ReportWire

Tag: National courts

  • Vietnamese property tycoon sentenced to death in country’s largest financial fraud, state media reports

    Vietnamese property tycoon sentenced to death in country’s largest financial fraud, state media reports

    [ad_1]

    Vietnamese property tycoon Truong My Lan, center, looks on at a court in Ho Chi Minh City on April 11, 2024.

    Str | Afp | Getty Images

    The Vietnamese property tycoon Truong My Lan was sentenced to death on Thursday for her involvement in the country’s biggest financial fraud case, state media outlet Thanh Nien reported.

    Lan was found guilty of embezzlement, bribery and violating banking rules around lending. She was sentenced to death for the embezzlement charges and to 20 years in prison for each of the other two accusations, according to state media.

    Lan, who is the chairwoman of real estate development firm Van Thinh Phat Holdings Group, was accused of appropriating assets from Saigon Joint Stock Commercial Bank by taking out unlawful loans to Van Thinh Phat and shell companies.

    Much of Lan’s defense was based on her lawyers arguing that she only controlled about 15% of the bank and did not have an official position in the bank, suggesting that embezzlement charges were not appropriate, local media reported.

    However, witnesses who held large stakes themselves told the court that they were instructed to act on Lan’s behalf. Judges therefore found that Lan holds a controlling stake of more than 90% in SCB through proxies and was the de facto owner of the bank, local media reported.

    The loans were reportedly worth a total of $44 billion and accounted for more than 90% of SCB’s lending between 2012 and 2022. An estimated $12.3 billion was allegedly funneled to Van Thinh Phat while other funds were used privately. Some of the over 1,000 loans had been settled by Lan, judges found, but the court said she would have to compensate the bank fully.

    Lan was first arrested in 2022, with allegations dating back around 10 years. Alongside Lan, more than 80 other people including central bank officials have been charged in the case for damaging SCB, state media reported.

    Reuters reported on Thursday that a family member confirmed that Lan would appeal the sentence.

    CNBC was not able to independently verify the report.

    The case against Lan is part of a wider crackdown on corruption that has been spearheaded by Vietnam’s ruling Communist party and has been dubbed “blazing furnace.” High-level politicians including former Vietnamese presidents have been forced to resign in connection with the campaign and hundreds of officials and businesspeople have been sentenced.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Holmes’ former partner faces sentencing in Theranos case

    Holmes’ former partner faces sentencing in Theranos case

    [ad_1]

    A former Theranos executive learns Wednesday whether he will be punished as severely as his former lover and business partner for peddling the company’s bogus blood-testing technology that duped investors and endangered patients.

    The sentencing for Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, who was convicted in July of fraud and conspiracy, comes less than three weeks after Elizabeth Holmes, the company’s founder and CEO, received more than 11 years in prison for her role in the scheme. The scandal revolved around the company’s false claims to have developed a medical device that could scan for hundreds of diseases and other potential problems with just a few drops of blood taken with a finger prick.

    The case threw a bright light on Silicon Valley’s dark side, exposing how its culture of hype and boundless ambition could veer into lies.

    Holmes, 38, could have gotten up to 20 years in prison — a penalty that U.S. District Judge Edward Davila could now impose on Balwani, who spent six years as Theranos’ chief operating officer while remaining romantically involved with Holmes until a bitter split in 2016.

    While on the witness stand in her trial, Holmes accused Balwani, 57, of manipulating her through years of emotional and sexual abuse. Balwani’s attorney has denied the allegations.

    The two trials had somewhat different outcomes. Unlike Balwani, Holmes was acquitted on several charges of defrauding and conspiring against people who paid for Theranos blood tests that produced misleading results and could have pointed patients toward the wrong treatment. The jury in Holmes’ trial also deadlocked on three charges.

    Balwani was convicted on all 12 felony counts, and his lawyers contend he deserves a far more lenient sentence of just four to 10 months in prison, preferably in home confinement. Prosecutors for the Justice Department are seeking 15 years. A probation report recommends nine years.

    Duncan Levin, a former federal prosecutor who is now a defense attorney, described Balwani’s bid for a light sentence as “utterly unrealistic.” Levin suspects the judge may give greater weight to the Justice Department and the probation office recommendations, which mirror the sentences those agencies sought for Holmes.

    The judge ultimately gave her 11 1/4 years in prison and recommended that the sentence be served in a low-security facility in Byran, Texas.

    The Justice Department “has now conceded that both defendants deserve the same sentence, even though Balwani was convicted for far more counts,” Levin said. Since Holmes got an 11-year sentence, “it follows logically that he will get the same sentence.”

    Federal prosecutors also want the judge to order Balwani to pay $804 million in restitution to defrauded investors — the same amount sought from Holmes. Davila deferred a decision on restitution during Holmes’ Nov. 18 sentencing until an unspecified future date.

    In court documents, Balwani’s lawyers painted him as a hardworking immigrant who moved from India to the U.S. during the 1980s to become the first member of his family to attend college. He graduated from the University of Texas in 1990 with a degree in information systems.

    He later moved to Silicon Valley, where he first worked as a computer programmer for Microsoft before founding an online startup that he sold for millions of dollars during the dot-com boom of the 1990s.

    Balwani and Holmes met around the same time she dropped out of Stanford University to start Theranos in 2003. He became enthralled with her and her quest to revolutionize health care.

    Balwani’s lawyers said he eventually invested about $5 million in a stake in Theranos that eventually became worth about $500 million on paper — a fraction of Holmes’ one-time fortune of of $4.5 billion.

    That wealth evaporated after Theranos began to unravel in 2015 amid revelations that its blood-testing technology never worked as Holmes had boasted in glowing magazine articles that likened her to Silicon Valley visionaries such as Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.

    Before Theranos’ downfall, Holmes teamed up with Balwani to raise nearly $1 billion from deep-pocketed investors that included software mogul Larry Ellison and media magnate Rupert Murdoch.

    “Mr. Balwani is not the same as Elizabeth Holmes,” his lawyers wrote in a memo to the judge. “”He actually invested millions of dollars of his own money; he never sought fame or recognition; and he has a long history of quietly giving to those less fortunate.” Balwani’s lawyers also asserted that Holmes “was dramatically more culpable” for the Theranos fraud.

    Echoing similar claims made by Holmes’s lawyers before her sentencing, Balwani’s attorneys also argued that he has been adequately punished by the intense media coverage of Theranos, which has been the subject of a book, documentary and award-winning TV series.

    Balwani “has lost his career, his reputation and his ability to meaningfully work again,” his lawyers wrote.

    Federal prosecutors cast Balwani as a ruthless, power-hungry accomplice in crimes that ripped off investors and imperiled people who received flawed results. The blood tests were to be available in a partnership with Walgreen’s that Balwani helped engineer.

    “Balwani presented a fake story about Theranos’ technology and financial stability day after day in meeting after meeting,” the prosecutors wrote in their memo to the judge. “Balwani maintained this façade of accomplishments, after making the calculated decision that honesty would destroy Theranos.”

    [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

  • Vet’s lawsuit blaming antimalarial drug for psychosis tossed

    Vet’s lawsuit blaming antimalarial drug for psychosis tossed

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — A federal judge threw out a lawsuit against the maker of an anti-malarial drug blamed for causing psychotic behavior and neurological damage to U.S. servicemembers, ruling that the case had no right to be filed in California.

    The proposed class-action case brought last year by an Army veteran accused Roche Laboratories Inc. and Genentech Inc. of intentionally misleading the Department of Defense and the Food and Drug Administration about the dangers of mefloquine, the generic version of the drug Lariam.

    Similar cases had been brought in Canada and Australia, but the lawsuit in federal court in Northern California was the first large-scale case of its kind in the U.S., attorneys said.

    The U.S. military, which developed the drug during the Vietnam War, was once its largest user to combat malaria. It was given to hundreds of thousands of troops sent to Afghanistan and Somalia.

    Roche, which was granted the intellectual property rights and won FDA approval for Lariam in 1989, said it manufactured its last lots for U.S. distribution in 2005. Those drugs expired in 2008 — a year before the company’s 2009 merger with Genentech.

