Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

FLINT, MI -- The jury in a civil Flint water crisis trial is expected to hear from a former emergency manager for the city on Tuesday, April 19, but wont know until then whether that testimony will be given in-person or through a videotaped deposition he gave nearly two years ago.

Gerald Ambrose, who worked as Flints last emergency manager in 2015, is expected to be questioned outside the presence of a 10-person jury on Tuesday to determine whether he intends to invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to an order issued Monday, April 18, by U.S. District Court Judge Judith E. Levy.

Ambrose and four other potential witnesses, including former Gov. Rick Snyder, are facing criminal charges tied to the water crisis and have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to hear their request for a review of an earlier ruling by Levy that required them to testify.

In the ruling, Levy rejected a request from Ambrose, Snyder and the other witnesses to quash their subpoenas in the civil trial and to allow them to invoke their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination to all questions they are asked.

The Court of Appeals has not announced whether it will hear those appeals and on Monday, Levy issued an order saying attorneys for four Flint children can proceed in their case by calling Ambrose as a witness.

The children have filed negligence claims against two companies -- Veolia North Amercia and Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam -- that advised the city during the water crisis.

Levys Monday order says that if Ambrose refuses to answer questions on Tuesday, he can be declared an unavailable witness and attorneys for the children can use his videotaped deposition as testimony.

Court filings say Ambrose gave his deposition in June 2020, more than six months before he was indicted by a grand jury on four felony counts of misconduct in office.

Depending on the Courts of Appeals decision, Ambrose could be required to return to the stand to answer additional questions and could risk contempt of court charges if he maintains his silence.

Attorneys for Ambrose have previously told Levy of his intent to invoke his right against self-incrimination.

Whether his testimony on Tuesday is in-person or his video-taped, Ambrose is likely to be questioned about his involvement in particular with Veolia, which worked on problems with discoloration and elevated levels of chlorine byproducts in Flint water in 2015.

Veolia witnesses have testified that Ambrose and other city officials told them that re-connecting Flint to the Detroit water system was not an option despite evidence that city water, drawn from the Flint River in parts of 2014 and 2015, could be corroding transmission pipes and home plumbing.

The children who are suing Veolia and LAN claim the companies were negligent in advising the city about its water system and claim they were damaged by elevated levels of lead in their water.

The companies have questioned the extent of the childrens injuries and deny they are responsible for any injuries they suffered.

Attorneys for the children had previously asked Levy to allow them to present Ambroses video deposition to the jury, which she declined.

But in her order Monday, the judge said she will allow the attorneys to call witnesses in their preferred order.

If the Sixth Circuit denies the motions by Snyder, Ambrose and others, Veolia and LAN will be permitted to recall Ambrose to the stand in person, Levys order says. The former emergency manager can then either assert his Fifth Amendment rights or answer questions within the scope the Court will set forth.

Levys Monday order also says that if the Court of Appeals grants permission for leave to appeal and affirms her order, Veolia and LAN will be permitted to recall Ambrose to the stand in person and ask questions within the scope set forth by the court.

If the Sixth Circuit reverses Levys order, the companies will also be permitted to recall Ambrose to the stand in person so that the jury can hear his intention to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

In any event, Defendants will not be deprived of having Mr. Ambrose testify or assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in front of the jury, the order says.

Read more at The Flint Journal:

Snyder asks for speedy 5th Amendment decision as delay causes issues in childrens Flint water trial

Five charged with Flint water crimes still plan to not testify in civil trial

3 charged with Flint water crimes have 5th Amendment concerns about testifying

See the article here:
Former Flint EM expected to take the stand Tuesday but may refuse to answer questions - MLive.com

Special Counsel John Durham continues to drop bombshells in filings in the prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. Just last week, Durham defeated an effort by Sussmann to dismiss the charges. He is now moving to give immunity to a key witness while revealing that the claims made by the Clinton campaign were viewed by the CIA as not technically plausible and user created. He also revealed that at least five of the former Clinton campaign contractors/researchers have invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to cooperate in fear that they might incriminate themselves in criminal conduct. Finally, Durham offers further details on the involvement of Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and former British spy Christopher Steele in the alleged false claims.

The only witness currently immunized by the government, Researcher-2, was conferred with that status on July 28, 2021 over a month prior to the defendants Indictment in this matter. And the Government immunized Researcher-2 because, among other reasons, at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination. The Government therefore pursued Researcher-2s immunity in order to uncover otherwise-unavailable facts underlying the opposition research project that Tech Executive-1 and others carried out in advance of the defendants meeting with the FBI.

Durham also detailed how the false Russian collusion claims related to Alfa Bank involved Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias and Christopher Steele. Indeed, the new requested immunized testimony would come from a Tech executive who allegedly can share information on meetings with Elias and Steele.

