[1/2]Actor Kevin Spacey walks outside the Southwark Crown Court on the day of his trial over charges related to allegations of sex offences, in London, Britain, June 30, 2023. REUTERS/Toby Melville
Actor Kevin Spacey charged with 12 sex offences
Oscar-winner denies all accusations
Alleged victim says he felt ashamed
LONDON, July 3 (Reuters) – An alleged sex assault victim of Kevin Spacey said the “slippery” Hollywood actor had tried to “groom” him, and the repeated groping assaults had left him feeling physically sick, a London court heard on Monday.
Spacey, 63, is on trial at Southwark Crown Court accused of a dozen allegations of historic sex offences committed against four men, then aged in their 20s and 30s, which are said to have taken place between 2001 and 2013.
He has denied all the charges and his lawyer Patrick Gibbs said last week at the start of the trial the jury were going to hear some “damned lies”.
On Monday, the court was shown a recorded police interview with the first of the alleged victims. The man said the actor had assaulted him on up to 12 occasions over a period of about four years in the early 2000s, grabbing his “private areas” when they were alone, such as in a car or an elevator.
After two to three weeks of being with Spacey, the actor made him feel uncomfortable, rubbing the man’s legs and neck while he was driving, before later starting to grope him or force the man’s hand onto his genitalia, he said.
“He was almost, from the get go, grooming me,” the man said in the interview.
The alleged victim, who cannot be identified, said the “touchy feely” actor had on one occasion aggressively grabbed his crotch so hard when he was driving him to a party hosted by singer Elton John in about 2004 that he almost crashed the car.
Describing himself a “man’s man”, the accuser recounted that he had threatened to knock the actor out if he did it again, to which Spacey had replied “that’s such a turn on to me”.
He described the Oscar-winner as a “slippery snaky, difficult person”, a “mixed-up individual” who was very confused about his sexuality. The man said Spacey’s behaviour was an open secret at the London Old Vic theatre where he worked for more than a decade.
“It was well-known that he was obviously up to no good so to speak,” the man said.
‘SICK’
Giving evidence in person in court from the behind a screen, the man said he felt shocked, embarrassment and ashamed about what had happened to him, saying the alleged assaults made him feel physically sick.
He rejected suggestions from Spacey’s lawyer Gibbs that he had been flirtatious himself with the actor, had appeared to enjoy the interaction and that he had questioned his own sexuality.
Gibbs quizzed him about why he had kept a “warm and jolly” letter Spacey had sent him ahead of a charity event the man was involved in, and a “cosy” photo he posted on social media showing him with the actor.
“It’s just a normal photo, two men standing next to each other,” the witness replied.
Gibbs also put it to him the allegation regarding the incident prior to the Elton John party was completely untrue, pointing out that Spacey had only attended one such gathering which was in 2001. The man replied he might have got the dates wrong as it had been so long ago.
Asked why he had only come forward to the police last year, he said it was the “right time”, and then when questioned whether it had occurred to him he might be able to sue Spacey, he agreed it had.
Asked how much he thought he might receive, he replied: “Whatever it would be, it wouldn’t be enough for somebody who had been assaulted and abused.”
The trial is due to last about four weeks.
Reporting by Michael Holden, Editing by William Maclean
July 3 (Reuters) – Three civil rights groups filed a complaint against Harvard on Monday, claiming its preferential policy for undergraduate applicants with family ties to the elite school overwhelmingly benefits white students, days after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down its race-conscious admissions policies.
The groups filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education claiming that Harvard’s preferences for “legacy” applicants violates a federal law banning race discrimination for programs that receive federal funds, as virtually all U.S. colleges and universities do.
Last week, the Supreme Court said race-conscious policies adopted by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina to ensure that more non-white students are admitted are unconstitutional. The decision was a major blow to efforts to attract diverse student bodies and is expected to prompt new challenges to admission policies.
Harvard College is the undergraduate school of Harvard University.
The groups in Monday’s complaint said the Supreme Court ruling had made it even more imperative to eliminate policies that disadvantage non-white applicants.
Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The groups are represented by Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston-based nonprofit that describes itself on its website as working with “communities of color and immigrants to fight discrimination.”
Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the group’s executive director, said the Supreme Court last week made clear that any policies that disadvantage racial groups are unlawful by noting that “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”
“Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process,” he said in a statement.
Students and pedestrians walk through the Yard at Harvard University, after the school asked its students not to return to campus after Spring Break and said it would move to virtual instruction for graduate and undergraduate classes, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., March 10, 2020. REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File Photo
Legacy policies, which are common at U.S. colleges and universities, have become increasingly controversial
President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in remarks following las week’s Supreme Court ruling, said schools should consider eliminating legacy policies because they “expand privilege instead of opportunity.”
Several prominent lawmakers from both parties made similar comments. Representative Barbara Lee, a Democrat from California, called legacy policies “affirmative action for white people” in a tweet.
According to Monday’s complaint, nearly 70% of Harvard applicants with family ties to donors or alumni are white and are about six times more likely to be admitted than other applicants.
About 28% of Harvard’s class of 2019 were legacies, the groups said in the complaint. That means fewer admissions slots were available for non-white applicants who are far less likely to have family ties to the school, they said.
The groups are asking the Department of Education to investigate Harvard’s admission practices and order the school to abandon legacy preferences if it wants to continue receiving federal funding. Michael Kippins, one of the lawyers who filed the complaint, said in an email that Lawyers for Civil Rights has not ruled out filing a lawsuit against Harvard in the future.