    The Pentagon continued to distribute generic versions of the drug, though elite Army units were ordered to stop using mefloquine in 2013 after the FDA put a black box warning on it after it was found to cause permanent brain damage in rare cases. The warning said it caused side effects such as dizziness, loss of balance and ringing in the ears that could become permanent.

    The Army has mainly replaced mefloquine with drugs found to be safer.

    John Nelson of Florida brought the suit after he said he became permanently disabled from taking the drug during his Army service from 2005 to 2015. Nelson said he never experienced any neuropsychiatric symptoms until he began taking mefloquine just before being stationed in Afghanistan.

    U.S. District Court Judge Trina Thompson ruled in San Francisco on Monday that Nelson had sufficiently alleged that the manufacturer knew about dangers of the drug and did not warn the U.S. military.

    But the judge said it was a stretch to apply a California law that holds name brand manufacturers responsible for warnings on the generic version of their drugs. Nelson never lived in California and Roche and Genentech were only headquartered in the state for two months while he took the drug overseas in 2009.

    “It would be unfair for plaintiff to be able to bring his claims in California and, by virtue of the state’s innovator liability doctrine, he would be extended greater rights than he would be granted in his own state of residence, Florida,” Thompson wrote.

    The judge noted that other possible venues — New Jersey, where Roche had been based, and Florida, where Nelson lives and Kentucky, Oregon and Tennessee where he lived previously — either don’t have similar laws that would extend liability to the original manufacturer of a generic drug or have courts that have issued opinions making such a finding unlikely.

    Roche issued a one sentence statement asserting that lawyers were “forum shopping” and said it was pleased the court found the case didn’t belong in a California court.

    Nelson said his symptoms went from vivid stimulating dreams that disrupted his sleep and made him anxious to having panic attacks, paranoia, insomnia and twice tried to take his own life, the lawsuit said. He was diagnosed as depressed and later as bipolar, though medications, including antipsychotics, did not help.

    After attending a conference in 2020 about effects of anti-malarial drugs, Nelson suspected he may have experienced mefloquine toxicity and pursued testing that confirmed the diagnosis.

    The lawsuit sought unspecified damages for negligence, failure to warn users, and fraudulent misrepresentation, among other claims. It also sought to have the companies pay for medical monitoring of those who took the drug to understand the impacts.

    Attorneys for Nelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge mulls arguments in Mississippi death penalty protocol

    Judge mulls arguments in Mississippi death penalty protocol

    [ad_1]

    JACKSON, Miss. — A federal judge will decide whether to block Mississippi from using three drugs when it puts inmates to death, and his ruling could determine whether the state carries out its next execution in about two weeks.

    U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate heard several hours of arguments Monday in a lawsuit filed in 2015 on behalf of some Mississippi death row inmates. Wingate noted that one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Thomas Edwin Loden Jr., is facing a Dec. 14 execution date, which was recently set by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

    “The court is going to move expeditiously on this matter,” Wingate said, an indication that he could issue a decision within days.

    The mother of the 16-year-old girl killed by Loden watched the court hearing. Wanda Farris of Fulton said she has waited 22 years for justice for her daughter, Leesa Gray.

    “She was a sweet Christian girl, loved the Lord, had a lot of life ahead of her,” Farris told reporters outside the courtroom.

    Farris’ best friend, Sondra Pearce, was also in court to listen. She said she taught Leesa in kindergarten, and she didn’t like hearing the judge and attorneys discuss whether Loden might feel pain during an execution.

    “Let’s talk about Leesa and the inhumane things he put her through,” Pearce said outside the courtroom.

    Wingate requested a sworn statement from Mississippi Corrections Commissioner Burl Cain about the state’s current stock of execution drugs.

    Gerald Kucia, a Mississippi special assistant attorney general, told Wingate that none of the execution drugs currently in stock are expired. He said some expired execution drugs were recently destroyed by the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics.

    Attorneys for the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center sued the Mississippi prison system, saying the state’s lethal injection protocol is inhumane.

    Jim Craig, a MacArthur Center attorney, said Monday that since 2019, only Alabama, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Tennessee have conducted executions using a three-drug protocol.

    According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 27 states have the death penalty. Craig said a majority of death-penalty states and the federal government used a three-drug protocol in 2008, but the federal government and most of those states have since started using one drug.

    “Mississippi also has no serious training of their staff before an execution takes place,” Craig said. He said the people who insert needles into a condemned inmate for the execution are not present during practice runs of the procedure.

    Craig also pointed out that Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey last week sought a pause in executions. Ivey ordered a “top-to-bottom” review of the state’s capital punishment system after an unprecedented third failed lethal injection.

    Kucia told Wingate that the U.S. Supreme Court has never blocked a method of execution.

    “This court should not say that Mississippi’s method of carrying out executions is unconstitutional,” Kucia said.

    Mississippi’s most recent execution was in November 2021 — its first in nine years. The Mississippi Department of Corrections revealed in court papers in July 2021 that it had acquired three drugs for the lethal injection protocol: midazolam, which is a sedative; vecuronium bromide, which paralyzes the muscles; and potassium chloride, which stops the heart. Cain said the drugs listed in the court records were the ones used for the execution that November. He would not say where the department obtained them.

    Mississippi and several other states have had trouble finding drugs for lethal injections in recent years since pharmaceutical companies in the United States and Europe began blocking the use of their drugs for executions.

    Loden joined four other Mississippi death row inmates in the federal lawsuit challenging the state’s lethal injection protocol. Mississippi revised the protocol to allow the use of midazolam if thiopental or pentobarbital cannot be obtained.

    Wingate granted an injunction to prevent the state from using compounded pentobarbital or midazolam, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling. That sent the case back to Wingate.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Landmark trial over Arkansas youth gender care ban resumes

    Landmark trial over Arkansas youth gender care ban resumes

    [ad_1]

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A psychiatrist called to the stand by Arkansas as the state defends its ban on gender-affirming care for children said Monday he was concerned about the impact the law could have on some transgender youth who would see their treatments cut off.

    Dr. Stephen Levine, a psychiatrist at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Ohio, testified as the nation’s first trial over such a ban continued before a federal judge after a five-week break.

    Arkansas’ law, which was temporarily blocked last year, would prohibit doctors from providing gender-affirming hormone treatment, puberty blockers or surgery to anyone under 18 years old. It also would prohibit doctors from referring patients elsewhere for such care.

    Levine criticized the use of gender-affirming medical treatment for minors, but under cross examination acknowledged his concerns about the psychological impacts of cutting off such care for some trans youth already receiving it. Levine said it could be “shocking and devastating” for some youth receiving the care.

    “My concern with the law, the way it was originally written, is it seemed to leave out what you’re talking about,” Levine testified.

    Republican lawmakers in Arkansas enacted the ban last year, overriding a veto by GOP Gov. Asa Hutchinson. Hutchinson, who leaves office in January, also said that the law went too far by cutting off treatments for children currently receiving such care. Arkansas was the first state to enact such a ban.

    Multiple medical groups, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, oppose the bans and experts say the treatments are safe if properly administered. The American Psychiatric Association has supported the ruling blocking Arkansas’ ban, saying denying such care to adolescents who need it could harm their mental health.

    But Levine said he recommends psychotherapy over gender-affirming care for the treatment of gender dysphoria, criticizing the current standard of care as using psychotherapy as “cheerleading” for such treatments.

    Levine, however, testified that he wasn’t aware of what protocols are followed by doctors who provide such care in Arkansas.

    The state has argued that the prohibition is within its authority to regulate the medical profession. People opposed to such treatments for children argue they are too young to make such decisions about their futures.

    Levine echoed that argument, saying minor patients “really have very little concept of what their future holds.”

    A similar ban has been blocked by a federal judge in Alabama, and other states have taken steps to restrict such care. Florida medical officials earlier this month approved a rule banning gender-affirming care for minors, at the urging of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    A judge in Texas has blocked that state’s efforts to investigate gender-confirming care for minors as child abuse. Children’s hospitals around the country have faced harassment and threats of violence for providing gender-confirming care.