Durham notes that both the CIA and FBI were sent on an effective wild goose chase by the Clinton campaign. He notes that the government found the allegations to be manufactured and not even technically possible. He refers to the CIA in the following passage:

Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not technically plausible, did not withstand technical scrutiny, contained gaps, conflicted with [itself], and was user created and not machine/tool generated.

This dovetails with the statements of the Clinton associates themselves who were worried about the lack of support for the Russian collusion claims. Researcher 1 features prominently in those exchanges.

According to Durham, the Alfa Bank allegation fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI. The indictment details how an unnamed tech executive allegedly used his authority at multiple internet companies to help develop the ridiculous claim. (The executive reportedly later claimed that he was promised a top cyber security job in the Clinton administration). Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed university researchers who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.

The researchers were told they should not be looking for proof but just enough to give the base of a very useful narrative. The researchers argued, according to the indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic would poke several holes in that narrative, noting that what they saw likely was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1, but a red herring, according to the indictment.

Researcher-1 repeated these doubts, the indictment says, and asked, How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Lets assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our best case scenario. You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.

Researcher-1 allegedly further warned, We cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny. The only thing that drives us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?

It appears that the time to regroup has passed with the issuance of immunity deals to compel testimony.

Here is the filing:

US-v-Sussmann-04162022-US-Filing

Like Loading...

Go here to read the rest:
Durham: Five Witnesses Connected to the Clinton Campaigns False Russian Claims Have Refused to Cooperate - Jonathan Turley

A criminal defense attorney has gone viral with a TikTok warning people not to use fingerprints or Face ID to unlock their phones because the police may use it to search the device without permission. Legal experts say whether thats true depends on how the jurisdiction interprets the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which protect against unreasonable search and seizure and provide a privilege against self-incrimination, respectively.

Public defender Eliza Orlins began her TikTok by cautioning people to never consent to let police search their phones. Then she claimed they should never use fingerprint or Face ID either, because they dont have a privacy right in their biometric data.

This means that the cops can use your face or fingerprints to unlock your phone, said Orlins, a former Survivor contestant. But they cannot compel you to give a password. Because a password can be considered testimonial.

Orlins TikTok has 1 million views as of this writing.

While many people thanked her for the advice, others intimated that the law is more complex than Orlins implies.

If the cops use your biometrics to open your phone, they are still searching your phone without consent are they not? wondered one.

Orlin didnt respond to a request for comment posted on the TikTok.

Criminal defense attorneys caution people to never provide potential evidence to law enforcement, such as by giving police permission to search their phones. So in that regard, Orlins advice is sound.

However, many people took Orlins advice to mean that cops can simply search their phones just because it can be unlocked with their fingerprint or face. This isnt entirely correct. Police are still required to either secure the owners consent or get a warrant before they can go through a phone.

In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court held, The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

Longtime Florida criminal defense attorney Teresa Sopp told the Daily Dot that the issue of whether police can legally compel someone to provide them with access to a locked device is very complicated.

It depends on what password or platform one is trying to access, Sopp wrote via Facebook messenger.

It is probably better to use a password to ensure complete privacy because at least at this point no one can be ordered to give up their password and the companies cant be ordered to do that either.

So even if police get a warrant, they still may be unable to access the contents of a device. (They may also be able to circumvent the need for a password, face and/or fingerprint scan by serving a warrant to the cell phone carrier or using technology to break into the device.)

Even within the same state, there is some division between courts about whether a person can be compelled to provide police with their password.

In 2019, a Florida man was sentenced to nearly six months in jail for contempt of court because he refused to give up his password, the Tampa Bay Times reported. The Times said that he may have avoided jail time had he been arrested in another part of the state, because other state courts have held differently.

In 2020, a federal court in Nevada held that biometric data is afforded the same Fifth Amendment protections as a password, meaning that you cant legally be compelled to provide it under the privilege against self-incrimination.

A 2021 article in the Brigham Young University Law Review thoroughly analyzed how courts interpret whether and to what extent the Constitution protects people from giving up access to their devices.

In some jurisdictions, courts have addressed this issue and established protocol for how to constitutionally compel a suspect to unlock a phone, the article stated. In other jurisdictions, however, this issue remains unresolved, leaving law enforcement and prosecutors without clear guidance.

Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will likely rule on the matter. Until then, it may be best to heed Orlins advice.

She is probably technically correct but it is honestly difficult to say, Sopp said.

*First Published: Apr 19, 2022, 1:50 pm CDT

Claire Goforth is a staff writer at the Daily Dot covering all things politics and technology with a focus on the far right and conspiracy theories.

Read more here:
Public defender says cops can use your FaceID to unlock your iPhone in viral TikTok. Is that true? - The Daily Dot

A Salem lawyer was sentenced to three years of supervised probation after pleading guilty to two harassment charges against a woman in Clackamas County; nine other domestic violence charges were dropped.

