case, since sportsbooks are regulated at the state level, not the federal level.

    “This is not to say that sports betting platforms are without recourse when their terms of use are violated — they can void bets, pursue civil remedies, or seek state prosecutor involvement,” Trusty and Ifrah wrote in the motion, which was dated Dec. 12 but only posted to the case docket on Tuesday. “But Ciminelli puts to rest the notion that federal prosecutors are here to enforce contractual agreements between bettors and platforms.”

    Rozier has earned about $160 million over a 10-year NBA career. He was a first-round pick for the Boston Celtics in 2015 after starring at the University of Louisville. Charlotte traded him to the Heat last year.

    In the game in question, Rozier played the first nine minutes and 36 seconds against the New Orleans Pelicans before leaving, citing a foot issue. He did not play again that season.

    Rozier’s lawyers noted that the indictment does not allege that he ever placed a bet on any NBA game, nor does it allege that he knew Laster intended to sell his tip to others or that using it to place wagers would violate the sportsbooks’ terms of service. And, they said, he really was injured.

    “The government’s cynicism as to whether Mr. Rozier was injured is belied by a variety of witnesses and medical professionals who were aware of Rozier’s injury, in many cases before the Pelicans game,” Trusty and Ifrah wrote.

    [ad_2]

    Source link