[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? A ruling from Britain’s high court Thursday has at least narrowed down who Satoshi is not.
For eight years, Australian computer scientist Craig Wright has claimed that he was the man behind “Satoshi Nakamoto,” the pseudonym that masked the identity of the creator of bitcoin. His claim was vehemently rejected by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance, or Copa, a nonprofit group of technology and cryptocurrency firms, who brought the case to court.
In his ruling, Justice James Mellor said Wright did not invent bitcoin, was not the man behind Satoshi, or the author of the initial versions of the bitcoin software. Further explanation will emerge when Mellor’s written statement is published at a later date.
“Having considered all the evidence and submissions presented to me in this trial, I’ve reached the conclusion that the evidence is overwhelming,” he said, according to a court transcript.
Lucy North/PA Images via Getty Images
During the trial, Copa claimed Wright had created an “elaborate false narrative” and forged documents to suggest he was Satoshi and had “terrorized” those who questioned him.
A spokesperson for Copa said Thursday’s decision is a “win for developers, for the entire open source community, and for the truth.”
“For over eight years, Dr. Wright and his financial backers have lied about his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto and used that lie to bully and intimidate developers in the bitcoin community,” the spokesperson added.
Wright, who attended the start of the five-week trial, denied the allegations.
At stake was not just bragging rights to the creation of bitcoin, the world’s most popular virtual currency, but control of the intellectual property rights.
Wright has used his claim as bitcoin’s inventor to file litigation to drive developers away from further developing the open-source technology, the alliance claimed in their lawsuit. The ruling will clearly impact three pending lawsuits that Wright has filed based on his claim to having the intellectual property rights to bitcoin.
The murky origins of bitcoin date to the height of the financial crisis in 2008. A paper authored by a person or group using the Nakamoto pen name explained how digital currency could be sent around the world anonymously, without banks or national currencies. Nakamoto seemed to vanish three years later.
Speculation on the true identity swirled for years and the names of several candidates emerged when Wright first surfaced to claim the identity in 2016, only to quickly return to the shadows, saying he didn’t “have the courage” to provide more proof.
Bitcoin, the world’s first cryptocurrency, was released in 2009 as an open-source software and is the most high-profile digital currency. As with all digital tokens, bitcoin is not tied to any bank or government. Like cash, it allows users to spend and receive money anonymously, or mostly so. It can also be converted to cash when deposited into accounts at prices set in online trading.
Supporters say it can be more trustworthy than traditional money, which can be vulnerable to the whims of those in power. Skeptics say their volatility has introduced a potential new risk to the global financial system, and fret about their potential to promote illicit activities and introduce uncertainty.
Despite occasional big wobbles, one bitcoin is now worth over $70,000, three times what it was worth just a year ago. Demand for the bitcoin has risen sharply on so-called spot bitcoin exchange traded funds. The ETFs, which allow investors to dabble in crypto in a less riskier way than ever before, has attracted a huge influx of cash this year, experts said.
Thursday’s verdict is a relief to the crypto exchanges who have been rejecting the idea of Wright as Satoshi.
“Satoshi understood the value of decentralization and built bitcoin so that it could not be controlled by a single person or entity,” said a spokesperson for Kraken, one of the biggest exchanges. “We’re pleased the court recognized the overwhelming evidence that categorically settles that Wright is not Satoshi.”
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
CHICAGO (WLS) — To see the latest update of the trial, click here.
The trial for man accused of fatally shooting Chicago police Officer Ella French began on Monday with jury selection.
After initially selecting a jury, selection resumed Monday afternoon, after an alternate was removed.
Emonte Morgan and his brother Eric Morgan were charged in the 2021 murder of French.
Prosecutors said Emonte Morgan fired the fatal shots that killed French and injured her partner, Carlos Yanez, times during a traffic stop in West Englewood in August 2021.
RELATED: Surveillance video shows traffic stop before fatal shooting of CPD Officer Ella French; 2 charged
His brother, Eric Morgan, was driving the car the officers had pulled over for expired tags, police said.
When French asked Eric Morgan to hand over the car keys and get out, he did. But police say Emonte Morgan, who was sitting in the back seat, would not cooperate. Investigators said he struggled with police, and had his gun in his waistband.
According to officials, both officers had their guns holstered when Emonte Morgan pulled out a gun and fired at both officers.
Emonte’s grandmother Denice Morgan was present in court to defend him Monday.
