Advertisements



E. Jean Carroll files 2nd lawsuit against Trump, accusing him of battery in connection to alleged rape

Carroll, a writer, has said since 2019 that Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in Manhattan in the fall of 1995 or spring of 1996. E. Jean Carroll (left) and former President Donald Trump (right).Getty/Getty E. Jean Carroll has filed a second lawsuit against former President Donald Trump. The new lawsuit accuses him of battery and a second act of defamation for denying he raped her. Carroll alleges Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s. Writer E. Jean Carroll filed a second lawsuit against former President Donald Trump on Thursday, accusing him of battery and defamation.The second complaint stems from Carroll's allegation that Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s.Carroll filed the suit just after midnight, the moment a new law went into effect allowing her to make the complaint decades after the alleged attack. Writing on her Substack, Carroll said she hoped the suit would "ruin" Trump's Thanksgiving.The longtime Elle advice columnist first went public with the story in an excerpt from her memoir published by New York Magazine in June 2019, when Trump was still president.When Trump loudly denied the story, saying he didn't know Carroll and she wasn't even his "type," Carroll sued him for defamation.Now Carroll is filing a second lawsuit against Trump for additional comments calling Carroll's story a "Hoax and a lie" in October, and for battery. Carroll previously hadn't been able to sue Trump for the alleged rape itself, because the statue of limitations had expired.But she now has that power thanks toa New York law that went into effect on Thursday, the same day Carroll filed the suit. For one year, the Adult Survivors Act allows the filing of sexual assault lawsuits in cases where the statute of limitations had expired.Carroll has said that she ran into Trump sometime in the fall of 1995 or spring of 1996, at the Bergdorf Goodman department store on New York City's Fifth Avenue.After getting into "playful banter" while helping Trump shop for a girlfriend, the lawsuit says things "took a dark turn" when Trump "forced her up against a dressing room wall, pinned her in place with his shoulder, and raped her."While Carroll didn't use the word "rape" in her memoir, she later said that accurately described what happened to her.In the new lawsuit, Carroll's lawyers say the alleged assault caused her "significant pain and suffering, lasting psychological and pecuniary harms, loss of dignity and self-esteem, and invasion of her privacy.""As a result of the pain and suffering caused by Trump's sexual assault, Carroll has not been able to sustain a romantic relationship since the day Trump raped her. Nor has she engaged in sex with anyone since that time," the lawsuit reads. "Carroll has had difficulty trusting men and cannot maintain an intimate relationship. In Carroll's own words the 'music had stopped' and the 'light had gone out' after Trump attacked her at Bergdorf's."In a court filing on November 17, Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, asked that the original defamation case and the second complaint be tried together. Accordingly, Kaplan requested that the trial date be pushed from February to April 2023.In the last year of Trump's presidency, the Department of Justice intervened in the case, arguing that federal law protected him from being sued for comments he made while acting as a public servant. President Joe Biden's DOJ has continued to make this argument.Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, for the Southern District of New York, initially ruled in Carroll's favor, saying federal law did not shield Trump. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals initially overturned that ruling, but ultimately passed the case to the DC Court of Appeals, which will rule on the matter after oral arguments in January.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: smallbizSource: nytNov 24th, 2022

E. Jean Carroll files a new lawsuit on Thanksgiving accusing Trump of rape

Carroll, who had already sued for defamation, previously hadn't been able to sue Trump for the alleged rape because of the statue of limitations. E. Jean Carroll (left) and former President Donald Trump (right).Getty/Getty E. Jean Carroll has filed a second lawsuit against former President Donald Trump. The new lawsuit accuses him of battery and a second act of defamation for denying he raped her. Carroll alleges Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s. Writer E. Jean Carroll filed a second lawsuit against former President Donald Trump on Thursday, accusing him of battery and defamation.The second complaint stems from Carroll's allegation that Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s.Carroll filed the suit just after midnight, the moment a new law went into effect allowing her to make the complaint decades after the alleged attack. Writing on her Substack, Carroll said she knew the suit might "ruin" Trump's Thanksgiving."The new suit may ruin the former president's Thanksgiving," she wrote, "but it will be nourishing to every woman who's ever been grabbed, groped, harassed, pinched, prodded, assaulted, smeared or dragged through the mud by a powerful man."Roberta Kaplan, one of Carroll's attorneys, issued a statement to Insider on Thursday, saying her client "intends to hold Donald Trump accountable not only for defaming her, but also for sexually assaulting her, which he did years ago in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman."Alina Habba, an attorney for Trump, did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment Thursday.The longtime Elle advice columnist first went public with the story in an excerpt from her memoir published by New York Magazine in June 2019, when Trump was still president.When Trump loudly denied the story, saying he didn't know Carroll and she wasn't even his "type," Carroll sued him for defamation.Now Carroll is filing a second lawsuit against Trump for additional comments calling Carroll's story a "Hoax and a lie" in October, and for battery. Carroll previously hadn't been able to sue Trump for the alleged rape itself, because the statue of limitations had expired.But she now has that power thanks to a New York law that went into effect on Thursday, the same day Carroll filed the suit. For one year, the Adult Survivors Act allows the filing of sexual assault lawsuits in cases where the statute of limitations had expired.Carroll has said that she ran into Trump sometime in the fall of 1995 or spring of 1996, at the Bergdorf Goodman department store on New York City's Fifth Avenue.After getting into "playful banter" while helping Trump shop for a girlfriend, the lawsuit says things "took a dark turn" when Trump "forced her up against a dressing room wall, pinned her in place with his shoulder, and raped her."While Carroll didn't use the word "rape" in her memoir, she later said that accurately described what happened to her.In the new lawsuit, Carroll's lawyers say the alleged rape caused her "significant pain and suffering, lasting psychological and pecuniary harms, loss of dignity and self-esteem, and invasion of her privacy.""As a result of the pain and suffering caused by Trump's sexual assault, Carroll has not been able to sustain a romantic relationship since the day Trump raped her. Nor has she engaged in sex with anyone since that time," the lawsuit reads. "Carroll has had difficulty trusting men and cannot maintain an intimate relationship. In Carroll's own words the 'music had stopped' and the 'light had gone out' after Trump attacked her at Bergdorf's."In a court filing on November 17, Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, asked that the original defamation case and the second complaint be tried together. Accordingly, Kaplan requested that the trial date be pushed from February to April 2023.In the last year of Trump's presidency, the Department of Justice intervened in the case, arguing that federal law protected him from being sued for comments he made while acting as a public servant. President Joe Biden's DOJ has continued to make this argument.Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, for the Southern District of New York, initially ruled in Carroll's favor, saying federal law did not shield Trump. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals initially overturned that ruling, but ultimately passed the case to the DC Court of Appeals, which will rule on the matter after oral arguments in January.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 24th, 2022

Donald Trump"s docket: The latest on key cases and investigations centered on the ex-president and his businesses

Donald Trump and his business are tangled in at least a dozen significant federal and local investigations and lawsuits. Here's the latest on all of them. Former President Donald Trump addresses the America First Agenda Summit in Washington, DC, on July 26, 2022.Drew Angerer/Getty Images Trump and his businesses are tangled in at least a dozen significant investigations and lawsuits. Under inquiry are Trump's alleged mishandling of sensitive documents, efforts to overturn the US election and possible financial wrongdoing. Check back here for updates on Trump's legal troubles, and for details on what's coming next. It's hard to keep track of Donald Trump's very busy legal docket. The former president is the subject of at least four major investigations into wrongdoing relating to his handling of White House documents, the election, the insurrection, and his finances — probes based in Florida, Fulton County, Georgia; Washington, D.C., and New York.Trump's business also remains under indictment in Manhattan for an alleged payroll tax-dodge scheme. On top of all that, Trump is fighting or bringing a grab-bag of important lawsuits that could financially cripple his international real estate and golf resort empire.Keep up to date on the latest of Trump's legal travails, both criminal and civil, with this guide to the ever-evolving Trump docket.Indictments Trump with his former CFO Allen Weisselberg at Trump Tower in 2017.Evan Vucci/APThe Trump Organization Payroll Case The Parties: The Manhattan DA is prosecuting The Trump Organization. The Issues: Trump's real estate and golf resort business is accused of giving its executives pricey perks and benefits that were never reported as income to taxing authorities.The company's co-defendant, former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, has pleaded guilty to the 15-year, payroll tax-dodge scheme.As part of his August 18, 2022 plea deal, Weisselberg agreed to serve 5 months in jail and pay back $2 million in back taxes and penalties.What's next: Weisselberg also agreed to testify for the prosecution if lawyers for the Trump Organization fight the indictment at trial; an October 24 trial date has been set.Weisselberg would describe to jurors a tax-dodge scheme in which company executives, himself included, received some pay in off-the-books compensation that included free apartments, cars, and tuition reimbursement. But Weisselberg is hardly the ideal prosecution witness. He still works for Trump Org as a special advisor, and Trump's side is hoping to turn his testimony to its advantage.The Trump Organization could face steep fines if convicted of conspiring in the scheme by omitting the compensation from federal, state, and city tax documents and by failing to withhold and pay taxes on that compensation.Criminal InvestigationsFulton County Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis in Atlanta, on Jan. 4, 2022.AP Photo/Ben Gray, FileThe Fulton County election interference probeThe parties: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Trump, and his Republican associates The issues: Willis is investigating whether Trump and his associates tried to interfere in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Her probe has expanded to also include investigating an alleged scheme to send a fake slate of electors to Georgia's state Capitol in an attempt to overturn the elections.She's notified Rudy Giuliani, Trump's former personal attorney, that he's a target in the investigation. Giuliani testified for six hours under court order on August 17.What's next: A federal appeals court temporarily halted on Sunday a court order for Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to testify before the Fulton County special grand jury on Tuesday, August 23.Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC.Jon Cherry/Getty ImagesThe Justice Department investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 electionThe parties: Federal investigators are increasingly scrutinizing the role Trump and his allies played in the effort to overturn the 2020 election.The issues: The Justice Department is facing pressure to prosecute following a string of congressional hearings that connected the former president to the violence of January 6, 2021, and to efforts to prevent the peaceful handoff of power.In a series of eight hearings, the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol described Trump's conduct in criminal terms and pointed to an April court decision in which a federal judge said the former president likely committed crimes in his effort to hold onto power. In that ruling, Judge David Carter called Trump's scheme a "coup in search of a legal theory."Prosecutors have asked witnesses directly about Trump's involvement in the effort to reverse his loss in the 2020 election and are likely to issue more subpoenas and search warrants in the weeks ahead.In June, federal investigators searched the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who advanced Trump's baseless claims of election fraud.On the same day, federal agents seized the phone of John Eastman, a lawyer who helped advise Trump on how to overturn the 2020 election. A top prosecutor in the Justice Department's inquiry, Thomas Windom, revealed in late July that investigators had obtained a se cord warrant allowing a search of Eastman's phone. Rep. Liz Cheney, the top Republican on the panel, lost her primary bid for reelection on August 16. What's next:  The Justice Department has remained largely silent about how and whether it would consider charges against Trump, but in July, prosecutors asked witnesses directly about the former president's involvement in the attempt to reverse his electoral defeat. FBI agents descended on Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, with a search warrant.Darren SamuelsohnThe Justice Department investigation into the handling of classified documentsThe parties: The FBI searched Trump's estate in South Florida, Mar-a-Lago, on August 8 as part of an investigation into the possible mishandling of government records, including classified documents. Trump and his lawyers alleged prosecutorial misconduct and condemned the search as politically motivated.The issues: Early in 2022, Trump turned over 15 boxes of documents — including some marked as classified and "top secret" — to the National Archives. But federal investigators scrutinizing the former president's handling of records reportedly grew suspicious that Trump or people close to him still retained some key records. The FBI seized about a dozen boxes of additional documents during the raid of Mar-a-Lago, in a search that immediately demonstrated how Trump's handling of records from his administration remains an area of legal jeopardy.What's next: A federal judge in South Florida granted Trump's request for an outside arbiter — known as a special master — to review the more than 11,000 documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago, including about 100 records marked as classified. Judge Aileen Cannon halted the review of those records as part of the Justice Department's criminal inquiry but said intelligence agencies could continue assessing the potential national security risk raised by Trump's hoarding of government records at his West Palm Beach estate. In response, the Justice Department said that bifurcation was unworkable and that Cannon's order had effectively paused the national security assessment.The Justice Department asked Cannon to exclude the 100 classified documents from the special master review. If she declines to do so by September 15, the Justice Department signaled that it would go to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.Lawsuits against TrumpThe front page of the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James accusing former President Donald Trump, his family and his business of a decade of padding his net worth to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in bank loans and tax breaks.Jon Elswick/APThe NY AG's civil filing against the Trump family and Trump OrganizationThe parties: New York Attorney General Letitia James has sued Trump, his family and the Trump Organization.The issues: James says she has uncovered a decade-long pattern of financial wrongdoing at Trump's multi-billion-dollar hotel and golf resort empire.She alleges Trump falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in bank loans, and low-balled his properties' worth for tax breaks. Trump has derided the AG's efforts as a politically motivated witch hunt.The 220-page lawsuit arose from a three year investigation and makes multiple, corporation-crippling demands that would eventually be decided by a Manhattan judge.The demands include that the company pay back $250 million Trump allegedly pocketed by misleading banks about his worth. It further requests that Trump and his three eldest children — Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump, who have all served as Trump Organization executives — be permanently barred from running a company in New York state.Th suit also demands that for the next five years, an independent receiver be put in place to monitor the company's finances and that Donald Trump be personally barred from purchasing property in New York or borrowing from a New York-registered bank over those same five years.Perhaps most extremely, it asks the judge to pull the Trump Organization's New York papers of incorporation. That's the charter that lets Trump draw revenue from his New York properties, including the lucrative commercial rents at his Manhattan skyscrapers. These hamstringing demands, if ordered by a judge, would run Trump's corporate headquarters out of New York. Trump would also be barred from selling, buying, collecting rent from or borrowing against any property in New York, potentially putting the Trump Organization out of business entirely. What's next:  Barring a settlement, next comes an "eye-glazing" litigation slog — legal filings, courtroom arguments, decisions and appeals — that could go on for two years before a trial can decide if anything material actually happens to the Trumps and the family business. But in announcing her office's lawsuit, the AG also revealed that she has referred her findings of alleged financial and tax fraud to federal prosecutors in New York and to the Internal Revenue Service.Either of those referrals could more quickly result in federal criminal charges and a bill for millions of dollars in back taxes and penalties.Supporters of then-President Donald Trump protest inside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DCBrent Stirton/Getty ImagesLawsuits alleging 'incitement' on January 6The Parties: House Democrats and two Capitol police officers accused Trump of inciting the violent mob on January 6.The Issues: Trump's lawyers have argued that his time as president grants him immunity that shields him from civil liability in connection with his January 6 address at the Ellipse, where he urged supporters to "fight like hell."A federal judge rejected Trump's bid to dismiss the civil lawsuits, ruling that his rhetoric on January 6 was "akin to telling an excited mob that corn-dealers starve the poor in front of the corn-dealer's home."Judge Amit Mehta said Trump later displayed a tacit agreement with the mob minutes after rioters breached the Capitol when he sent a tweet admonishing then-Vice President Mike Pence for lacking the "courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country."What's Next: Trump has appealed Mehta's ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and requested an oral argument. In a late July court filing, Trump's lawyers said the immunity afforded to the former president cannot be "undercut if the presidential act in question is unpopular among the judiciary."Trump leaves Trump Tower in Manhattan on October 18, 2021 in New York City.James Devaney/GC ImagesGalicia v. TrumpThe Parties: Lead plaintiff Efrain Galicia and four other protesters of Mexican heritage have sued Trump, his security personnel, and his 2016 campaign in New York.The issues: They say Donald Trump sicced his security guards on their peaceful, legal protest outside Trump Tower in 2015. The plaintiffs had been demonstrating with parody "Make America Racist Again" campaign signs to protest Trump's speech announcing his first campaign for president, during which he accused Mexican immigrants of being "rapists" and drug dealers. Trump fixer-turned-critic Michael Cohen said in a deposition that Trump directly ordered security to "get rid of" the protesters; Trump said in his own deposition that he didn't even know a protest was going on until the next day. His security guards have said in depositions that they were responding to aggression by the protesters.What's next: Trial is set for jury selection on October 31 in NY Supreme Court in the Bronx.Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll is pictured in New York in 2020.Seth Wenig/APE. Jean Carroll v. TrumpThe Parties: Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for defamation in federal court in Manhattan in June 2019.The Issues: Carroll's lawsuit alleges Trump defamed her after she publicly accused him of raping her in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in Manhattan in the mid-90s.Trump responded to Carroll's allegation by saying it was untrue and that she was "not my type." Trump also denied ever meeting Carroll, despite a photo to the contrary.What's next: Arrangements for the sharing of evidence are ongoing behind the scenes, including for the possible collection of Trump's DNA.Carroll has said she wants to compare Trump's DNA with unidentified male DNA on a dress she wore during the alleged rape. The trial is tentatively set for Feb. 6, 2023; Carroll has said she would never settle the case.Carroll's lawyers say they are also getting ready to additionally sue Trump for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.Although Carroll's allegations are more than 30 years old, a New York law that takes effect on November 24 — the Adult Survivors Act — gives sex assault victims a one-year window to file civil cases regardless of when the incident occurred, so long as they were 18 or older at the time.  Donald Trump, right, sits with his children, from left, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump during a groundbreaking ceremony for the Trump International Hotel on July 23, 2014, in Washington.Evan Vucci/APThe 'multi-level marketing' pyramid scheme caseThe Parties: Lead plaintiff Catherine McKoy and three others sued Trump, his business, and his three eldest children, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump, in 2018 in federal court in Manhattan.The Issues: Donald Trump is accused of promoting a scam multi-level marketing scheme on "The Celebrity Apprentice." The lawsuit alleges Trump pocketed $8.8 million from the scheme — but that they lost thousands of dollars. Trump's side has complained that the lawsuit is a politically motivated attack. What's Next: The parties say in court filings that they are working to meet an August 31 deadline for the completion of depositions. Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, testifies before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill February 27, 2019 in Washington, DC.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesMichael Cohen's 'imprisonment' caseThe Parties: Trump fixer-turned-critic Michael Cohen sued Donald Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and more than a dozen federal prison officials and employees, in federal court in Manhattan in 2021.The Issues: The president's former personal attorney is seeking $20 million in damages relating to the time he spent in prison for financial crimes and lying to Congress about Trump's dealings in Congress. Cohen says in his suit that he had been moved to home confinement for three months in the spring of 2020 due to the pandemic, but was then vindictively thrown into solitary confinement when he refused to stop speaking to the press and writing a tell-all book about his former boss. A judge ordered him released after 16 days.What's Next: A decision is pending on defense motions to dismiss the case.Singer Eddy Grant performs in concert in honor of Nelson Mandela in Hyde Park, London June 27, 2008.Andrew Winning/ReutersThe Electric Avenue copyright caseThe Parties: Eddy Grant, the composer/performer behind the 80s disco-reggae mega-hit "Electric Avenue," sued Donald Trump and his campaign in federal court in Manhattan in 2020.The Issues: Grant is seeking $300,000 compensation for copyright infringement. His suit says that Trump made unauthorized use of the 1983 dance floor staple during the 2020 campaign. About 40 seconds of the song played in the background of a Biden-bashing animation that Trump posted to his Twitter account. The animation was viewed 13 million times before being taken down a month later. Trump has countered that the animation was political satire and so exempt from copyright infringement claims. He's also said that the campaign merely reposted the animation and have no idea where it came from.What's Next: There was an August 21 deposition completion deadline for both sides — including for Trump and Grant. Pretrial motions are not due to be filed until October.Mary Trump speaks to Katie Phang on MSNBC on June 17, 2022.MSNBCMary Trump v. Donald TrumpThe Parties: The former president's niece sued him and his siblings in 2020 in the state Supreme Court in Manhattan.The Issues: Mary Trump alleges that she was cheated out of at least $10 million in a 2001 court settlement over the estate of her late father, Fred Trump, Sr. Mary Trump alleges she only learned by helping with a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times article that she'd been defrauded by her Uncle Donald, her aunt, Maryanne Trump Barry, and the late Robert Trump, whose estate is named as a defendant.The Times' 18-month investigation "revealed a business empire riddled with tax dodges," the Pulitzer Committee said in praising the piece. Lawyers for the Trumps have countered that it's far too late for Mary Trump to sue over a 2001 settlement that she had knowingly participated in.What's next: The defendants' motion to dismiss, including on statute of limitations grounds, is still pending.Lawsuits brought by Trump Donald Trump v. Mary Trump The Parties: The former president counter-sued his niece Mary Trump — and the New York Times — in 2021 in New York state Supreme Court in Dutchess County.The Issues: Mary Trump, the Times and three of its reporters  "maliciously conspired" against him, Trump alleges, by collaborating with the Times on its expose of and breaching the confidentiality of the family's 2001 settlement of the estate of Mary Trump's father, Fred Trump, Sr. What's Next: Mary Trump's motion to dismiss is pending in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, where the case has since been transferred to.Hillary Clinton.Photo by: Mike Smith/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty ImagesDonald Trump v. Hillary ClintonThe Parties: Trump has sued Hillary Clinton, her campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and prominent Democrats including former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in a federal court in southern Florida in March, 2022.The Issues:  Trump alleged in this unusual use of federal racketeering statutes that Clinton and her campaign staff conspired to harm his 2016 run for president by promoting a "contrived Trump-Russia link." The defendants succeeded in getting the massive lawsuit dismissed in September; a federal judge in Florida said the suit was structurally flawed and called it "a two-hundred-page political manifesto" in which Trump detailed "his grievances against those that have opposed him."What's Next: Trump's side has promised to appeal the dismissal.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytSep 23rd, 2022