When the Supreme Court heard the Harvard and UNC cases last October, a lawyer for the group that had sued the schools argued that eliminating legacy preferences “would make Harvard far less white, wealthy, and privileged.”
Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas appeared to agree, pressing Harvard’s lawyer on why the school could not get rid of the legacy policy instead of granting separate preferences to non-white students.
The lawyer, Seth Waxman, told the court that there was no evidence that ending legacy preferences would lead to a more diverse student body.
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Leslie Adler
Dan Wiessner (@danwiessner) reports on labor and employment and immigration law, including litigation and policy making. He can be reached at daniel.wiessner@thomsonreuters.com.
BUCHAREST, June 23 (Reuters) – Internet personality Andrew Tate will remain under house arrest in Romania for another 30 days from the end of June pending trial on charges of human trafficking, a Bucharest court ruled on Friday.
Tate was indicted on Tuesday along with his brother Tristan and two Romanian female suspects for human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.
They are under house arrest pending an investigation into abuses against seven women whom prosecutors say were lured through false claims of relationships, accusations the suspects have denied.
The four suspects were held in police custody from Dec. 29 until March 31 before a Bucharest court put them under house arrest, which prosecutors on Tuesday sought to extend.
The Tate brothers are citizens of the United States and Britain. Andrew Tate, a self-described misogynist, built up a following of millions on social media, promoting his own lavish lifestyle in posts which critics say denigrate women.
The court needs to approve preventative restrictive measures such as house arrest every 30 days. It held a hearing on Wednesday and said it would rule on Friday.
“We’re not the first affluent wealthy men who have been unfairly attacked,” Tate told reporters on Wednesday after the hearing. “I love this country, I’m going to stay here regardless no matter what and I look forward to being found innocent at the end of everything.”
The trial will not start immediately. Under Romanian law, the case gets sent to the Bucharest court’s preliminary chamber, where a judge has 60 days to inspect the case files to ensure legality.
Trafficking of adults carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years, as does rape.
Prosecutors also said they were investigating the four suspects in a separate ongoing case on allegations of money laundering, witness tampering, and child and adult trafficking.
Reporting by Luiza Ilie and Octav Ganea; Editing by Alan Charlish and Peter Graff
BOSTON, April 14 (Reuters) – A 21-year-old member of the U.S. Air National Guard accused of leaking top secret military intelligence records online was charged on Friday with unlawfully copying and transmitting classified material.
Jack Douglas Teixeira of North Dighton, Massachusetts, who was arrested by heavily armed FBI agents at his home on Thursday, made his initial appearance in a crowded federal court wearing a brown khaki jumpsuit.
At the hearing, Boston’s top federal national security prosecutor, Nadine Pellegrini, requested that Teixeira be detained pending trial, and a detention hearing was set for Wednesday.
During the brief proceeding, Teixeira said little, answering “yes” when asked whether he understood his right to remain silent.
The judge said Teixeira’s financial affidavit showed he qualified to be represented by a federal public defender, and he appointed one.
After the hearing, three of Teixeira’s family members left the courthouse, with a group of reporters trailing them for several blocks. They entered a car without making any comments.
The leaked documents were believed to be the most serious U.S. security breach since more than 700,000 documents, videos and diplomatic cables appeared on the WikiLeaks website in 2010. The Pentagon has called the leak a “deliberate, criminal act.”
This leak did not come to light until it was reported by the New York Times last week even though the documents were posted on a social media website weeks earlier.
U.S. President Joe Biden said on Friday he ordered investigators to determine why the alleged leaker had access to the sensitive information, which included records showing purported details of Ukrainian military vulnerabilities and embarrassed Washington by revealing its spying on allies.
Fallout from the case has roiled Washington. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has requested a briefing for all 100 senators next week while Republican House of Representatives Speaker Kevin McCarthy vowed to investigate.
“The Biden administration has failed to secure classified information,” McCarthy said on Twitter. “Through our committees, Congress will get answers as to why they were asleep at the switch.”
FBI agents arrest Jack Teixeira, an employee of the U.S. Air Force National Guard, in connection with an investigation into the leaks online of classified U.S. documents, outside a residence in this still image taken from video in North Dighton, Massachusetts, U.S., April 13, 2023. WCVB-TV via ABC via REUTERS
Biden said he was taking steps to tighten security. “While we are still determining the validity of those documents, I have directed our military and intelligence community to take steps to further secure and limit distribution of sensitive information,” he said in a statement.
MORE CHARGES EXPECTED
A criminal complaint made public on Friday charges Teixeira with one count of violating the Espionage Act related to the unlawful copying and transmitting of sensitive defense material, and a second charge related to the unlawful removal of defense material to an unauthorized location.
A conviction on the Espionage Act charge carries up to 10 years in prison.
The charges are connected to just one leaked document so far, a classified record that described the status of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and included details about troop movements on a particular date.
Experts expect more charges as investigators examine each leaked document. Teixeira could also face more counts depending on the number of times he separately uploaded and transmitted each document.
“They are going to pick the ones (documents), I would imagine, that foreign governments have already seen,” said Stephanie Siegmann, the former national security chief for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston and now a partner with the Hinckley Allen law firm.
In a sworn statement, an FBI agent said Teixeira had held a top secret security clearance since 2021 and also had sensitive compartmented access to other highly classified programs.
Since May 2022, the FBI said, Teixeira has been serving as an E-3/airman first class in the Air National Guard and has been stationed at Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts.
Siegmann said one lingering question is why a 21-year-old National Guardsman held such a top-level security clearance.
