Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

The jurors assessing 11 charges of fraud and conspiracy against former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes began their third day of deliberations Thursday

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE AP Technology Writer

December 23, 2021, 6:17 PM

3 min read

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The jurors responsible for assessing 11 charges of fraud and conspiracy against former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes began their third day of deliberations Thursday.

If they haven't reached a verdict by the end of the day, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila and the attorneys for both sides will discuss the possibility of taking a break until Jan. 3. The jury had originally signaled that it was willing to deliberate during the week between Christmas and New Years Day.

On Tuesday after roughly 13 hours of deliberation, the jurors asked the judge whether they could take home the 39-page document spelling out their legal instructions to study it more carefully.

The request, submitted just ahead of a previously scheduled one-day break in deliberations, was swiftly rejected on the grounds that all jury deliberations are supposed to happen inside an isolated room in the San Jose, California, courthouse where the trial was held.

The jury is charged with deciding whether Holmes turned her blood-testing startup into a massive scam. If convicted on all counts, Holmes, 37, could face up to 20 years in prison.

The trial revolves around allegations that Holmes duped investors, business partners and patients about Theranos' technology. She repeatedly claimed that the company's new testing device could scan for hundreds of diseases and other problems with a few drops of blood taken with a finger prick instead of a needle stuck in a vein.

The concept was so compelling that Theranos and Holmes raised more than $900 million, some of that from billionaire investors such as media magnate Rupert Murdoch and software titan Larry Ellison. The Palo Alto, California, company also negotiated potentially lucrative deals with major retailers Walgreens and Safeway. Holmes soon began to grace national magazine covers as a wunderkind.

Unknown to most people outside Theranos, the companys blood-testing technology was flawed, often producing inaccurate results that could have endangered the lives of patients who took the tests.

After the flaws were exposed in 2015 and 2016, Theranos eventually collapsed. The Justice Department filed its criminal case in 2018.

In a dramatic turn on the witness stand last month, Holmes testified that her former lover and business partner Sunny Balwani had been covertly controlling her diet, her friendships and more while subjecting her to mental, emotional and sexual abuse.

Although her testimony cast Holmes as Balwani's pawn, her defense team did not mention the alleged abuse and its effects on Holmes during closing arguments.

Balwanis lawyer adamantly denied Holmes accusations in court documents that the jury never saw. Jurors also never heard from Balwani, who intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if he had been called to testify. Balwani, 56, faces similar fraud charges in a separate trial scheduled to begin in February.

That leaves the jury to decide whether the alleged partner abuse may have affected Holmes' decisions at Theranos.

Read the original post:
Jurors in the Elizabeth Holmes trial may take next week off - ABC News

As the anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection approaches, we should all bemoan the fact that those who tried to steal the 2020 election from the American people have yet to be held to account. The public must continue to demand consequences for those who participated in an insurrection against the U.S. Constitutionand not just those who stormed the Capitol Building, attacked those sworn to protect it, and obstructed Congresss acceptance of the presidential election results. There must be accountability for those who sought to undermine the U.S. government by falsely claiming that the election was rigged, giving life to those lies in various legal and legislative acts of insurrection, engendering violence against Congress, and (temporarily) halting its certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

Ambassador P. Michael McKinley (ret.) recently published a piece in Just Security that drove home the need for accountability for former President Donald Trump and others who have imperiled our democracy. I agree with Ambassador McKinleys sense of urgency and his call for the Department of Justice to ensure that the foot soldiers of the insurrection are not the only individuals who face real consequences. But it is also important to recognize that, within the existing constraints, the January 6 Select Committees investigation has made meaningful and timely progress towards accountability.

Real accountability is not possible without proven (and provable) facts. Congress and federal prosecutors cannot make a case for criminal liability without being able to articulate the evidence of culpability. Congress cannot make a case that someone is barred from holding public office under section 3 of the 14th Amendment without articulating how they engaged in an insurrection against the Constitution. Those pursuing lawsuits against the insurrectionists need facts to vindicate their claims that the defendants violated their civil rights.

The Select Committee has been engaged in the deliberate and largely quiet work of amassing facts that will serve all of these ends and more. As Select Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson recently noted, the Select Committee will have interviewed or deposed over 300 witnesses and obtained over 30,000 records by the end of 2021. That is, frankly, an astounding pace. It strongly suggests that the Select Committee members and staff have internalized the urgency of this moment and their role in it.