E. Jean Carroll is suing Trump again. Here"s a rundown of all the pending litigation between the two.

E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of rape in a 2019 essay and sued him for defamation because of how he responded. Now she's planning to sue again. E. Jean Carroll (left) and former President Donald Trump (right).Getty/Getty E. Jean Carroll, who alleges Trump raped her, sued him for defamation more than three years ago. Carroll plans to file a second lawsuit next week, alleging another defamation complaint and battery. Insider breaks down where the pending litigation between Carroll and Trump stands.  More than three years after E. Jean Carroll first accused former President Donald Trump of rape, she's finally getting the opportunity to sue him for the alleged assault thanks to a new New York law.On Thanksgiving, the New York Adult Survivors Act goes into effect, temporarily allowing the filing of sexual assault lawsuit in cases where the statue of limitations have expired. That's the day that Carroll plans to file a new lawsuit against Trump, accusing him of battery and defamation, her lawyer explained in a November 17 court filing. This will be the second lawsuit that Carroll, a longtime advice columnist for Elle magazine, has filed against Trump, after lodging a separate defamation suit against the then-president in November 2019.With multiple hearings in different courts coming up, Insider breaks down all of the pending litigation between Carroll and Trump, who recently announced he's running for president again in 2024.A traumatic meeting in a department storeCarroll first accused Trump of rape in her memoir, which was excerpted ahead of publication by New York Magazine in June 2019. In the excerpt, Carroll described running into Trump at the Bergdorf Goodman department store sometime in the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996. She described her and Trump getting into a lighthearted exchange in the lingerie section before Trump got Carroll into a dressing room, pinned her against a wall, and proceeded to assault her, she wrote. While Carroll didn't actually use the word "rape" in her essay, she later said that accurately described what happened to her.Carroll never reported the incident to the police but said she told two friends about the alleged assault afterward. She also said she kept the dress she wore that day, which has been analyzed for DNA. Carroll's legal team has requested a sample of Trump's DNA to compare with the analysis of Carroll's dress, but it's unclear from court documents if they've obtained a sample yet. Carroll's first lawsuit After her essay was published, Trump denied Carroll's allegation in a series of statements to the press in June 2019, saying Carroll's "not my type," and suggesting that she made the story up to sell her memoir. Five months later, Carroll sued Trump for defamation, alleging he attacked her reputation by claiming she made the story up. That lawsuit took a turn a year after it was filed when the Justice Department, headed by then Trump-appointee Attorney General Bill Barr, intervened in the case in an effort to have Trump removed as a defendant and replaced with "USA." The DOJ's reasoning was that Trump made his comments about Carroll while acting as president, legally protecting him from being sued as an individual for his work as a public servant. When the Biden administration took over, the DOJ continued intervening to try to remove Trump from the case. Judge Lewis Kaplan denied the DOJ's motion to replace Trump as a defendant in October 2020, but Trump's team appealed the following month. While the Second Circuit Court of Appeals initially ruled in Trump's favor that federal law shielded Trump from being sued personally, the court eventually kicked the issue to the DC Court of Appeals. That court will weigh in on the issue of whether Trump can be personally sued after hearing oral arguments in January.Trump also tried and failed to countersue Carroll, but Kaplan blocked that move in March, saying the timing of Trump's effort appeared to be a "bad faith" attempt to delay the proceedings.What's next?Carroll's lawyers are planning to file an additional lawsuit against Trump on November 24, alleging a second act of defamation for statements he made on October 12, on Truth Social, calling Carroll's allegation "a Hoax and a lie." That lawsuit will also include a battery claim against Trump for the alleged sexual assault, her attorneys said in a court filing on Thursday. In the filing, Carroll's lawyers asked that the two cases, including a total of three claims, be tried together, and that the trial date be pushed from February 6 to April 10, 2023.  Roberta Kaplan, Carroll's lawyer, declined to comment when reached by Insider on Friday. Representatives for Trump did not respond to a request for comment. Alina Habba, an attorney for Trump, told The New York Times on Thursday that the filing was "completely inappropriate and we will take up this issue with the court."Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: smallbizSource: nytNov 19th, 2022

Masseur files lawsuit against Kevin Spacey accusing him of sexual battery and false imprisonment

Kevin Winter/Getty Images Kevin Spacey is being sued for false imprisonment and sexual battery in a lawsuit filed earlier this week.  The lawsuit stems from an alleged incident at his Malibu, Cal.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderSep 30th, 2018

Trump"s suggestion that E. Jean Carroll was "too ugly to rape" was too personal to be official business, appeal says

Trump's lawyers argue he can't be sued for statements he made about Carroll while acting as president in 2019. Donald Trump and E. Jean CarrollGetty/Getty The DC Court of Appeals is deciding whether Trump can be sued for comments about E. Jean Carroll. Trump's lawyers argue he's legally protected from being sued for remarks he made as president. Carroll's team argues that Trump's denials of her rape allegation fell outside the scope of his job. When then-President Donald Trump fiercely denied E. Jean Carroll's decades-old rape allegation in statements to the press in 2019, his words were so "malicious" and "humiliating" that they can't possibly be interpreted as being part of his job, Carroll's lawyers argued in court papers filed Thursday. In a June 2019 essay for New York Magazine, Carroll accused Trump of raping her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s.When Trump loudly denied Carroll's allegation — saying he didn't know her, she's not his "type," and that she made the allegation up to sell her memoir — Carroll sued him for defamation.The case is currently in limbo after the Department of Justice intervened in an effort to get Trump removed from the lawsuit, arguing that he's covered by a federal law — the Westfall Act — that protects federal employees from being personally sued for actions committed in the course of their jobs. While trial Judge Lewis A. Kaplan sided with Carroll, saying the Westfall Act doesn't apply, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was split 2-1 in favor of Trump — but ultimately pushed the case to the DC Court of Appeals, since the matter concerns DC law. The DC Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments in the case in January, and ahead of that hearing, both sides submitted briefs spelling out their arguments.  Trump's lawyers argue that since he was talking to the press, which is part of any president's job, his comments about Carroll are protected under the Westfall Act.But Carroll's lawyers argue in their brief, filed Thursday, that previous court rulings show the law is more nuanced. "As this Court has repeatedly held, the fact that an employee is on duty (or is doing the kind of work he is employed to perform) is never the end of the inquiry. Instead it is just one among several factors in a scope-of-employment analysis," the brief reads. The bombastic way Trump denied Carroll's accusation in statements to the press are evidence that he was acting out of a personal motivation and not in his role as president, Carroll's lawyers argue. Trump "did not simply deny Carroll's claim ... he attacked her three times over four days. He implied that she was too ugly to rape. He accused her of falsifying experiences of sexual assault by other men. He concocted dark schemes and nefarious motives," Carroll's lawyers wrote in the brief. "Trump sought to destroy and humiliate Carroll after she revealed that he had raped her decades ago. There is no basis here to find that Trump had any presidential obligation to make these statements, or that Trump did so to advance any federal purpose," the brief adds. Carroll's lawyers go on to say that ruling in favor of Trump would go against constitutional values and set a dangerous precedent for the presidency, saying, "a White House job is not a promise of unlimited authority to brutalize victims of prior wrongdoing through vicious, personal, defamatory attacks. That is not the law — and this court should not make it so," Carroll's lawyers wrote. An attorney for Trump did not immediately return Insider's request for comment on Friday. Whether Trump can be sued in this case will hinge on the DC Appeals Court decision, but even if the court rules in his favor, he'll have a hard time running away from Carroll's allegations. On Thanksgiving, Carroll filed a second lawsuit against Trump, claiming battery and a second act of defamation.A New York law that went into effect on Thanksgiving allows Carroll to sue Trump for the alleged sexual assault even though the statute of limitations has expired.Her second claim of defamation centers on Trump's further denials of the alleged rape in statements on Truth social in October. Since he made those comments while no longer in office, he won't be able to claim the Westfall Act in that case. Carroll's lawyers want the two cases tried at the same time. Currently, the first defamation case is set for trial in April. Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytDec 2nd, 2022

A new NY law lets sexual assault survivors file new lawsuits, even if the statute of limitations has expired

Under a new New York law, the writer E. Jean Carroll filed a second lawsuit against former President Donald Trump for battery and defamation. New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the act into law in May.REUTERS/Cindy Schultz A new New York law lets survivors of sexual assault file new lawsuits regardless of how far in the past the abuse occurred.  The Adult Survivors Act went into effect on Thursday, giving survivors a one-year window to file civil suits.  E. Jean Carroll, who says former President Donald Trump raped her in the 1990s, sued him for defamation and battery on Thursday.  Adult survivors of sexual assault in New York can now take legal action against their alleged attackers even if the statute of limitations on the crime has expired. The Adult Survivors Act, which New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law in May, went into effect on Thursday. It gives survivors a one-year window to file civil suits against individuals they accuse of sexual abuse, regardless of how far in the past that abuse occurred. The law also lets survivors sue organizations, like schools, businesses, and religious institutions, that were allegedly complicit in any wrongdoing.To qualify, survivors must have been 18 years or older when the abuse occurred. A previous New York law, the Child Victims Act, extended similar rights to minors. "While our work is not done, eradicating sexual assault begins with our ability to bring the perpetrators of these heinous acts to justice and this legislation is a historic step forward," Hochul said at the time of the law's signing. The act allowed E. Jean Carroll, the writer who alleges that former President Donald Trump raped her in 1995 or 1996, to sue Trump for defamation and battery on Thursday morning. "Dearest friends, tonight, a few minutes after midnight, we filed the rape suit against the former president," Carroll said in a statement. "The new suit may ruin the former president's Thanksgiving, but it will be nourishing to every woman who's ever been grabbed, groped, harassed, pinched, prodded, assaulted, smeared or dragged through the mud by a powerful man."The law is likely to kick off a deluge of new lawsuits, including hundreds from women who suffered abuse in the New York prison system. The New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision previously told Insider that it has "zero tolerance for sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and unauthorized relationships."Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 24th, 2022