“He’s afraid; his life is at stake with this, you know. Who wouldn’t be afraid? He’s just starting out life, he’s a baby,” she said.
As jury selection began, a judge ordered Cook County deputies to collect fliers that had been posted around the courthouse in support of the accused murderer.
Emonte’s mother also demanded video evidence be shown in court.
“The narrative has been painted long enough – the false narrative by police,” his mother Evaleena Flores said. “It’s time that people know the truth. I say release the body cams and let the body cams speak for themselves.”
Last week, a judge ruled the jury will be allowed to hear and see the body camera footage.
Emonte Morgan has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Eric Morgan accepted a plea deal last year for a seven-year sentence.
French was one of the officers who took a 1-month-old baby and her mother to the hospital on July 2 when the baby was shot in the head during a mass shooting in Englewood.
SEE ALSO: 1-month-old shot in head among 7 wounded in Englewood
Copyright © 2024 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.
[ad_2]
Diane Pathieu
Source link

[ad_1]
The Eagles’ manager once told their authorized biographer that his book wasn’t getting published because of friction from “a pampered rock star,” according to a recording played in court Thursday.
“It’s gonna come out when God Henley says it can,” Irving Azoff said in the same years-old phone call, apparently referring to band co-founder Don Henley. “Now it’s up to God.”
The recording emerged at the criminal trial of three collectibles experts charged with conspiring to hang onto and sell sheets of handwritten, draft lyrics to the megahit “Hotel California” and other Eagles favorites.
The biographer, Ed Sanders, isn’t charged in the case, but he factors in it because he sold the roughly 100 pages to one of the defendants. Henley and prosecutors contend that the documents were stolen, saying Sanders obtained them from Henley’s home to research the book and was obligated to return them to the Eagles.
Defendants Edward Kosinski, Craig Inciardi and Glenn Horowitz have pleaded not guilty.
Mary Altaffer / AP
The never-published book is a side player in the legal case. But testimony about the book has shed light on the Eagles’ interpersonal dynamics and reputational aims around the time of the group’s 1980 breakup.
And Thursday offered a behind-the-scenes look at music-business wheeling and dealing, and at the longtime manager whom Henley once called – affectionately – “our Satan.”
Azoff has been the personal manager of the Eagles, one of the most successful bands in rock history, since about 1973. He’s managed many other big-name musicians, produced the classic 1982 teen comedy “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” and was CEO of Ticketmaster for a time.
In 1979, as the Eagles were closing out the decade that brought them superstardom, they hired Sanders to pen a biography. The writer, who also co-founded the ’60s counterculture rock band the Fugs, had authored a noted book about murderous cult leader Charles Manson.
Azoff testified Wednesday that when Sanders turned in the Eagles manuscript in the early 1980s, Henley and Eagles co-founder Glenn Frey were “very disappointed.” Azoff said he found the draft’s discussion of the Eagles’ breakup “unacceptable” and the band never authorized publication because the book “wasn’t very good.”
“It didn’t, to me, capture the essence of the joy of the story,” Azoff added on the witness stand Thursday, elaborating about the Eagles “chasing the American dream and how important they were to establishing Southern California as a mecca of music.”
“Somebody else might have thought it was very good,” he said, but “we didn’t think it was good for the Eagles.”
Mary Altaffer / AP
Then one of Kosinski’s lawyers played a recording of Azoff proclaiming he was “phenomenally, absolutely happy” with the book.
The recording, of a call between Azoff and Sanders, was undated but apparently from the 1980s. The defense said the writer taped it.
At other points in the call, Azoff indicated that Frey didn’t have a problem with the manuscript and that “deals are done,” but there still was an obstacle.
“Ed, you’ve been wonderful. The book is gonna come out – it’s just that I have a pampered rock star here,” Azoff said.
Asked on the witness stand who the “pampered rock star” was, Azoff said: “Probably all of them.”
“You’d agree that you told Mr. Sanders that the book was going to come out when ‘God Henley’ says it can?” attorney Scott Edelman asked at another point.
“It was either me or Satan that told him that,” Azoff quipped.
Henley said in the Eagles’ 1998 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction speech that Azoff “may be Satan, but he’s our Satan.″ Asked during testimony Wednesday about the remark, Azoff shot back: “Have you ever heard of humor, sir?”
Notwithstanding the taped phone call, Azoff said Thursday that he didn’t remember any publishing deal for the Eagles biography, and he said years of rewriting never produced a book the band was willing to approve.