    The families of four transgender youth sued challenging Arkansas’ ban. Last month, a 17-year-old testified that his life has been transformed by the hormone therapy he’s been receiving and said ending the treatments could force his family to leave the state.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge denies 19-year-old’s ask to attend father’s execution

    Judge denies 19-year-old’s ask to attend father’s execution

    [ad_1]

    ST. LOUIS — A federal judge has denied a request from a 19-year-old woman to allow her to watch her father’s death by injection, upholding a Missouri law that bars anyone under 21 from witnessing an execution.

    Kevin Johnson is set to be executed Tuesday for killing Kirkwood, Missouri, Police Officer William McEntee in 2005. Johnson’s lawyers have appeals pending that seek to spare his life.

    His daughter, Khorry Ramey, had sought to attend the execution, and the American Civil Liberties Union had filed an emergency motion with a federal court in Kansas City. The ACLU’s court filing said the age requirement served no safety purpose and violates Ramey’s constitutional rights. But U.S. District Judge Brian C. Wimes ruled late Friday that Ramey’s constitutional rights would not be violated by the law.

    “I’m heartbroken that I won’t be able to be with my dad in his last moments,” Ramey said in a statement. “My dad is the most important person in my life. He has been there for me my whole life, even though he’s been incarcerated.”

    While the judge acknowledged that the law would cause emotional harm for Ramey, he found that was just one part of the court’s consideration and the law did not violate her constitutional rights.

    Ramey said she was praying that Gov. Michael Parson would grant her father clemency. Johnson’s lawyers have filed appeals seeking to halt the execution. They don’t challenge his guilt but claim racism played a role in the decision to seek the death penalty, and in the jury’s decision to sentence him to die. Johnson is Black and McEntee was white.

    Johnson’s lawyers also have asked the courts to intervene for other reasons, including a history of mental illness and his age — he was 19 at the time of the crime. Courts have increasingly moved away from sentencing teen offenders to death since the Supreme Court in 2005 banned the execution of offenders who were younger than 18 at the time of their crime.

    In a court filing to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office stated there were no grounds for court intervention.

    “The surviving victims of Johnson’s crimes have waited long enough for justice, and every day longer that they must wait is a day they are denied the chance to finally make peace with their loss,” the state petition stated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge denies bid for new trial in Whitmer kidnapping case

    Judge denies bid for new trial in Whitmer kidnapping case

    [ad_1]

    GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — A federal judge has denied a new trial request by two men convicted of conspiring to kidnap Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

    Lawyers for Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. alleged misconduct by a juror and unfairness by U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker following their conviction by a federal jury in August.

    Jonker in a written ruling Friday shot down claims of juror misconduct and said he found “no constitutional violation and no credible evidence” to convene a new hearing.

    Fox and Croft face up to life in prison when they’re sentenced Dec. 28.

    Whitmer, who was reelected Nov. 8 to a second term, was never physically harmed in the plot, which led to more than a dozen arrests in 2020.

    Fox and Croft’s first trial ended in a mistrial earlier this year when the jury was unable to come to a unanimous verdict. A motion for a third trial was filed in September.

    Defense lawyers said a juror seated in the second trial was described by a co-worker as “far-left leaning,” was eager to get on the jury and poised to convict before hearing evidence.

    The defense team’s investigator said he interviewed two co-workers who said they had heard about it but had no firsthand knowledge. A third person declined to speak to him in the parking lot.

    The allegation first was raised early in the second trial. Jonker said he spoke privately to the juror, who denied saying that a vote to convict was already settled.

    Separately, defense lawyers said the judge violated the rights of Fox and Croft by imposing a time limit on the cross-examination of a star government witness.

    “Defendants have neither demonstrated that the jury verdict is ‘against the manifest weight of the evidence’ nor that a ‘substantial legal error has occurred’ such that the interests of justice demand a new trial,” Jonker wrote in Friday’s ruling.

    Croft is from Bear, Delaware. Fox lived in the Grand Rapids area in western Michigan.

    Two other men have pleaded guilty in the federal case, while two more were acquitted.

    Three other men accused of supporting terrorism in the kidnapping plot were convicted in October in state court.

    Joe Morrison; Morrison’s father-in-law, Pete Musico; and Paul Bellar were found guilty of supplying “material support” for a terrorist act as members of a group known as the Wolverine Watchmen. They await sentencing on Dec. 15.

    They held gun training in rural Jackson County with Fox who was disgusted with Whitmer and other officials and said he wanted to snatch her.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court revives wrongful death claim in Ohio Walmart shooting

    Court revives wrongful death claim in Ohio Walmart shooting

    [ad_1]

    CINCINNATI — A federal appeals court has revived a wrongful death claim against Walmart by the family of a Black man who was fatally shot by a white police officer inside an Ohio store after picking up a pellet rifle from a shelf.

    Twenty-two-year-old John Crawford III was shot at the Beavercreek store in suburban Dayton in August 2014 after someone called 911. A judge dismissed his family’s wrongful death claim, but a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed that in a 2-1 decision Wednesday.

    Two judges concluded “a reasonable jury could find that Walmart failed to prevent Crawford from carrying a look-alike AR-15 openly around the store,” which could alarm shoppers, confuse police and cause an officer to respond as though the weapon were real.

    The decision means the family can proceed toward trial on the wrongful death claim along with its other pending claims against the retailer, including negligence, one of the family’s attorneys, Michael Wright, said Friday.

    Walmart has denied that its actions caused Crawford’s death. Messages seeking comment were left Friday for Walmart and its attorney.

    The family previously settled a wrongful death claim with Beavercreek and its police.

    A grand jury declined to indict the officer who shot Crawford.

    The 911 caller who reported that a man was waving a gun in the store also wasn’t charged. The prosecutor who made that decision said he didn’t find evidence that the caller knew the information he provided was false.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Brazilian protests intensify; Bolsonaro stays silent

    Brazilian protests intensify; Bolsonaro stays silent

    [ad_1]

    RIO DE JANEIRO — The two men were sitting at a bar on Nov. 21, sipping drinks for relief from the scorching heat of Brazil’s Mato Grosso state, when police officers barged in and arrested them for allegedly torching trucks and an ambulance with Molotov cocktails.

    One man attempted to flee and ditch his illegal firearm. Inside their pickup truck, officers found jugs of gasoline, knives, a pistol, slingshots and hundreds of stones — as well as 9,999 reais (nearly $1,900) in cash.

    A federal judge ordered their preventive detention, noting that their apparent motive for the violence was “dissatisfaction with the result of the last presidential election and pursuit of its undemocratic reversal,” according to court documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

    For more than three weeks, supporters of incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro who refuse to accept his narrow defeat in October’s election have blocked roads and camped outside military buildings in Mato Grosso, Brazil’s soy-producing powerhouse. They also have protested in other states across the nation, while pleading for intervention from the armed forces or marching orders from their commander in chief.

    Since his election loss, Bolsonaro has only addressed the nation twice, to say that the protests are legitimate and encourage them to continue, as long as they don’t prevent people from coming and going.

    Bolsonaro has not disavowed the recent emergence of violence, either. He has, however, challenged the election results — which the electoral authority’s president said appears aimed at stoking protests.

    While most demonstrations are peaceful, tactics deployed by hardcore participants have begun concerning authorities. José Antônio Borges, chief state prosecutor in Mato Grosso, compared their actions to that of guerrilla fighters, militia groups and domestic terrorists.

    Mato Grosso is one of the nation’s hotbeds for unrest. The chief targets, Borges says, are soy trucks from Grupo Maggi, owned by a tycoon who declared support for President-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. There are also indications that people and companies from the state may be fueling protests elsewhere.

    Road blockades and acts of violence have been reported in the states of Rondonia, Para, Parana and Santa Catarina. In the latter, federal highway police said protesters blocking highways have employed “terrorist” methods including homemade bombs, fireworks, nails, stones and barricades made of burnt tires.

    Police also noted that roadblocks over the weekend were different from those carried out immediately after the Oct. 30 runoff election, when truckers blocked more than 1,000 roads and highways across the country, with only isolated incidents.

    Now, most acts of resistance are taking place at night, carried out by “extremely violent and coordinated hooded men,” acting in different regions of the state at the same time, federal highway police said.

    “The situation is getting very critical” in Mato Grosso state, chief state prosecutor Borges told the AP. Among other examples, he noted that protesters in Sinop, the state’s second most populous city, this week ordered shops and businesses to close in support of the movement. “Whoever doesn’t shut down suffers reprisals,” he said.