The vast majority of witnesses identified by the Select Committee have cooperated without the Select Committee even needing to issue a formal subpoena. And the Select Committee has taken appropriate and decisive steps to compel testimony when required; it has issued 52 subpoenas for records and testimony in the last several months:

Again, many of those subpoenaed are turning over records and appearing for depositions. A noisy and no doubt important few have put up some resistance. Bannon refused to cooperate and, laughably, claimed that executive privilege precludes him from testifying even though he was a private citizen and was not advising President Trump about governmental affairs at the time of the events in question. Meadows turned over records but thus far has refused to testify on grounds that are slightly less ridiculous than Bannon but nevertheless unlikely to be any more successful. John Eastman, who helped Trump pressure Vice President Mike Pence to contest election results in several states, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to the Select Committees subpoena. So too did Roger Stone, who promoted his appearance at rallies on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6 2021 and employed members of the Oath Keepers (an extremist group that participated in the violence during the insurrection) as his private security detail that day. News broke on Dec. 21 that the Select Committee can expect similar obstruction from Michael Flynn and John Eastman, two other allies of the former president who assisted in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Its a mistake to view these witnesses noncompliance as the end of the road, though. No witness not even a former aide to the president has absolute immunity from answering questions or producing documents; any claim of privilege must be raised and justified on a case-by-case basis. And the Select Committee is taking action against those who are asserting bogus privileges. It has reported Bannon for contempt, the full U.S. House referred the case to DOJ, and he was swiftly indicted for contempt of Congress. Meadowss case was recently referred to DOJ by the House for prosecution, and there is every reason to think he will be indicted soon too. The pressure on both Bannon and Meadows will continue to mount. Assertions of the right against self-incrimination may be somewhat trickier to navigate; however, that right can be waived, it doesnt necessarily absolve an individual of the obligation to produce records, and it can become unavailable to an individual if the Select Committee decides to grant them immunity. A witness who continues to refuse to testify once the Fifth Amendment privilege is no longer available can be held in contempt and referred to DOJ for prosecution.

Perhaps most critically, though, the Select Committee has other ways of obtaining the information that Bannon, Meadows, Eastman, and Stone want to hide. The Select Committee reportedly subpoenaed Verizon for the phone records of over 100 individuals, which will help the Select Committee construct a timeline of who contacted whom on Jan. 6 and in the days leading up to the insurrection. (The Select Committee has very likely subpoenaed other third-party carriers too.) Many cooperating witnesses are likely able to testify about the actions of non-cooperating witnesses or to turn over communications and other records. And, on top of all of that, the Select Committee has access to records from DOJ, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the Interior, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Counterterrorism Center, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence that have reportedly been turned over in response to requests that the Select Committee transmitted in August.

Last but not least, there is the matter of presidential records in the custody of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) that President Trump is trying to stop the Select Committee from obtaining; however, that case is proceeding expeditiously. The former president lost decisively in the district court on Nov. 9 and in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 9. The appellate court made a special note that judges should act with dispatch given how the legislature is proceeding with urgency in investigating a matter of such great public import.

While Congress can and should enact reforms to accelerate the disposition of cases relating to its investigative powers, this case could very well be resolved in the Select Committees favor very soon. Trump faces a Dec. 23 deadline to seek certiorari in the Supreme Court. If the Court declines to hear the case, which could happen in a matter of weeks, NARA may be in a position to provide presidential records to the Special Committee in early 2022. If the Supreme Court decides to hear Trumps appeal, then the matter would likely still be resolved by the end of June 2022 a tolerable if unnecessary delay given the speed at which the lower courts have acted and the emphatic manner in which they have ruled against Trump. (Disclosure: I helped draft an amicus brief supporting the Select Committees position in the D.C. Circuit.)

In sum, the Select Committee is in the process of fulfilling one of its essential functions: investigating what caused the insurrection on Jan. 6 who, exactly, was involved; and how, specifically, they participated in the most serious attack on our Constitution since the Civil War. That is not to say that by establishing those truths, the Select Committee will have delivered accountability that is sufficient to protect our democracy. Far from it. It is rather to say that the Select Committee is conducting a serious and thorough investigation that is a necessary precursor to more specific and concrete forms of accountability that saving our democracy will require.