“That’s an issue that Department of Defense needs to now deal with,” she said. “Why would he be entitled to these documents about the Russia-Ukrainian conflict?”
Reuters has reviewed more than 50 of the documents, labeled “Secret” and “Top Secret,” but has not independently verified their authenticity. The number of documents leaked is likely to be over 100.
Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch in Washington and Tim McLaughlin in Boston
Editing by Don Durfee and Alistair Bell
Sarah N. Lynch is the lead reporter for Reuters covering the U.S. Justice Department out of Washington, D.C. During her time on the beat, she has covered everything from the Mueller report and the use of federal agents to quell protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, to the rampant spread of COVID-19 in prisons and the department’s prosecutions following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
April 3 (Reuters) – Former U.S. President Donald Trump is scheduled to be arraigned at a Manhattan courthouse on Tuesday following his indictment on criminal charges after a probe into hush money paid to a porn star.
Below is an explanation of what it means to be indicted and arraigned, and other key terms related to Trump’s case.
INDICTMENT
An indictment is a court document containing charges that were voted on by a grand jury, a group of people who decide whether a prosecutor has enough evidence to pursue criminal charges.
An indictment formally charges a defendant with a crime and provides a basis for legal prosecution.
Following an indictment, a defendant is given formal notice of the charges, a right enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
A defendant can then be formally arraigned on whatever charges are brought. Law enforcement officials fingerprint and photograph most defendants facing arraignments.
ARRAIGNMENT
An arraignment is where a defendant is brought to court to hear charges and have a chance to enter a plea, which is generally guilty or not guilty.
A judge or prosecutor typically reads the charges aloud. A defendant is usually represented by lawyers, especially in cases that are high-profile or could lead to jail or prison.
If a defendant pleads not guilty, a judge will typically accept the plea and schedule the next court appearance, and perhaps a tentative trial date.
[1/6] A person uses a smartphone after former U.S. President Donald Trump’s indictment by a Manhattan grand jury following a probe into hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels, in New York City, U.S, April 3, 2023. REUTERS/Amanda Perobelli
If a defendant pleads guilty, the judge will impose punishment, typically at a later date.
Trump’s lawyers have said he will plead not guilty on Tuesday.
Lawyers for some defendants who plead not guilty may engage in plea bargaining, where they negotiate a guilty plea with prosecutors to avoid a trial. Defendants would typically plead guilty to some but not all charges they face.
BAIL
Judges in New York state criminal court have three options for bail: They can set bail, order a defendant released without bail, or order a defendant’s detention.
The purpose of bail in New York is to ensure that a defendant returns to court, without taking into account the risk a defendant may cause further harm. In 2019, New York ended cash bail for most cases involving misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, such as Trump’s case.
GAG ORDER
A gag order is when a judge prohibits lawyers, parties and witnesses from talking about a case in public.
Gag orders are common in criminal cases. That is especially true when there is a risk that someone may make statements that could incite violence, be viewed as threatening to prosecutors or witnesses, or taint the jury pool.
A defendant who violates a gag order in New York can be held by a judge to be in criminal contempt, a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. A judge will typically warn a defendant before issuing a contempt citation.
If a gag order is imposed against Trump, he can appeal and argue that it undermines his First Amendment right to free speech as he runs for president.
Reporting by Rami Ayyub and Jonathan Stempel; editing by Noeleen Walder and Jonathan Oatis
LOS ANGELES, Feb 22 (Reuters) – A California man was sentenced on Wednesday to at least 60 years in prison for the 2019 killing of Grammy-winning rapper Nipsey Hussle after a chance encounter in the south Los Angeles neighborhood where the men grew up.
A jury had found Eric Holder Jr, 32, guilty of first-degree murder in July 2022 for fatally shooting Hussle outside a clothing store the rapper owned.
On Wednesday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge H. Clay Jacke sentenced Holder to 25 years to life in state prison for murdering Hussle, plus an additional 25 years to life because he used a gun in the slaying.
Holder was ordered to serve an additional 10 years in prison for shooting two bystanders.
[1/3] Eric Ronald Holder sits in the courtroom at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center ahead of his sentencing for first-degree murder in the 2019 shooting of Grammy-winning rapper Nipsey Hussle in Los Angeles, California, U.S., on September 15, 2022. Apu Gomes/Pool via REUTERS
Prosecutors said Holder shot Hussle at least 10 times after they ran into each other on a Sunday afternoon outside the clothing store. Following a brief conversation, Holder left and returned about 10 minutes later and opened fire.
Public defender Aaron Jansen acknowledged that Holder killed Hussle but argued that he should not be convicted of first-degree murder because he said the attack was not pre-meditated.
Latest Updates
View 2 more stories
Jansen said Holder acted in “the heat of passion” after Hussle told him there were rumors of him “snitching” to police, which he considered a serious offense. Holder did not testify during the trial.
Hussle, who was 33 when he died, had publicly acknowledged that he joined a gang as a teenager. He later became an activist and entrepreneur as he found success with rap music and collaborated with artists including Snoop Dogg and Drake.
In 2020, Hussle won two posthumous Grammy awards including one for “Racks in the Middle,” released a few weeks before his death and featuring Roddy Ricch and Hit-Boy.
Reporting by Lisa Richwine and Jorge Garcia in Los Angeles
Editing by Leslie Adler, Matthew Lewis and David Gregorio
BUCHAREST, Feb 2 (Reuters) – The woman from Moldova thought it was love. Internet celebrity Andrew Tate had offered her a new life. They’d even discussed marriage. He asked for only one thing: absolute loyalty.