    Since the vote, Bolsonaro has dropped out of public view and his daily agenda has been largely vacant, prompting speculation as to whether he is stewing or scheming.

    Government transition duties have been led by his chief of staff, while Vice President Hamilton Mourão has stepped in to preside over official ceremonies. In an interview with newspaper O Globo, Mourão chalked up Bolsonaro’s absence to erysipelas, a skin infection on his legs that he said prevents the president from wearing pants.

    But even Bolsonaro’s social media accounts have gone silent – aside from generic posts about his administration, apparently from his communications team. And the live social media broadcasts that, with rare exception, he conducted every Thursday night during his administration have ceased. The silence marks an abrupt about-face for the bombastic Brazilian leader whose legions of supporters hang on his every word.

    Still, demonstrators, who have camped outside military barracks across Brazil for weeks, are certain they have his tacit support.

    “We understand perfectly well why he doesn’t want to talk: They (the news media) distort his words,” said a 49-year-old woman who identified herself only as Joelma during a protest outside the monumental regional military command center in Rio de Janeiro. She declined to give her full name, claiming the protest had been infiltrated by informants.

    Joelma and others say they are outraged with Bolsonaro’s loss and claim the election was rigged, echoing the incumbent president’s claims — made without evidence — that the electronic voting system is prone to fraud.

    Scenes of large barbecues with free food and portable bathrooms at several protests, plus reports of free bus rides bringing demonstrators to the capital, Brasilia, have prompted investigations into the people and companies financing and organizing the gatherings and roadblocks.

    The Supreme Court has frozen at least 43 bank accounts for suspicion of involvement, news site G1 reported, saying most are from Mato Grosso. Borges cited the involvement of agribusiness players in the protests, many of whom support Bolsonaro’s push for development of the Amazon rainforest and his authorization of previously banned pesticides. By contrast, President-elect da Silva has pledged to rebuild environmental protections.

    Most recently, protesters have been emboldened by the president’s decision to officially contest the election results.

    On Tuesday, Bolsonaro and his party filed a request for the electoral authority to annul votes cast on nearly 60% of electronic voting machines, citing a software bug in older models. Independent experts have said the bug, while newly discovered, doesn’t affect the results and the electoral authority’s president, Alexandre de Moraes swiftly rejected the “bizarre and illicit” request.

    De Moraes, who is also a Supreme Court justice, called it “an attack on the Democratic Rule of Law … with the purpose of encouraging criminal and anti-democratic movements.”

    On Nov. 21, Prosecutor-general Augusto Aras summoned federal prosecutors from states where roadblocks and violence have become more intense for a crisis meeting. Aras, who is widely seen as a Bolsonaro stalwart, said he received intelligence reports from local prosecutors and instructed Mato Grosso’s governor to request federal backup to clear its blocked highways.

    Ultimately that wasn’t necessary, as local law enforcement managed to break up demonstrations and, by Monday night, roads in Mato Grosso and elsewhere were all liberated, according to the federal highway police. It was unclear how long this would last, however, amid Bolsonaro’s continued silence, said Guilherme Casarões, a political science professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation university.

    “With his silence, he keeps people in the streets,” Casarões said. “This is the great advantage he has today: a very mobilized, and very radical base.”

    ———

    Associated Press reporter Carla Bridi in Brasilia, Brazil, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mexican president suffers court reverse, tensions rise

    Mexican president suffers court reverse, tensions rise

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s Supreme Court struck down part of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s ‘jail, no bail’ policy Thursday.

    The court voted against mandatory pre-trial detention for people accused of fraud, smuggling or tax evasion. Because trials often take years in Mexico, the justices argued that being held in prison during trial was equivalent to being subjected to punishment before being convicted.

    Instead, prosecutors would have to convince judges there are valid reasons not to release people on their own recognizance — for example, by arguing that they may pose a flight risk. The justices may vote next week on whether the possibility of pre-trial release may be justified for other crimes.

    In 2019, López Obrador imposed mandatory pre-trial detention for a long list of crimes, and he views it as part of his crack-down on white collar criminals, like those accused of tax fraud. Mexico does not have cash bail, but before López Obrador changed the rules, judges could release suspects and require them to wear monitors, sign in at court or agree not to travel.

    The president has long railed about corrupt judges and court rulings he doesn’t like, and Thursday’s supreme court vote was likely to spark more vocal attacks by the president.

    Even before the ruling, López Obrador criticized the court for the widely expected Thursday vote.

    “How can judges, magistrates and justices be defending white collar criminals? How can it be that money triumphs over justice?” López Obrador said before the ruling. “What tremendous shamelessness!”

    The president has not been shy about accusing lower court judges of releasing drug and other suspects on procedural or technical points he clearly does not agree with. Underpaid, and often under threat, Mexican prosecutors often don’t bring strong cases, or make intentional or unintentional errors.

    “They free them because the prosecution case was poorly written, or for any other excuse, any other pretext,” the president said, “because they have become very, very, very fixated on the fine points of the law.”

    López Obrador has fought the courts, often attacking their legitimacy and singling out individual judges for scorn, because courts have often blocked some of the president’s key initiatives.

    Observers say the courts have acted because López Obrador has often shoved through laws that openly contradict the country’s Constitution or international treaties.

    Previously, the president has focused most of his wrath on lower courts. On Thursday at a press briefing with López Obrador, Ricardo Mejia, Mexico’s assistant secretary of public safety, said the administration would recommend bringing criminal charges against a judge who ordered the release of a suspected drug gang leader.

    But much of the president’s anger Thursday was directed at the Supreme Court, which is about to hear an appeal by a group that says government money and property should no longer be used to erect Christmas-season Nativity scenes, a staple in Mexico.

    The appeal says that the government’s participation in displaying Nativity scenes violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

    The president angrily rejected that, even though the court has not ruled on the issue yet.

    “That’s an example. Why should they go against the traditions, the customs of the people?” López Obrador said.

    López Obrador expanded the list of charges that require a suspect to be detained pending trial to 16, including some nonviolent crimes that may carry sentences of just a few months — far less than the amount of time most people spend awaiting trial.

    Only about two of every 10 people accused of a crime in Mexico are ever found guilty. That means that of the estimated 92,000 suspects held pending trial — often in the same cells with hardened criminals — around 75,000 won’t be convicted despite sometimes spending years locked up in Mexico’s crowded, dangerous prisons.

    Trials in Mexico can drag on for a surprisingly long time. Two men were recently released with ankle monitors after spending 17 years in prison while on trial for murder.

    Being put into Mexican prisons, which are overcrowded, underfunded and controlled by gangs, can be hell for those on pretrial detention, who often enter with no prison smarts or gang connections.

    The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention says that “mandatory pretrial detention violates international standards on human rights.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prayers go on, sometimes out of sight, in prep football

    Prayers go on, sometimes out of sight, in prep football

    [ad_1]

    WEST BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, Mich. — Surrounded by a slew of players with their arms draped over shoulders, West Bloomfield High School assistant coach Justin Ibe bowed his head and led a Christian prayer before a recent Friday night game.

    Forty yards down the sideline, three Muslim young men were having a quiet moment of their own.

    “Ameen,” the players quietly said, using the Arabic word for amen.

    Across America, most high school football seasons are winding down. Thousands of games, the first since the Supreme Court in June ruled it was OK for a public school coach near Seattle to pray on the field. The decision prompted speculation that prayer would become an even bigger part of the game-day fabric, though that hasn’t seemed to be the case.

    Fouad Zaban, the head coach at Fordson High in Dearborn, calls the area just outside Detroit the “Middle East of America” and it is indeed home to thousands of people of Arab descent. After the court ruling, Zaban said, he was flooded with requests to use his platform and constitutional right to pray publicly. After thinking about it, he chose to keep his team’s prayers behind closed doors to avoid potential anti-Islamic jeers from fans in other communities.

    “That was a concern that they were going to get backlash,” Zaban said.

    With the nation’s culture wars spilling into education, it is challenging to have teachable moments about big news — like a precedent-setting court ruling — and coaches such as Zaban would rather punt than pray publicly.