Christopher Best,a shareholder at the Gatti Law Firm, was sentenced for two misdemeanor counts of harassment last week in Clackamas County Circuit Court. Three felony counts of strangulation, three counts of fourth-degree assault, two counts of menacing and one count of harassment were dropped as part of the plea deal, court records show.

Best will serve the first 45 days of his sentence under house arrest, Clackamas County District Attorney officials said. Best will be limited in where he is permitted to travel, to include work, medical appointments and treatment, court records show. Court officials also filed a referral form on behalf of Best for Vigilnet, a company that supplies house arrest monitors and GPS devices. Judge Eric Bergstrom also ordered Best to complete domestic violence and alcohol treatment, have no contact with the woman and have no firearms.

According to court records, Best was indicted on charges of attacking and harassing the woman multiple times from January 2018 to April 2019. Some of the assaults took place in front of minor children. He was arrested in November 2020.

In a victim's impact statement, the woman stated Best became violent on multiple occasions, including an evening in 2018 when she was pinned to her bathroom floor and strangled. She later learned her child witnessed the attack.

"After Chriss abuse, I am now a shadow of the person I was and described earlier," she stated. "I struggle each day with angst to get that person back."

The woman said she saw through the legal proceedings at a cost to herself and her family to ensure Best's actions were brought to light.

"If not me, then who?" she wrote.

The Statesman Journal does not identify victims of domestic violence or abuse unless they choose to come forward and tell their own stories.

In the impact statement, the woman asked Bergstrom to impose the maximum sentence.

"It is my belief that he has no intention of any genuine reform from his abusiveness. If he is not held to have adequate consequences today, the next woman he abuses might not be able to call herself a survivor," the woman wrote of Best. "Even if she did survive his abuse as I have, it is a life sentence of strife, fear, and trauma for his victim."

The case took about a year and a half to reach an outcome, in part, due to COVID-19 as well as extensive litigation into a complex case, Clackamas County District Attorney officials said.

"This case had challenging aspects and we tried to balance the recognition of those challenging aspects with holding the defendant accountable for his actions," Chief Deputy District Attorney Chris Owen said.

Best's attorney, Jacob Houze, told the Statesman Journal Tuesday Best's criminal case was "thoroughly investigated and exhaustively negotiated." Houze pointed to an additional eight charges of contempt of court being dropped against his client.

He added the criminal case came on the heels of a "contentious" divorce filing between Best and his wife, which has been pending for "twice as long" as the marriage lasted. Houze said Best's wife seeks money in the divorce, as well as nearly $800,000 in a civil lawsuit she filed against Best.

Best recently lived in Wilsonville and Newberg but has worked out of Gatti's Salem office.Best is listed as a shareholder and attorney on the Gatti Law Firm website. Gatti officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Best has made headlines in recent years representing victims of sexual abuse at schools, churches andday cares.He most recently was in the news for representing a Corvallis doctor suing Oregon Health& Science University for misusing andoverusing spermhe donated as a medical student.

Oregon State Bar officials confirmed two ethics complaints filed against Best in 2019 remain open.

One complaint, filed by a Salem resident, cited the five-page criminal indictment filed against Best.

The other complaint was filed by Best's ex-wife. She alleged Best interfered in her legal affairs while she worked to get spousal support from her previous ex-husband.

Oregon State Bar Communications Director Kateri Walsh said Best declined to respond to bar attorneys' inquiries about the complaints, citing his fifth amendment rights, while the criminal proceedings were ongoing.

"Now that the criminal matter is resolved, our investigation will proceed and we will be seeking further information from Mr. Best in response to the two complaints," Walsh said Monday.

Best's state bar license also remains active, Walsh confirmed.

Walsh previously told the Statesman Journal that criminal conduct can have disciplinary implications in certain circumstances.

Formal hearings are held if the State Professional Responsibility Board finds probable cause exists to believe a disciplinary rule violation has occurred.

Bar proceedings relating to discipline, admission and reinstatement are reviewed by the Oregon Supreme Court.

Oregon Rules of Professional Conductstateit is unethical for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

Statesman Journal reporter Whitney Woodworth contributed to this story.

Virginia Barreda is the breaking news and public safety reporter for the Statesman Journal. She can be reached at 503-399-6657 or atvbarreda@statesmanjournal.com. Follow her on Twitter at@vbarreda2.

Here is the original post:
Salem attorney gets 3 years supervised probation after pleading guilty to harassment - Statesman Journal

MEQUON A Mequon woman is accused of diverting millions of dollars of investor funds into personal expenses, such as vacations, gambling and real estate, causing some of them to lose their entire investment.

According to a 21-page Securities and Exchange Commission complaint filed in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Wisconsin last Wednesday, Kay X. Yang, 40, misappropriated about $4.06 million of the approximately $16.5 million she was given by investors, who were primarily Hmong-Americans from Wisconsin and Minnesota.