Spooky Torts: The 2022 List Of Litigation Horrors

Spooky Torts: The 2022 List Of Litigation Horrors Authored by Jonathan Turley, Here is my annual list of Halloween torts and crimes. Halloween of course remains a holiday seemingly designed for personal injury lawyers around the world and this year’s additions show why. Halloween has everything for a torts-filled holiday: battery, trespass, defamation, nuisance, product liability and more. Particularly with the recent tragedy in South Korea, our annual listing is not intended to belittle the serious losses that can occur on this and other holidays. However, my students and I often discuss the remarkably wide range of torts that comes with All Hallow’s Eve. So, with no further ado, here is this year’s updated list of actual cases related to Halloween. In October 2021, Danielle Thomas, former exotic dancer known as “Pole Assassin” (and the girlfriend of Texas special teams coach Jeff Banks), found herself embroiled in a Halloween tort after the monkey previously used in her act bit a wandering child at the house of horror she created for Halloween. Thomas considers the monkey Gia to be her “emotional support animal.” Thomas goes all out for the holiday and converted her home into a house of horrors, including a maze. She said that the area with Gia was closed off and, as for petting, “no one is allowed to touch her!”  She publicly insisted “No one was viciously attack this a lie, a whole lie! She was not apart of any haunted house, the kid did not have permission to be on the other side of my property!” She even posted a walk-through video of the scene to show the steps that a child would have to take to get to the monkey. Don’t worry folks I got the #MonkeyGate video pic.twitter.com/TAy6leBqDS — Christian Sykes (@ctsykes13) November 2, 2021 She insists in the video that she knows all of the governing legal rules and shows the path in detail. It is not helpful on the defense side: it is not a long path and easy to see how a child might get lost. She later deleted her account (likely after her attorney regained consciousness). The case raises an array of torts including animal liability, licensee liability, negligence, and attractive nuisance claims. In 2022, we often added conversion to the usual torts where multiple versions of the new giant skeleton were stolen, including one particularly ham-handed effort in Austin, Texas caught on video tape: * * * In Berea, Ohio, the promoters of the 7 Floors of Hell haunted house at the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds appreciate realism but one employee took it a bit too far. An actor brandished this real bowie knife as a prop while pretending to stab an 11-year-old boy’s foot. He then stabbed him. The accident occurred when the actor, 22, approached the boy and stabbed at the ground as a scare tactic. He got too close and accidentally cut through the child’s shoe, piercing a toe. The injury was not serious since the boy was treated at the scene and continued through the haunted house. The case raises an interesting question of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts by employees in the course of employment. The question is what is in the scope of employment.  The question is often whether an employee was on a “detour” or “frolic.”  A detour can be outside of an employer’s policies or guidelines but will be the basis for liability as sufficiently related to the employment.  A frolic is a more serious deviation where the employee is acting in his own capacity or for his own interests. In this case, the actor was clearly within his scope of employment in trying to scare the visitors. However, he admitted that he bought the knife in his personal capacity and agreed it “was not a good idea” to use it at the haunted house, according to FOX 8. That still does not negate the negligence — both direct and vicarious liability. There was a failure to monitor employees and safeguard the scene. His negligence is also likely attributable to the employer. Finally, this would constitute battery as a reckless, though unintended, act. * * * In 2020, parents in Indiana were given a warning in a Facebook post that the Indiana State Police seized holiday edibles featuring packaging that resembles that of actual name brands — but with the word “medicated” printed on the wrapper along with cannabis symbols. The packaging makes it easy for homeowners to confuse packages and give out drugged candy.  Indeed, last year, two children were given THC-infused gummies while trick-or-treating, according to police in Waterford, Conn.. Such candies include the main active ingredient linked to the psychedelic effects of cannabis – the plant from which marijuana is derived. Even an accidental distribution of such infused candies would constitute child endangerment and be subject to both negligence and strict liability actions in torts. * * * I previously have written how the fear of razor blades in apples appears an urban legend. Well, give it enough time and someone will prove you wrong. That is the allegation of Waterbury, Connecticut police who say that Jason A. Racz, 37, put razor blades in candy bags of at least two trick-or-treaters. Racz’ razor defense may not be particularly convincing to the average juror. According to police, “Racz explained that the razor blades were accidentally spilled or put into the candy bowl he used to hand out candy from.” However, police noted that he “provided no explanation as to how the razor blades were handed out to the children along with the candy.” The charge was brought soon after Halloween in 2019. Racz is now charged with risk of injury to a minor, reckless endangerment and interfering with a police officer. He could also be charged with battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it is not clear if any children were injured. *  *  * Steven Novak, an artist from Dallas, Texas, believes that Halloween should be a bit more than a traditional plastic pumpkin and a smiling ghost.  Police were called to his home in Texas over a possible murder. They found a dummy impaled on a chainsaw with fake blood; another dummy hanging from his roof; a wheelbarrow full of fake dismembered body parts and other gory scenes.  Neighbors called the display too traumatizing.  Police responded by taking pictures for their families. A tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is likely to fail. There must be not just outrageous conduct but conduct intended to cause severe emotional distress. Courts regularly exclude injuries associated with the exercise of free speech or artistic expression . . . even when accompanied by buckets of fake blood. *  *  * The Dorney Park and Wildwater Kingdom in Pennsylvania tells customers that, if they come to their Halloween Haunt, “Fear is waiting for you.” In 2019, a new case was filed by Shannon Sacco and her daughter over injuries sustained from “unreasonable scaring.” They are seeking $150,000. The Allentown Morning Call reported that “M.S.” went with friends to the amusement park and was immediately approached by costumed characters. She said that she told them that she did not want to be scared and backed away. A little further on into the park however a costumed employee allegedly ran up behind her and shouted loudly. The startled girl fell forward and suffered what were serious but unspecified injuries. She alleges ongoing medical issues and inability to return to fully functioning activities. The lawsuit also alleges that the park failed to inform Sacco or her daughter that they could buy a glow-in-the-dark “No Boo” necklace to ward off costumed employees. The obvious issue beyond the alleged negligence of the Park is the plaintiffs’ own conduct. Pennsylvania is a comparative negligence state so contributory negligence by the plaintiffs would not be a bar to recovery. See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102. However, it is a modified comparative negligence state so they must show that they are 50 percent or less at fault. If they are found 51 percent at fault, they are barred entirely from recovery. Even if they can recover, their damages are reduced by the percentage of their own fault in going to a park during a Halloween-themed event. *  *  * In 2019, there is a rare public petition to shutdown a haunted house that has been declared to be a “torture chamber.” The move to “shut down McKamey Manor” that has been signed by thousands who believe Russ McKamey, the owner of McKamey Manor, has made his house so scary that it constitutes torture, including an allegation of waterboarding of visitors. The haunted house requires participants to get a doctor’s note and sign a 40-page waiver before they enter. People are seeking the closure of the houses located in Summertown, Tennessee and Huntsville, Alabama. McKamey insists that it is just a “crazy haunted house” and stops well short of the legal-definition of torture. The question is whether consent vitiates any extreme frights or contacts. He is also clear in both the waiver and the website that the house is an “extreme haunted attraction” for legal adults who “must be in GREAT HEALTH to participate.” Not only do people enter with full knowledge but there is no charge. McKamey owns five dogs and only requires a bag of dog food for entry. Presumably the food is cursed. *  *  * An earlier case was recently made public from an accident on October 15, 2011 in San Diego. Scott Griffin and friends went to the Haunted Trail in San Diego. The ticket warns of “high-impact scares” along a mile path with actors brandishing weapons and scary items. Griffen, 44, and his friends went on the trail and were going out of what they thought was an exit. Suddenly an actor jumped out as part of what the attraction called “the Carrie effect” of a last minute scare. While Griffen said that he tried to back away, the actor followed him with a running chain saw. He fell backwards and injured his wrists. The 2013 lawsuit against the Haunted Hotel, Inc., in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleged negligence and assault. However, Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal granted a motion to dismiss based on assumption of the risk. She noted that Griffin “was still within the scare experience that he purchased.” After all, “Who would want to go to a haunted house that is not scary?” Griffen then appealed and the attorney for the Haunted Hotel quoted Hunter S. Thompson: “Buy the ticket, take the ride.” Again, the court agreed. In upholding the lower court, Justice Gilbert Nares wrote, “Being chased within the physical confines of the Haunted Trail by a chain saw–carrying maniac is a fundamental part and inherent risk of this amusement. Griffin voluntarily paid money to experience it.” *  *  * In 2018, a case emerged in Madison, Tennessee from the Nashville Nightmare Haunted House.   James “Jay” Yochim and three of his pals went to the attraction composed of  four separate haunted houses, an escape room, carnival games and food vendors.  In the attraction, people are chased by characters with chainsaws and other weapons.  They were not surprised therefore when a man believed to be an employee in a Halloween costume handed Tawnya Greenfield a knife and told her to stab Yochim.  She did and thought it was all pretend until blood started to pour from Yochim’s arm. The knife was real and the man was heard apologizing “I didn’t know my knife was that sharp.” It is not clear how even stabbing with a dull knife would be considered safe. The attraction issued a statement: “As we have continued to review the information, we believe that an employee was involved in some way, and he has been placed on leave until we can determine his involvement. We are going over all of our safety protocols with all of our staff again, as the safety and security of all of our patrons is always our main concern. We have not been contacted by the police, but we will cooperate fully with any official investigation.” The next scary moment is likely to be in the form of a torts complaint.  Negligence against the company under respondeat superior is an obvious start. There is also a novel battery charge where he could claim that he was stabbed by trickery or deceit of a third person. There are also premises liability issues for invitees.  As for Greenfield, she claims to have lacked consent due to a misrepresentation.  She could be charged with negligence or a recklessness-based theory of battery, though that seems less likely.  Finally, there is an interesting possible claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress in being tricked or misled into stabbing an individual. *  *  * Last year, a 21-year-old man surnamed Cheung was killed by a moving coffin in a haunted house in Hong Kong’s Ocean Park.   The attraction is called “Buried Alive” and involves hopping into coffins for a downward slide into a dark and scary space. The ride promises to provide people with the “experience of being buried alive alone, before fighting their way out of their dark and eerie grave.” Cheung took a wrong turn and went backstage — only to be hit by one of the metal coffins.  The hit in the head killed Cheung who was found later in the haunted house. While there is no word of a tort lawsuit (and tort actions are rarer in Hong Kong), the case is typical of Halloween torts involving haunted houses.  The decor often emphasizes spooky and dark environs which both encourage terror and torts among the participants.  In this case, an obvious claim could be made that it is negligence to allow such easy access to the operational area of the coffin ride — particularly in a dark space.  As a business invitee, Cheung would have a strong case in the United States. *  *  * A previous addition to the Spooky torts was the odd case of Assistant Prosecutor Chris White. White clearly does not like spiders, even fake ones. That much was clear given his response to finding fake spiders scattered around the West Virginia office for Halloween. White pulled a gun and threatened to shoot the fake spiders, explaining that he is “deathly afraid of spiders.” It appears that his arachnophobia (fear of spiders) was not matched by a hoplophobia (fear of firearms). The other employees were reportedly shaken up and Logan County Prosecuting Attorney John Bennett later suspended White. Bennett said “He said they had spiders everyplace and he said he told them it wasn’t funny, and he couldn’t stand them, and he did indeed get a gun out. It had no clip in it, of course they wouldn’t know that, I wouldn’t either if I looked at it, to tell you the truth.” It is not clear how White thought threatening the decorative spiders would keep them at bay or whether he was trying to deter those who sought to deck out the office in a Halloween theme. He was not charged by his colleagues with a crime but was suspended for his conduct. This is not our first interaction with White. He was the prosecutor in the controversial (and in my view groundless) prosecution of Jared Marcum, who was arrested after wearing a NRA tee shirt to school. *  *  * Another new case from the last year involves a murder. Donnie Cochenour Jr., 27, got a seasonal break (at least temporarily) on detecting his alleged murder of Rebecca J. Cade, 31. Cade’s body was left hanging on a fence and was mistaken by neighbors as a Halloween decoration. The “decoration” was found by a man walking his dog and reported by construction workers. A large rock was found with blood on it nearby. Donnie Cochenour Jr., 27, was later arrested and ordered held on $2 million bond after he pleaded not guilty to murder. Cade apparently had known Cochenour since he was a child — a relationship going back 20 years. Cochenour reportedly admitted that they had a physical altercation in the field. Police found a blood trail that indicates that Cade was running from Cochenour and tried to climb the fence in an attempt to get away. She was found hanging from her sleeve and is believed to have died on the fence from blunt force trauma to the head and neck. Her body exhibited “defensive wounds.” When police arrested Cochenour, they found blood on is clothing. *  *  * In 2015, federal and state governments were cracking down on cosmetic contact lenses to give people spooky eyes. Owners and operators of 10 Southern California businesses were criminally charged in federal court with illegally selling cosmetic contact lenses without prescriptions. Some of the products that were purchased in connection with this investigation were contaminated with dangerous pathogens that can cause eye injury, blindness and loss of the eye. The products are likely to result in a slew of product liability actions. *  *  * Another 2015 case reflects that the scariest part of shopping for Halloween costumes or decorations may be the trip to the Party Store. Shanisha L. Saulsberry sued U.S. Toy Company, Inc. after she was injured shopping for Halloween costumes and a store rack fell on her. The jury awarded Saulsberry $7,216.00 for economic damages. She appealed the damages after evidence of her injuries were kept out of the trial by the court. However, the Missouri appellate court affirmed the ruling. *  *  * The case of Castiglione v. James F. Q., 115 A.D.3d 696, shows a classic Halloween tort. The lawsuit alleged that, on Halloween 2007, the defendant’s son threw an egg which hit the plaintiff’s daughter in the eye, causing her injuries. The plaintiff also brought criminal charges against the defendant’s son arising from this incident and the defendant’s son pleaded guilty to assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [2]). However, at his deposition, the defendant’s son denied throwing the egg which allegedly struck the plaintiff’s daughter. Because of the age of the accused, the case turned on the youthful offender statute (CPL art 720) that provides special measures for persons found to be youthful offenders which provides “Except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court, all official records and papers, whether on file with the court, a police agency or the division of criminal justice services, relating to a case involving a youth who has been adjudicated a youthful offender, are confidential and may not be made available to any person or public or private agency [with certain exceptions not relevant here]” (CPL 720.35 [2]). This covers both the physical documents constituting the official record and the information contained within those documents. Thus, in relation to the Halloween egging, the boy was protected from having to disclose information or answer questions regarding the facts underlying the adjudication *  *  * We discussed the perils of pranks and “jump frights,” particularly with people who do not necessarily consent. In the case of Christian Faith Benge, there appears to have been consent in visiting a haunted house. The sophomore from New Miami High School in Ohio died from a prior medical condition at the at Land of Illusion haunted house. She was halfway through the house with about 100 friends and family members when she collapsed. She had an enlarged heart four times its normal size. She also was born with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, which prevents the lungs from developing normally. This added stress to the heart. In such a case, consent and comparative negligence issues effectively bar recovery in most cases. It is a terrible loss of a wonderful young lady. However, some fatalities do not always come with liability and this appears such a case. Source: Journal News *  *  * As discussed earlier, In Franklin County, Tennessee, children may want to avoid the house of Dale Bryant Farris, 65, this Halloween . . . or houses near him. Bryant was arrested after shooting a 15-year-old boy who was with kids toilet-papering their principal’s front yard. Bryant came out of his house a couple of houses down from the home of Principal Ken Bishop and allegedly fired at least two blasts — one hitting a 15-year-old boy in the right foot, inner left knee, right palm, right thigh and right side of his torso above the waistline. Tennessee is a Castle Doctrine state and we have seen past cases like the notorious Tom Horn case in Texas where homeowners claimed the right to shoot intruders on the property of their neighbors. It is not clear if Bryant will argue that he was trying to stop intruders under the law, but it does not appear a good fit with the purpose or language of the law. Farris faces a charge of aggravated assault and another of reckless endangerment. He could also face civil liability from the boy’s family. This would include assault and battery. There is a privilege of both self-defense and defense of others. This privilege included reasonable mistaken self-defense or defense of others. This would not fit such a claim since he effectively pursued the boys by going to a neighbor’s property and there was no appearance of a threat or weapon since they were only armed with toilet paper. The good news is that Farris can now discard the need for a costume. He can go as himself at Halloween . . . as soon as he is out of jail. *  *  * As shown below, Halloween nooses have a bad record at parties. In 2012, a club called Pink Punters had a decorative noose that it had used for a number of years that allowed party goers to take pictures as a hanging victim on Halloween. Of course, you guessed it. A 25-year old man was found hanging from the noose in an accidental self-lynching at the nightclub in England. The case would appear easy to defend in light of the assumption of the risk and patent danger. The noose did not actually tighten around necks. Moreover, this is England where tort claims can be more challenging. In the United States, however, there would remain the question of a foreseeable accident in light of the fact that patrons are drinking heavily and drugs are often present at nightclubs. Since patrons are known to put their heads in the noose, the combination is intoxication and a noose is not a particularly good mix. *  *  * Grant v. Grant. A potential criminal and tort case comes to us from Pennsylvania where, at a family Halloween bonfire, Janet Grant spotted a skunk and told her son Thomas Grant to fetch a shotgun and shoot it. When he returned, Janet Grant shined a flashlight on the animal while her son shot it. It was only then that they discovered that Thomas Grant had just shot his eight-year-old cousin in her black and white Halloween costume. What is amazing is that authorities say that they are considering possible animal gaming charges. Fortunately, the little girl survived with a wound to the shoulder and abdomen. The police in Beaver County have not brought charges and alcohol does not appear to have been a factor. Putting aside the family connection (which presumably makes the likelihood of a lawsuit unlikely), there is a basis for both battery and negligence in such a wounding. With children in the area, the discharge of the firearm would seem pretty unreasonable even with the effort to illuminate “the animal.” Moreover, this would have to have been a pretty large skunk to be the size of an eight-year-old child. Just for the record, the average weight of a standard spotted skunk in that area is a little over 1 pound. The biggest skunk is a hog-nosed skunk that can reach up to 18 pounds. *  *  * We also have a potential duel case out of Aiken, South Carolina from one year ago. A 10-year-old Aiken trick-or-treater pulled a gun on a woman who joked that she wanted take his candy on Halloween. Police found that his brother, also ten, had his own weapon. The 28-year-old woman said that she merely joked with a group of 10 or so kids that she wanted their candy when the ten-year-old pulled out a 9 mm handgun and said “no you’re not.” While the magazine was not in the gun, he had a fully loaded magazine in his possession. His brother had the second gun. Both appear to have belonged to their grandfather. The children were released to their parents and surprisingly there is no mention of charges against the grandfather. While the guns appear to have been taken without his permission, it shows great negligence in the handling and storage of the guns. What would be interesting is a torts lawsuit by the woman for assault against the grandfather. The actions of third parties often cut off liability as a matter of proximate causation, though courts have held that you can be liable for creating circumstances where crimes or intentional torts are foreseeable. For example, a landlord was held liable in for crimes committed in his building in Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue. Here the grandfather’s negligence led to the use of the guns by these children. While a lawsuit is unlikely, it would certainly be an interesting — and not unwarranted — claim. *  *  * Tauton High School District The Massachusetts case of Smith v. Taunton High School involves a Halloween prank gone bad. A teacher at Taunton High School asked a 15-year-old student to answer a knock on the classroom door. The boy was startled when he came face to face with a man in a mask and carrying what appeared to be a running chainsaw. The student fell back, tripped and fractured a kneecap. His family is now suing though the state cap on such lawsuits is $100,000. Dussault said the family is preparing a lawsuit, but is exploring ways to avoid a trial and do better than the $100,000 cap when suing city employees. This could make for an interesting case, but would be better for the Plaintiffs as a bench versus a jury trial. Many jurors are likely to view this as simply an attempt at good fun by the teacher and an unforeseeable accident. Source: CBS *  *  * In Florida, a woman has sued for defamation, harassment and emotional distress after her neighbor set up decorations that included an insane asylum sign that pointed to her yard and a fake tombstone with an inscription she viewed as a reference to her single status. It read, “At 48 she had no mate no date/ It’s no debate she looks 88.” This could be a wonderful example of an opinion defense to defamation. As for emotional distress, I think the cause of the distress pre-dates Halloween. *  *  * Pieczonka v. Great America (2012) A family is suing Great America for a tort in 2011 at Great Falls. Father Marian Pieczonka alleged in his complaint that his young daughter Natalie was at the park in Gurnee, Illinois for the Halloween-themed Fright Fest when a park employee dressed in costume jumped out of a port-a-potty and shot her with a squirt gun. He then reported chased the screaming girl until she fell and suffered injuries involving scrapes and bruises. The lawsuit alleges negligence in encouraging employees to chase patrons given the tripping hazards. They are asking $30,000 in the one count complaint but could face assumption or comparative negligence questions, particularly in knowingly attending an event called “Fright Fest” where employees were known to jump out at patrons. *  *  * A lawsuit appears inevitable after a tragic accident in St. Louis where a 17-year-old girl is in a critical condition after she became tangled in a noose at a Halloween haunted house called Creepyworld. The girl was working as an actress at the attraction and was found unconscious. What is particularly chilling is that people appeared to have walked by her hanging in the house and thought she was a realistic prop. Notably, the attraction had people walk through to check on the well-being of actors and she was discovered but not for some time after the accident. She is in critical condition. Creepyworld employs 100 people and can expect a negligence lawsuit. *  *  * Rabindranath v. Wallace (2010) Peter Wallace, 24, was returning on a train with fellow Hiberinian soccer fans in England — many dressed in costumes (which the English call “fancy dress.”) One man was dressed as a sheep and Wallace thought it was funny to constantly flick his lighter near the cotton balls covering his body — until he burst into flames. Friends then made the matter worse by trying to douse the flames but throwing alcohol on the flaming man-sheep. Even worse, the victim Arjuna Rabindranath, 24, is an Aberdeen soccer fan. Rabindranath’s costume was composed of a white tracksuit and cotton wool. Outcome: Wallace is the heir to a large farm estate and agreed to pay damages to the victim, who experienced extensive burns. What is fascinating is the causation issue. Here, Wallace clearly caused the initial injury which was then made worse by the world’s most dim-witted rescue attempt in the use of alcohol to douse a fire. In the United States, the original tortfeasor is liable for such injuries caused by negligent rescues. Indeed, he is liable for injured rescuers. The rescuers can also be sued in most states. However, many areas of Europe have good Samaritan laws protecting such rescuers. Notably, Wallace had a previous football-related conviction which was dealt with by a fine. In this latest case, he agreed to pay 25,000 in compensation. The case is obviously similar to one of our prior Halloween winners below: Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson *  *  * Perper v. Forum Novelties (2010) Sherri Perper, 56, of Queens, New York has filed a personal injury lawsuit due to defective shoes allegedly acquired from Forum Novelties. The shoes were over-sized clown shoes that she was wearing as part of her Halloween costume in 2008. She tripped and fell. She is reportedly claiming that the shoes were dangerous. While “open and obvious” is no longer an absolute defense in such products cases, such arguments may still be made to counter claims of defective products. In most jurisdictions, you must show that the product is more dangerous than the expectations of the ordinary consumer. It is hard to see how Perper could be surprised that it is a bit difficult to walk in over-sized shoes. Then there is the problem of assumption of the risk. *  *  * Dickson v. Hustonville Haunted House and Greg Walker (2009) Glenda Dickson, 51, broke four vertebrae in her back when she fell out of a second story window left open at the Hustonville Haunted House, owned by Greg Walker. Dickson was in a room called “The Crying Lady in the Bed” when one of the actors came up behind the group and started screaming. Everyone jumped in fright and Dickson jumped back through an open window that was covered with a sheet — a remarkably negligent act by the haunted house operator. She landed on a fire escape and then fell down some stairs. *  *  * Maryland v. Janik (2009) Sgt. Eric Janik, 37, went to a haunted house called the House of Screams with friends and when confronted by a character dressed as Leatherface with a chainsaw (sans the chain, of course), Janik pulled out his service weapon and pointed it at the man, who immediately dropped character, dropped the chainsaw, and ran like a bat out of Halloween Hell. Outcome: Janik is charged with assault and reckless endangerment for his actions. Charges pending. *  *  * Patrick v. South Carolina (2009) Quentin Patrick, 22, an ex-convict in Sumter, South Carolina shot and killed a trick-or-treater T.J. Darrisaw who came to his home on Halloween — spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door. T.J.’s 9-year- old brother, Ahmadre Darrisaw, and their father, Freddie Grinnell, were injured but were released after being treated at a hospital. Patrick left his porch light on — a general signal for kids that the house was open for trick and treating. The boy’s mother and toddler sibling were in the car. Patrick emptied the AK-47 — shooting at least 29 times through his front door, walls and windows after hearing the knock. He said that he had been previously robbed. That may be so, but it is unclear what an ex-con was doing with a gun, let alone an AK-47. OUTCOME: Charges pending for murder. *  *  * Kentucky v. Watkins (2008) As a Halloween prank, restaurant manager Joe Watkins of the Chicken Ranch in Paris, Kentucky thought it was funny to lie in a pool of blood on the floor. After seeing Watkins on the floor, the woman went screaming from the restaurant to report the murder. Watkins said that the prank was for another employee and that he tried to call the woman back on her cell phone. OUTCOME: Under Kentucky law, a person can be charged with a false police report, even if he is not the one who filed it. The police charged Watkins for causing the woman to file the report — a highly questionable charge. *  *  * Mays v. Gretna Athletic Boosters␣95-717 (La.App. 5 Cir. 01/17/96) “Defendant operated a haunted house at Mel Ott Playground in Gretna to raise money for athletic programs. The haunted house was constructed of 2×4s and black visqueen. There were numerous cubbyholes where “scary” exhibits were displayed. One booster club member was stationed at the entrance and one at the exit. Approximately eighteen people participated in the haunted house by working the exhibits inside. Near and along the entrance of the haunted house was a bathroom building constructed of cinder blocks. Black visqueen covered this wall. Plaintiff and her daughter’s friend, about 10 years old, entered the haunted house on October 29, 1988. It was nighttime and was dark inside. Plaintiff testified someone jumped out and hollered, scaring the child into running. Plaintiff was also frightened and began to run. She ran directly into the visqueen-covered cinder block wall. There was no lighting in that part of the haunted house. Plaintiff hit the wall face first and began bleeding profusely from her nose. She testified two surgeries were required to repair her nose.” OUTCOME: In order to get the proper effect, haunted houses are dark and contain scary and/or shocking exhibits. Patrons in a Halloween haunted house are expected to be surprised, startled and scared by the exhibits but the operator does not have a duty to guard against patrons reacting in bizarre, frightened and unpredictable ways. Operators are duty bound to protect patrons only from unreasonably dangerous conditions, not from every conceivable danger. As found by the Trial Court, defendant met this duty by constructing the haunted house with rooms of adequate size and providing adequate personnel and supervision for patrons entering the house. Defendant’s duty did not extend to protecting plaintiff from running in a dark room into a wall. Our review of the entire record herein does not reveal manifest error committed by the Trial Court or that the Trial Court’s decision was clearly wrong. Plaintiff has not shown the haunted house was unreasonably dangerous or that defendant’s actions were unreasonable. Thus, the Trial Court judgment must be affirmed. *  *  * Powell v. Jacor Communications␣ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 320 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.2003) “On October 15, 1999, Powell visited a Halloween season haunted house in Lexington, Kentucky that was owned and operated by Jacor. She was allegedly hit in the head with an unidentified object by a person she claims was dressed as a ghost. Powell was knocked unconscious and injured. She contends that she suffered a concussion and was put on bed rest and given medications by emergency-room physicians. Powell further claims that she now suffers from several neuropsychological disorders as a result of the incident.” OUTCOME: Reversed dismissal on the basis of tolling of statute of limitations. *  *  * Kansas City Light & Power Company v. Trimble␣ 315 Mo. 32; 285 S.W. 455 (1926) Excerpt: “A shapely pole to which, twenty-two feet from the ground is attached a non-insulated electric wire . . Upon a shapely pole were standard steps eighteen inches apart; about seventeen feet from the ground were telephone wires, and five feet above them was a non-insulated electric light wire. On Halloween, about nine o’clock, a bright fourteen-year-old boy and two companions met close to the pole, and some girls dressed as clowns came down the street. As they came near the boy, saying, “Who dares me to walk the wire?” began climbing the pole, using the steps, and ascended to the telephone cables, and thereupon his companions warned him about the live wire and told him to come down. He crawled upon the telephone cables to a distance of about ten feet from the pole, and when he reached that point a companion again warned him of the live wire over his head, and threatened to throw a rock at him and knock him off if he did not come down. Whereupon he turned about and crawled back to the pole, and there raised himself to a standing position, and then his foot slipped, and involuntarily he threw up his arm, his hand clutched the live wire, and he was shocked to death.” OUTCOME: Frankly, I am not sure why the pole was so “shapely” but the result was disappointing for the plaintiffs. Kansas City Light & Power Company v. Trimble: The court held that the appellate court extended the attractive nuisance doctrine beyond the court’s ruling decisions. The court held that appellate court’s opinion on the contributory negligence doctrine conflicted with the court’s ruling decisions. The court held that the administrator’s case should never have been submitted to the jury. The court quashed the appellate opinion. “To my mind it is inconceivable that a bright, intelligent boy, doing well in school, past fourteen years of age and living in the city, would not understand and appreciate the fact that it would be dangerous to come in contact with an electric wire, and that he was undertaking a dangerous feat in climbing up the pole; but even if it may be said that men might differ on that proposition, still in this case he was warned of the wire and of the danger on account of the wire and that, too, before he had reached a situation where there was any occasion or necessity of clutching the wire to avoid a fall. Not only was he twice warned but he was repeatedly told and urged to come down.” *  *  * Purtell v. Mason␣ 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49064 (E.D. Ill. 2006) “The Purtells filed the present lawsuit against Defendant Village of Bloomingdale Police Officer Bruce Mason after he requested that they remove certain Halloween tombstone “decorations” from their property. Evidence presented at trial revealed that the Purtells placed the tombstones referring to their neighbors in their front yard facing the street. The tombstones specifically referred to their neighbors, who saw the language on the tombstones. For instance, the tombstone that referred to the Purtells’ neighbor James Garbarz stated: Here Lies Jimmy, The OlDe Towne IdioT MeAn As sin even withouT his Gin No LonGer Does He wear That sTupiD Old Grin . . . Oh no, noT where they’ve sent Him! The tombstone referring to the Purtells’ neighbor Betty Garbarz read: BeTTe wAsN’T ReADy, BuT here she Lies Ever since that night she DieD. 12 feet Deep in this trench . . . Still wasn’T Deep enough For that wenches Stench! In addition, the Purtells placed a Halloween tombstone in their yard concerning their neighbor Diane Lesner stating: Dyean was Known for Lying So She was fried. Now underneath these daises is where she goes crazy!! Moreover, the jury heard testimony that Diane Lesner, James Garbarz, and Betty Garbarz were upset because their names appeared on the tombstones. Betty Garbarz testified that she was so upset by the language on the tombstones that she contacted the Village of Bloomingdale Police Department. She further testified that she never had any doubt that the “Bette” tombstone referred to her. After seeing the tombstones, she stated that she was ashamed and humiliated, but did not talk to Jeffrey Purtell about them because she was afraid of him. Defense counsel also presented evidence that the neighbors thought the language on the tombstones constituted threats and that they were alarmed and disturbed by their names being on the tombstones. James Garbarz testified that he interpreted the “Jimmy” tombstone as a threat and told the police that he felt threatened by the tombstone. He also testified that he had concerns about his safety and what Jeffrey Purtell might do to him.” OUTCOME: The court denied the homeowners’ post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to and motion for a new trial. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to Officer Mason, a rational jury could conclude that the language on the tombstones constituted threats, that the neighbors were afraid of Jeffrey Purtell, and that they feared for their safety. As such the Court will not disturb the jury’s conclusion that the tombstones constituted fighting words — “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” *  *  * Goodwin v. Walmart 2001 Ark. App. LEXIS 78 “On October 12, 1993, Randall Goodwin went to a Wal-Mart store located on 6th Street in Fayetteville, Arkansas. He entered through the front door and walked toward the sporting goods department. In route, he turned down an aisle known as the seasonal aisle. At that time, it was stocked with items for Halloween. This aisle could be observed from the cash registers. Mr. Goodwin took only a few steps down the aisle when he allegedly stepped on a wig and fell, landing on his right hip. As a result of the fall, Mr. Goodwin suffered severe physical injury to his back, including a ruptured disk. Kelly Evans, an employee for appellee, was standing at the end of her check-out stand when Mr. Goodwin approached her and informed her that he had fallen on an item in the seasonal aisle. She stated that she “saw what he was talking about.” OUTCOME: Judgment affirmed because the pleadings, depositions, and related summary judgment evidence did not show that there was any genuine issue of material fact as appellant customer did not establish a plastic bag containing the Halloween wig which allegedly caused him to slip and fall was on the floor as the result of appellee’s negligence or it had been on the floor for such a period of time that appellee knew or should have known about it. *  *  * Eversole v. Wasson␣ 80 Ill. App. 3d 94 (Ill. 1980) Excerpt: “The following allegations of count I, directed against defendant Wasson, were incorporated in count II against the school district: (1) plaintiff was a student at Villa Grove High School which was controlled and administered by the defendant school district, (2) defendant Wasson was employed by the school district as a teacher at the high school, (3) on November 1, 1978, at approximately 12:30 p.m., Wasson was at the high school in his regular capacity as a teacher and plaintiff was attending a regularly scheduled class, (4) Wasson sought and received permission from another teacher to take plaintiff from that teacher’s class and talk to him in the hallway, (5) once in the hallway, Wasson accused plaintiff of being one of several students he believed had smashed Wasson’s Halloween pumpkin at Wasson’s home, (6) without provocation from plaintiff, Wasson berated plaintiff, called him vile names, and threatened him with physical violence while shaking his fist in plaintiff’s face which placed plaintiff in fear of bodily injury, (7) Wasson then struck plaintiff about the head and face with both an open hand and a closed fist and shook and shoved him violently, (8) as a result, plaintiff was bruised about the head, neck, and shoulders; experienced pain and suffering in his head, body, and limbs; and became emotionally distraught causing his school performance and participation to be adversely affected . . .” OUTCOME: The court affirmed that portion of the lower court’s order that dismissed the count against the school district and reversed that portion of the lower court’s order that entered a judgment in bar of action as to this count. The court remanded the case to the lower court with directions to allow the student to replead his count against the school district. *  *  * Holman v. Illinois 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 372 (1995) “The Claimant was attending a Halloween party at the Illinois State Museum with her grandson on October 26, 1990. The party had been advertised locally in the newspaper and through flier advertisements. The advertisement requested that children be accompanied by an adult, to come in costume and to bring a flashlight. The museum had set up different display rooms to hand out candy to the children and give the appearance of a “haunted house.” The Claimant entered the Discovery Room with her grandson. Under normal conditions the room is arranged with tables and low-seated benches for children to use in the museum’s regular displays. These tables and benches had been moved into the upper-right-hand corner of the Discovery Room next to the wall. In the middle of the room, there was a “slime pot” display where the children received the Halloween treat. The overhead fluorescent lights were turned off; however, the track lights on the left side of the room were turned on and dim. The track lights on the right side of the room near the tables and benches were not lit. The room was dark enough that the children’s flashlights could be clearly seen. There were approximately 40-50 people in the room at the time of the accident. The Claimant entered the room with her grandson. They proceeded in the direction of the pot in the middle of the room to see what was going in the pot. Her grandson then ran around the pot to the right corner toward the wall. As the Claimant followed, she tripped over the corner of a bench stored in that section of the room. She fell, making contact with the left corner of the bench. She experienced great pain in her upper left arm. The staff helped her to her feet. Her father was called and she went to the emergency room. Claimant has testified that she did not see the low-seating bench because it was so dimly lit in the Discovery Room. The Claimant was treated at the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with a fracture of the proximal humeral head of her left arm as a result of the fall. Claimant returned home, but was unable to work for 12 to 13 weeks.” OUTCOME: “The Claimant has met her burden of proof. She has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the State acted negligently in placing furnishings in a dimly-lit room where visitors could not know of their location. The State did not exercise its duty of reasonable care. For the foregoing reasons, the Claimant is granted an award of $20,000.” *  *  * Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson 771 F. Supp. 196 “Plaintiffs Susan and Frank Ferlito, husband and wife, attended a Halloween party in 1984 dressed as Mary (Mrs. Ferlito) and her little lamb (Mr. Ferlito). Mrs. Ferlito had constructed a lamb costume for her husband by gluing cotton batting manufactured by defendant Johnson & Johnson Products (“JJP”) to a suit of long underwear. She had also used defendant’s product to fashion a headpiece, complete with ears. The costume covered Mr. Ferlito from his head to his ankles, except for his face and hands, which were blackened with Halloween paint. At the party Mr. Ferlito attempted to light his cigarette by using a butane lighter. The flame passed close to his left arm, and the cotton batting on his left sleeve ignited. Plaintiffs sued defendant for injuries they suffered from burns which covered approximately one-third of Mr. Ferlito’s body.” OUTCOME: Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson: Plaintiffs repeatedly stated in their response brief that plaintiff Susan Ferlito testified that “she would never again use cotton batting to make a costume.” Plaintiffs’ Answer to Defendant JJP’s Motion for J.N.O.V., pp. 1, 3, 4, 5. However, a review of the trial transcript reveals that plaintiff Susan Ferlito never testified that she would never again use cotton batting to make a costume. More importantly, the transcript contains no statement by plaintiff Susan Ferlito that a flammability warning on defendant JJP’s product would have dissuaded her from using the cotton batting to construct the costume in the first place. At oral argument counsel for plaintiffs conceded that there was no testimony during the trial that either plaintiff Susan Ferlito or her husband, plaintiff Frank J. Ferlito, would  have acted any different if there had been a flammability warning on the product’s package. The absence of such testimony is fatal to plaintiffs’ case; for without it, plaintiffs have failed to prove proximate cause, one of the essential elements of their negligence claim. In addition, both plaintiffs testified that they knew that cotton batting burns when it is exposed to flame. Susan Ferlito testified that she knew at the time she purchased the cotton batting that it would burn if exposed to an open flame. Frank Ferlito testified that he knew at the time he appeared at the Halloween party that cotton batting would burn if exposed to an open flame. His additional testimony that he would not have intentionally put a flame to the cotton batting shows that he recognized the risk of injury of which he claims JJP should have warned. Because both plaintiffs were already aware of the danger, a warning by JJP would have been superfluous. Therefore, a reasonable jury could not have found that JJP’s failure to provide a warning was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries. The evidence in this case clearly demonstrated that neither the use to which plaintiffs put JJP’s product nor the injuries arising from that use were foreseeable. But in Trivino v. Jamesway Corporation, the following result: The mother purchased cosmetic puffs and pajamas from the retailer. The mother glued the puffs onto the pajamas to create a costume for her child. While wearing the costume, the child leaned over the electric stove. The costume caught on fire, injuring the child. Plaintiffs brought a personal injury action against the retailer. The retailer filed a third party complaint against the manufacturer of the puffs, and the puff manufacturer filed a fourth party complaint against the manufacturer of the fibers used in the puffs. The retailer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for failure to warn. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the actions against the manufacturers. On appeal, the court modified the judgment, holding that the mother’s use of the puffs was not unforeseeable as a matter of law and was a question for the jury. The court held that because the puffs were not made of cotton, as thought by the mother, there were fact issues as to the puffs’ flammability and defendants’ duty to warn. The court held that there was no prejudice to the retailer in permitting plaintiffs to amend their bill of particulars. OUTCOME: The court modified the trial court’s judgment to grant plaintiffs’ motion to amend their bill of particulars, deny the retailer’s motion for summary judgment, and reinstate the third party actions against the manufacturers. Tyler Durden Mon, 10/31/2022 - 19:05.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeOct 31st, 2022