    “It’s harder, whether you’re a coach, librarian, teacher or counselor,” said Lara Schwartz, an American University professor whose specialties include campus speech and constitutional law. “There are activist groups targeting books and ideas, saying you can lose your license if you have these conversations. That to me is a threat to people having good constructive dialogue in classrooms, or with coaches.”

    In Michigan, some teams with multiple religions represented on their rosters have found ways for everyone who wants to participate to do so if they wish.

    “We don’t force anybody to do that,” said Ibe, the defensive line coach in West Bloomfield. “We just take that moment to really just come together and give glory to God at that moment.”

    At Crestwood High School in Dearborn Heights, where most of the football team is Muslim, the entire team gathers before practices and games to pray on one knee. First, most of the players recite Al-Fatiha. Then, a player says a Christian prayer to the attentive group.

    “Between those two prayers, they’re pretty much all the same,” said Adam Berry, a senior and a team captain. “Asking God for protection, asking God for forgiveness, and asking God for any way to help us through our game.”

    According to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, a majority of Americans think a coach leading a team in prayer (60%), a player leading a team in prayer (64%) and a coach praying on the field without asking the team to join in (71%) should all be allowed in public high school sports.

    Still, the team plays it safe at Fordson High, where coaches clear the locker room and leave players to pray if they wish.

    “No one can ever say that we were involved in it,” Zaban said, adding he just wants to coach instead of drawing attention.

    Hassan Shinawah, a senior and team captain at Fordson, said players supported keeping their prayers in the locker room and away from the public.

    “We don’t know if people are comfortable,” he said. “We don’t know what their opinions are about it. We just don’t want any conflict with anybody else.”

    In the South, at least three high schools, two in Alabama and another in North Carolina, received letters in recent months from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The nonprofit that advocates for atheists and agnostics said it fielded complaints about the promotion of religion surrounding football games. Jefferson County (Ala.) officials were asked to “ensure that its schools are no longer scheduling prayer at school-sponsored events, including football games.”

    The Associated Press left multiple messages for athletic directors and principals at the schools in both North Carolina and Alabama that were not returned.

    Outside Detroit, coaches gave time and space for their players to pray, showing the teenagers that accomdations can be made for different faiths as well as the right to decline.

    At West Bloomfield High, an assistant football coach once walked miles with a Jewish player — whose faith would not allow him to ride in a car one particular day — to make sure he got to his hotel after a road game. The unique nature of having Christians, Muslims and Jews playing on the same team was not lost on one of the players who participates in a pregame Islamic prayer.

    “Some other teams, they probably don’t have the same thing,” said Mohamed Menisy, a 16-year-old junior offensive tackle. “We’re one team, one family. We just respect each other.”

    ———

    Follow Larry Lage at https://twitter.com/larrylage

    ———

    Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court OKs handover of Trump tax returns to Congress

    Supreme Court OKs handover of Trump tax returns to Congress

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for the imminent handover of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns to a congressional committee after a three-year legal fight.

    The court, with no noted dissents, rejected Trump’s plea for an order that would have prevented the Treasury Department from giving six years of tax returns for Trump and some of his businesses to the Democratic-controlled House Ways and Means Committee.

    Alone among recent presidents, Trump refused to release his tax returns either during his successful 2016 campaign or his four years in the White House, citing what he said was an ongoing audit by the IRS. Last week, Trump announced he would run again in 2024.

    It was the former president’s second loss at the Supreme Court in as many months, and third this year. In October, the court refused to step into the legal fight surrounding the FBI search of Trump’s Florida estate that turned up classified documents.

    In January, the court refused to stop the National Archives from turning over documents to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. Justice Clarence Thomas was the only vote in Trump’s favor.

    In the dispute over his tax returns, the Treasury Department had refused to provide the records during Trump’s presidency. But the Biden administration said federal law is clear that the committee has the right to examine any taxpayer’s return, including the president’s.

    Lower courts agreed that the committee has broad authority to obtain tax returns and rejected Trump’s claims that it was overstepping and only wanted the documents so they could be made public.

    Chief Justice John Roberts imposed a temporary freeze on Nov. 1 to allow the court to weigh the legal issues raised by Trump’s lawyers and the counter arguments of the administration and the House of Representatives.

    Just over three weeks later, the court lifted Roberts’ order without comment.

    The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The House contended an order preventing the IRS from providing the tax returns would leave lawmakers “little or no time to complete their legislative work during this Congress, which is quickly approaching its end.”

    Had Trump persuaded the nation’s highest court to intervene, he could have run out the clock on the committee, with Republicans ready to take control of the House in January. They almost certainly would have dropped the records request if the issue had not been resolved by then.

    The House Ways and Means panel and its chairman, Democrat Richard Neal of Massachusetts, first requested Trump’s tax returns in 2019 as part of an investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s audit program and tax law compliance by the former president. A federal law says the Internal Revenue Service “shall furnish” the returns of any taxpayer to a handful of top lawmakers.

    The Justice Department under the Trump administration had defended a decision by then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to withhold the tax returns from Congress. Mnuchin argued that he could withhold the documents because he concluded they were being sought by Democrats for partisan reasons. A lawsuit ensued.

    After President Joe Biden took office, the committee renewed the request, seeking Trump’s tax returns and additional information from 2015-2020. The White House took the position that the request was a valid one and that the Treasury Department had no choice but to comply. Trump then attempted to halt the handover in court.

    Then-Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. obtained copies of Trump’s personal and business tax records as part of a criminal investigation. That case, too, went to the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s argument that he had broad immunity as president.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge orders Amazon to stop retaliations against organizers

    Judge orders Amazon to stop retaliations against organizers

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A federal judge has ordered Amazon to stop retaliating against employees engaged in workplace activism, issuing a mixed ruling that also hands a loss to the federal labor agency that sued the company earlier this year.

    The ruling came in a court case brought by the National Labor Relations Board, which sued Amazon in March seeking the reinstatement of a fired employee who was involved in organizing a company warehouse on Staten Island, New York.

    In its lawsuit, the agency argued Amazon’s termination of the former employee, Gerald Bryson, was unlawful and would have a chilling effect on organizing. It said that not reinstating Bryson to his role would make workers think the agency would not be able to protect their labor rights under federal law.

    On Friday, U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati ruled there was “reasonable cause” to believe the e-commerce giant committed an unfair labor practice by firing Bryson. She issued a cease-and-desist order directing the Seattle-based company to not retaliate against employees involved in workplace activism.

    But Gujarati denied the agency’s request to reinstate Bryson. She determined that the NLRB did not present evidence that Bryson’s termination is having considerable effect on organizing efforts by employees or the Amazon Labor Union, the nascent group in connection to Bryson that ultimately pulled off the first-ever labor win at an Amazon warehouse in the U.S. in March.

    In her ruling, Gujarati also noted Bryson was fired before the union was formed, which makes it different from other cases where a slowdown of organizing support was shown after the firing of a union activist.

    Bryson was fired in April 2020, weeks after participating in a protest over working conditions during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. While off the job during a second protest, he got into a dispute with another employee. Amazon did its own investigation into the dispute and cited a violation of the company’s vulgar-language policy for terminating Bryson. The company denies the firing was connected to organizing activities.

    Shortly after Bryson was fired, he filed a complaint with the NLRB. An administrative law judge concluded earlier this year the company pursued a “skewed investigation” into the dispute designed to blame Bryson. Amazon has said it would appeal that ruling in the NLRB’s own administrative process. Friday’s court ruling came from a separate federal case filed by the agency, which doesn’t have enforcement powers.

    On Friday, Gujarati ordered Amazon to post English and Spanish copies of the court order at the Staten Island facility that voted to unionize. She also ordered the company distribute electronic copies to employees and hold a mandatory meeting where the order can be read aloud.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Today in History: November 21, deadly Las Vegas hotel fire

    Today in History: November 21, deadly Las Vegas hotel fire

    [ad_1]

    Today in History

    Today is Monday, Nov. 21, the 325th day of 2022. There are 40 days left in the year.

    Today’s Highlight in History:

    On Nov. 21, 1980, 87 people died in a fire at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada.

    On this date:

    In 1789, North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution.