The funds were spent on cash withdrawals at casinos, luxury automobiles, real estate, extensive travel and repaying certain investors from a previous venture, the complaint said.

According to the SEC, she gave another $800,000 to her husband, Chao Yang, 47, whom the SEC said had no right to receive these investor funds.

Stay up-to-date on all the latest Ozaukee County news with a print subscription to the News Graphic: https://bit.ly/newsgraphic_sub

The SEC says that Yang raised about $16.5 million from investors through two entities she controlled: AK Equity Group and Xapphire Fund, LLC.

She told investors that she would use money primarily in foreign exchange trading and that investors would earn between 20% and 50% annually, according to the SEC. She said the foreign exchange trading had been consistently successful.

Each of these representations was false, the SEC complaint said.

The SEC said that Yang and her husband spent more than $3 million between April 2017 and June 2021 on items such as the following:

- Nearly $1.5 million on real estate, including $716,000 on a home in Mequon in 2018; $259,900 on a home in Zimmerman, Minn. in 2018; $223,191 for a Sheboygan home in 2018; and $261,871 in Saukville in 2019;

- More than $790,000 for living expenses, including nearly $70,000 on restaurants; more than $46,000 to Amazon; $27,500 to Columbia College in Chicago; $20,000 to Sams Club; and thousands of dollars more for landscaping and lawn care, house cleaning services, BTS concert tickets, pet stores, spa services, groceries and other retailers, including Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Kay Jewelers;

- An estimated $585,000 on personal and family travel. At least $110,000 was spent on Kays Family Trip to Maui in June 2018; at least $80,000 for a trip to 20 to Bangkok, Thailand in June 2019; at least $52,000 for a Royal Caribbean cruise in February 2019; and trips to other places, such as Cancun, Mexico and Las Vegas;

- An estimated $313,000 on luxury cars, including a 2019 Lexus NX 300 in 2018; a 2018 Tesla Model S in 2018; a 2019 BMW i8 in 2019; and a 2019 BMW X7 in March 2019; The complaint also said that between 2017 and 2021, the Yangs withdrew approximately $1.4 million from investor funds in more than 1,000 separate transactions, including from ATM machines and cash advances on credit cards.

The couple also made cash withdrawals and spent investor funds in a number of different gaming establishments, according to the SEC complaint. That included Potawatomi in Milwaukee, Ho-Chunk Gaming in Black River Falls, Ho-Chunk Gaming in Wisconsin Dells and at more than a dozen casinos in Las Vegas; Atlantic City, N.J.; Lake Tahoe, Calif.; Biloxi, Miss.; Des Plaines, Ill.; Reno. Nev.; Temecula, Calif.; and Friant, Calif.

According to the suit, Yang repeatedly told investors that the returns achieved by AK Equity and Xapphire Fund were profitable and performing well. She provided investors with materials showing that AK Equitys foreign exchange trading achieved positive monthly returns between January through August 2018. Based on that, at least three people invested in the company based on those reports.

These representations were false, the complaint said. AK Equity actually experienced monthly trading losses in January, February, May, June and August 2018.

There was no trading activity at all in March or April 2018.

Similar positive reports were sent to Xapphire Fund investors that indicated the fund achieved positive monthly returns every month of 2018 and that investors could expect annual returns of 20% and 40%.

But the Xapphire Fund did not exist until December 2018, the SEC complaint alleges.

The SEC also said that Yang sent investors documents showing that their funds were generating annual profits of between 40% and 50% Yang offered glowing reports about the AK Equity investments as well, saying that it was generating annual profits of between 40% and 50% in 2019. Based on those reports, several of the AK Equity investors put money into the Xapphire Fund.

But the reports were again false, the SEC said.

AK Equity had never had a year with positive trading results, let alone a year with gains of between 40% and 50% returns, the complaint said.

On July 13, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Securities, issued a final order against Yang, according to the SEC. The order revealed that neither of Yangs funds were registered with the Wisconsin division of Securities.

The order required that Yang pay more than $16.9 million in restitution to her investors, give up more than $4.2 million in profits and pay a $50,000 civil penalty.

To date, Yang has not paid the amount owed, the SEC said.

She has returned some money to a few investors, the SEC said, but has denied repaying others. The most recent repayment occurred in January 2021 in the amount of $7,000. She has since ceased all communications with her investors, the SEC claims.

Furthermore, they said that she is continuing to raise funds from Hmong Americans through the Xapphire G Fund. The SEC says it can confirm the existence of an offshore bank and brokerage accounts, but has been unable to obtain sufficient investment documents to determine if Xapphire G is a real investment fund or fraud.

Yang has produced some documents to the SEC, but asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege against producing more. The News Graphic has tried multiple numbers listed to Yang, but was not able to reach her for comment.