“You must understand that once you are mine, you will be mine forever,” Tate told her on Feb. 4 last year in one of dozens of WhatsApp messages cited by Romanian prosecutors who allege he trafficked and sexually exploited several women.
Tate, an influencer with millions of online followers, urged the Moldovan woman to join him in Romania. “Nothing bad will happen,” he reassured her on Feb. 9. “But you have to be on my side.”
The following month, Romanian prosecutors say, Tate raped the woman twice in the country while seeking to enlist her in a human-trafficking operation focused on making pornography for the online platform OnlyFans, a site that allows people to sell explicit videos of themselves.
Latest Updates
View 2 more stories
The allegations and messages are included in a previously unpublished court document, dated Dec. 30 and reviewed by Reuters, which paints the most detailed picture yet of the illicit business allegedly run by Tate, a former kickboxing world champion, and his brother Tristan.
They came to light following the arrest of the brothers on Dec. 29 on charges of forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.
British-American Andrew Tate, 36, who’s been based mainly in Romania since 2017, and his 34-year-old brother have denied all the allegations against them. Reuters was unable to reach them in police detention for comment.
In response to questions, their attorney Eugen Vidineac said he couldn’t publicly confirm or deny information about the case while the investigation was ongoing. Romania’s anti-organized crime unit also said its prosecutors couldn’t comment on the probe.
Reuters translated the WhatsApp exchanges with the Moldovan women – which appear in Romanian in the court document – back into English, their original language. While accurate, the translation of the Romanian version provided by prosecutors may not be identical to the initial wording.
The brothers used deception and intimidation to bring six women under their control and “transform them into slaves”, prosecutors said in the document. The 61-page file, produced by Bucharest court officials, comprises minutes of a hearing when a judge extended the Tates’ detention plus evidence submitted by the prosecution.
Attorney Vidineac said the brothers’ alleged victims weren’t mistreated, but “lived off the backs of the famous Tates”, according to the court document. “They were joyful and nobody was forcing them to do these things,” he added.
Vidineac acknowledged in the document that Andrew Tate and the Moldovan woman had sex but he said it was consensual and accused her of fabricating the rape claims.
Reuters couldn’t independently corroborate the version of events provided by prosecutors or the defence lawyer, and was unable to reach the six women named in the document for comment. The news organization does not typically identify alleged victims of sexual crimes unless they have chosen to release their names.
Two of the women told Romanian TV station Antena3 on Jan. 11 that they’re not victims and the Tates are innocent. The station identified them only by first names, Beatrice and Iasmina.
“You cannot list me as a victim if I say I am not one,” Beatrice told the station. The four other women, including the Moldovan woman, haven’t publicly commented.
ONLYFANS: WE’VE MONITORED TATE
The allegations facing Tate have put intense focus on a self-described misogynist who has built an online fanbase, particularly among young men, by promoting a lavish, hyper-macho image of driving fast cars and dating beautiful women.
In 2022, he was the world’s eighth-most Googled person, outranked only by figures such as Johnny Depp, Will Smith and Vladimir Putin, according to Google’s analysis.
Prosecutors say the Tates controlled the victims’ OnlyFans’ accounts and earnings amounting to tens of thousands of euros, underlining concerns among some human rights groups about the potential for the exploitation of women on such platforms.
Reuters couldn’t verify the existence of the alleged victims’ OnlyFans accounts.
UK-based OnlyFans has 150 million users who pay “creators” monthly fees of varying amounts for their content, much of it erotic or pornographic, but also in areas such as fitness training and music.
The company, whose 1.5 million creators can earn anything from hundreds of dollars to tens of thousands a month, says on its website it’s “the safest digital media platform”. It was founded in 2016 and grew rapidly during COVID-19 lockdowns.
An OnlyFans spokesperson told Reuters that Andrew Tate “has never had” a creator account or received payments. They said OnlyFans had been monitoring him since early 2022 and taken “proactive measures” to stop him posting or monetizing content, without elaborating on the reasons for the scrutiny or the steps taken.
The spokesperson added that creators as a whole underwent extensive identification checks and that all content was reviewed by the platform, which worked closely with law enforcement. Vidineac declined to comment about the measures taken by OnlyFans against Tate.
HOW I GET WOMEN TO LOVE ME
Andrew Tate’s image has been stoked by a series of contentious comments. He’s compared women to dogs and said they bear some responsibility for being raped. His remarks got him banned from Facebook, Instagram and other leading social media platforms last year.
A spokesperson for Meta said Tate was banned in August 2022 from its Facebook and Instagram platforms for violating its policies, which forbid “gender-based hate, any threats of sexual violence, or threats to share non-consensual intimate imagery”.
Tate said on a podcast in 2021 that he had started a webcam business in Britain that had peaked with 75 women working for him earning $600,000 a month – a sum Reuters was unable to independently verify. He didn’t elaborate in the podcast on what the women did.
Up until last month, his website offered a course costing more than $400 that promised to teach “every step to building a girl who is submissive, loyal and in love with you”.
“THAT IS MY SKILL. To extremely efficiently get women in love with me,” he said on the website. The pages about the course, reviewed by Reuters, were removed in January.
In a separate YouTube video aimed at men who want to make money by putting women on OnlyFans, Tate called the platform “the greatest hustle in the world”. The original date of the video, which was uploaded multiple times, is unclear.
In the court document, lawyer Vidineac said Tate’s online persona was a “virtual character” constructed to gain followers and make money, and had “nothing to do with the real man”.