    In 1920, the Irish Republican Army killed 12 British intelligence officers and two auxiliary policemen in the Dublin area; British forces responded by raiding a soccer match, killing 14 civilians.

    In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Air Quality Act.

    In 1969, the Senate voted down the Supreme Court nomination of Clement F. Haynsworth, 55-45, the first such rejection since 1930.

    In 1973, President Richard Nixon’s attorney, J. Fred Buzhardt, revealed the existence of an 18-1/2-minute gap in one of the White House tape recordings related to Watergate.

    In 1979, a mob attacked the U-S Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing two Americans.

    In 1980, an estimated 83 million TV viewers tuned in to the CBS prime-time soap opera “Dallas” to find out “who shot J.R.” (The shooter turned out to be J.R. Ewing’s sister-in-law, Kristin Shepard.)

    In 1985, U.S. Navy intelligence analyst Jonathan Jay Pollard was arrested and accused of spying for Israel. (Pollard later pleaded guilty to espionage and was sentenced to life in prison; he was released on parole on Nov. 20, 2015, and moved to Israel five years later.)

    In 1990, junk-bond financier Michael R. Milken, who had pleaded guilty to six felony counts, was sentenced by a federal judge in New York to 10 years in prison. (Milken served two.)

    In 1995, Balkan leaders meeting in Dayton, Ohio, initialed a peace plan to end 3 1/2 years of ethnic fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BAHZ’-nee-ah HEHR’-tsuh-goh-vee-nah).

    In 2001, Ottilie (AH’-tih-lee) Lundgren, a 94-year-old resident of Oxford, Connecticut, died of inhalation anthrax; she was the apparent last victim of a series of anthrax attacks carried out through the mail system.

    In 2020, a federal judge in Pennsylvania tossed out a Trump campaign lawsuit seeking to prevent certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the state; in a scathing order, the judge said Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani presented only “speculative accusations.” The Trump campaign requested a recount of votes in the Georgia presidential race, a day after state officials certified results showing that Democrat Joe Biden won the state. (After the recount, the state’s top elections official recertified Biden’s victory.)

    Ten years ago: Two weeks after he was re-elected to a ninth full term in Congress, Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois quietly resigned in a letter in which he acknowledged an ongoing federal investigation. (Jackson would eventually be sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for illegally spending campaign money.) Israel and the Hamas militant group in Gaza agreed to a cease-fire to end eight days of the fiercest fighting in nearly four years.

    Five years ago: Zimbabwe’s 93-year-old president Robert Mugabe resigned; he was facing impeachment proceedings and had been placed under house arrest by the military. Former teen pop idol David Cassidy, star of the 1970s sitcom “The Partridge Family,” died at the age of 67; he’d announced earlier in the year that he had been diagnosed with dementia.

    One year ago: A man drove an SUV into a suburban Milwaukee Christmas parade, leaving six people dead and more than 60 injured. (Darrell Brooks Jr. was convicted of 76 counts, including six counts of first-degree intentional homicide; he would be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of release.) Sudan’s deposed prime minister, Abdalla Hamdok, signed a deal with the military to reinstate him, almost a month after a military coup put him under house arrest. (Hamdok would resign in January 2022 after failing to bridge a gap between the military and pro-democracy protesters.) South Korean superstars BTS were crowned artist of the year at the American Music Awards, brushing aside challenges from Taylor Swift, Drake and The Weeknd.

    Today’s Birthdays: Actor Laurence Luckinbill is 88. Actor Marlo Thomas is 85. Actor Rick Lenz is 83. Actor Juliet Mills is 81. Basketball Hall of Famer Earl Monroe is 78. Television producer Marcy Carsey is 78. Actor Goldie Hawn is 77. Movie director Andrew Davis is 76. Rock musician Lonnie Jordan (War) is 74. Singer Livingston Taylor is 72. Actor-singer Lorna Luft is 70. Actor Cherry Jones is 66. Rock musician Brian Ritchie (The Violent Femmes) is 62. Gospel singer Steven Curtis Chapman is 60. Actor Nicollette Sheridan is 59. Singer-actor Bjork (byork) is 57. Pro and College Football Hall of Famer Troy Aikman is 56. R&B singer Chauncey Hannibal (BLACKstreet) is 54. Rock musician Alex James (Blur) is 54. Baseball Hall of Famer Ken Griffey Jr. is 53. TV personality Rib Hillis is 52. Football player-turned-TV personality Michael Strahan (STRAY’-han) is 51. Actor Rain Phoenix is 50. Actor Marina de Tavira is 49. Country singer Kelsi Osborn (SHeDAISY) is 48. Actor Jimmi Simpson is 47. Singer-actor Lindsey Haun is 38. Actor Jena Malone is 38. Pop singer Carly Rae Jepsen is 37. Actor-singer Sam Palladio is 36.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley to be sentenced

    Reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley to be sentenced

    [ad_1]

    ATLANTA — Todd and Julie Chrisley were driven by greed as they engaged in an extensive bank fraud scheme and then hid their wealth from tax authorities while flaunting their lavish lifestyle, federal prosecutors said, arguing the reality television stars should receive lengthy prison sentences.

    The Chrisleys gained fame with their show “Chrisley Knows Best,” which follows their tight-knit, boisterous family. They were found guilty on federal charges in June and are set to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross in a hearing that begins Monday and is likely to extend into Tuesday.

    Using a process to calculate a sentencing guideline range based on several factors, federal prosecutors determined the upper end of that range is nearly 22 years for Todd Chrisley and about 12 and a half years for Julie Chrisley. The couple should also be ordered to pay restitution, prosecutors wrote in a court filing.

    “The Chrisleys have built an empire based on the lie that their wealth came from dedication and hard work,” prosecutors wrote. “The jury’s unanimous verdict sets the record straight: Todd and Julie Chrisley are career swindlers who have made a living by jumping from one fraud scheme to another, lying to banks, stiffing vendors, and evading taxes at every corner.”

    The Chrisleys disagree with the government’s guideline calculations. Todd Chrisley’s lawyers wrote in a filing that he should not face more than nine years in prison and that the judge should sentence him below the lower end of the guidelines. Julie Chrisley’s lawyers wrote that a reasonable sentence for her would be probation with special conditions and no prison time.

    The Chrisleys were convicted in June on charges of bank fraud, tax evasion and conspiring to defraud the IRS. Julie Chrisley was also convicted of wire fraud and obstruction of justice.

    Peter Tarantino, an accountant hired by the couple, was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the IRS and willfully filing false tax returns. He is set to be sentenced along with the Chrisleys.

    Prosecutors have said the couple submitted fake documents to banks and managed to secure more than $30 million in fraudulent loans. Once that scheme fell apart, they walked away from their responsibility to repay the loans when Todd Chrisley declared bankruptcy. While in bankruptcy, they started their reality show and “flaunted their wealth and lifestyle to the American public,” prosecutors wrote. When they began making millions from their show, they hid the money from the IRS to avoid paying taxes.

    The Chrisleys submitted a false document to a grand jury that was investigating their crimes and then convinced friends and family members to tell lies while testifying under oath during their trial, prosecutors wrote. Neither of them has shown any remorse and they have, instead, blamed others for their own criminal conduct, prosecutors wrote.

    “The Chrisleys are unique given the varied and wide-ranging scope of their fraudulent conduct and the extent to which they engaged in fraud and obstructive behavior for a prolonged period of time,” prosecutors wrote.

    Todd Chrisley’s lawyers wrote in a court filing that the government never produced any evidence that he meant to defraud any of the banks and that the loss amount calculated by the government is incorrect. They also noted that the offenses of which he was convicted were committed a long time ago. He has no serious criminal history and has medical conditions that “would make imprisonment disproportionately harsh,” they wrote.

    His lawyers submitted letters from friends and business associates that show “a history of good deeds and striving to help others.” People who rely on Chrisley — including his mother and the “scores of people” employed by his television shows — will be harmed while he’s in prison, his lawyers wrote.

    They urged the judge to give him a prison sentence below the guideline range followed by supervised release and restitution.

    Julie Chrisley’s lawyers wrote in a filing that she had a minimal role in the conspiracy and was not involved when the loans discussed in sentencing documents were obtained. She has no prior convictions, is an asset to her community and has “extraordinary family obligations,” her lawyers wrote, as they asked for a sentence of probation, restitution and community service.