“There were a lot of changing positions, but at the end of the day, I believe it was Mr. Frey who pulled the plug,” the manager said. Frey died in 2016.
Horowitz, Inciardi and Kosinski are accused of deceiving auction houses, and trying to fend off Henley, by crafting bogus explanations of how Sanders got the documents.
Horowitz, a rare-book seller who has brokered deals to place major archives at institutions, bought the Eagles lyrics drafts from Sanders for $50,000 in 2005.
Horowitz later sold them for $65,000 to Inciardi, who was then a rock Hall of Fame curator, and Kosinski, who owns a rock memorabilia auction site.
After Kosinski’s site offered four pages of the “Hotel California” lyrics in 2012, Henley reported them stolen but ultimately bought them for $8,500. After more sheets from that song and “Life in the Fast Lane” went up for auction in 2014 and 2016, Henley refused to negotiate more buybacks and turned to authorities again, according to prosecutors and Azoff.
Defense lawyers say Henley gave Sanders the documents. The defense argues that the writer was the rightful owner when he sold them, and so were the defendants once they bought the pages.
Sanders hasn’t testified, and it appears unlikely he will. He hasn’t responded to a message seeking comment on the case, and emails sent to him bounced back.
Frey and Henley wrote the lyrics to 1976’s “Hotel California” in a Beverly Hills house rented for the purpose, since the tidy Henley’s tendency to pick up after Frey “would drive them crazy” if they worked in their own homes, Azoff testified.
Henley did most of the writing, he added, with Frey leaning in to make suggestions such as the phrase “Life in the Fast Lane,” which became the title of a hit single.
In 2016, “CBS Mornings” co-host Gayle King asked Henley about the meaning of “Hotel California.”
“Well, I always say, it’s a journey from innocence to experience. It’s not really about California; it’s about America,” Henley said. “It’s about the dark underbelly of the American dream. It’s about excess, it’s about narcissism. It’s about the music business. It’s about a lot of different…. It can have a million interpretations.”
The Grammy-winning song is still a touchstone on classic rock radio and many personal playlists. The entertainment data company Luminate counted more than 220 million streams and 136,000 radio plays of “Hotel California” in the U.S. last year.
Henley is expected to testify. Defense lawyers have indicated that they plan to question how clearly he remembers his dealings with Sanders and the lyric sheets at a time when the rock star was living “life in the fast lane” himself.
In 2016, Henley told Gayle King that the band was indeed living that lifestyle in the 1970s.
“Yeah… Everybody was doing it. It was the ’70s,” Henley said. “It was what everybody was doing, which doesn’t make it right necessarily. And you know, looking back on it, there’s some regrets about that. We probably could have been more productive … although we were pretty productive, considering.”
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
A Black high school student’s monthslong punishment by his Texas school district for refusing to change his hairstyle does not violate a new state law that prohibits race-based hair discrimination, a judge ruled on Thursday.Video above: Clarified: What is the CROWN Act?Darryl George, 18, is a junior and has not been in his regular classes at his Houston-area high school since Aug. 31 because his school district, Barbers Hill, says he is violating its policy limiting the length of boys’ hair.The district filed a lawsuit arguing George’s long hair, which he wears in tied and twisted locs on top of his head, violates its dress code policy because it would fall below his shirt collar, eyebrows or earlobes when let down. The district has said other students with locs comply with the length policy.After just a few hours of testimony in Anahuac, state District Judge Chap Cain III ruled in favor of the school district, saying its ongoing discipline of George over the length of his hair is legal under the CROWN Act. For most of the school year, George has either served in-school suspension at Barbers Hill High School in Mont Belvieu or spent time at an off-site disciplinary program.Dozens of people filed into the courtroom in Anahuac, outside Houston, where George and his mother, Darresha George, told reporters they were hopeful his punishment would soon end allowing him to return to regular classes.“We’re going to get justice today,” Darresha George said. “I’m nervous but I’m happy.”Video below: Darryl George makes comment as hair discrimination trial beginsThe CROWN Act, which took effect in September, prohibits race-based hair discrimination and bars employers and schools from penalizing people because of hair texture or protective hairstyles including Afros, braids, locs, twists or Bantu knots.Attorneys for the school district did not present any witnesses. Attorney Sara Leon told Cain that the Barbers Hill dress code “is consistent with the CROWN Act” and that the policy “is race neutral.”Allie Booker, Darryl’s George’s attorney, presented only two witnesses: Darresha George and Democratic state Rep. Ron Reynolds, one of the co-authors of the CROWN Act.Reynolds testified that hair length was not specifically discussed when the CROWN Act was proposed but “length was inferred with the very nature of the style.”