Originally posted here:
The Path to Real Accountability: The Timetable and Track Record of the Jan. 6 Select Committee - Just Security

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On December 17, 2021, Markforged Holding Corporation, through its wholly-ownedsubsidiary, MarkForged, Inc. (the "Company") entered into a Consent toAssignment and Fifth Amendment to Lease (the "Consent and Fifth Amendment") with1265 Main Office Subsidiary LLC (the "Landlord") and Clarks Americas, Inc. (the"Original Tenant"), which amended the lease dated by and between the Landlordand Original Tenant dated as of April 30, 2015 (as amended by the FirstAmendment to Lease dated as of July 11, 2016, the Second Amendment to Leasedated as of January 17, 2017, the Third Amendment to Lease dated as of May 21,2020, the Fourth Amendment to Lease dated as of January 28, 2021 and the Consentand Fifth Amendment, the "Lease") for the office building located at 60 TowerRoad, Waltham, Massachusetts (the "Premises"). Also on December 17, the Companyentered into an Assignment and Assumption Agreement with the Original Tenant(the "Assignment Agreement") pursuant to which the Company assumed the OriginalTenant's interest in and obligations under the Lease, effective April 1, 2022.Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meaningsascribed in the Consent and Fifth Amendment.

The Lease is for the entire rentable area of the Premises, which constitutes120,681 square feet. The Company intends to use the Premises as its new globalheadquarters. Pursuant to the terms of the Assignment Agreement, the Company'sassumption of the Original Tenant's interest in and obligations under the Leaseand the Premises shall be effective as of April 1, 2022 and will continue untilSeptember 30, 2031 (the "Term"). The Company will begin paying rent for thePremises on July 1, 2022, at an initial rate of $402,270 per month ("BaseRent"), which will increase in accordance with the schedule set forth in theConsent and Fifth Amendment, up to $492,781 per month at the conclusion of theLease. The Company's total obligation under the Lease is expected to beapproximately $67,415,630. Throughout the Term, the Company is responsible forpaying certain costs and expenses in addition to Base Rent, as specified in theLease, including insurance, maintenance costs, taxes, and operating expenses. Inaddition, the Company is responsible for paying the Landlord a security depositin the form of an irrevocable, unconditional, negotiable letter of credit in theamount of $804,540, which may be reduced to $402,270. The Lease also includesvarious covenants, indemnities, defaults, termination rights, and otherprovisions customary for lease transactions of this nature.

The foregoing descriptions of the Lease, the Consent and Fifth Amendment and theAssignment Agreement do not purport to be complete and are qualified in theirentirety by reference to the complete text of the Lease, the Consent and theFifth Amendment and Assignment Agreement, copies of which are attached hereto asExhibits 10.1 10.2 and 10.3, respectively, and are incorporated into thisCurrent Report on Form 8-K by reference.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

The disclosure contained in "Item 1.01 Entry into a Material DefinitiveAgreement" of this Current Report on Form 8-K is incorporated into this Item2.03 by reference.

On December 22, 2021, the Company issued a press release announcing theassignment and assumption of the Lease for its new global headquarters. A copyof the press release is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated herein byreference. Neither Exhibit 99.1 nor any information contained therein shall bedeemed "filed" for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall eitherExhibit 99.1 or any information therein be deemed incorporated by reference inany filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of1934 except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

* Exhibits and schedules to this agreement have been omitted as permitted underItem 601 of Regulation S-K and will be furnished supplementally upon request tothe Securities and Exchange Commission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read the original here:
MARKFORGED HOLDING CORP : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance...

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today we're focusing on Criminal Procedure, specifically the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and the rights and protections it provides to anyone accused of a criminal act.

In this episode, we discuss:

>The rights that the Sixth Amendment protects

>The general rule for competence

>When a judge may deny a defendant's right to represent himself/herself

>A criminal defendant's right Seemore+

In this episode, we discuss:

>The rights that the Sixth Amendment protects

>The general rule for competence

>When a judge may deny a defendant's right to represent himself/herself

>A criminal defendant's right to counsel

>The relationship between the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and Miranda warnings under the Fifth Amendment

>Analyzing a hypo involving the Sixth Amendment, based on previous California bar exams

Resources:

>Listen and Learn series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn)

>Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/)

>The Brainy Bar Bank: Streamlining Bar Study (https://barexamtoolbox.com/brainy-bar-bank/)