Trump Wins Ruling In Rape Accuser Carroll’s Defamation Lawsuit

Trump Wins Ruling In Rape Accuser Carroll’s Defamation Lawsuit Authored by Rita Li via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), A federal appeals court in Manhattan handed former President Donald Trump a procedural victory Tuesday in a defamation lawsuit, after famed columnist E. Jean Carroll claimed that Trump had raped her in the 1990s. Former President Donald Trump speaks at a Save America Rally to support Republican candidates running for state and federal offices in the state at the Covelli Centre, in Youngstown, Ohio, on Sept. 17, 2022. (Jeff Swensen/Getty Images) In a two-to-one decision on Sept. 27, the panel on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court erred when it ruled that Carroll could sue Trump for defamatory statements during his presidency, given that a federal law, known as the Westfall Act, shields government employees from liability in work-related incidents. Carroll, 78, sued Trump in 2019, claiming the Republican sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s in a dressing room at a Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan. Because the alleged attack happened decades ago, Carroll was originally barred from suing over sexual battery, pushing her to sue for defamation over allegedly disparaging comments Trump made about the rape allegation. Trump denied her allegation at the time and accused her of using false claims as a way to promote her book. “I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened,” the-then president told The Hill in an interview at the White House in June 2019. The D.C. Court of Appeals is now asked to weigh in on whether Trump was acting within the scope of his presidential duties when he denied raping Carroll and dismissed her during the interview. If Trump was, he would be entitled to immunity from the lawsuit, according to the ruling by the 2nd Circuit judges. And while the U.S. government can be sued over some wrongdoing by its employees, it is immune from defamation lawsuits, which would mean Carroll’s suit would fail. In a majority opinion written by Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi on Tuesday, two members of the 2nd Circuit’s three-judge panel declined to further address the defamation action while the matter was “of extreme public importance.” “We do not pass judgment or express any view as to whether Trump’s public statements were indeed defamatory or whether the sexual assault allegations had, in fact, occurred,” the judges said. E. Jean Carroll talks to reporters outside a courthouse in New York on March 4, 2020. (Seth Wenig, File/AP Photo) Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba, meanwhile, welcomed the decision, saying it “will protect the ability of all future presidents to effectively govern without hindrance.” “We are confident that the D.C. Court of Appeals will find that our client was acting within the scope of his employment when properly repudiating Ms. Carroll’s allegations,” she said in a statement. Former Attorney General William Barr and current Attorney General Merrick Garland defended the Department of Justice’s decision to back Trump as a defendant in the ongoing defamation case. Dissent In an opinion written by Judge Denny Chin, the third judge who dissented, he said that the law protecting federal employees from liability does not apply to Trump. He said it was only to protect low-level, rank-and-file government employees rather than the president. And he said at least some of the former president’s statements were not part of his official duties. “Trump was not acting in the scope of his employment when he made comments about Carroll and her accusations because he was not serving any purpose of the federal government,” wrote the judge, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. “In the context of an accusation of rape, the comment ‘she’s not my type’ surely is not something one would expect the President of the United States to say in the course of his duties. Carroll’s allegations plausibly paint a picture of a man pursuing a personal vendetta against an accuser, not the United States’ ‘chief constitutional officer’ engaging in ‘supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity,’” Chin added. Read more here... Tyler Durden Thu, 09/29/2022 - 17:40.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeSep 29th, 2022

Former Elle columnist, who accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s, plans to sue under New York law that opens up statute of limitations for abuse cases

A lawyer for E. Jean Carroll wrote in a letter that a lawsuit will be filed as soon as New York's Adult Survivors Act goes into effect Nov. 24. E. Jean Carroll in a New York courtroom for her defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump on March 4, 2020.Seth Wenig/AP E. Jean Carroll, a former Elle columnist, accused Donald Trump of rape in a memoir published in 2019. The writer sued Trump for defamation after he denied sexually assaulting her in a dressing room in the 1990s. Carroll's lawyer is asking to combine the defamation trial with a civil sexual battery suit. A former Elle columnist, who accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s, plans to sue the former president as soon as a New York law that opens up the statute of limitations for abuse cases goes into effect on November 24.E. Jean Carroll, who made the accusations public in 2019, plans to file a suit for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York's Adult Survivors Act, Roberta A. Kaplan, Carroll's lawyer, wrote in an August letter to a New York judge that was made public on Tuesday.The writer was unable to pursue a case against Trump due to the state's statute of limitations on certain sexual offenses. But with the Adult Survivors Act (ASA), victims of sexual assault who were over 18 years old at the time now have a one-year window to file a civil case regardless of when the incident occurred. This means that once the law goes into effect on November 24, 2022, a plaintiff has until November 24, 2023, to file a case. The law was signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul on May 24.Carroll previously made the accusation against Trump public in her 2019 memoir, "What Do We Need Men For?"She alleged in the book that, in 1995 or 1996, Trump pushed her against the wall in a dressing room and sexually assaulted her, claiming he forced his "fingers around my private area" and thrust "his penis halfway — or completely, I'm not certain — inside me."Trump vehemently denied the allegations."I'll say it with great respect: Number one, she's not my type. Number two, it never happened," Trump told The Hill in 2019.In response, Carroll filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump, which is set to go to trial next year in February.Carroll's lawyer hopes to also try Trump for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress in the same trial, according to the letter dated August 8. "In our view, because ... the facts between the two cases overlap to such a significant degree, we believe that there is no reason why both actions could not be tried together starting on February 6, 2023," Kaplan wrote.Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, wrote in a response to the letter that her client "wholly and adamantly objects" to the proposal of consolidating the cases.Carroll's legal team also is seeking a deposition from Trump after alleging that the former president's responses for discovery in the defamation case were "deficient.""To date, discovery in the above-referenced defamation case has been entirely one way," Kaplan wrote.Trump's attorney responded that the letter "mischaracterizes the discovery efforts" her client has made.Attorneys for Carroll and Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderSep 20th, 2022

Donald Trump"s docket: The latest on key cases and investigations the ex-president and his businesses are involved in