See the original post:
SEC: Mequon woman used investor funds on personal items - Greater Milwaukee Today | GMToday.com

With heartbreaking videos of mass graves filled with Ukrainian victims of Russian genocide, civilians mowed down by sadistic Russian soldiers and apartment buildings pulverized by Russian missiles, there hasnt been much occasion for mirth. But you can count on Trump World to provide some comic relief.

Turns out North Carolina election officials removed former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows from the states voter rolls after it emerged that Meadows had voted absentee from a North Carolina residence where he had never resided. He not only listed a false address on his absentee ballot application, but his civic-mindedness in exercising his franchise was so fervent that he had registered to vote in two states at the same time.

It was Meadows who teamed up with his former boss to try to pressure Georgias Secretary of State to nullify Georgias 2020 election results and induce him to fraudulently proclaim that a state that Joe Biden had won had been won by Donald Trump. Meadows is among the esteemed band of Trump aides who, subpoenaed to testify about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, either refused to honor the subpoena or invoked their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Hes been referred to the Justice Department for criminal charges for contempt of Congress. But the nation owes Meadows a real debt of gratitude for reminding us that the only apparent voter fraud in the 2020 election was committed by Donald Trumps chief of staff.

Witlessness isnt a crime, but it does seem plain that Meadows is no Einstein. Fumbling to come up with something, anything, that would provide a molecule of support for Trumps fraudulent claim of election fraud, Meadows had this exchange with CNNs Jake Tapper at one point: Do you realize how inaccurate the voter rolls are? he asked the host without any sheepishness on account of his own voter fraud. When Tapper replied that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud, Meadows was ready. Theres no evidence that theres not, either, he said. Thats the definition of fraud, Jake.

With Trump and many of his closest advisers either under criminal investigation, indicted, referred to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution or already convicted, the prospect of a return to power by the former president and the party that swears fealty to him should concentrate Americans minds in a most serious way. It is a real prospect. The thanks accorded Biden for steering America through the national COVID disaster bequeathed him by Trump, record economic growth, an unemployment rate of 3.6% and a historic response to Vladimir Putins invasion of Ukraine is a 39% approval rating. Fifty-five percent of Americans say they disapprove of Bidens job performance.

Just what we need right about now is a Putin loyalist in the White House.

Things dont look promising for democracy either here or abroad if the party of Trump regains power. I think NATO is obsolete, pronounced Trump about the alliance of European democracies that holds a nuclear Russia at bay and is enabling Ukraine to defend itself. Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton believes Trump would have withdrawn from NATO in a second term. And I think Putin was waiting for that, Bolton said.

More than 60 Congressional Republicans recently voted against a resolution expressing support for NATO. Trump is seeking to bolster the bloc of Republicans happy to sell Ukraine down the river. Last weekend he endorsed Ohio Republican J.D. Vance for the Senate, not long after Vance bragged to former chief Trump strategist and twice-indicted podcast host Steve Bannon I gotta be honest with you, I dont really care what happens to Ukraine.

In this season of holidays, as we emerge from pandemic-induced hibernation, its painful to consider that democracy is on the edge. The next months may determine whether and where it survives.

Jeff Robbins is a Boston lawyer and former U.S. delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Read more from the original source:
Robbins: Here and abroad, democracy hanging in the balance - Boston Herald

The U.S. government Thursday filed a civil action in federal court in Portland against drone distributor HobbyKing to collect a $2.8 million fine for selling and marketing unauthorized communication devices for drones.

The Federal Communications Commission determined that HobbyKing marketed to U.S. customers at least 65 models of audio visual transmitters that were not certified by the federal agency and would not have a legitimate amateur radio use.

The certification requirement ensures that radio frequency equipment does not interfere with federal government operations, such as the Federal Aviation Administrations aeronautical radar systems. Fifteen of the 65 models created a threat to public safety, according to the civil complaint.

The federal regulatory commission also found that the drone transmitters were marketed to drone enthusiasts and not to licensed radio amateurs.

The Federal Communications Commission sent the company a letter on Nov. 1, seeking full payment of the fine within 30 days, according to the complaint. The amount remains unpaid, the complaint said.

The government is seeking $2.8 million for HobbyKings violations and $39,278 for the companys failure to respond to the commissioners orders, plus interest.

The company has argued to federal regulators that there are no marketing rules that specifically address versatile drone equipment capable of both amateur and non-amateur frequencies and that it had no notice that its marketing was unlawful.

The company also argued that responding to the agency would violate its Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the amount of the fine should be reduced due to the companys inability to pay, according to court records.

The Federal Communications Commission rejected the companys arguments, saying its rules prohibit the marketing of radio frequency devices unless the devices have first been labeled and authorized consistent with the commissions rules.

HobbyKing is the trade name of several companies based in the U.S., including ABC Fulfillment Services and Indubitably, Inc., as well as a Hong Kong-based company, Hextronik. All of the companies are associated with a man named Anthony Hand.