>California Bar Examination Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2006 (https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/February%202006%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf)

>California Bar Examination Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2014 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/gbx/July2014CBX_SelectedAnswersEssays1-6_R.pdf)

>Podcast Episode 70: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Criminal Law and Procedure (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-70-tackling-a-california-bar-exam-essay-criminal-law-and-procedure/)

>Podcast Episode 79: Tackling an MEE Criminal Law/Procedure and Evidence Essay (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-79-tackling-an-mee-criminal-law-procedure-and-evidence-essay/)

>Podcast Episode 128: Listen and Learn Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-128-listen-and-learn-privilege-against-self-incrimination-and-miranda-rights/)

>Podcast Episode 154: Listen and Learn The Exclusionary Rule (Criminal Law and Procedure) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-154-listen-and-learn-the-exclusionary-rule-criminal-law-and-procedure/)

>Podcast Episode 156: Listen and Learn The Fourth Amendment: Informer Tips (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-156-listen-and-learn-the-fourth-amendment-informer-tips/)

Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-157-listen-and-learn-the-sixth-amendment/)

If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)!

Thanks for listening!

Alison & Lee Seeless-

Read this article:
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 157: Listen and Learn -- The Sixth Amendment - JD Supra

My crystal ball is usually cloudy.

Today, it cleared up.

I know exactly what the world will look like (on at least one issue) in late January 2022. Im sufficiently confident in that prediction that Im revealing it publicly here in mid-December.

As you probably know, the New York Attorney General has issued a subpoena to Donald Trump asking him to give a deposition in a civil matter on January 7, 2022. Trump will be asked in that deposition about certain business practices of The Trump Organization.

What will happen now?

Heres the easy part of my prediction: That deposition will not occur or, at a minimum, will not occur in a meaningful way.

Trump would be nuts to give testimony under oath on these issues, given the criminal investigations being pursued by the Manhattan and Westchester district attorneys. (Hed probably be nuts to give testimony under oath for other reasons, too, but Im setting those other reasons aside for the moment.) So no meaningful deposition will occur.

Trumps lawyers will think about ways to postpone or cancel the deposition. Those lawyers might be more clever than I am, but its hard to think of a legitimate reason not to have the deposition. Trump is no longer the president, so he cant object that he doesnt have time to be deposed. The Attorney General says shell ask Trump only about his companys business practices not decisions Trump made while he was president so theres no obvious claim of executive privilege. The deposition can probably take place.

(Trump can, of course, become ill on January 6, postponing the deposition for a week or two. But its hard to see a legal ground for blocking the deposition in its entirety.)

When Trump appears for the deposition, he will invoke the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination in response to essentially every question. There are pending criminal investigations on subjects closely related to the Attorney Generals inquiry, and Trump has every right, legally, to assert the Fifth Amendment.

Politically, however, is a whole other thing. It will look very bad if Trump says that he cant testify because giving testimony might incriminate him in criminal wrongdoing. I assume that Trump will invoke the Fifth, as advised by his lawyers, but hell hate doing it.

Heres the interesting part of my prediction: As soon as Trump leaves the deposition room, hell start saying publicly that he didnt in fact do anything illegal at all. Although he invoked the Fifth Amendment to protect himself against self-incrimination, there was no need to do that. Hes as innocent as the day is long. The Attorney Generals deposition was a perjury trap, and Trump wasnt going to play that game. The Manhattan and Westchester district attorneys are engaged in political witch-hunts, and theyre looking for any bogus excuse to indict him. Trump didnt do anything wrong, and he invoked the Fifth Amendment solely to protect against political retaliation.

At that point, there will be a small legal, and a massive political, uproar. The legal dispute will be over whether someone who insists he committed no crimes, and says so publicly, has the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating himself against the crimes he didnt commit.

The political uproar will be much louder, with those on the left saying that Trump is basically conceding that he committed crimes, and those on the right explaining that invoking the Fifth Amendment in these circumstances implies nothing at all.

Thats where the world will stand as of roughly February 1, 2022.

You read it here first.

MarkHerrmannspent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeons Guide to Practicing LawandDrug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy(affiliate links). You can reach him by email atinhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Go here to see the original:
Trump, The New York Attorney General, And The Future - Above the Law

A member of the House of Representatives has suggested that former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows will avail himself of constitutional protections against self-incrimination because he could face prosecution under laws barring treason against the United States.