“Anyone familiar with braids, locs, twists knows it requires a certain amount of length,” Reynolds said.Pressed by Cain if there was anything in the legislation that talks specifically about length, Reynolds said no, but that it is “almost impossible for a person to comply with this (grooming) policy and wear that protective hairstyle.”After Reynolds’ testimony, both sides rested their case.George, an 18-year-old junior, has not been in his regular classroom at Barbers Hill High School in Mont Belvieu since Aug. 31. He has instead served in-school suspension and spent time in an off-site disciplinary program.In court documents, the school district maintains its policy does not violate the CROWN Act because the law does not mention or cover hair length.In a paid ad that ran in January in the Houston Chronicle, Barbers Hill Superintendent Greg Poole wrote that districts with a traditional dress code are safer and have higher academic performance, and that “being an American requires conformity.”George’s family has also filed a formal complaint with the Texas Education Agency and a federal civil rights lawsuit against Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, along with the school district, alleging they failed to enforce the CROWN Act. The lawsuit is before a federal judge in Galveston.Barbers Hill’s hair policy was also challenged in a May 2020 federal lawsuit filed by two other students. Both withdrew from the high school, but one returned after a federal judge granted a temporary injunction, saying there was “a substantial likelihood” that his rights to free speech and to be free from racial discrimination would be violated if he was not allowed to return. That lawsuit is pending.
A Black high school student’s monthslong punishment by his Texas school district for refusing to change his hairstyle does not violate a new state law that prohibits race-based hair discrimination, a judge ruled on Thursday.
Video above: Clarified: What is the CROWN Act?
Darryl George, 18, is a junior and has not been in his regular classes at his Houston-area high school since Aug. 31 because his school district, Barbers Hill, says he is violating its policy limiting the length of boys’ hair.
The district filed a lawsuit arguing George’s long hair, which he wears in tied and twisted locs on top of his head, violates its dress code policy because it would fall below his shirt collar, eyebrows or earlobes when let down. The district has said other students with locs comply with the length policy.
After just a few hours of testimony in Anahuac, state District Judge Chap Cain III ruled in favor of the school district, saying its ongoing discipline of George over the length of his hair is legal under the CROWN Act. For most of the school year, George has either served in-school suspension at Barbers Hill High School in Mont Belvieu or spent time at an off-site disciplinary program.
Dozens of people filed into the courtroom in Anahuac, outside Houston, where George and his mother, Darresha George, told reporters they were hopeful his punishment would soon end allowing him to return to regular classes.
“We’re going to get justice today,” Darresha George said. “I’m nervous but I’m happy.”
Video below: Darryl George makes comment as hair discrimination trial begins
The CROWN Act, which took effect in September, prohibits race-based hair discrimination and bars employers and schools from penalizing people because of hair texture or protective hairstyles including Afros, braids, locs, twists or Bantu knots.
Attorneys for the school district did not present any witnesses. Attorney Sara Leon told Cain that the Barbers Hill dress code “is consistent with the CROWN Act” and that the policy “is race neutral.”
Allie Booker, Darryl’s George’s attorney, presented only two witnesses: Darresha George and Democratic state Rep. Ron Reynolds, one of the co-authors of the CROWN Act.
Reynolds testified that hair length was not specifically discussed when the CROWN Act was proposed but “length was inferred with the very nature of the style.”
“Anyone familiar with braids, locs, twists knows it requires a certain amount of length,” Reynolds said.
Pressed by Cain if there was anything in the legislation that talks specifically about length, Reynolds said no, but that it is “almost impossible for a person to comply with this (grooming) policy and wear that protective hairstyle.”
After Reynolds’ testimony, both sides rested their case.
George, an 18-year-old junior, has not been in his regular classroom at Barbers Hill High School in Mont Belvieu since Aug. 31. He has instead served in-school suspension and spent time in an off-site disciplinary program.
In court documents, the school district maintains its policy does not violate the CROWN Act because the law does not mention or cover hair length.
In a paid ad that ran in January in the Houston Chronicle, Barbers Hill Superintendent Greg Poole wrote that districts with a traditional dress code are safer and have higher academic performance, and that “being an American requires conformity.”