    The Chrisleys have three children together, including one who is 16, and also have full custody of the 10-year-old daughter of Todd Chrisley’s son from a prior marriage. Julie Chrisley is the primary caregiver to her ailing mother-in-law, the filing says. Her lawyers submitted letters from family and friends that show she is “hard-working, unfailingly selfless, devoted to her family and friend, highly respected by all who know her, and strong of character.”

    If the judge does sentence both Chrisleys to prison, Julie Chrisley’s lawyers asked that their prison terms be staggered so she can remain on supervised release until her husband is done serving his sentence or until their granddaughter turns 18.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man gets jail for joining Capitol riot after Tinder date

    Man gets jail for joining Capitol riot after Tinder date

    [ad_1]

    A Delaware business owner has been sentenced to 30 days of incarceration for storming the U.S. Capitol after seeing the riot erupt on a Tinder date’s television and taking an Uber ride to join the mob’s attack, court records show.

    U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan also on Friday ordered Jeffrey Schaefer to pay a $2,000 fine and $500 in restitution for his participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot in Washington.

    On the eve of then-President Donald Trump‘s “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6, Schaefer drove from Delaware to northern Virginia to spend the night at the home of a woman whom he had met on the Tinder online dating app. The next day, he decided to take an Uber ride to the Capitol after seeing the riot unfold on TV at his date’s home in Alexandria.

    “He had the Uber driver drop him off near the west front of the Capitol and he approached the Capitol from that drop off point,” Justice Department prosecutor Anita Eve wrote in a court filing.

    Schaefer entered the Capitol though a broken window near the Senate Wing doors, joined other rioters in chanting and spent approximately 28 minutes inside the building before leaving through a door, prosecutors said. He posted several images of the riot on Facebook, including one showing a pile of destroyed media equipment.

    Schaefer, 36, of Milton, Delaware, was arrested in January 2022, He pleaded guilty in August to one count of parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of six months behind bars.

    Defense attorney Joshua Insley noted that Schaefer wasn’t accused of engaging in any violence or destructive conduct on Jan. 6, when Congress had convened a joint session to certify the results of President Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory.

    Schaefer owns a charter transportation company based in Milton. Once a “committed supporter” of Trump, Schaefer now believes he was “manipulated and used by those who hold power and will never face any consequences,” his lawyer said.

    “While Mr. Schaefer accepts responsibility for his actions, he was guided and urged every step of the way by no less of an authority than the President of the United States and a majority of Republican Senators and Congressman that continued to repeat the ‘Big Lie’ that the election had been stolen by the Democrats,” Insley wrote.

    More than 900 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 460 of them have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanor offenses. Over 320 of them have been sentenced, with roughly half of them receiving terms of imprisonment ranging from seven days to 10 years.

    ———

    For full coverage of the Capitol riot, go to https://www.apnews.com/capitol-siege

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man who blamed Trump’s ‘orders’ for Jan. 6 riot sentenced

    Man who blamed Trump’s ‘orders’ for Jan. 6 riot sentenced

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday sentenced an Ohio man who claimed he was only “following presidential orders” from Donald Trump when he stormed the U.S. Capitol to 3 years in prison.

    Dustin Byron Thompson was convicted in April by a jury that took less than three hours to reject his novel defense for obstructing Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s presidential victory.

    The jury also found Thompson guilty of all five of the other charges in his indictment, including stealing a coat rack from an office inside the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot.

    Thompson apologized and said he was ashamed of his actions.

    U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton told Thompson he could not understand how someone who had a college degree could “go down the rabbit hole” and believe “so much in a lie.” The judge said Thompson had to pay a price for a “serious crime” that undermined the “integrity and existence of this country.”

    The maximum sentence for the obstruction count was 20 years imprisonment. The government had recommended a sentence of 70 months while the defense sought a year and a day in prison.

    Thompson testified at trial that he joined the mob’s attack and stole the coat rack and a bottle of bourbon. He said he regretted his “disgraceful” behavior. But he also said he believed Trump’s false claim that the election was stolen and was trying to stand up for him.

    Thompson was charged and convicted on six counts: obstructing Congress’ joint session to certify the Electoral College vote, theft of government property, entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a Capitol building and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building.

    More than 770 people have been charged with federal crimes arising from the riot. Over 250 of them have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors. Thompson was the fifth person to be tried on riot-related charges.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elizabeth Holmes faces sentencing for her Theranos crimes

    Elizabeth Holmes faces sentencing for her Theranos crimes

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Friday will decide whether disgraced Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes should serve a lengthy prison sentence for duping investors and endangering patients while peddling a bogus blood-testing technology.

    Holmes’ sentencing in the same San Jose, California, courtroom where she was convicted on four counts of investor fraud and conspiracy in January marks a climactic moment in a saga that has been dissected in an HBO documentary and an award-winning Hulu TV series about her meteoric rise and mortifying downfall.

    U.S. District Judge Edward Davila will take center stage as he weighs the federal government’s recommendation to send Holmes, 38, to federal prison for 15 years. That’s less than the maximum sentence of 20 years she could face, but her legal team is asking for incarceration of no more than 18 months, preferably served in home confinement.

    Her lawyers have argued that Holmes deserves more lenient treatment as a well-meaning entrepreneur who is now a devoted mother with another child on the way. Their arguments were supported by more than 130 letters submitted by family, friends and former colleagues praising Holmes.

    A probation report also submitted to Davila recommended a nine-year prison sentence for Holmes.

    Prosecutors want Holmes to pay $804 million in restitution. The amount covers most of the nearly $1 billion that Holmes raised from a list of sophisticated investors that included software magnate Larry Ellison, media mogul Rupert Murdoch, and the Walton family behind Walmart.

    While wooing investors, Holmes leveraged a high-powered Theranos board that included former U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis, who testified against her during her trial, and two former U.S. Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger and the late George Shultz, whose son submitted a statement blasting Holmes for concocting a scheme that played Shultz “for the fool.”

    Davila’s judgment – and Holmes’ reporting date for a potential stint in prison — could be affected by her second pregnancy in two years. After giving birth to a son shortly before her trial started last year, Holmes became pregnant at some point while free on bail this year.

    Although her lawyers didn’t mention the pregnancy in a 82-page memo submitted to Davila last week, the pregnancy was confirmed in a letter from her current partner, William “Billy” Evans, that urged the judge to be merciful.

    In that 12-page letter, which included pictures of Holmes doting on their 1-year-old son, Evans mentioned that Holmes participated in a Golden Gate Bridge swimming event earlier this year while pregnant. He also noted Holmes suffered through a case of COVID-19 in August while pregnant. Evans didn’t disclose Holmes’ due date in his letter.

    Duncan Levin, a former federal prosecutor who is now a defense attorney, predicted that Davila’s sentencing decision won’t be swayed by the pregnancy, but expects the judge to allow her to remain free until after the baby is born.

    “She will be no more of a flight risk after she is sentenced than she was while awaiting sentencing,” Levin said. “We have to temper our sentences with some measure of humanity.”

    The pregnancy makes it more likely Davila will be criticized no matter what sentence he imposes, predicted Amanda Kramer, another former federal prosecutor.

    “There is a pretty healthy debate about what kind of sentence is needed to effect general deterrence to send a message to others who are thinking of crossing that line from sharp salesmanship into material misrepresentation,” Kramer said.

    Federal prosecutor Robert Leach emphatically declared Holmes deserves a severe punishment for engineering a scam that he described as one of the most egregious white-collar crimes ever committed in Silicon Valley. In a scathing 46-page memo, Leach told the judge he has an opportunity to send a message that curbs the hubris and hyperbole unleashed by the tech boom of the past decade.

    Holmes “preyed on hopes of her investors that a young, dynamic entrepreneur had changed healthcare,” Leach wrote. “And through her deceit, she attained spectacular fame, adoration, and billions of dollars of wealth.”

    Even though Holmes was acquitted by a jury on four counts of fraud and conspiracy tied to patients who took Theranos blood tests, Leach also asked Davila to factor in the health threats posed by Holmes’ conduct.