Donald Trump and his business are tangled in at least a dozen significant federal and local investigations and lawsuits. Here's the latest on all of them. Former President Donald Trump addresses the America First Agenda Summit in Washington, DC, on July 26, 2022.Drew Angerer/Getty Images Trump and his businesses are tangled in at least a dozen significant investigations and lawsuits. They include probes into election, insurrection, and financial wrongdoing in Georgia, DC, and New York. Check back here for updates on Trump's legal troubles, and what's next. It's hard to keep track of Donald Trump's very busy legal docket. The former president is the subject of at least three major investigations into wrongdoing relating to the election, the insurrection, and his finances — probes based in Fulton County, Georgia; Washington, D.C.; and New York.Trump's business remains under indictment in Manhattan for an alleged payroll tax-dodge scheme. On top of all that, Trump is fighting or bringing a grab-bag of important lawsuits. Keep up to date on the latest of Trump's legal travails, both criminal and civil, with this guide to the ever-evolving Trump docket.Indictments Trump with his former CFO Allen Weisselberg at Trump Tower in 2017.Evan Vucci/APThe Trump Organization Payroll Case The Parties: The Manhattan DA is prosecuting The Trump Organization. The Issues: Trump's real estate and golf resort business is accused of giving its executives pricey perks and benefits that were never reported as income to taxing authorities.The company's co-defendant, former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, has pleaded guilty to the 15-year, payroll tax-dodge scheme.As part of his August 18, 2022 plea deal, Weisselberg agreed to serve 5 months in jail and pay back $2 million in back taxes and penalties.What's next: Weisselberg also agreed to testify for the prosecution if lawyers for the Trump Organization fight the indictment at trial; an October 24 trial date has been set.Weisselberg would describe to jurors a tax-dodge scheme in which company executives, himself included, received some pay in off-the-books compensation that included free apartments, cars, and tuition reimbursement.The Trump Organization could face steep fines if convicted of conspiring in the scheme by omitting the compensation from federal, state, and city tax documents and by failing to withhold and pay taxes on that compensation.Criminal InvestigationsFulton County Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis in Atlanta, on Jan. 4, 2022.AP Photo/Ben Gray, FileThe Fulton County election interference probeThe parties: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Trump, and his Republican associates The issues: Willis is investigating whether Trump and his associates tried to interfere in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Her probe has expanded to also include investigating an alleged scheme to send a fake slate of electors to Georgia's state Capitol in an attempt to overturn the elections.She's notified Rudy Giuliani, Trump's former personal attorney, that he's a target in the investigation. Giuliani testified for six hours under court order on August 17.What's next: A federal appeals court temporarily halted on Sunday a court order for Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to testify before the Fulton County special grand jury on Tuesday, August 23.Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC.Jon Cherry/Getty ImagesThe Justice Department investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 electionThe parties: Federal investigators are increasingly scrutinizing the role Trump and his allies played in the effort to overturn the 2020 election.The issues: The Justice Department is facing pressure to prosecute following a string of congressional hearings that connected the former president to the violence of January 6, 2021, and to efforts to prevent the peaceful handoff of power.In a series of eight hearings, the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol described Trump's conduct in criminal terms and pointed to an April court decision in which a federal judge said the former president likely committed crimes in his effort to hold onto power. In that ruling, Judge David Carter called Trump's scheme a "coup in search of a legal theory."Prosecutors have asked witnesses directly about Trump's involvement in the effort to reverse his loss in the 2020 election and are likely to issue more subpoenas and search warrants in the weeks ahead.In June, federal investigators searched the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who advanced Trump's baseless claims of election fraud.On the same day, federal agents seized the phone of John Eastman, a lawyer who helped advise Trump on how to overturn the 2020 election. A top prosecutor in the Justice Department's inquiry, Thomas Windom, revealed in late July that investigators had obtained a se cord warrant allowing a search of Eastman's phone. Rep. Liz Cheney, the top Republican on the panel, lost her primary bid for reelection on August 16. What's next:  The Justice Department has remained largely silent about how and whether it would consider charges against Trump, but in July, prosecutors asked witnesses directly about the former president's involvement in the attempt to reverse his electoral defeat. FBI agents descended on Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, with a search warrant.Darren SamuelsohnThe Justice Department investigation into the handling of classified documentsThe parties: The FBI searched Trump's estate in South Florida, Mar-a-Lago, on August 8 as part of an investigation into the possible mishandling of government records, including classified documents. Trump and his lawyers alleged prosecutorial misconduct and condemned the search as politically motivated.The issues: Early in 2022, Trump turned over 15 boxes of documents — including some marked as classified and "top secret" — to the National Archives. But federal investigators scrutinizing the former president's handling of records reportedly grew suspicious that Trump or people close to him still retained some key records. The FBI seized about a dozen boxes of additional documents during the raid of Mar-a-Lago, in a search that immediately demonstrated how Trump's handling of records from his administration remains an area of legal jeopardy.What's next: The Justice Department is under a deadline of Thursday, August 25, to submit proposed redactions of the Trump Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit to US magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart. He said during an August 18 public hearing he's inclined to side with media organizations to make public some portion of the document laying out the DOJ's rationale for seeking a search warrant against Trump. Civil InvestigationsNew York Attorney General Letitia James speaks on June 6, 2022, in New York.Mary Altaffer/APThe NY AG's Trump Organization probeThe parties: New York Attorney General Letitia James has been investigating Trump, his family and the Trump Organization for three years. The issues: James says she has uncovered a decade-long pattern of financial wrongdoing at Trump's multi-billion-dollar hotel and golf resort empire.She alleges Trump misstated the value of his properties on annual financial statements and other official documents used to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in bank loans and tax breaks. Trump has called the probe a politically motivated witch hunt.What's next: Court-ordered depositions of Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump, Jr., were delayed by the death of family matriarch Ivana Trump. But their depositions finally wrapped on August 10, when Donald Trump testified before investigators in James' Manhattan offices. He pleaded the Fifth more than 440 times. The contentious, massive probe — involving more than 5 million pages of documents — appears close to filing a several-hundred-page lawsuit that could seek to put the Trump Organization out of business entirely. Lawsuits against TrumpSupporters of then-President Donald Trump protest inside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DCBrent Stirton/Getty ImagesLawsuits alleging 'incitement' on January 6The Parties: House Democrats and two Capitol police officers accused Trump of inciting the violent mob on January 6.The Issues: Trump's lawyers have argued that his time as president grants him immunity that shields him from civil liability in connection with his January 6 address at the Ellipse, where he urged supporters to "fight like hell."A federal judge rejected Trump's bid to dismiss the civil lawsuits, ruling that his rhetoric on January 6 was "akin to telling an excited mob that corn-dealers starve the poor in front of the corn-dealer's home."Judge Amit Mehta said Trump later displayed a tacit agreement with the mob minutes after rioters breached the Capitol when he sent a tweet admonishing then-Vice President Mike Pence for lacking the "courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country."What's Next: Trump has appealed Mehta's ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and requested an oral argument. In a late July court filing, Trump's lawyers said the immunity afforded to the former president cannot be "undercut if the presidential act in question is unpopular among the judiciary."Trump leaves Trump Tower in Manhattan on October 18, 2021 in New York City.James Devaney/GC ImagesGalicia v. TrumpThe Parties: Lead plaintiff Efrain Galicia and four other protesters of Mexican heritage have sued Trump, his security personnel, and his 2016 campaign in New York.The issues: They say Donald Trump sicced his security guards on their peaceful, legal protest outside Trump Tower in 2015. The plaintiffs had been demonstrating with parody "Make America Racist Again" campaign signs to protest Trump's speech announcing his first campaign for president, during which he accused Mexican immigrants of being "rapists" and drug dealers. Trump fixer-turned-critic Michael Cohen said in a deposition that Trump directly ordered security to "get rid of" the protesters; Trump said in his own deposition that he didn't even know a protest was going on until the next day. His security guards have said in depositions that they were responding to aggression by the protesters.What's next: Trial is set for jury selection on September 6 in NY Supreme Court in the Bronx.Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll is pictured in New York in 2020.Seth Wenig/APE. Jean Carroll v. TrumpThe Parties: Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for defamation in federal court in Manhattan in June 2019.The Issues: Carroll's lawsuit alleges Trump defamed her after she publicly accused him of raping her in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in Manhattan in the mid-90s.Trump responded to Carroll's allegation by saying it was untrue and that she was "not my type." Trump also denied ever meeting Carroll, despite a photo to the contrary.What's next: Arrangements for the sharing of evidence are ongoing behind the scenes, including for the possible collection of Trump's DNA.Carroll has said she wants to compare Trump's DNA with unidentified male DNA on a dress she wore during the alleged rape. The trial is tentatively set for Feb. 6, 2023; Carroll has said she would never settle the case.Donald Trump Jr, Donald Trump and Ivanka Trump during the filming of the live final tv episode of The Celebrity Apprentice on May 16 2010 in New York City.Bill Tompkins/Getty ImagesThe 'multi-level marketing' pyramid scheme caseThe Parties: Lead plaintiff Catherine McKoy and three others sued Trump, his business, and his three eldest children, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump, in 2018 in federal court in Manhattan.The Issues: Donald Trump is accused of promoting a scam multi-level marketing scheme on "The Celebrity Apprentice." The lawsuit alleges Trump pocketed $8.8 million from the scheme — but that they lost thousands of dollars. Trump's side has complained that the lawsuit is a politically motivated attack. What's Next: The parties say in court filings that they are working to meet an August 31 deadline for the completion of depositions. Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, testifies before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill February 27, 2019 in Washington, DC.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesMichael Cohen's 'imprisonment' caseThe Parties: Trump fixer-turned-critic Michael Cohen sued Donald Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and more than a dozen federal prison officials and employees, in federal court in Manhattan in 2021.The Issues: The president's former personal attorney is seeking $20 million in damages relating to the time he spent in prison for financial crimes and lying to Congress about Trump's dealings in Congress. Cohen says in his suit that he had been moved to home confinement for three months in the spring of 2020 due to the pandemic, but was then vindictively thrown into solitary confinement when he refused to stop speaking to the press and writing a tell-all book about his former boss. A judge ordered him released after 16 days.What's Next: Oral arguments on pending defense motions to dismiss were set for August 2. Singer Eddy Grant performs in concert in honor of Nelson Mandela in Hyde Park, London June 27, 2008.Andrew Winning/ReutersThe Electric Avenue copyright caseThe Parties: Eddy Grant, the composer/performer behind the 80s disco-reggae mega-hit "Electric Avenue," sued Donald Trump and his campaign in federal court in Manhattan in 2020.The Issues: Grant is seeking $300,000 compensation for copyright infringement. His suit says that Trump made unauthorized use of the 1983 dance floor staple during the 2020 campaign. About 40 seconds of the song played in the background of a Biden-bashing animation that Trump posted to his Twitter account. The animation was viewed 13 million times before being taken down a month later. Trump has countered that the animation was political satire and so exempt from copyright infringement claims. He's also said that the campaign merely reposted the animation and have no idea where it came from.What's Next: There is an August 21 deposition completion deadline for both sides. Pretrial motions are not due to be filed until October.Mary Trump speaks to Katie Phang on MSNBC on June 17, 2022.MSNBCMary Trump v. Donald TrumpThe Parties: The former president's niece sued him and his siblings in 2020 in the state Supreme Court in Manhattan.The Issues: Mary Trump alleges that she was cheated out of at least $10 million in a 2001 court settlement over the estate of her late father, Fred Trump, Sr. Mary Trump alleges she only learned by helping with a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times article that she'd been defrauded by her Uncle Donald, her aunt, Maryanne Trump Barry, and the late Robert Trump, whose estate is named as a defendant.The Times' 18-month investigation "revealed a business empire riddled with tax dodges," the Pulitzer Committee said in praising the piece. Lawyers for the Trumps have countered that it's far too late for Mary Trump to sue over a 2001 settlement that she had knowingly participated in.What's next: The defendants' motion to dismiss, including on statute of limitations grounds, is still pending.Lawsuits brought by Trump Donald Trump v. Mary Trump The Parties: The former president counter-sued his niece Mary Trump — and the New York Times — in 2021 in New York state Supreme Court in Dutchess County.The Issues: Mary Trump, the Times and three of its reporters  "maliciously conspired" against him, Trump alleges, by collaborating with the Times on its expose of and breaching the confidentiality of the family's 2001 settlement of the estate of Mary Trump's father, Fred Trump, Sr. What's Next: Mary Trump's motion to dismiss is pending in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, where the case has since been transferred to.Hillary Clinton.Photo by: Mike Smith/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty ImagesDonald Trump v. Hillary ClintonThe Parties: Trump has sued Hillary Clinton, her campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and prominent Democrats including former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in a federal court in southern Florida in March, 2022.The Issues:  Trump alleges in this unusual use of federal racketeering statutes that Clinton and her campaign staff conspired to harm his 2016 run for president by promoting a "contrived Trump-Russia link." The defendants are trying to get the massive lawsuit dismissed on statute of limitation grounds, to which Trump's side counters that the "conspiracy" wasn't fully disclosed until the 2019 report on the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation.What's Next: Trump's side is asking that a tentative May, 2023 trial date be pushed back to November of 2023.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderAug 22nd, 2022

Donald Trump"s docket: The latest on key cases and investigations faced by the ex-president

Donald Trump and his business are involved in at least a dozen significant investigations and lawsuits. Here's the latest on all of them. Former President Donald Trump addresses the America First Agenda Summit in Washington, DC, on July 26, 2022.Drew Angerer/Getty Images Donald Trump and his business are involved in at least a dozen significant investigations and lawsuits. They include probes into election, insurrection and financial wrongdoing in Georgia, DC and New York. Check back here for updates on what's happening — and what's next. It's hard to keep track of Donald Trump's very busy legal docket. The former president is the subject of at least three major investigations into wrongdoing relating to the election, the insurrection, and his finances — probes based in Fulton County, Georgia; Washington, D.C.; and New York.Trump's business remains under indictment in Manhattan for an alleged payroll tax-dodge scheme. On top of all that, Trump is fighting or bringing a grab-bag of important lawsuits. Keep up to date on the latest of Trump's legal travails, both criminal and civil, with this guide to the ever-evolving Trump docket.Indictments Trump with his former CFO Allen Weisselberg at Trump Tower in 2017.Evan Vucci/APThe Trump Organization Payroll Case The Parties: The Manhattan DA is prosecuting The Trump Organization, and his former CFO Allen Weisselberg.The Issues: Trump's business could be fined, and his ex-CFO jailed for anywhere from one to 15 years, if they are found guilty of a 2021 indictment alleging a years-long payroll tax-dodge scheme in which key officials received some pay in off-the-books perks like free apartments, cars and tuition reimbursement.   Weisselberg and lawyers for the business have entered not-guilty pleas to charges including grand larceny, conspiracy and scheme to defraud. What's next: Barring a plea deal, the parties are scheduled to set a trial date when they next meet in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, tentatively on August 12.Criminal InvestigationsFulton County Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis is photographed in her office in Atlanta, on Jan. 4, 2022.AP Photo/Ben Gray, FileThe Fulton County election interference probeThe parties: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Trump, and his Republican associates The issues: Willis is investigating whether Trump and his associates tried to interfere in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Her probe has expanded to also include investigating an alleged scheme to send a fake slate of electors to Georgia's state Capitol in an attempt to overturn the elections.Willis's investigation experienced a minor setback after an Atlanta judge said on June 25 that Willis cannot question Georgia Republican state Sen. Burt Jones due to a conflict of interest. Jones was among a dozen Republicans issued a subpoena by a Fulton County special grand jury. What's next: Rudy Giuliani, Trump's former personal attorney, was ordered to appear on August 17 before the Fulton County special grand jury as part of Willis probe into Trump's possibly interference in the Georgia elections.Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC.Jon Cherry/Getty ImagesThe Justice Department investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 electionThe parties: Federal investigators are increasingly scrutinizing the role Trump and his allies played in the effort to overturn the 2020 election.The issues: The Justice Department is facing pressure to prosecute following a string of congressional hearings that connected the former president to the violence of January 6, 2021, and to efforts to prevent the peaceful handoff of power.In a series of eight hearings, the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol described Trump's conduct in criminal terms and pointed to an April court decision in which a federal judge said the former president likely committed crimes in his effort to hold onto power. In that ruling, Judge David Carter called Trump's scheme a "coup in search of a legal theory."Prosecutors have asked witnesses directly about Trump's involvement in the effort to reverse his loss in the 2020 election and are likely to issue more subpoenas and search warrants in the weeks ahead.In June, federal investigators searched the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who advanced Trump's baseless claims of election fraud.On the same day, federal agents seized the phone of John Eastman, a lawyer who helped advise Trump on how to overturn the 2020 election. A top prosecutor in the Justice Department's inquiry, Thomas Windom, revealed in late July that investigators had obtained a se cord warrant allowing a search of Eastman's phone. What's next:  The Justice Department has remained largely silent about how and whether it would consider charges against Trump, but in July, prosecutors asked witnesses directly about the former president's involvement in the attempt to reverse his electoral defeat. FBI agents descended on Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, with a search warrant.Darren SamuelsohnThe Justice Department investigation into the handling of classified documentsThe parties: The FBI searched Trump's estate in South Florida, Mar-a-Lago, on August 8 as part of an investigation into the possible mishandling of government records, including classified documents. Trump and his lawyers alleged prosecutorial misconduct and condemned the search as politically motivated.The issues: Early in 2022, Trump turned over 15 boxes of documents — including some marked as classified and "top secret" — to the National Archives. But federal investigators scrutinizing the former president's handling of records reportedly grew suspicious that Trump or people close to him still retained some key records. The FBI seized about a dozen boxes of additional documents during the raid of Mar-a-Lago, in a search that immediately demonstrated how Trump's handling of records from his administration remains an area of legal jeopardy.What's next: The Justice Department is facing pressure to provide more details about the search, with Republicans — including some Trump critics — calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to at least release documents authorizing the raid. To obtain the warrant, the Justice Department needed to convince a federal judge there was probable cause that a crime was committed and that evidence could be found at Mar-a-Lago. The warrant and supporting documents appear to be under seal.Civil InvestigationsNew York Attorney General Letitia James speaks on June 6, 2022, in New York.Mary Altaffer/APThe NY AG's Trump Organization probeThe parties: New York Attorney General Letitia James has been investigating Trump, his family and the Trump Organization for three years. The issues: James says she has uncovered a decade-long pattern of financial wrongdoing at Trump's multi-billion-dollar hotel and golf resort empire.She alleges Trump misstated the value of his properties on annual financial statements and other official documents used to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in bank loans and tax breaks. Trump has called the probe a politically motivated witch hunt.What's next: Court-ordered depositions of Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., were delayed by the death of family matriarch Ivana Trump. But their depositions finally wrapped on August 10, when Donald Trump testified before investigators in James' Manhattan offices. He vowed beforehand to plead the Fifth rather than cooperate.The contentious, massive probe — involving more than 5 million pages of documents — appears close to filing a several-hundred-page lawsuit that could seek to put the Trump Organization out of business entirely. Lawsuits against TrumpSupporters of then-President Donald Trump protest inside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DCBrent Stirton/Getty ImagesLawsuits alleging 'incitement' on January 6The Parties: House Democrats and two Capitol police officers accused Trump of inciting the violent mob on January 6.The Issues: Trump's lawyers have argued that his time as president grants him immunity that shields him from civil liability in connection with his January 6 address at the Ellipse, where he urged supporters to "fight like hell."A federal judge rejected Trump's bid to dismiss the civil lawsuits, ruling that his rhetoric on January 6 was "akin to telling an excited mob that corn-dealers starve the poor in front of the corn-dealer's home."Judge Amit Mehta said Trump later displayed a tacit agreement with the mob minutes after rioters breached the Capitol, when he sent a tweet admonishing then-Vice President Mike Pence for lacking the "courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country."What's Next: Trump has appealed Mehta's ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and requested an oral argument. In a late July court filing, Trump's lawyers said the immunity afforded to the former president cannot be "undercut if the presidential act in question is unpopular among the judiciary."Trump leaves Trump Tower in Manhattan on October 18, 2021 in New York City.James Devaney/GC ImagesGalicia v. TrumpThe Parties: Lead plaintiff Efrain Galicia and four other protesters of Mexican heritage have sued Trump, his security personnel, and his 2016 campaign in New York.The issues: They say Donald Trump sicced his security guards on their peaceful, legal protest outside Trump Tower in 2015. The plaintiffs had been demonstrating with parody "Make America Racist Again" campaign signs to protest Trump's speech announcing his first campaign for president, during which he accused Mexican immigrants of being "rapists" and drug dealers. Trump fixer-turned-critic Michael Cohen said in a deposition that Trump directly ordered security to "get rid of" the protesters; Trump said in his own deposition that he didn't even know a protest was going on until the next day. His security guards have said in depositions that they were responding to aggression by the protesters.What's next: Trial is set for jury selection on September 6 in NY Supreme Court in the Bronx.Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll is pictured in New York in 2020.Seth Wenig/APE. Jean Carroll v. TrumpThe Parties: Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for defamation in federal court in Manhattan in June 2019.The Issues: Carroll's lawsuit alleges Trump defamed her after she publicly accused him of raping her in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in Manhattan in the mid-90s.Trump responded to Carroll's allegation by saying it was untrue and that she was "not my type." Trump also denied ever meeting Carroll, despite a photo to the contrary.What's next: Arrangements for the sharing of evidence are ongoing behind the scenes, including for the possible collection of Trump's DNA.Carroll has said she wants to compare Trump's DNA with unidentified male DNA on a dress she wore during the alleged rape. Trial is tentatively set for Feb. 6, 2023; Carroll has said she would never settle the case.Donald Trump Jr, Donald Trump and Ivanka Trump during the filming of the live final tv episode of The Celebrity Apprentice on May 16 2010 in New York City.Bill Tompkins/Getty ImagesThe 'multi-level marketing' pyramid scheme caseThe Parties: Lead plaintiff Catherine McKoy and three others sued Trump, his business, and his three eldest children, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump, in 2018 in federal court in Manhattan.The Issues: Donald Trump is accused of promoting a scam multi-level marketing scheme on "The Celebrity Apprentice." The lawsuit alleges Trump pocketed $8.8 million from the scheme — but that they lost thousands of dollars. Trump's side has complained that the lawsuit is a politically motivated attack. What's Next: The parties say in court filings that they are working to meet an August 31 deadline for the completion of depositions. Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, testifies before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill February 27, 2019 in Washington, DC.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesMichael Cohen's 'imprisonment' caseThe Parties: Trump fixer-turned-critic Michael Cohen sued Donald Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and more than a dozen federal prison officials and employees, in federal court in Manhattan in 2021.The Issues: The president's former personal attorney is seeking $20 million in damages relating to the time he spent in prison for financial crimes and lying to Congress about Trump's dealings in Congress. Cohen says in his suit that he had been moved to home confinement for three months in the spring of 2020 due to the pandemic, but was then vindictively thrown into solitary confinement when he refused to stop speaking to the press and writing a tell-all book about his former boss. A judge ordered him released after 16 days.What's Next: Oral arguments on pending defense motions to dismiss are set for August 2. Singer Eddy Grant performs in concert in honor of Nelson Mandela in Hyde Park, London June 27, 2008.Andrew Winning/ReutersThe Electric Avenue copyright caseThe Parties: Eddy Grant, the composer/performer behind the 80s disco-reggae mega-hit "Electric Avenue," sued Donald Trump and his campaign in federal court in Manhattan in 2020.The Issues: Grant is seeking $300,000 compensation for copyright infringement. His suit says that Trump made unauthorized use of the 1983 dance floor staple during the 2020 campaign. About 40 seconds of the song played in the background of a Biden-bashing animation that Trump posted to his Twitter account. The animation was viewed 13 million times before being taken down a month later. Trump has countered that the animation was political satire and so exempt from copyright infringement claims. He's also said that the campaign merely reposted the animation and have no idea where it came from.What's Next: There is an August 21 deposition completion deadline for both sides. Pretrial motions are not due to be filed until October.Mary Trump speaks to Katie Phang on MSNBC on June 17, 2022.MSNBCMary Trump v. Donald TrumpThe Parties: The former president's niece sued him and his siblings in 2020 in state Supreme Court in Manhattan.The Issues: Mary Trump alleges that she was cheated out of at least $10 million in a 2001 court settlement over the estate of her late father, Fred Trump, Sr. Mary Trump alleges she only learned by helping with a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times article that she'd been defrauded by her Uncle Donald, her aunt, Maryanne Trump Barry, and the late Robert Trump, whose estate is named as a defendant.The Times' 18-month investigation "revealed a business empire riddled with tax dodges," the Pulitzer Committee said in praising the piece. Lawyers for the Trumps have countered that it's far too late for Mary Trump to sue over a 2001 settlement that she had knowingly participated in.What's next: The defendants' motion to dismiss, including on statute of limitations grounds, is still pending.Lawsuits brought by Trump Donald Trump v. Mary Trump The Parties: The former president counter-sued his niece Mary Trump — and the New York Times — in 2021 in New York state Supreme Court in Dutchess County.The Issues: Mary Trump, the Times and three of its reporters  "maliciously conspired" against him, Trump alleges, by collaborating with the Times on its expose of and breaching the confidentiality of the family's 2001 settlement of the estate of Mary Trump's father, Fred Trump, Sr. What's Next: Mary Trump's motion to dismiss is pending in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, where the case has since been transferred to.Hillary Clinton.Photo by: Mike Smith/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty ImagesDonald Trump v. Hillary ClintonThe Parties: Trump has sued Hillary Clinton, her campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and prominent Democrats including former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in a federal court in southern Florida in March, 2022.The Issues:  Trump alleges in this unusual use of federal racketeering statutes that Clinton and her campaign staff conspired to harm his 2016 run for president by promoting a "contrived Trump-Russia link." The defendants are trying to get the massive lawsuit dismissed on statute of limitation grounds, to which Trump's side counters that the "conspiracy" wasn't fully disclosed until the 2019 report on the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation.What's Next: Trump's side is asking that a tentative May, 2023 trial date be pushed back to November of 2023.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderAug 10th, 2022