The complaint is filed in Oregon because Indubitably, Inc.s principal place of business is Portland and the companies engaged in business in Oregon, according to the complaint.

-- Maxine Bernstein

Email mbernstein@oregonian.com; 503-221-8212

Follow on Twitter @maxoregonian

Original post:
Feds go to court in Portland to collect $2.8M fine against HobbyKing for marketing unauthorized drone transmi - OregonLive

SHREVEPORT, La. (KTAL/KMSS) A former co-defendant of the two men on trial for second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder in the death of Shreveport Police Officer Chatri Payne refused to testify Thursday when called to the stand.

Lawrence Pierre, 24, was originally scheduled to go on trial with co-defendants, 29-year-old Travion Anderson and 41-year-old Glenn Frierson, but on the morning the trial was set to begin, he pleaded guilty. In exchange, the prosecution dismissed the conspiracy to commit murder charge.

Pierre was then taken to jail, and the trial for his former co-defendants began. Since the trial began, however, the prosecution has presented as much evidence against Pierre as it has against Anderson, who lived with Payne and their 2-year-old daughter in the home at 1633 Midway where Payne was shot and mortally wounded in January 2019.

Very little evidence has been presented against Frierson, Paynes cousin, who it is believed dropped off Pierre on a nearby street just before Payne was shot and picked up Pierre shortly after the shooting.

Pierre was subpoenaed by the state and by both defense attorneys, but it was not until Thursday Day 9 of the trial that he was called to testify.

Throughout the trial, defense attorneys have expressed a desire to question Frierson, and his non-presence in the proceedings has left a huge gap because, for more than three years, the prosecution has been building a case around three co-defendants.

Before the jury was brought in, Pierre, wearing the black and white stripes of a convicted murderer, leg irons, shackles, and handcuffs attached to a wide brown belt, shuffled in, accompanied by a CPSO deputy.

As Pierre took a seat in the witness chair between the jury box and Judge John Mosely. His former defense attorney in the murder case, Edward Mouton, stood between Pierre and Judge John Mosely on the bench.

Mouton announced to the court that, contrary to media reports, Pierre did not agree to testify and would take the Fifth Amendment if he was asked questions.

He will fight, he will not cooperate, Mouton said.

Prosecutor Ron Stamps disagreed and said he would dismiss any charges that might be pending against Pierre as a result of his testimony, adding that it was not Moutons place to answer for Pierre.

Mouton again argued in favor of the Fifth Amendment and again Stamps said, It is our position that he does not have the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment. At that point, Mosely agreed, telling Pierre and Mouton that the Court agrees, the defendant does not have Fifth Amendment rights.

Andersons attorney, John Bokenfohr, chimed in his agreement, calling Pierres refusal to cooperate outrageous.

After the jury was led in and Stamps began questioning Pierre, he was defiant, refusing to answer questions pulled from his own guilty plea, answering each time, I prefer not to answer, as Mouton stood by his side, watching.

And each time Pierre answered, I prefer not to answer, Mosely jumped in saying, You have no Fifth Amendment rights.

Still, Pierre repeated to the judge, I prefer not to answer.

After Stamps gave up and tendered Pierre to the defense attorneys, Pierre gave the same response to Bokenfohrs questions, which was followed by a reminder from the judge that he had no Fifth Amendment rights, to which Pierre again gave his I prefer not to answer response.

When Friersons attorney, Mary Harried, took the stand, she asked Pierre several questions regarding past statements by Pierre that Frierson, his cousin, had nothing to do with Paynes death; that Frierson did not know when he dropped off Pierre that he was going to the home where Payne was killed a few minutes later, nor was he aware what had happened when he picked up Pierre on another street after Payne was shot.

Again, to every question, Pierre answered, I prefer not to answer, and again Mosely told him he had no First Amendment rights.

Harried eventually grew weary of the situation and gave up.

Pierre was taken back to jail, where he is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole, or suspension of sentence, and court was adjourned until Monday morning.

See the article here:
Former co-defendant defies judges orders to testify in cop slaying trial - KTALnews.com

The Supreme Court this month will hear its last oral arguments in a term that has been overshadowed by disputes over abortion and the Second Amendment and the confirmation of the nations first Black female justice.

As the country awaits decisions in those potentially landmark cases, three cases stand out as highlights among the remaining disputes to be argued before the justices.

They involve a Trump-era immigration policy, a dispute over a high school football coachs religious practice on school grounds and the Miranda warning that suspects are given by law enforcement.

Its the last set of arguments that will include Justice Stephen Breyer, who will retire this summer. He will be replaced by the newly confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Trump-era remain in Mexico policy

One of the most high-profile fights on the courts docket is a dispute over the Biden administrations effort to end a controversial Trump-era immigration measure that requires asylum-seekers at the southern border to stay in Mexico while their applications are processed.