Tate’s Twitter account, reinstated in November, one month after billionaire Elon Musk bought the platform, protests his innocence to his 4.8 million followers. “They have arrested me to ‘look’ for evidence … which they will not find because it doesn’t exist,” said a Jan. 15 post.
AMERICAN WOMAN ‘VERY AFRAID’
Tate first met the Moldovan woman virtually on Instagram in January 2022 before they met in person in London the following month, and by March she was in Romania, prosecutors said in the court document, which includes WhatsApp exchanges between Feb. 4 and Apr. 8.
Authorities moved on the brothers on Apr. 11, when police raided one of their properties in Bucharest on suspicion that an American woman was being held there against her will.
According to prosecutors, the American woman – another of the alleged six victims – met Tristan Tate online in November 2021, then in person in Miami the following month. They said he lured her to Romania by expressing “false feelings” for her and promising a serious relationship, paid for her plane ticket and said he could help her earn “100K a month” on OnlyFans.
Tristan Tate picked her up at Bucharest airport in a Rolls-Royce on April 5 2022, and took her back to his house, which had two armed guards, the court document said.
He told her she wasn’t a prisoner but said the guards wouldn’t let her outside without his permission, it added. He said it was dangerous for her to leave “because he had enemies”.
There were cameras all over the house, which Tristan Tate monitored remotely, prosecutors said in the document. He once messaged the American to say he could see where she was and what she was doing, they said.
When she moved to another house with four of Andrew Tate’s “girlfriends” she was allowed outside but only if accompanied by other women, said the prosecutors, adding that she was “very afraid” of the brothers.
In the document, Tate’s lawyer said the American woman had a mobile phone, internet access and the freedom to leave the house as she pleased.
The woman has not spoken publicly about the Tates or the prosecutors’ allegations.
Romanian prosecutors said on Jan. 15 that as part of their probe into the suspects they had seized assets worth almost $4 million, including a fleet of luxury cars from Andrew Tate’s compound on the outskirts of Bucharest.
‘SEXUALLY EXPLOITATIVE CONTENT’
The detention of the Tates, along with two Romanian women accused of working for them, has been extended to Feb. 27. Their appeal against that detention was rejected by a court on Wednesday. A judge can order their detention for up to 180 days while the investigation is ongoing, which means it could stretch into late June.
The suspected accomplices, Georgiana Naghel and Luana Radu, controlled the six victims’ OnlyFans and TikTok accounts on behalf of the Tates, skimming off half the revenue and fining women for being late or sniffling on camera, said prosecutors.
The pair threatened to beat the women up if they did not do their job, according to the court document.
Naghel and Radu have denied all the allegations against them. Vidineac, who also represents Naghel, and Radu’s lawyer said they couldn’t comment on the case.
The Tates’ operation put women on TikTok to drive traffic to OnlyFans because of its lucrative subscriptions, prosecutors said. Reuters couldn’t independently verify the existence of the TikTok accounts in question.
TikTok said in a statement that Andrew Tate was banned from its platform, and that it had been taking action against videos and accounts related to him that violated its prohibition against “sexually exploitative content”.
The company declined to comment further, citing Romania’s ongoing investigation.
Reporting by Luiza Ilie, Octav Ganea and Andrew R.C. Marshall. Editing by Jason Szep and Pravin Char
NEW YORK, Jan 3 (Reuters) – Southwest Airlines (LUV.N) has been sued by a passenger who said it failed to provide refunds to passengers left stranded when an operational meltdown led the carrier to cancel more than 15,000 flights late last month.
In a proposed class action filed on Dec. 30 in New Orleans federal court, Eric Capdeville accused Southwest of breach of contract after a fierce winter storm that swept across the United States shortly before Christmas upended the carrier’s schedule.
Though Southwest has promised to reimburse passengers for expenses, Capdeville said it offered only a credit to him and his daughter after scrapping their Dec. 27 flight to Portland, Oregon from New Orleans and being unable to book alternative travel.
Affected passengers “cannot use their airline tickets through no fault of their own and they are not getting the benefit of their bargain with defendant,” the complaint said.
Capdeville, a Marrero, Louisiana resident, is seeking damages for passengers on Southwest flights canceled since Dec. 24, and who did not receive refunds or expense reimbursements.
In a statement on Tuesday, Southwest had no comment on the lawsuit, but said it had “several high priority efforts underway to do right by our customers, including processing refunds from canceled flights, and reimbursing customers for expenses incurred as a result of the irregular operations.”
Capdeville’s lawyer did not immediately respond to requests for additional comment.
The meltdown at Dallas-based Southwest has been blamed on staffing shortages and outdated flight scheduling software.
Southwest has said it would reimburse affected passengers for reasonable expenses such as last-minute hotel, rental car and dining costs, but it might take several weeks.
The carrier largely restored normal operations on Dec. 30, several days after other airlines had recovered from the storm.
In a Dec. 29 letter to Southwest Chief Executive Bob Jordan, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called the disruptions “unacceptable” and said the law requires refunds when carriers cancel flights unless passengers accept rebooking.
The case is Capdeville v Southwest Airlines Co, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 22-05590.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Nick Zieminski
Nov 14 (Reuters) – Former President Donald Trump did not show up for deposition testimony before the congressional committee investigating his supporters’ attack on the U.S. Capitol last year, the panel said on Monday.
In doing so Trump defied a subpoena issued by the panel in October, Chair Bennie Thompson, a Democrat, and co-Chair Liz Cheney, a Republican, said in a joint statement.
“The truth is that Donald Trump, like several of his closest allies, is hiding from the Select Committee’s investigation and refusing to do what more than a thousand other witnesses have done,” Thompson and Cheney said.