    Holmes’ lawyer Kevin Downey painted her as a selfless visionary who spent 14 years of her life trying to revolutionize health care with a technology that was supposed to be able to scan for hundreds of diseases and other aliments with just a few drops of blood.

    Although evidence submitted during her trial showed the tests produced wildly unreliable results that could have steered patients in the wrong direction, her lawyers asserted Holmes never stopped trying to perfect the technology until Theranos collapsed in 2018. They also pointed out that Holmes never sold any of her Theranos shares — a stake valued at $4.5 billion in 2014 when Holmes was being hailed as the next Steve Jobs on the covers of business magazines.

    Defending herself against criminal charges has left Holmes with “substantial debt from which she is unlikely to recover,” Downey wrote, suggesting that she is unlikely ever to pay any restitution that Davila might order as part of her sentence.

    “Holmes is not a danger to society,” Downey wrote.

    Downey also asked Davila to consider the alleged sexual and emotional abuse Holmes suffered while she was involved romantically with Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, who became a Theranos investor, top executive and eventually an accomplice in her crimes. Balwani, 57, is scheduled to be sentenced Dec. 7 after being convicted in a July trial on 12 counts of fraud and conspiracy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to know if you’ve applied for student loan forgiveness

    What to know if you’ve applied for student loan forgiveness

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — President Joe Biden’s plan to provide up to $20,000 in federal student loan forgiveness has been blocked by two federal courts, leaving millions of borrowers wondering what happens next. The administration plans to appeal. Here’s what to know if you’ve applied for relief:

    WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

    While the application for relief has been taken down from the Federal Student Aid website, applications that have already been filed are on hold while the appeal works its way through the courts.

    “Courts have issued orders blocking our student debt relief program,” the Education Department said on its site. “As a result, at this time, we are not accepting applications. We are seeking to overturn those orders.”

    A federal judge in Texas ruled that the plan overstepped the White House’s authority. Before that, a federal appeals court in St. Louis put the plan on temporary hold while it considers a challenge from six Republican-led states.

    Still, advocates believe the administration will succeed in court.

    “We’re really confident they’re going to find a way forward to cancel people’s debt,” said Katherine Welbeck at the Student Borrower Protection Center.

    Experts say student loan forgiveness has the potential to end up before the Supreme Court, meaning this could be a lengthy process.

    WHEN DO PAYMENTS RESUME?

    Most people with student loan debt have not been required to make payments during the coronavirus pandemic, but payments are set to resume, along with the accrual of interest, in January.

    Biden previously said the payment pause will not be extended again, but that was before the courts halted his plan. He’s now facing mounting pressure to continue the pause while the legal challenges to the program play out.

    WHAT IF I ALREADY APPLIED FOR RELIEF?

    More than 26 million people applied for cancellation over the course of less than a month, according to the Education Department. If you’re one of them, there’s nothing more you need to do right now.

    About 16 million people already had their applications approved, according to the Biden administration. Yet because of court actions, none of the relief has actually been delivered.

    The Education Department will “quickly process their relief once we prevail in court,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said.

    WHAT IF I HAVEN’T YET APPLIED FOR RELIEF?

    For those who have not yet applied, the application for debt cancellation is no longer online. But there are still steps people can take to make sure their debt is canceled, should the appeal be successful, according to Welbeck.

    “People should still check their eligibility,” she said. “As news changes, people should look out for updates from the Department of Education.”

    You can sign up to receive the latest from the Federal Student Aid website here.

    WHO QUALIFIES, SHOULD THE APPEAL SUCCEED?

    The debt forgiveness plan announced in August would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, would get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven, for a total of $20,000.

    Borrowers qualify if their loans were disbursed before July 1.

    About 43 million student loan borrowers are eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could have their debt erased entirely, according to the administration.

    ARE THERE OTHER PATHWAYS TO CANCELLATION?

    For those who have worked for a government agency or a nonprofit organization, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program offers cancellation after 10 years of regular payments, and some income-driven repayment plans cancel the remainder of a borrower’s debt after 20 to 25 years, according to Welbeck.

    “Borrowers should make sure they’re signed up for the best income-driven repayment plan possible,” Welbeck said. In July, the administration will be reviewing and adjusting some of the accounts enrolled in these plans. You can find out more about those plans here.

    Borrowers who have been defrauded by for-profit schools may also apply for borrower defense and receive relief on that account, Welbeck said.

    SHOULD I RESUME PAYMENTS WHEN THE PAYMENT PAUSE IS LIFTED?

    Advocates, including the Student Borrower Protection Center, are still urging the president to extend the pandemic-era payment freeze, arguing that students are entitled to the promised cancellation before the January repayment date arrives.

    That said, Welbeck recommends logging on to your account, making sure you know who your servicer is, your due date, and whether you’re enrolled in the best income-driven repayment plan, as you resume making payments.

    The Student Borrower Protection Center is holding regular webinars on how to follow the changing policy in the coming months. You can sign up for those here.

    If your budget doesn’t allow you to resume payments, it’s important to know how to navigate the possibility of default and delinquency on a student loan. You can read more about those here. Both can hurt your credit rating, which would make you ineligible for additional aid.

    If you’re in a short-term financial bind, you may qualify for a deferment or a forbearance. With either of these options, you can talk to your servicer about ways to temporarily suspend your payments. You can learn more about those options here.

    WHAT ELSE SHOULD I KNOW?

    Watch out for scams and get information only from trusted sources such as the Federal Student Aid site of the Department of Education.

    IS IT POSSIBLE THE DEBT WON’T BE CANCELLED?

    Yes. The issue of debt forgiveness is now before the courts.

    The administration is not saying whether or not it’s exploring other options for canceling debt if it loses its appeals. But advocates point to other ways the debt might be forgiven, including through the Higher Education Act.

    HOW DO I PREPARE FOR STUDENT LOAN PAYMENTS TO RESTART?

    Betsy Mayotte, President of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, encourages people not to make any payments until the pause has ended.

    “I’ve been telling people to pretend they’re paying their student loan, but to put it into an interest-bearing account for now if you’re able,” she said. “Then you’ve maintained the habit of making the payment, but earning a little bit of interest as well. There’s no reason to send that money to the student loans until the last minute of the zero percent interest rate.”

    Mayotte recommends that borrowers use the loan simulator tool at StudentAid.gov or the one on TISLA’s website to find the repayment course that best fits their needs. Once you plug in your information, it tells you what your monthly payment would be under each available plan, as well as what the long-term costs amount to.

    “I really want to emphasize the long-term,” Mayotte said. “Oftentimes I see people who might be having a financial struggle. They’ll find a lower monthly repayment option, and then, ‘Set it and forget it.’”

    Mayotte encourages people to switch to higher payments if their financial situation stabilizes, so the loan doesn’t end up costing more in the long run.

    Other useful tips that can shave costs for borrowers:

    — If you sign up for automatic payments, the servicer takes a quarter of a percent off your interest rate, according to Mayotte.

    — Income-driven repayment plans aren’t right for everyone. That said, if you know you will eventually qualify for forgiveness under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, it makes sense to make the lowest monthly payments possible, as the remainder of your debt will be cancelled once that decade of payments is complete.

    — Re-evaluate your monthly student loan repayment at tax time, when you already have all your financial information in front of you. “Can you afford to increase it? Or do you need to decrease it?” Mayotte said. “Always look at your long-term student loan management strategy.”

    — Break up payments into whatever ways work best for you, whether that means two installments during the month, so it’s not a large lump sum at the end or the beginning, or setting aside cash in envelopes for designated purposes.

    “Even if it’s an extra $5 or $20 a month, that’s a good strategy,” Mayotte said. “If they can afford to pay a little more per month — the more you pay and faster you pay, the less you’ll pay in the long run.”

    Mayotte gave one example of a borrower with debt from higher education in the six figures. She was recently married, and she and her husband and kids decided to save every five dollar bill in a cookie jar to go towards the loans.

    “That added up to a few more hundred dollars each quarter,” Mayotte said. “Everybody has a different financial personality. There are those who are really good at budgets. There are people who need to play games and trick themselves. And people shouldn’t judge each other people’s financial personalities.”

    —-

    The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.

    [ad_2]

    Source link