Arguments will center on whether the Biden administration must continue the policy despite the Department of Homeland Securitys (DHS) conclusion that the measure is not in the United States national interest.

Former President Trumps remain in Mexico policy, implemented in 2019, blocked migrants at the Mexican border from entering the U.S. to apply for asylum, leaving tens of thousands of people awaiting their fates in Mexico and subjecting them to potential persecution and abuse.

More than 60,000 asylum-seekers were returned to Mexico under the policy, formally called the Migrant Protection Protocols, a departure from a previous practice of allowing those fleeing violence to cross the border and apply for asylum within the U.S.

The Biden administrations two efforts to rescind the program were blocked after a lawsuit by the attorneys general of Texas and Missouri. Lower courts found the legal basis for ending the policy lacking, prompting the administrations appeal to the Supreme Court.

DHS has thus been forced to reinstate and continue implementing indefinitely a controversial policy that the Secretary has twice determined is not in the interests of the United States, the administration told the justices in court papers.

The court will hear arguments in the case in the second week of the two-week period during which it is hearing new arguments.

Miranda rights

The justices this week will hear a procedural dispute that stems from a police officers failure to issue a Miranda warning in a case with potentially weighty criminal justice implications.

The case arose after Terence Tekoh, a Los Angeles hospital worker, was accused of sexually assaulting a patient. In the course of investigating, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Carlos Vega brought Tekoh to a private room to talk but did not advise Tekoh of his Miranda rights, which include a notice of the right against self-incrimination while in police custody.

At the conclusion of their meeting, Tekoh had produced a written confession. The partys claims about what transpired in their meeting are at stark odds, with Tekoh claiming Vega coerced him into confessing by threatening to deport Tekoh and his family to their native Cameroon. Vega, by contrast, depicted Tekoh as contrite and remorseful and having confessed voluntarily.

Prosecutors used Tekohs confession as evidence in his criminal trial, but the jury found Tekoh not guilty. Following his acquittal, Tekoh filed a civil lawsuit against Vega for violating his constitutional rights.

Tekoh asked the court to instruct the jury that the prosecutions use of Tekohs confession which arose after he was provided no Miranda warning amounted to an automatic violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The trial court denied Tekohs request, and the jury sided with Vega.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with Tekoh. The appeals court determined that a Miranda violation alone can be the basis for finding an officer liable if the confession is later used at a criminal trial. Vega appealed to the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in the case on April 20. The Biden administration has asked the justices to side with the officer.

Prayer in school athletics

A third upcoming case pits a high school football coach against school administrators who reprimanded the coach over his practice of holding a brief prayer on the fields 50-yard line following games.

A devout Christian, coach Joseph Kennedys custom of kneeling on field and conducting prayer while surrounded by many of his players drew reproach from officials at his Seattle-area public school. Administrators told Kennedy his conduct violated a school policy that prohibited staff from encouraging students to engage in prayer or other devotional activity.

Amid widespread publicity, Kennedy sued the school district, alleging that his First Amendment speech and religious rights were violated. A federal district court in Washington ruled against him, reasoning that Kennedys conduct was not constitutionally protected because it was done in his capacity as a public employee.

Kennedy appealed, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based federal appeals court last year affirmed the lower courts decision. The panel concluded that Bremerton School District (BSD) would have violated the Constitutions prohibition on government endorsement of religion by allowing Kennedy to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him.

Kennedys attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to BSD compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties, the appeals court wrote.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Kennedys appeal on April 25.

The rest is here:
Three cases to watch as Supreme Court readies for final oral arguments of term - The Hill

FORT WALTON BEACH, FL Our Crisis in Corrections series continues with the story of a former Florida prisoner who's now paralyzed after being beaten by corrections officers.

The I-Team learned that while the state has paid out $4.65 million tax dollars to settle the case, the officers believed to be responsible for having beaten Cheryl Weimer have yet to face criminal charges, nearly three years later.

We traveled more than 400 miles to visit Weimar in Ft. Walton Beach at one of the few facilities in Florida that can provide for her extensive needs and accepts convicted felons.

Weimar appreciates the little things, like a few minutes of fresh air in a park, away from her nursing home.

This is a blessing, Weimar said when we met her.

She hopes by speaking out, she may help prevent other incarcerated individuals from suffering at the hands of corrections officers.

'Its like someone took an ax and went right through me'

The day we met was our fourth planned interview. The others were canceled when the 53-year-olds fragile health failed. Shes been hospitalized seven times in six months.

But that day, she enjoyed her favorite meal, a Big Mac.

This hamburger is so delicious," Weimar said. "Do you see the cheese and the lettuce?

Her care manager, registered nurse, Gina Arsenault, fed her.