Donald Trump"s docket: The latest on key cases and investigations facing the ex-president

Donald Trump and his business are involved in at least a dozen significant investigations and lawsuits. Here's the latest on all of them. Former President Donald Trump addresses the America First Agenda Summit in Washington, DC, on July 26, 2022.Drew Angerer/Getty Images Donald Trump and his business are involved in at least a dozen significant investigations and lawsuits. They include probes into election, the insurrection and financial wrongdoing in Georgia, DC and New York. Check back here for updates on what's happening — and what's next. It's hard to keep track of Donald Trump's very busy legal docket. The former president is the subject of at least three major investigations into election, insurrection or financial wrongdoing — probes based in Fulton County, Georgia; Washington, D.C.; and New York.Trump's business remains under indictment in Manhattan for an alleged payroll tax-dodge scheme. On top of all that, Trump is fighting or bringing a grab-bag of important lawsuits. Here's the latest on Trump's legal travails, both criminal and civil, with this guide to the ever-evolving Trump docket.Indictments Trump with his former CFO Allen Weisselberg at Trump Tower in 2017.Evan Vucci/APThe Trump Organization Payroll Case The Parties: The Manhattan DA is prosecuting The Trump Organization, and his former CFO Allen Weisselberg.The Issues: Trump's business could be fined, and his ex-CFO jailed for anywhere from one to 15 years, if they are found guilty of a 2021 indictment alleging a years-long payroll tax-dodge scheme in which key officials received some pay in off-the-books perks like free apartments, cars and tuition reimbursement.   Weisselberg and lawyers for the business have entered not-guilty pleas to charges including grand larceny, conspiracy and scheme to defraud. What's next: Barring a plea deal, the parties are scheduled to set a trial date when they next meet in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, tentatively on August 12.Criminal InvestigationsFulton County Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis is photographed in her office in Atlanta, on Jan. 4, 2022.AP Photo/Ben Gray, FileThe Fulton County election interference probeThe parties: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Trump, and his Republican associates The issues: Willis is investigating whether Trump and his associates tried to interfere in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Her probe has expanded to also include investigating an alleged scheme to send a fake slate of electors to Georgia's state Capitol in an attempt to overturn the elections.Willis's investigation experienced a setback after an Atlanta judge said on June 25 that Willis cannot question Georgia Republican state Sen. Burt Jones due to a conflict of interest. Jones was among a dozen Republicans issued a subpoena by a Fulton County special grand jury as part of Willis's investigation. What's next: Willis has said she could reach a decision on whether to formally charge the president as early as this fall. Election fraud solicitation, interference in an official election proceeding and racketeering are among the laws Trump could be charged with, legal experts say.Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC.Jon Cherry/Getty ImagesThe Justice Department investigation The parties: Federal investigators are increasingly scrutinizing the role Trump and his allies played in the effort to overturn the 2020 election.The issues: The Justice Department is facing pressure to prosecute following a string of congressional hearings that connected the former president to the violence of January 6, 2021, and to efforts to prevent the peaceful handoff of power.In a series of eight hearings, the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol described Trump's conduct in criminal terms and pointed to an April court decision in which a federal judge said the former president likely committed crimes in his effort to hold onto power. In that ruling, Judge David Carter called Trump's scheme a "coup in search of a legal theory."Prosecutors have asked witnesses directly about Trump's involvement in the effort to reverse his loss in the 2020 election and are likely to issue more subpoenas and search warrants in the weeks ahead.In June, federal investigators searched the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who advanced Trump's baseless claims of election fraud.On the same day, federal agents seized the phone of John Eastman, a lawyer who helped advise Trump on how to overturn the 2020 election. A top prosecutor in the Justice Department's inquiry, Thomas Windom, revealed in late July that investigators had obtained a se cord warrant allowing a search of Eastman's phone. What's next:  The Justice Department has remained largely silent about how and whether it would consider charges against Trump, but in July, prosecutors asked witnesses directly about the former president's involvement in the attempt to reverse his electoral defeat. Civil InvestigationsNew York Attorney General Letitia James speaks on June 6, 2022, in New York.Mary Altaffer/APThe NY AG's Trump Organization probeThe parties: New York Attorney General Letitia James has been investigating Trump, his family and the Trump Organization for three years. The issues: James says she has uncovered a decade-long pattern of financial wrongdoing at Trump's multi-billion-dollar hotel and golf resort empire.She alleges Trump misstated the value of his properties on annual financial statements and other official documents used to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in bank loans and tax breaks. Trump has called the probe a politically motivated witch hunt.What's next: Court-ordered depositions of Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., were delayed by the death of family matriarch Ivana Trump. The contentious, massive probe — involving more than 5 million pages of documents — appears close to filing a massive lawsuit that could seek to put the Trump Organization out of business entirely. Lawsuits against TrumpSupporters of then-President Donald Trump protest inside the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DCBrent Stirton/Getty ImagesLawsuits alleging 'incitement' on January 6The Parties: House Democrats and two Capitol police officers accused Trump of inciting the violent mob on January 6.The Issues: Trump's lawyers have argued that his time as president grants him immunity that shields him from civil liability in connection with his January 6 address at the Ellipse, where he urged supporters to "fight like hell."A federal judge rejected Trump's bid to dismiss the civil lawsuits, ruling that his rhetoric on January 6 was "akin to telling an excited mob that corn-dealers starve the poor in front of the corn-dealer's home."Judge Amit Mehta said Trump later displayed a tacit agreement with the mob minutes after rioters breached the Capitol, when he sent a tweet admonishing then-Vice President Mike Pence for lacking the "courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country."What's Next: Trump has appealed Mehta's ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and requested an oral argument. In a late July court filing, Trump's lawyers said the immunity afforded to the former president cannot be "undercut if the presidential act in question is unpopular among the judiciary."Trump leaves Trump Tower in Manhattan on October 18, 2021 in New York City.James Devaney/GC ImagesGalicia v. TrumpThe Parties: Lead plaintiff Efrain Galicia and four other protesters of Mexican heritage have sued Trump, his security personnel, and his 2016 campaign in New York.The issues: They say Donald Trump sicced his security guards on their peaceful, legal protest outside Trump Tower in 2015. The plaintiffs had been demonstrating with parody "Make America Racist Again" campaign signs to protest Trump's speech announcing his first campaign for president, during which he accused Mexican immigrants of being "rapists" and drug dealers. Trump fixer-turned-critic Michael Cohen said in a deposition that Trump directly ordered security to "get rid of" the protesters; Trump said in his own deposition that he didn't even know a protest was going on until the next day. His security guards have said in depositions that they were responding to aggression by the protesters.What's next: Trial is set for jury selection on September 6 in NY Supreme Court in the Bronx.Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll is pictured in New York in 2020.Seth Wenig/APE. Jean Carroll v. TrumpThe Parties: Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for defamation in federal court in Manhattan in June 2019.The Issues: Carroll's lawsuit alleges Trump defamed her after she publicly accused him of raping her in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in Manhattan in the mid-90s.Trump responded to Carroll's allegation by saying it was untrue and that she was "not my type." Trump also denied ever meeting Carroll, despite a photo to the contrary.What's next: Arrangements for the sharing of evidence are ongoing behind the scenes, including for the possible collection of Trump's DNA.Carroll has said she wants to compare Trump's DNA with unidentified male DNA on a dress she wore during the alleged rape. Trial is tentatively set for Feb. 6, 2023; Carroll has said she would never settle the case.Donald Trump Jr, Donald Trump and Ivanka Trump during the filming of the live final tv episode of The Celebrity Apprentice on May 16 2010 in New York City.Bill Tompkins/Getty ImagesThe 'multi-level marketing' pyramid scheme caseThe Parties: Lead plaintiff Catherine McKoy and three others sued Trump, his business, and his three eldest children, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump, in 2018 in federal court in Manhattan.The Issues: Donald Trump is accused of promoting a scam multi-level marketing scheme on "The Celebrity Apprentice." The lawsuit alleges Trump pocketed $8.8 million from the scheme — but that they lost thousands of dollars. Trump's side has complained that the lawsuit is a politically motivated attack. What's Next: The parties say in court filings that they are working to meet an August 31 deadline for the completion of depositions. Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, testifies before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill February 27, 2019 in Washington, DC.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesMichael Cohen's 'imprisonment' caseThe Parties: Trump fixer-turned-critic Michael Cohen sued Donald Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and more than a dozen federal prison officials and employees, in federal court in Manhattan in 2021.The Issues: The president's former personal attorney is seeking $20 million in damages relating to the time he spent in prison for financial crimes and lying to Congress about Trump's dealings in Congress. Cohen says in his suit that he had been moved to home confinement for three months in the spring of 2020 due to the pandemic, but was then vindictively thrown into solitary confinement when he refused to stop speaking to the press and writing a tell-all book about his former boss. A judge ordered him released after 16 days.What's Next: Oral arguments on pending defense motions to dismiss are set for August 2. Singer Eddy Grant performs in concert in honor of Nelson Mandela in Hyde Park, London June 27, 2008.Andrew Winning/ReutersThe Electric Avenue copyright caseThe Parties: Eddy Grant, the composer/performer behind the 80s disco-reggae mega-hit "Electric Avenue," sued Donald Trump and his campaign in federal court in Manhattan in 2020.The Issues: Grant is seeking $300,000 compensation for copyright infringement. His suit says that Trump made unauthorized use of the 1983 dance floor staple during the 2020 campaign. About 40 seconds of the song played in the background of a Biden-bashing animation that Trump posted to his Twitter account. The animation was viewed 13 million times before being taken down a month later. Trump has countered that the animation was political satire and so exempt from copyright infringement claims. He's also said that the campaign merely reposted the animation and have no idea where it came from.What's Next: There is an August 21 deposition completion deadline for both sides. Pretrial motions are not due to be filed until October.Mary Trump speaks to Katie Phang on MSNBC on June 17, 2022.MSNBCMary Trump v. Donald TrumpThe Parties: The former president's niece sued him and his siblings in 2020 in state Supreme Court in Manhattan.The Issues: Mary Trump alleges that she was cheated out of at least $10 million in a 2001 court settlement over the estate of her late father, Fred Trump, Sr. Mary Trump alleges she only learned by helping with a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times article that she'd been defrauded by her Uncle Donald, her aunt, Maryanne Trump Barry, and the late Robert Trump, whose estate is named as a defendant.The Times' 18-month investigation "revealed a business empire riddled with tax dodges," the Pulitzer Committee said in praising the piece. Lawyers for the Trumps have countered that it's far too late for Mary Trump to sue over a 2001 settlement that she had knowingly participated in.What's next: The defendants' motion to dismiss, including on statute of limitations grounds, is still pending.Lawsuits brought by Trump Donald Trump v. Mary Trump The Parties: The former president counter-sued his niece Mary Trump — and the New York Times — in 2021 in New York state Supreme Court in Dutchess County.The Issues: Mary Trump, the Times and three of its reporters  "maliciously conspired" against him, Trump alleges, by collaborating with the Times on its expose of and breaching the confidentiality of the family's 2001 settlement of the estate of Mary Trump's father, Fred Trump, Sr. What's Next: Mary Trump's motion to dismiss is pending in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, where the case has since been transferred to.Hillary Clinton.Photo by: Mike Smith/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty ImagesDonald Trump v. Hillary ClintonThe Parties: Trump has sued Hillary Clinton, her campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and prominent Democrats including former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in a federal court in southern Florida in March, 2022.The Issues:  Trump alleges in this unusual use of federal racketeering statutes that Clinton and her campaign staff conspired to harm his 2016 run for president by promoting a "contrived Trump-Russia link." The defendants are trying to get the massive lawsuit dismissed on statute of limitation grounds, to which Trump's side counters that the "conspiracy" wasn't fully disclosed until the 2019 report on the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation.What's Next: Trump's side is asking that a tentative May, 2023 trial date be pushed back to November of 2023.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderJul 31st, 2022

Fresenius (FMS) Faces Fraud Accusation From US Government

The Department of Justice of the U.S. government files a civil complaint against Fresenius (FMS), accusing it of defrauding Medicare and other healthcare programs by billing for unnecessary procedures. Fresenius Medical Care AG FMS has allegedly defrauded Medicare and other healthcare programs per a complaint filed by the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) in the federal court in Brooklyn. The U.S. government accused Fresenius Vascular Care, a business unit of FMS, of performing unnecessary procedures on dialysis patients with End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) at nine centers across New York City and Long Island between Jan 1, 2012 and Jun 30, 2018. The company performed certain procedures without sufficient clinical indication that the patients needed the procedures.The unnecessary procedures included fistulagrams and angioplasties required for visualizing the port and surrounding blood vessels and restoring the patient’s blood flow, respectively.The U.S. government’s complain also states that the alleged unnecessary procedures were billed to Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Health Benefits Program and TRICARE. The complaint also alleged that Fresenius did these procedures intentionally to drive its revenues. The federal government seeks damages and penalties under the False Claims Act with this complaint, which was filed in the ongoing action against Fresenius.The U.S. government is entitled to recover thrice the amount of each fraud claim along with a civil penalty ranging from $5,500 to $25,076 per violation, which will likely aggregate to hundreds of millions in charges for Fresenius. The potential charges will significantly hurt the company’s financial position.Shares of Fresenius were down 2.5% on Jul 13, following the fraud allegations by the federal government. The company derives a key portion of its revenues from reimbursements made by Medicare and other healthcare program. Any regulatory setback following the lawsuit will hurt its top line. Shares of Fresenius have declined 28.5% so far this year compared with the industry’s decrease of 30.8%.Image Source: Zacks Investment ResearchThe United States Attorney stated that Fresenius not only defrauded federal healthcare programs but also unnecessarily compromised patient care, particularly vulnerable people, including the elderly, disadvantaged minority, and low-income individuals.Fresenius had faced fraud allegations in the United States earlier as well. In 2019, the company had to pay $231 million in criminal penalties to resolve investigations by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. This payment was made in relation to Fresenius’s participation in various corrupt schemes, including bribery, to obtain business in multiple foreign countries.Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA Price Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA price | Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA QuoteZacks Rank & Stocks to ConsiderFresenius currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold).Some better-ranked stocks from the broader medical space are AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. AMN, Patterson Companies, Inc. PDCO and ShockWave Medical, Inc. SWAV.AMN Healthcare, sporting a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) at present, has an estimated long-term growth rate of 1.1%. AMN’s earnings surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate in all four trailing quarters, the average being 15.6%.You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.AMN Healthcare has gained 13.8% against the industry’s 32.7% fall in the past year.Patterson Companies, carrying a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) at present, has an estimated long-term growth rate of 9.6%. PDCO’s earnings surpassed estimates in all the trailing four quarters, the average being 16.5%.Patterson Companies has lost 1.8% compared with the industry’s 10.5% fall over the past year.ShockWave Medical, sporting a Zacks Rank of 1 at present, has an estimated growth rate of 44.9% for 2023. SWAV’s earnings surpassed estimates in all the trailing four quarters, the average being 189.9%.ShockWave Medical has gained 7.9% against the industry’s 24.4% fall over the past year. Zacks Names "Single Best Pick to Double" From thousands of stocks, 5 Zacks experts each have chosen their favorite to skyrocket +100% or more in months to come. From those 5, Director of Research Sheraz Mian hand-picks one to have the most explosive upside of all. It’s a little-known chemical company that’s up 65% over last year, yet still dirt cheap. With unrelenting demand, soaring 2022 earnings estimates, and $1.5 billion for repurchasing shares, retail investors could jump in at any time. This company could rival or surpass other recent Zacks’ Stocks Set to Double like Boston Beer Company which shot up +143.0% in little more than 9 months and NVIDIA which boomed +175.9% in one year.Free: See Our Top Stock and 4 Runners Up >>Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA (FMS): Free Stock Analysis Report Patterson Companies, Inc. (PDCO): Free Stock Analysis Report AMN Healthcare Services Inc (AMN): Free Stock Analysis Report ShockWave Medical, Inc. (SWAV): Free Stock Analysis Report To read this article on Zacks.com click here......»»