George’s family has also filed a formal complaint with the Texas Education Agency and a federal civil rights lawsuit against Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, along with the school district, alleging they failed to enforce the CROWN Act. The lawsuit is before a federal judge in Galveston.
Barbers Hill’s hair policy was also challenged in a May 2020 federal lawsuit filed by two other students. Both withdrew from the high school, but one returned after a federal judge granted a temporary injunction, saying there was “a substantial likelihood” that his rights to free speech and to be free from racial discrimination would be violated if he was not allowed to return. That lawsuit is pending.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
A judge’s ruling on Friday in Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial deals a severe blow to the former president, who is now barred from running the New York-based company that for decades has served as the hub of his global business empire.
In a 92-page decision, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron barred Trump from serving as an officer or director of any corporation or other legal entity in the state for three years, while his sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., were banned for two years, according to the ruling.
Trump and The Trump Organization were also ordered to pay penalties of $354 million in what is one of the stiffest corporate sanctions in New York history. The total jumps to $453.5 million when pre-judgment interest is factored in.
Engoron ruled last fall that Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, “repeatedly” violated state fraud law by systemically misrepresenting the value of some of his properties and his overall net worth. That enabled his business to obtain loan rates and other financial terms that they otherwise wouldn’t have received, New York Attorney General Letitia James had claimed in filing suit against Trump.
More specifically, James’ allegations included falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements and insurance fraud. James’ office claimed that Trump’s misrepresentations led to the company collecting $370 million in “ill-gotten gains.”
Friday’s ruling also appoints Judge Barbara Jones to continue in her role as an independent monitor of Trump’s businesses for at least three years. It orders the addition of an independent director of compliance at the Trump Organization, with Engoron ruling that this person will be responsible for “ensuring good financial and accounting practices.”
“[T]he more evidence there is of defendants’ ongoing propensity to engage in fraud, the more need there is for the Court to impose stricter injunctive relief,” Engoron wrote in his verdict. “This is not defendants’ first rodeo.”
It’s possible Trump could appoint a trusted adviser to run his business during the three-year ban, noted John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School and an expert on corporate governance and white collar crime.
“I doubt that he can appoint someone else without the court’s approval, but one candidate that he will think of is Ivanka, his daughter, who is not a defendant,” Coffee told CBS MoneyWatch. “When Martha Stewart was barred from serving as a director of her own business, which like Trump had her name on it, she appointed her daughter as CEO for three years.”
Ivanka Trump, once an executive at The Trump Organization, was originally named as a defendant in the fraud suit, but an appellate court later dismissed allegations against her due to the state’s statute of limitations.
In a statement, Trump, who is expected to appeal, decried the verdict, calling it “unAmerican” and “a Complete and Total SHAM.”
“There were No Victims, No Damages, No Complaints,” Trump said in his statement. “Only satisfied Banks and Insurance Companies (which made a ton of money), GREAT Financial Statements, that didn’t even include the most valuable Asset – The TRUMP Brand.”
The decision comes just weeks after a federal jury ruled that Trump must pay $83.3 million in damages for defamatory statements he made denying that he sexually assaulted the writer E. Jean Carroll. Trump is also facing numerous additional legal cases.
“These bills are really racking up for Trump,” said CBS News legal analyst Katrina Kaufman shortly before the verdict was announced. James “asked for a lifetime ban on Trump in New York’s real estate industry, which is huge for him. This is where he started as a businessman.”
Trump could see the damages reduced on appeal, Columbia’s Coffee said. But to appeal, Trump would have to post a bond covering the $354 million in penalties, he added.
“That will be costly,” Coffee said. “Some banks will post the bond for him, for a hefty fee, but they will want security that they can liquidate easily, and that may require some sale of some of his assets.”
Trump and his legal team had long expected a defeat, with the former president decrying the case as “rigged” and a “sham” and his lawyers laying the groundwork for an appeal before the judgment was even issued.
In 2023, Engoron found that Trump and his company overstated the valuations of many properties by hundreds of millions. The judge cited the Palm Beach, Florida, real estate assessor’s valuation of his Mar-a-Lago club at as low as $18 million — an amount on which Trump paid local property taxes. At the same time, Trump valued the property at as much as $714 million on his annual statements of financial conditions.
Separately, Trump also faces charges in four criminal proceedings. The first trial, which centers on a payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016, is scheduled to begin in Manhattan on March 25. He has pleaded not guilty in all four cases.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]
Source link