All she can do is lay in her bed, lay in her chair," Arsenault said. "Shes highly dependent for any task brushing her teeth, combing her hair, getting a shower."

Every waking moment shes in pain.

I can feel my bones," Weimar said. "Its like somebody took an ax and went right through me.

WFTS

Yet she believes Floridas prison system is far more broken than her body.

When I woke up in the ICU knowing that I was paralyzed from the neck down, I didnt see me making it, she said.

Cheryl Weimar

A troubled early life

She had one of the worst upbringings Ive ever seen of any of my clients, attorney Ryan Andrews said.

Andrews represented Weimar in her lawsuit against the Florida Department of Corrections. He said Weimar may look like the girl next door in photos he provided, but she was an abused child, ran away from home, turned to prostitution and began drinking and using drugs. By her early 20s, she was homeless.

She was living under a bridge after Hurricane Andrew and gave birth on all fours under an overpass, Andrews said.

Cheryl Weimar

Weimar was arrested for petty crimes over the next two decades. In 2014, her then-boyfriend Steven Horowitz was arrested for punching and kicking her in the ribs at a Broward County motel.

He beat her up," Andrews said. "He got out, came back. She was afraid, stabbed him, then she got arrested."

In 2015, Weimar was convicted of domestic violence for stabbing Horowitz with a steak knife and was sentenced to seven years at Lowell Correctional Institution in Ocala.

I had to fight, I had to do the best I could to get out of the situation, Weimar said. He nearly killed me.

Arsenault previously worked as a nurse at the prison and said the living conditions were terrible for inmates.

Court evidence photo

A brutal beating leads to a broken neck

On August 21, 2019, Weimar was assigned to clean toilets, but she said she was in pain from a hip injury.

I did about seven toilets and I realized I couldnt do anymore," she said. "So, I got down to the eighth one and I said 'I cant do it.'

Thats when she said correction officer Ryan Dionne and Lt. Keith Turner handcuffed her and then attacked her in front of more than a dozen witnesses.

The lieutenant came running up in the back with his steel-toed boots and put it right through my spine," Weimar recalled. "I mean, I went to my knees."

According to the lawsuit, while she was on the ground, "they brutally beat her with blows to her head, neck, and back."

The lawsuit alleges Weimar was elbowed and kneed in the back of her neck by at least one of her attackers, causing her to suffer a broken neck.

In one of the videos, her chin is touching her chest in a way thats physically impossible without a broken neck, her attorney, Ryan Andrews said.

Andrews said he could not share the disturbing videos due to a settlement agreement.

Her labored breathing, her attempts at crying; it was horrible," Andrews said. "Her begging. Saying she couldnt move her extremities. It was horrific."

Weimar was airlifted to a hospital, where she underwent multiple surgeries and months of treatment.

Corrections officers had questionable pasts

Initially, the guards accused of assaulting her remained on the job, despite their questionable pasts.

Everybody covers everybodys back, Arsenault said. You just sweep it under the rug and go about your business.

Both Dionne and Turner had records of violence toward women and girls.

According to the lawsuit, "Dionne was arrested in 2013 for beating his then-girlfriend as well as biting her neck and head area."

The charges were dropped when his victim refused to testify, allowing Dionne to qualify for employment by the Florida Department of Corrections.

The lawsuit also alleges Turner showed, "violent, threatening, and abusive conduct towards women based on dozens of inmate complaints against him."

A DOJ investigation into the mistreatment of prisoners at Lowell said Turner was accused repeatedly of sexually abusing multiple prisoners. However, he remained in his position until 2019, when he was arrested on charges of sexually molesting two girls.

They could have terminated one of the individuals for any of 10 different things that he had complaints against him for," Andrews said. "They didnt and that gave him the opportunity to be there and do what he did to Cheryl Weimar."

Transcripts show Dionne and Turner asserted their Fifth Amendment right more than 600 combined times during depositions.

In the affirmative defenses, Dionne and Turner filed in the lawsuit, they stated that their actions were not committed in "bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton or willful disregard of human rights or safety."

Attempts to contact Dionne and Turner for comment were unsuccessful.

The Florida Department of Corrections settled the lawsuit in 2020 and paid $4.65 million.

Dionne resigned from his position several days later.

After nearly three years, no charges against officers

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Department of Corrections spent more than two years investigating the beating.

Their findings were turned over to the Marion County State's Attorney in Nov. 2021, but nearly three years after the attack, neither officer has been charged.

They have everything they need to charge these guys, Andrews said.

When I did a crime, I had to pay for my crime," Weimar said. "I feel as though theyre not above the law. I feel as though they should have to pay for what theyve done to me and they havent."

If you have a story you think the I-Team should investigate, email us at adam@abcactionnews.com.

MORE CRISIS IN CORRECTIONS:

Read more:
Officers accused of inmate beating which left woman paralyzed not charged nearly 3 years later - ABC Action News Tampa Bay