The panel did not say what next steps they might pursue against Trump. Thompson told the New York Times in an interview that he would not rule out seeking contempt of Congress charges against the former president.
“That could be an option. And we’ll have to wait and see,” Thomson told the Times. “The first thing we’ll do is see how we address the lawsuit. At some point after that, we’ll decide the path forward.”
Trump filed a lawsuit on Friday seeking to avoid having to testify or provide any documentation to the Jan. 6 committee.
The congressional committee has held a series of hearings as it seeks to make its case to the public that Trump provoked his supporters into storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, while lawmakers met to formally declare his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
The subpoena ordered Trump to submit documents to the panel by Nov. 4 and for him to appear for deposition testimony beginning on or about Nov. 14.
On Nov. 4, it said it had agreed to give Trump an extension before producing the documents but the Nov. 14 deadline remained in place.
Republicans are expected to dissolve the panel if they win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the mid-term elections.
Reporting by Tyler Clifford and Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Leslie Adler
Nov 4 (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Friday again declined to block President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel billions of dollars in student debt, this time in a challenge brought by two Indiana borrowers, even as a lower court considers whether to lift a freeze it imposed on the program in a different case.
Barrett denied an emergency request by the Indiana borrowers, represented by a conservative legal group, to bar the U.S. Department of Education from implementing the Democratic president’s plan to forgive debt held by qualified people who had taken loans to pay for college.
Barrett on Oct. 20 denied a similar request by a Wisconsin taxpayers organization represented by another conservative legal group. The justice acted in the cases because she is the justice assigned to handle certain emergency requests from a group of states that includes Indiana and Wisconsin.
The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 21 put the policy on hold in yet another conservative challenge by six Republican-led states while it considered their request for injunction pending their appeal of their case’s dismissal. That request remains pending.
Biden’s plan, unveiled in August, was designed to forgive up to $10,000 in student loan debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 per year, or $250,000 for married couples. Borrowers who received Pell Grants to benefit lower-income college students would have up to $20,000 of their debt canceled.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office in September calculated that debt forgiveness would eliminate about $430 billion of the $1.6 trillion in outstanding student debt and that more than 40 million Americans would be eligible to benefit.
The policy fulfilled a promise Biden made during the 2020 presidential campaign to help debt-saddled former college students. Democrats hope the policy will boost support for them in Tuesday’s midterm elections in which control of Congress is at stake.
Friday’s case was filed by two borrowers, Frank Garrison and Noel Johnson, represented by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, and claimed they would be irreparably harmed if some of their student loans were automatically forgiven because they would face increased state tax liabilities.
Soon after they sued, the Department of Education created an opt-out option for borrowers. U.S. District Judge Richard Young on Oct. 21 dismissed the case, finding that the debt forgiveness program did not injure Garrison and Johnson.
The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 28 declined to block the plan while Garrison and Johnson pursued an appeal, noting that the program is “not compulsory” and that the plaintiffs could avoid tax liability simply by opting out.
Caleb Kruckenberg, a lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation, in a statement expressed disappointment that Barrett declined to block the plan while his clients pursued their appeal but said they will “continue to fight this program in court.”
“Practically since this program was announced, the administration has sought to avoid judicial scrutiny,” he said. “Thus far they have succeeded. But that does not change the fact that this program is illegal from stem to stern.”
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Rosalba O’Brien
Nov 4 (Reuters) – Twitter Inc laid off half its workforce on Friday but said cuts were smaller in the team responsible for preventing the spread of misinformation, as advertisers pulled spending amid concerns about content moderation.
Tweets by staff of the social media company said teams responsible for communications, content curation, human rights and machine learning ethics were among those gutted, as were some product and engineering teams.
The move caps a week of chaos and uncertainty about the company’s future under new owner Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, who tweeted on Friday that the service was experiencing a “massive drop in revenue” from the advertiser retreat.
Musk blamed the losses on a coalition of civil rights groups that has been pressing Twitter’s top advertisers to take action if he did not protect content moderation – concerns heightened ahead of potential pivotal congressional elections on Tuesday.
After the layoffs, the groups said they were escalating their pressure and demanding brands pull their Twitter ads globally.
“Unfortunately there is no choice when the company is losing over $4M/day,” Musk tweeted of the layoffs, adding that everyone affected was offered three months of severance pay.
The company was silent about the depth of the cuts until late in the day, when head of safety and integrity Yoel Roth tweeted confirmation of internal plans, seen by Reuters earlier in the week, projecting the layoffs would affect about 3,700 people, or 50% of the staff.
Among those let go were 784 employees from the company’s San Francisco headquarters and 199 in San Jose and Los Angeles, according to filings to California’s employment authority.
Roth said the reductions hit about 15% of his team, which is responsible for preventing the spread of misinformation and other harmful content, and that the company’s “core moderation capabilities” remained in place.
Musk endorsed the safety executive last week, citing his “high integrity” after Roth was called out over tweets critical of former President Donald Trump years earlier.
Musk has promised to restore free speech while preventing Twitter from descending into a “hellscape.”
President Joe Biden said on Friday that Musk had purchased a social media platform in Twitter that spews lies across the world.
“And now what are we all worried about: Elon Musk goes out and buys an outfit that sends – that spews lies all across the world… There’s no editors anymore in America. There’s no editors. How do we expect kids to be able to understand what is at stake?”
Major advertisers have expressed apprehension about Musk’s takeover for months.
Brands including General Motors Co (GM.N) and General Mills Inc (GIS.N) have said they stopped advertising on Twitter while awaiting information about the new direction of the platform.