Category: topSource: zacksJul 15th, 2022

"Intransigence!" "Subterfuge!" NY AG Letitia James has more choice words for how Donald Trump treats her subpoenas

In the latest war-of-words volley, James asked a judge to 'coerce' Trump into turning over his personal business documents. The battle goes to court Monday. New York Attorney General Letitia James and Donald TrumpAssociated Press NY AG Letitia James accuses Donald Trump of "intransigence" and "subterfuge" in a new court filing. This latest volley in their war of words comes days after Trump called James a failure and a "racist." James is accusing Trump of dodging her subpoenas; their lawyers face off in Manhattan on Monday. Intransigence! Subterfuge! Procedural gamesmanship!These are some of the choice descriptors that an increasingly impatient-sounding New York Attorney General Letitia James used in a court filing Friday night, to describe how Donald Trump has been treating her subpoenas."The Court should put an end to Mr. Trump's intransigence and subterfuge," her lawyers wrote to a Manhattan judge, using some of the most heated language yet in her two-year pursuit of the former president's personal business documents.Lawyers for the AG and for Trump — who insists he's already turned over everything he's got — will argue the issue face to face in court at 10 a.m. on Monday morning. James has asked state Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron to fine Trump $10,000 a day for blowing off a March 31 document-turnover deadline.For now, though, their sometimes vitriolic war of words has been fought in court filings and tweeted taunts.Some Easter bon-mots"The racist and highly partisan Attorney General of New York State," Trump called James on Monday. He'd flung similar names in a sulky-sounding "Happy Easter" message to the Attorney General the day before."May she remain healthy," came the former president's Eastertide greeting, "despite the fact that she will continue to drive business out of New York while at the same time keeping crime, death, and destruction in New York!"On Monday night, Trump doubled down, calling James' $10,000-a-day fine threat a blatant "publicity stunt" in court papers of his own filed by Alina Habba, his lawyer.Habba argued that the 10 personal business documents that the Trump Organization has already turned over are all he has for James. The company has performed a "diligent" search, Habba said. Even if there were additional documents, they would be held by the Trump Organization, she said. It would be up to them to turn these over, she said, not Trump.And the Trump Organization has already turned over some 900,000 documents, Trump's lawyers have argued, a figure that is not in dispute.James wants Trump 'coerced' But in papers signed by AG Special Litigation Counsel Andrew Amer, James countered Friday night that the Trump Organization's compliance with her document subpoenas has been incomplete and "plagued by its own delays."The filing asks the judge to hold Trump in contempt of court and set an "appropriate" fine — the $10,000-a-day figure is a suggestion — so he may be "coerced to comply in full" with the AG's demands. Compliance would mean "conducting searches of all electronic devices and other electronically stored repositories," the filing says, "including searches of Mr. Trump's mobile devices already identified."A court-ordered search by document-search firm HaystackID sheds no light on those devices, the filing says."According to HaystackID's April 18, 2022 report, there is no ongoing effort to search for responsive material from Mr. Trump's electronic devices," the filing says. "The HaystackID report identifies two mobile phones for Mr. Trump, but indicates it is "Unknown" whether the devices have been collected for discovery."The filing continues, "The report also indicates that Mr. Trump's longtime executive assistant, Rhona Graff, has a laptop and desktop computer located at Trump Tower, but neither one has been collected for discovery, so they have not been searched either."Ten documents are not enoughCompliance would also mean Trump "conducting searches of all relevant physical locations" — meaning wherever his personal business documents may be, the filing says.The former president needs to turn over more than "the paltry 10 custodial documents of Mr. Trump already produced by the Trump Organization."That includes whatever is in Trump's "chron" files, the filing says. Those would be hardcopy documents stored in chronological order after having crossed Trump's desk, as described to James' office in a deposition last summer by Trump Organization lawyer Alan Garten."Mr. Trump's hard copy calendars" are also missing, the filing notes, as are "files located in cabinets outside Mr. Trump's office," and in "the storage room by Mr. Trump's office," and in "the file cabinets located on the 25th and 26th floors," the filing adds — apparent references to the Trump Organization headquarters in Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.The filing finally demands Trump identify "any responsive documents that have been destroyed or are no longer available with details on how and why they were not maintained."A three-year effortJames has been investigating Trump's Manhattan-based, international real estate business for three years now.The probe is civil in nature and is examining what James describes as rampant, self-serving "misstatements" in how Trump valued his properties when applying for loans and tax breaks over the years.A civil probe could result in a lawsuit that seeks fines and even the dissolution of his business, as James has sought successfully with the Trump Foundation and without success against the NRA.James has been asking for Trump's personal business documents for two years, first through a general subpoena to the Trump Organization, and, since December, through a document subpoena she issued directly to Trump.James and the Trumps are simultaneously fighting over additional subpoenas demanding that Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. sit for depositions in her civil probe. That matter will be argued in an appellate court in Manhattan on May 11.James is also conducting a separate criminal investigation of Trump's business, a probe that has so far proceeded without the glimpses of activity provided by public litigation.A parallel criminal probe into Trump's business, by the Manhattan DA's office, is "ongoing," new DA Alvin Bragg has said, despite the February resignation of its two lead prosecutors after Bragg's decision not to seek an indictment of Trump.Sources have told Insider that under Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus Vance, the probe had focused primarily on alleged financial wrongdoing by Trump, and that little else had been teed up to pursue against other defendants.  But the Trump Organization, and its former CFO, Allen Weisselberg, remain under indictment in a payroll tax scheme; they have pleaded not guilty and are currently asking a judge to toss the case.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytApr 23rd, 2022

Trump has accused Georgia"s GOP leaders of colluding with "radical left Democrats" to unseat Marjorie Taylor Greene

In a statement on Thursday, Trump said Greene was "going through hell" and alleged that top Georgia Republicans are behind attempts to oust her. Former President Donald Trump came to the defense of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on Thursday, claiming that Georgia's GOP leaders are attempting to oust her.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Former President Donald Trump has accused Georgia's top Republicans of colluding with "radical left Democrats."  He said Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger were conspiring to oust Marjorie Taylor Greene. Greene is currently facing a legal challenge to her candidacy. Former President Donald Trump has come to the defense of Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, accusing top Georgia Republicans of conspiring with Democratic lawmakers to oust her. On Thursday, Trump released a statement on Twitter via his spokesperson Liz Harrington, hitting out at Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.Greene is currently facing a legal challenge to her candidacy that might disqualify her from running again.The lawsuit was filed by a group of voters in Georgia and alleged that Greene's actions before and on the day of the January 6 Capitol riot amounted to aiding and engaging in an insurrection, which would disqualify her from being elected.It is unclear if any of the voters behind the suit have any connection to Kemp or Raffensperger. "The Governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, and Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, perhaps in collusion with the Radical Left Democrats, have allowed a horrible thing to happen to a very popular Republican, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene," Trump wrote. Noting that Greene was "going through hell," the former president accused Kemp and Raffensperger of orchestrating "attempts to unseat her." He also claimed that the pair had added to the "election mess in Georgia." In the statement, Trump once again threw his weight behind GOP gubernatorial candidate David Perdue, who is challenging Kemp for the Republican nomination and is slated to go up against Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams for the hotly-contested Georgia seat. "Brian Kemp should be voted out of office — vote for David Perdue," Trump wrote. "REMEMBER, Brian Kemp will never be able to win the General Election against Stacey 'The Hoax' Abrams because a large number of Republicans just will not vote for him." Trump endorsed Perdue in favor of Kemp after accusing the latter of being a weak governor and a "RINO" (an acronym for "Republican-in-name-only").The two men have had a fraught relationship since Kemp broke with Trump and said he would "continue to follow the law" despite Trump's baseless claims of nationwide voter fraud. Meanwhile, Raffensperger became a prominent figure and a target for the far-right for standing up to Trump and thwarting the former president's attempts at overturning President Joe Biden's election win in Georgia. For her part, Greene has continued to protest the lawsuit against her, insisting that there was "no insurrection" and that "no Republican member" — herself included — had anything to do with January 6, 2021. Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: worldSource: nytApr 22nd, 2022

Trump files grievance-filled lawsuit accusing Hillary Clinton and Democrats of carrying out an "unthinkable plot" to tie his campaign to Russia

The lawsuit makes a number of misleading claims about Hillary Clinton and the Russia probe and recycles Trump's grievances about Mueller. Donald Trump (L), Hillary Clinton (R).Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images (L), Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images (R). Former President Donald Trump has sued Hillary Clinton and other Democrats over the 2016 campaign. The lawsuit claims there was a sprawling and malicious conspiracy to connect him to Russia. Senate investigators previously documented the Trump 2016 campaign's ties to Russia. A lawsuit filed Thursday by former President Donald Trump in Florida alleges that he was the victim of a sweeping conspiracy by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party to tie his 2016 campaign to Russia.Calling it an "unthinkable plot," the legal complaint alleges that Clinton and other defendants — including her 2016 campaign advisors, the Democratic National Committee, and former DOJ and FBI officials — conspired to fabricate evidence tying him to "a hostile foreign sovereignty."In a statement to Insider, Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill dismissed the lawsuit as "nonsense."The lawsuit dismisses any "contrived Trump-Russia link." It also recycles other claims he's previously made about former special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Trump and his campaign.Specifically, it says that Mueller exonerated "Donald Trump and his campaign with his finding that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia." And it says that the "Mueller Report demonstrated that, after a two-year long investigation coming on the heels of a year-long FBI investigation, the Special Counsel found no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign ever colluded with the Russian government to undermine the 2016 election."Mueller concluded in 2019 that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 US election to damage Clinton and propel Trump to the Oval Office. But his final report specifies that investigators evaluated the relevant events from "the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of 'collusion.'"Prosecutors ultimately concluded that there was not "sufficient evidence" to charge anyone on the Trump campaign with conspiring with Moscow. But they noted that the campaign "expected it would benefit electorally" from Russia's efforts.The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee also determined in 2020 that members of the Trump campaign had connections to Russian nationals.For instance, the committee concluded that Paul Manafort, who served as the campaign's chairman for five months in 2016, was a "grave counterintelligence threat" who had "high-level access and [a] willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services."Before joining the Trump campaign, Manafort worked as a consultant for pro-Russian interests like Ukraine's Party of Regions and the former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.Senate investigators also uncovered information that raised "the possibility of Manafort's potential connection to the hack-and-leak operations" that took place during the 2016 US election, in which Russian hackers breached the DNC's servers, stole emails, and disseminated them via WikiLeaks and the fake online persona Guccifer 2.0.The Senate's report also identified Konstantin Kilimnik, a former Russian intelligence operative and associate of Manafort's, as someone who "may be connected" to the effort to influence the 2016 election.And Trump's eldest son, Donald Jr., welcomed this effort, according to emails that have been publicly released.Specifically, Trump Jr. was offered "high level and sensitive information" about the Clinton campaign in June 2016 that he was told was "part of Russia and its government's support" for Trump's candidacy. In response, Trump Jr. said, "If it's what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer."Trump's former longtime fixer and lawyer, Michael Cohen, also told prosecutors and lawmakers that the Trump family was working on a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign.Cohen, Manafort, and four others associated with Trump and his campaign eventually pleaded guilty or were convicted of crimes in connection to Mueller's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election. All of them, with the exception of Cohen who has been a vocal Trump critic, were pardoned or had their sentences commuted before Trump left office in January 2021.The former president's lawsuit comes as he and his allies falsely allege that a recent court filing from the special counsel John Durham — who is tasked with investigating the origins of the Mueller probe — proves that the Clinton campaign illegally spied on Trump during the 2016 campaign and early on in his presidency.It mischaracterizes several details from the Durham filing, saying that the defendants "resorted to truly subversive measures — hacking servers at Trump Tower, Trump's private apartment, and, most alarmingly, the White House."But as Insider has reported, the filing in question says nothing of the sort, and Durham himself said in a subsequent filing that "members of the media" may have "misinterpreted" the previous filing.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytMar 24th, 2022

Justice Department files lawsuit accusing Texas redistricting plan of violating the Voting Rights Act

The lawsuit alleges that the maps drawn by the Texas Legislature deny Black and Latino voters the ability to elect candidates of their choice. A voter casts their ballot in Houston, Texas, in June 2020.Associated Press The DOJ filed a voting rights lawsuit seeking to block Texas' new congressional district maps.  The suit argues that the GOP-drawn maps dilute the power of Black and Latino voters.  The complaint says Republicans "surgically excised" Latino voters from the Dallas-Fort Worth area.  The Department of Justice on Monday sued Texas over its redistricting plan, alleging that the new maps dilute the power of Black and Latino voters who have fueled the state's population growth in the past decade.Announcing the lawsuit, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department found that the plans approved by the Republican-controlled Texas legislature and signed by Gov. Greg Abbott "deny Black and Latino voters an equal opportunity to participate in the voting process and to elect representatives of their choice in violation of the Voting Rights Act."Abbott signed the state's new political maps into law in October. Voting rights advocates warned that the maps would weaken the political power of Black and Latino voters in the state, Insider's Gwen Aviles previously reported. During a brief press conference, Garland and Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said Texas' redistricting plan failed to fairly reflect the marked growth in the state's minority population since 2010. Gupta, the third-ranking Justice Department official, said Texas approved the redistricting plan through a "rushed process" and "with an overall disregard for the massive minority population growth in Texas over the last decade."The minority population, she said, accounted for 95 percent of Texas' population growth between 2010 and 2020, leading to Texas gaining two congressional seats in reapportionment following the 2020 Census."Despite the significant increase in the number and proportion of eligible Latino and Black voters in Texas, the newly enacted redistricting plans will not allow minority voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice," Gupta said. The lawsuit specifically argues that that the legislature "intentionally eliminated a Latino electoral opportunity in Congressional District 23," currently represented by Republican Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, "a West Texas district where courts had identified Voting Rights Act violations during the previous two redistricting cycles."Texas, the lawsuit argues, further "failed to draw a seat encompassing the growing Latino electorate in Harris County" and "surgically excised minority communities from the core of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex (DFW) by attaching them to heavily Anglo rural counties, some more than a hundred miles away." Monday's lawsuit adds a new front to the Justice Department's legal battle with the Texas state government. In recent months, the Justice Department has sued Texas challenging the state's restrictive abortion ban, and contested Abbot's executive order prohibiting the transport of migrants. In November, the Justice Department alleged that new restrictions on voting in the state violated the Civil Rights Act.Garland on Monday repeated his call for Congress to pass new voting rights legislation and restore parts of the Voting Rights Act that required certain states and local governments with histories of discrimination to clear election changes with the Justice Department. The Supreme Court effectively eliminated the Justice Department's so-called preclearance authority in 2013."I want to again urge Congress to restore the Justice Department's preclearance authority," Garland said Monday. "Were that preclearance tool still in place, we would likely not be here today, announcing this complaint."This story is developing. Please check back for updates.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderDec 6th, 2021

Silicon Valley billionaire sues New York Post for defamation over allegations that he kept a spreadsheet of 5,000 women he had sex with

The New York Post recently ran an article about legal battles involving Silicon Valley billionaire Michael Goguen. Michael Goguen has filed a lawsuit against the New York Post.Michael Nagle/Getty Images and Michael Kovac/FilmMagic/Getty Images Silicon Valley billionaire Michael Goguen is suing the New York Post for defamation. The Post ran a story about a recent legal complaint filed against Goguen. That complaint against Goguen alleged the billionaire plotted to kill detractors and kept a "harem" of women. Silicon Valley billionaire Michael Goguen filed a lawsuit against the New York Post Friday, accusing the publication of defamation. The Post recently published a story based on a lawsuit accusing Goguen of running a "harem" of women and scheming to kill the people who stood against him."The article falsely and outrageously states that Plaintiff has engaged in widespread criminal misconduct and sexual abuse, that Plaintiff turned Whitefish, Montana, into a 'personal fiefdom' and 'banana republic' where he 'controls' law enforcement, and that Plaintiff is another Harvey Weinstein (a convicted serial rapist) and Jeffrey Epstein (the deceased pedophile) — two of the most reviled men in American history," the new lawsuit says."The truth is that Mr. Goguen has been the target of unscrupulous characters and, in connection with the federal prosecution of Matthew Marshall in which Mr. Goguen was the victim and the Government's primary witness, the FBI and United States Attorney's Office have found every claim of substantial wrongdoing about Mr. Goguen to be false."The Post story, published on November 20, was primarily based on allegations contained in a lawsuit by Matthew Marshall, a former US State Department official who led security operations for Goguen. In the defamation lawsuit, Goguen and his team are asking for a retraction and over $500 million in damages.The lawsuit alleged that the 57-year-old billionaire roped Marshall into schemes to hide affairs from his wife, kept a spreadsheet of about 5,000 women with whom he had sex, and repeatedly asked or suggested that Marshall kill people who threatened to expose Goguen's lifestyle.The lawsuit described Goguen's activity as a sex-trafficking operation that recruited, transported, and paid off women for sex, and alleged he used his wealth and influence to silence people in the small town of Whitefish who have accused him of wrongdoing.Attorneys for Goguen sent a letter to the Post on Sunday demanding a correction and apology for the story, Insider previously reported. Representatives for the Post didn't immediately respond to Insider's request for comment on Goguen's defamation lawsuit.Marshall — along with John Maguire, Keegan Bonnet, and Anthony Aguilar, three other ex-employees of Goguen — first filed the lawsuit in February, and revised it significantly in September. Goguen filed a motion to dismiss it earlier this year, arguing his former employees didn't have the standing to bring the lawsuit and failed to describe a pattern of illegal activity.Marshall pleaded guilty earlier this year to federal criminal charges of tax evasion and defrauding Goguen. A spokesperson for Goguen accused Marshall of bringing the civil lawsuit in the hopes that it would help him with his criminal case. Goguen's attorneys said in the letter sent to the Post that the other plaintiffs are Marshall's former partner, a cousin, and a man who participated in an alleged money laundering scheme with Marshall. Attorneys for Marshall, Maguire, Bonnet, and Aguilar didn't immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.Goguen's lawsuit was also filed against Post reporter Isabel Vincent, who the billionaire's team alleged didn't give them enough time to respond to her questions for the story. The lawsuit alleges the Post "had no interest in the truth and did not reasonably investigate the facts prior to publication. They took none of these steps. Instead, they acted maliciously."The suit also named Bill Dial, the former Whitefish police chief, as a plaintiff. The Post story quotes Dial as comparing Goguen to Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein. Dial resigned from the position in August amid professional misconduct allegations in connection with Marshall and is involved in his own civil litigation against Goguen.An attorney for Dial didn't immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.Read Goguen's entire lawsuit against the New York Post here: Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 29th, 2021

James Comey"s daughter is a lead prosecutor in Ghislaine Maxwell"s child sex trafficking case. Here"s what we know about her.

Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI chief James Comey, also helped lead the case against Jeffrey Epstein before he killed himself. Maurene Comey (left) and Ghislaine Maxwell (right).REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton; Laura Cavanaugh/Getty Images Maurene Comey is one of the lead prosecutors in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The daughter of former FBI director James Comey also worked on the sex crimes case against Jeffrey Epstein. She also prosecuted ex-gynecologist Robert Hadden and Treasury Department whistleblower Natalie Edwards. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell have brought plenty of familiar faces along with them into the spotlight, including Prince Andrew and former Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton.But one newcomer is 32-year-old Maurene Comey.The daughter of former FBI director James Comey, Maurene Comey is one of the three lead prosecutors on the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, whose child sex-trafficking trial is scheduled to begin Monday.Despite her father's history of dominating the news cycle, Maurene Comey has largely stayed out of the spotlight, instead maintaining a low-profile presence.But she's taken on major cases before Maxwell's trial, including the prosecution of Natalie Edwards, a self-proclaimed Treasury Department whistleblower; and Robert Hadden, a gynecologist accused of sexually abusing dozens of young women.She was also one of the lead prosecutors in the case against Jeffrey Epstein before he killed himself in August 2019 while awaiting trial.Here's what we know about the first daughter of law and order.Maurene Comey has worked on multiple Epstein and Maxwell-related casesComey is currently an assistant US attorney in the Southern District of New York — one of the most prestigious federal prosecutors' offices nationwide.The district covers Manhattan and the surrounding area, making it the center of prosecutions for financial crimes and other high-profile cases.Maurene Comey joined the office in 2015, and is listed as one of three lead prosecutors handling the case against Maxwell, along with Assistant US Attorneys Alex Rossmiller and Alison Gainfort Moe.The three of them also handled the case against Epstein, who was indicted in July 2019 for numerous sex crimes. For the case against Maxwell, they're joined by Assistant US Attorneys Andrew Rohrbach and Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz.The prosecutors have accused Maxwell of trafficking teenage girls for sex and sexually abusing them herself along with Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to the charges and has denied all misconduct.Maurene Comey, center assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, arrives at the Manhattan Federal Court for the arraignment of Jeffrey Epstein on July 8, 2019.REUTERS/Andrew KellyJames Comey was the head of the SDNY between 2002 and 2003 before former President George W. Bush named him deputy attorney general. He worked in the private sector from 2005 until former President Barack Obama named him FBI director in 2013.Prior to joining the SDNY office herself in 2015, Maurene Comey worked for a year as a clerk for Loretta Preska, who at the time was the chief judge at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.Preska oversees a long-running defamation case that Virginia Giuffre filed against Maxwell. Giuffre has accused both Maxwell and Epstein of sexual misconduct, and the civil lawsuit has led to numerous unsealed documents related to Epstein's and Maxwell's conduct.Maurene Comey is a lead attorney on the team prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein.(AP Photo/Richard Drew)Two of the current criminal charges against Maxwell allege she perjured herself by lying in a deposition taken for Giuffre's case, but those charges are set to be tried in a separate trial.Comey has also worked on another Epstein-related case: Nicholas Tartaglione. The former police officer was arrested in 2016, accused of killing four men as part of a drug crime conspiracy. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, and he's been jailed for the past five years — often getting into arguments with correctional officials, court records show — as his case has been delayed.Tartaglione was briefly roommates with Epstein at Manhattan's Metropolitan Correctional Center in 2019, and was living with him when Epstein made his first suicide attempt in jail, on July 23. Tartaglione claimed to have helped Epstein after finding him unconscious. The jail was shut down earlier this year after numerous scandals.Comey has taken on several other high-profile cases in the past couple of yearsEarly in Comey's career, court records show, she handled mostly drug and gun smuggling cases.She worked on a case against the treasurer of a volunteer fire department who embezzled over $5 million and was sentenced to over 6 years in prison; and prosecuted a gang member who pleaded guilty for killing someone at a Valentine's Day party; and other gang-related cases.She also worked on other cases that involved alleged sex crimes against minors. In 2016, she led a case against an 18-year-old who prosecutors accused of coercing a middle-school-aged girl to send him nude photographs over the app Kik, threatening to post other pictures of the girl. According to a DOJ press release, prosecutors originally sought to convict the man of sexual exploitation of a minor, which carries a minimum 13-year-sentence.In 2018, the man plead guilty to the lesser charge of receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 7 years in prison and 5 years supervised release, according to court documents reviewed by Insider.Maurene Comey, assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, exits the Manhattan Federal Court after the arraignment of Jeffrey Epstein on July 8, 2019.REUTERS/Andrew KellyIn more recent years, she's taken on bigger sex crime cases. In addition to the Maxwell trial, she's on the prosecutorial team for Robert Hadden, the former Columbia University gynecologist. Dozens of women have accused him of sexual misconduct over the decades. In September 2020, the SDNY US Attorney's office filed charges against him, alleging misconduct in connection with six accusers. His trial has been pushed back to 2022, and Comey is still on the case.Comey was also part of the prosecutorial team who brought charges against Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a former Treasury Department official. Edwards was sentenced to prison earlier this year after pleading guilty in January 2020 to illegally leaking documents to a member of the media.Those documents, which included bank reports of suspicious financial activity, were connected to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation as well as the FinCEN files, which exposed potential corruption in the global banking system and led several counties to reform their financial laws.Comey withdrew from the case on June 5, 2020, a few weeks before a grand jury brought the indictment against Maxwell.Comey attended Harvard Law School and briefly worked for a large law firm before becoming a prosecutorPrior to working with the US attorney's office, Comey worked at the large law firm Debevoise & Plimpton for a year.The extent of her work at the firm isn't clear, but an archived yearly report from the company listed her as working on a case where the firm argued for the Connecticut Coalition for Justice that the quality of education that the state provided to public school students violated the Constitution.Debevoise was successful, and a Connecticut Superior Court judge ordered the state to propose remedies within half a year, according to Yale Law School, which also worked on the case.James Comey, nominee for FBI Director in 2013, shares a laugh during his conformation hearing before the a Senate Judiciary Committee in Dirksen Building as his daughters Kate, left, and Maureen, look on.Tom Williams/CQ Roll CallComey's only political donations were $233 to Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2015, according to campaign finance transparency site OpenSecrets.org. Her father said in an ABC interview that his wife and daughters "marched in the Women's March the day after President Trump's inauguration," and that he was "pretty sure" they all "wanted Hillary Clinton to be the first woman president."Comey graduated from Harvard Law School in 2013, according to LinkedIn, and was on the Harvard Law Review board of editors between 2011 and 2013, according to the publication's website.In 2012, Comey was listed as a research assistant for legal scholar and Harvard professor Daniel Meltzer on his article in The Duke Law Journal titled "Executive Defense of Congressional Acts."The article disputed the constitutionality of the now-defunct Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA laws, which discriminated against gay people, but argued for their theoretical enforcement by the executive branch. Meltzer would go on to serve as deputy counsel in the Obama administration for a little over a year before returning to Harvard.Comey is also a pretty good singerBefore her legal career began, Comey attended the College of William and Mary, where she studied history and music. Even before college she was a notably good singer, as exhibited in her performance of "Going to Heaven," and by her participation in The Virginia Music Educators Association honors choir in 2005, according to the Washington Post.Another video shows her performing Whitney Houston while in college.She's great at hitting those high notes!Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytNov 26th, 2021

Charlottesville Verdicts Say “Sue The Bastards/Rioters”

Charlottesville Verdicts Say “Sue The Bastards/Rioters”; Other Victims of Unpunished Rioters Should Follow This Lead Q3 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more Jury Hands Down Verdict On Charlottesville Riots WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 23, 2021) – A jury has just handed down multi-million dollar verdicts, including punitive damages, against 12 individuals and several organizations it […] Charlottesville Verdicts Say “Sue The Bastards/Rioters”; Other Victims of Unpunished Rioters Should Follow This Lead if (typeof jQuery == 'undefined') { document.write(''); } .first{clear:both;margin-left:0}.one-third{width:31.034482758621%;float:left;margin-left:3.448275862069%}.two-thirds{width:65.51724137931%;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element input{border:0;border-radius:0;padding:8px}form.ebook-styles .af-element{width:220px;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer{width:115px;float:left;margin-left: 6px;}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer input.submit{width:115px;padding:10px 6px 8px;text-transform:uppercase;border-radius:0;border:0;font-size:15px}form.ebook-styles .af-body.af-standards input.submit{width:115px}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy{width:100%;font-size:12px;margin:10px auto 0}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy p{font-size:11px;margin-bottom:0}form.ebook-styles .af-body input.text{height:40px;padding:2px 10px !important} form.ebook-styles .error, form.ebook-styles #error { color:#d00; } form.ebook-styles .formfields h1, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-logo, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-footer { display: none; } form.ebook-styles .formfields { font-size: 12px; } form.ebook-styles .formfields p { margin: 4px 0; } Get The Full Henry Singleton Series in PDF Get the entire 4-part series on Henry Singleton in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues (function($) {window.fnames = new Array(); window.ftypes = new Array();fnames[0]='EMAIL';ftypes[0]='email';}(jQuery));var $mcj = jQuery.noConflict(true); Q3 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more Jury Hands Down Verdict On Charlottesville Riots WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 23, 2021) - A jury has just handed down multi-million dollar verdicts, including punitive damages, against 12 individuals and several organizations it found were responsible for the riots in Charlottesville in 2017. This should further encourage - and perhaps even help to provide a blueprint for - victims of many other riots over the past several years to bring civil suits to recover for the damages they suffered, and to deter further criminal actions, especially in situations where known participants in riots were able to walk away without paying for any of the damages they caused, or spending any time in jail, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf. These new verdicts come on the heels of several civil lawsuits which were filed against former President Donald Trump and some of his allies for harm caused by the January 6th riots, but now a major new civil lawsuit targeting some of those who actually engaged in the criminal activities has finally been filed. The suit, filed by seven Capital Police officers, and which named as defendants individual members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, came as D.C. judges are expressing frustration about alleged leniency in the criminal cases of those who actually participated in the riot. This is a good sign, and may encourage other civil legal actions where - as has been proven in case after case and in many cities where protestors engaged in destructive conduct - the criminal law isn't working to deter such criminal conduct, nor to make the perpetrators pay for the harm they caused, says Banzhaf, who has been proposing and developing tactics for such lawsuits. Three other similar riot lawsuits have been filed against Trump, but this appears to be the first, and apparently the most important, to target the actual criminal rioters, and not just those who allegedly inspired the riots, argues Banzhaf. The Trump Train As another example, consider that victims of a criminal political protest - when Trump supporters allegedly harassed and tried to force their campaign bus off the road - have sued several members of the caravan (called the "Trump Train") in a civil law suit; accusing them of violating the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which bars violent election intimidation, as well as local Texas laws. As predicted and encouraged by Professor Banzhaf, whose complaints triggered two separate criminal investigations of Donald Trump in Georgia, this was only the latest is a growing number of law suits using civil actions to obtain some redress, and hopefully to also deter future unlawful actions, by those who engage in criminal conduct to advance a political purpose or goal. Banzhaf notes that, in addition to the KKK act, there are numerous grounds under existing law which would probably apply to this and many other situations in which political activities extend far beyond protected free speech and involve clear violations of criminal law, often against innocent and uninvolved third parties. In another recent legal action likewise using the KKK act, Representative Bennie Thompson filed a civil lawsuit against Trump, as well as against his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, notes Banzhaf, who has urged victims of unlawful criminal protests - whether by or against Trump supporters, protests against alleged police misconduct, etc. - to use civil law and civil lawsuits since the criminal law is too often ineffective in deterring such unlawful conduct. Here are few examples where others have followed the route he has suggested. Street Violence In New York City In New York City, victims of street violence are in fact beginning to sue those whose criminal conduct caused injury, with one law suit already filed, one by a civilian broadcaster being weighed, and several more promised. A New York City police detective has filed a civil tort suit seeking monetary damages against an alleged rioter for physical injuries he alleges he suffered during widespread looting. A broadcaster discussed on his TV program. with Professor Banzhaf as his guest, his hopes of suing the criminals who damaged his studio during the New York City rioting. The president of the New York City Detectives' Endowment Association, which represents some 19,000 current and former detectives, has vowed to sue any protestor, rioter, or looter who attacked its members. And a civil law suit inspired by Banzhaf against those who unlawfully blocked the George Washington Bridge, effectively imprisoning thousands in their cars, and allegedly leading to a death when an ambulance was delayed, is ongoing. One journalist has now brought a civil law suit, and another has publicly discussed bringing such an action, says Banzhaf, who has been urging adding civil law suits, and especially class actions, to the weapons against those who engage in criminal conduct to make a point. Banzhaf was recently called "a king of class action lawsuits." Journalist Andy Ngo has filed a law suit against rioters and others who physically beat him while he was covering a protest which turned into a riot. The law suit, filed in Oregon's Multnomah County, includes claims of assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and Oregon's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. More recently, journalist John Tabacco discussed, on his program "Liquid Lunch," how he is considering bringing a law suit for damages his TV studio suffered as a result of the recent riots. Banzhaf, who was his on-air guest on the program, explained the advantages of a civil law suit, and how Tabacco might go about bringing it. Criminal Protest Actions Continue To Proliferate Banzhaf notes that criminal protest actions have continued to proliferate, despite increased law enforcement presence, curfews, and pious pronouncements, and many of the victims of this criminal conduct are members of minority groups whose places of business - often uninsured - were damaged or even destroyed. But just because government has so far proven ineffective in protecting them, the innocent victims are not without some remedy, notes Banzhaf, who is known for advocating and using legal action as a tool for fighting wrongdoing and achieving social justice. For example, he and his law students successfully sued former vice president Spiro Agnew to force him to disgorge - with interest - the money he received in illegal bribes. Although arrests (with little threat of significant jail time) and small fines have generally be ineffective from discouraging those seeking to draw attention to causes by going far beyond their First Amendment rights to protest, and instead engaging in serious crimes against the public welfare and against completely innocent third parties, a major civil class action lawsuit for all the damages suffered by the hundreds of people adversely affected is much more likely to deter them from engaging in such crimes in the future, suggests Banzhaf. The law professor notes that, under the legal doctrine of "joint and several liability," any one person or business injured or damaged as a result of criminal rioting can sue any one or more of the criminals (called joint tort feasors) who actively engaged in criminally destructive and unlawful behavior for the total of all the damages caused, even if it is impossible to identify with specificity which criminal caused each specific instance of damage. If the threat of arrests and possible fines for rioters who commit serious crimes which endanger or harm others isn't enough to deter them from engaging in criminal trespass, destruction of property, arson, looting, obstruction of traffic, destructive vandalism, and even physical attacks, perhaps it's time for a new remedy - civil law suits by one or more victims of such crimes, where the standard of proof needed to win is much lower than in a criminal trial - says Banzhaf. The idea of using class action law suits to punish criminal activities and deter such illegal wrongdoing is neither new nor strictly academic, notes Banzhaf. For example, at least one law suit inspired by Banzhaf was brought on behalf of drivers effectively imprisoned (the tort of false imprisonment) by illegal blockages of the George Washington Bridge in New York City. Indeed, now that the Supreme Court vacated the criminal sentences of two major conspirators, this civil action may be the only hope of bringing justice to the victims, and of deterring such unlawful action for the future. Banzhaf notes that civil law suits against those who commit criminal riots in concert with others - even those actions far less serious and less harmful than burning buildings and assaulting police or even blocking traffic - to try to advance their cause have also been successful in a number of notable instances. For example, as early as 1988, a federal jury found two white supremacist groups - the Ku Klux Klan and the Southern White Knights - and 11 people responsible for the violent disruption of a 1987 civil rights march in Forsyth County, Ga., and awarded nearly $1 million in damages to the plaintiffs who filed the suit. When other groups learn that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has been forced to pay $2.55 million to Japanese companies for illegally using acid and smoke bombs to disrupt their whaling, they may think twice before blocking traffic or occupying buildings - much less engaging in widespread destruction - to advance their agenda, says Banzhaf, who has promoted the idea - and the very slogan - of "Suing the Bastards" when the law is broken. In another example, a student who illegally chained himself to some construction equipment because he opposed an oil pipeline was forced to pay out big bucks for his criminal conduct. As NPR reported it, he was apparently ready to accept a relatively painless conviction for trespass, but not to pay the pipeline company $39,000 in restitution. Similarly, eleven protesters who allegedly engaged in illegal activities at the Mall of American faced restitution claims from the City of Bloomington. In these and many similar situations, criminal protesters are often willing to accept a small fine for a chance to focus attention on their cause, especially if it means they get to have a criminal trial which can generate even more publicity for them and for their grievance, argues Banzhaf. In contrast, a civil law suit, in which each and every participant in the criminal riot can be sued for the entire amount of the damages suffered by all victims under the legal principle of "joint and several liability," might serve as a much more effective deterrent than the minor threat of arrests and possible criminal prosecution, suggests Banzhaf. While everyone has a constitutional right to protest in public, that right clearly does not extend to engaging in serious crimes to draw attention to a cause or grievance, no matter how important or righteous that cause may seem. As illegal criminal riots by various groups - including the riot in Charlottesville - continue to proliferate, causing serious harm to governmental bodies as well as to innocent third parties, those harmed may no longer be helpless, even when police refuse to take appropriate action and/or prosecutors decline to prosecute, and even when the individuals who actually caused specific harms cannot be conclusively identified, says Banzhaf. Banzhaf, famous for developing novel winning law suits - including over $12 million from McDonald's over its french fries, and against Spiro Agnew to recover the money he took in bribes - has been called "a Driving Force Behind the Lawsuits That Have Cost Tobacco Companies Billions of Dollars," "The Law Professor Who Masterminded Litigation Against the Tobacco Industry," and an "Entrepreneur of Litigation, [and] a Trial Lawyer's Trial Lawyer." Updated on Nov 23, 2021, 5:22 pm (function() { var sc = document.createElement("script"); sc.type = "text/javascript"; sc.async = true;sc.src = "//mixi.media/data/js/95481.js"; sc.charset = "utf-8";var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(sc, s); }()); window._F20 = window._F20 || []; _F20.push({container: 'F20WidgetContainer', placement: '', count: 3}); _F20.push({finish: true});.....»»

Category: blogSource: valuewalkNov 23rd, 2021