Musk tweeted that his team had made no changes to content moderation and done “everything we could” to appease the groups. Speaking at an investors conference in New York on Friday, Musk called the activist pressure “an attack on the First Amendment.”
[1/9] Owner and CEO of Twitter, Inc. Elon Musk arrives at the 29th Annual Baron Investment Conference in Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S., November 4, 2022. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly
Twitter did not respond to a request for comment.
ACCESS TO SYSTEMS CUT
The email notifying staff about layoffs was the first communication Twitter workers received from the company’s leadership after Musk took over last week. It was signed only by “Twitter,” without naming Musk or any other executives.
Dozens of staffers tweeted they had lost access to work email and Slack channels overnight before receiving an official layoff notice on Friday morning, prompting an outpouring of laments by current and former employees on the platform they had built.
They shared blue hearts and salute emojis expressing support for one another, using the hashtags #OneTeam and #LoveWhereYouWorked, a past-tense version of a slogan employees had used for years to celebrate the company’s work culture.
Twitter’s curation team, which was responsible for “highlighting and contextualizing the best events and stories that unfold on Twitter,” had been axed, employees wrote.
Shannon Raj Singh, an attorney who was Twitter’s acting head of human rights, tweeted that the entire human rights team at the company had been sacked.
Another team that focused on research into how Twitter employed machine learning and algorithms, an issue that was a priority for Musk, was also eliminated, according to a tweet from a former senior manager at Twitter.
Senior executives including vice president of engineering Arnaud Weber said their goodbyes on Twitter on Friday: “Twitter still has a lot of unlocked potential but I’m proud of what we accomplished.”
Employees of Twitter Blue, the premium subscription service that Musk is bolstering, were also let go. An employee with the handle “SillyRobin” who had indicated they were laid off, quote-tweeted a previous Musk tweet saying Twitter Blue would include “paywall bypass” for certain publishers.
“Just to be clear, he fired the team working on this,” the employee said.
DOORS LOCKED
Twitter said in its email to staffers that offices would be temporarily closed and badge access suspended “to help ensure the safety of each employee as well as Twitter systems and customer data.”
Offices in London and Dublin appeared deserted on Friday, with no employees in sight. At the London office, any evidence Twitter had once occupied the building was erased.
A receptionist at Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters said a few people had trickled in and were working in the floors above despite the notice to stay away.
A class action was filed on Thursday against Twitter by several employees, who argued the company was conducting mass layoffs without providing the required 60-day advance notice, in violation of federal and California law.
The lawsuit asked the San Francisco federal court to issue an order to restrict Twitter from soliciting employees being laid off to sign documents without informing them of the pendency of the case.
Reporting by Sheila Dang in Dallas, Katie Paul in Palo Alto, California, and Paresh Dave in Oakland, California; Additional reporting by Fanny Potkin, Rusharti Mukherjee, Aditya Kalra, Martin Coulter, Hyunjoo Jin, Supantha Mukherjee and Arriana McLymore; Writing by Matt Scuffham and Katie Paul; Editing by Kenneth Li, Jason Neely, Matthew Lewis and William Mallard
San Francisco Bay Area-based tech reporter covering Google and the rest of Alphabet Inc. Joined Reuters in 2017 after four years at the Los Angeles Times focused on the local tech industry.
NEW YORK, Oct 22 (Reuters) – Lev Parnas, a onetime associate of Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, was found guilty on Friday of violating U.S. campaign finance laws during the 2018 elections.
Parnas, a Ukraine-born American businessman, and his former associate Igor Fruman had been accused of soliciting funds from Russian businessman Andrey Muraviev to donate to candidates in states where the group was seeking licenses to operate cannabis businesses in 2018.
Parnas also concealed that he and Fruman, who pleaded guilty in September, were the true source of a donation to a group supporting Republican then-President Trump, prosecutors said. Giuliani’s attorney has said the Parnas case is separate from a probe into whether violated lobbying laws while representing Trump.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Giuliani, a U.S. prosecutor in the 1980s before he was elected New York’s mayor in 1994, has not been charged with any crimes and denies wrongdoing.
Parnas was found guilty on all six counts of federal election law violations that he faced, which included illegally helping a foreigner contribute to a U.S. election campaign, making contributions in the names of others, and lying to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).
Andrey Kukushkin, a Muraviev associate and California resident who was tried alongside Parnas, was found guilty on Friday of two counts of campaign finance violations. Kukushkin is also a Ukraine native.
The trial in U.S. District Court in Manhattan has drawn attention because of the role Parnas and Belarus-born U.S. citizen Fruman played in helping Giuliani, who was Trump’s personal attorney while he held office, to investigate Democrat Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign. Biden won the election, denying Trump a second term.
Parnas, dressed in a blue suit, stared straight at the jury as the verdict was read. Kukushkin, wearing a grey sweater, shook his head after he was pronounced guilty on the second count.
“I’ve never hid from nobody,” Parnas said as he left court wearing a black “Combat COVID” mask. “I’ve always stood and tried to tell the truth.”
His attorney Joseph Bondy said they would be filing a motion to vacate the verdict “in the interest of justice.”
Lev Parnas, Ukrainian-American businessman and former Giuliani associate, walks to the United States Court in Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S., October 18, 2021. REUTERS/Mike Segar
“It’s obviously a very difficult time for Mr. Parnas and his wife and his children,” Bondy said.
U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken denied a request from prosecutors to detain Parnas and Kukushkin. “The defendants have sufficiently established that they’re not a risk of flight,” Oetken said after the jury left.
Oetken set a sentencing date of Feb. 16 for Kukushkin. He did not set a sentencing date for Parnas, who faces another possible trial on separate fraud charges.
‘IN WELL OVER HIS HEAD’
The case provided a glimpse into the inner workings of political fundraising in the United States.
“You saw the wires from Muraviev,” Assistant U.S Attorney Hagan Scotten told the jury during closing arguments on Thursday. “You saw how that money came out on the other side, finding its way into American elections, where the defendants thought they had bought influence to further their business.”
Parnas’ defense lawyers countered that Muraviev’s funds went toward business investments, not campaign contributions, and that the donation to the pro-Trump group was from a company founded by Parnas and broke no laws.
In his closing statement Parnas attorney Bondy characterized his client as a passionate proponent of marijuana legalization who was “in well over his head.” He argued that Muraviev’s money funded business operations, not campaign contributions.
Deliberations in the trial began on Friday morning and lasted about five hours.
Fruman, who lives in Florida, pleaded guilty to one count of soliciting campaign contributions from a foreign national. His sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 21.
Parnas and Kukushkin had faced two counts of conspiring to make donations from a foreign national, and making the donations. Parnas had also been charged with four other counts, including making false statements to the Federal Elections Commission.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Editing by Franklin Paul, Grant McCool and Jonathan Oatis
Oct 22 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on Nov. 1 a challenge to a Texas law that imposes a near-total ban on the procedure and lets private citizens enforce it – a case that could dramatically curtail abortion access in the United States if the justices endorse the measure’s unique design.
The justices took up requests by President Joe Biden’s administration and abortion providers to immediately review their challenges to the law. The court, which on Sept. 1 allowed the law to go into effect, declined to act on the Justice Department’s request to immediately block enforcement of the measure.
The court will consider whether the law’s unusual private-enforcement structure prevents federal courts from intervening to strike it down and whether the federal government is even allowed to sue the state to try to block it.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
The measure bans abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, a point when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant. It makes an exception for a documented medical emergency but not for cases of rape or incest.
Liberal Justice Sotomayor dissented from the court’s deferral of a decision on whether to block enforcement of the law while the litigation continues. Sotomayor said the law’s novel design has suspended nearly all abortions in Texas, the second most populous U.S. state, with about 29 million people.
“The state’s gambit has worked. The impact is catastrophic,” Sotomayor wrote.
The Texas dispute is the second major abortion case that the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has scheduled for the coming months, with arguments set for Dec. 1 over the legality of a restrictive Mississippi abortion law.
The Texas and Mississippi measures are among a series of Republican-backed laws passed at the state level limiting abortion rights – coming at a time when abortion opponents are hoping that the Supreme Court will overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade that legalized the procedure nationwide.
Mississippi has asked the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the Texas attorney general on Thursday signaled that he also would like to see that ruling fall.
A supporter of reproductive rights holds a sign outside the Texas State Capitol building during the nationwide Women’s March, held after Texas rolled out a near-total ban on abortion procedures and access to abortion-inducing medications, in Austin, Texas, U.S. October 2, 2021. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Lower courts already have blocked Mississippi’s law banning abortions starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The Texas measure takes enforcement out of the hands of state officials, instead enabling private citizens to sue anyone who performs or assists a woman in getting an abortion after cardiac activity is detected in the embryo. That feature has helped shield the law from being immediately blocked as it made it more difficult to directly sue the state.
Individual citizens can be awarded a minimum of $10,000 for bringing successful lawsuits under the law. Critics have said this provision lets people act as anti-abortion bounty hunters, a characterization its proponents reject.
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing the abortion providers, said Friday’s decision to hear their case “brings us one step closer to the restoration of Texans’ constitutional rights and an end to the havoc and heartache of this ban.”
Alexis McGill Johnson, president of healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, said it is “devastating” that the justices did not immediately block a law that already has had a “catastrophic impact” after being in effect nearly two months.
“Patients who have the means have fled the state, traveling hundreds of miles to access basic care, and those without means have been forced to carry pregnancies against their will,” she added.
Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Texas Right to Life anti-abortion group, praised the court’s action, saying it “will continue to save an estimated 100 babies per day, and because the justices will actually discuss whether these lawsuits are valid in the first place.”
The Supreme Court only rarely decides to hear cases before lower courts have ruled, indicating that the justices have deemed the Texas matter of high public importance and requiring immediate review.
The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in September challenging the Texas law, arguing that it is unconstitutional and explicitly designed to evade judicial review.
Rulings in Texas and Mississippi cases are due by the end of next June, but could come sooner.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/VMGMXHTQJRPIFKRMCJ3YGDAKU4.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/FRVY3BLVZVPN7NRPTMJMO5QQYQ.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/FDFJTTSR2RO4JLDEID5ZLRFOKA.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/ESTWECBMAFIRLFE7JQSSL7HGUA.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/4HK52QCQVZISXCYTVGUYFZPQAA.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/EQE2HSR5PZOQ7AMAVCMEOTGQVI.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/T56E3FNSORKOBEPUJL3BUXJ46Q.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/EV5IQIGFKVKZXN7XNMMZDTN6QA.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/254H2UWD3JIT7OSJZUYCJKAMD4.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/4WHX6PELANMXDJ7M54UW2N6VUI.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/25KMASKS2RM3VH5A2Q6MOGKD5U.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/MOJC6WV2WBOIDMHIGFJZVUE5AI.jpg)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/VKXASJMMD5OTVOV5YA27LLK42A.jpg)