Speaking during a House Rules Committee meeting to consider rules for a debate on a resolution recommending that Mr Meadows be prosecuted for contempt of Congress, Rep Ed Perlmutter said he believed Mr Meadows would soon express a desire to take the Fifth Amendment because Title 18, section 115 of the United States Code the part which defines treason could be applicable to his situation.

Follow live for latest on Mark Meadows vote and reaction

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to the enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance, said Mr Perlmutter, a Colorado Democrat.

Mr Perlmutter suggested Mr Meadows had ended his cooperation with the select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection because he had pledged his loyalty to Donald Trump above that of the United States.

All of a sudden everything stops because theres a pledge of allegiance to Donald Trump above and beyond the Constitution here, which really is frightening which is why I think that were going to see the Fifth Amendment being pled, he said.

Whoever owing allegiance to the states levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000 and shall be incapable of any office under the United States, Mr Perlmutter continued, reading directly from the treason statute in US law.

He added that in his opinion, the memos and other documents that have been reported as being considered in Mr Trumps White House documents which laid out how to install Mr Trump for a second term as president over the wishes of American voters were treasonous.

Weve danced around this a lot, and we talk about obstructing Congress and things like that. But this was an effort to have a coup to overthrow the country, to break the Pledge of Allegiance we make to this country and to the Constitution, he said, adding that Mr Meadows has two masters Donald Trump and the United States of America.

I could see he is in a pickle about that, but its the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States to which he owes allegiance, he said.

The rest is here:
Mark Meadows could take Fifth Amendment to avoid treason charges, House member suggests - The Independent

It argues the Jan. 6 committees subpoena of cell phone records is invalid for multiple reasons, claiming the committee is attempting to exercise a law enforcement function, that the subpoena infringes upon attorney-client privilege, that the subpoena is a violation of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment, and that it was issued in violation of House rules and the committees own authorizing resolution.

The Committees lack of validly appointed minority members or a validly appointed ranking minority member makes such compliance impossible, the suit says. The Jan. 6 panel has seven Democrats and two Republicans the only two House Republicans who voted in favor of the panels formation.

Eastmans suit notes that he is a law professor and practicing attorney, as well as a member of the Republican Party and supporter of the former president. The suit argues his political affiliation puts him at odds with the Committees highly partisan membership, adding that Eastman is not alleged to have breached the Capitol on Jan. 6. The attorney did speak at Trumps Jan. 6 rally, alongside former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Eastman lawyers have sought to direct the suit to Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee handling former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows suit filed against the House panel and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week. House investigators voted unanimously Monday night to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress.

Eastman has not cooperated with the committees investigation thus far, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In a letter to the committees chair, Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), dated Dec. 1, Eastmans attorney said his client would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against himself in response to your subpoena.

Eastman worked closely with the former president in his attempt to overturn the election. A former Chapman University professor now affiliated with the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute, Eastman was deeply involved in the efforts, from pushing state legislative leaders to reject President Joe Bidens victory in a handful of swing states to pressuring Pence to unilaterally refuse to count some of Bidens electors and send the election to the full House for a vote.

View original post here:
Eastman sues Jan. 6 committee and Verizon to prevent release of phone records - POLITICO

Just a few days after the Jan. 6 attack, Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI, and David Williams, the former inspector general for five federal agencies, wrote a joint op-ed for Politico that raised a few eyebrows. As we discussed at the time, McCabe and Williams said Donald Trump could face criminal charges for inciting a riot, noting that it's a federal crime to "endeavor to persuade" another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.

The Washington Post reported soon after that the then-president's legal advisers "expressed increasing concern" about the Republican's "possible criminal liability." The article added that Trump had been told by attorneys "that he could face legal jeopardy for inciting a mob." An adviser close to Trump told CNN the then-president was "worried about" being prosecuted.

We now know, of course, that nothing came of this. But what if there were a different area of criminal liability for the former president related to his anti-election efforts?

Rep. Liz Cheney, the Republican co-chair of the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, surprised many last night by reading important text messages sent to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows during the deadly riot. But what the Wyoming congresswoman said next was just as notable:

"Mr. Meadows's testimony will bear on another key question before this committee: Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress' official proceeding to count electoral votes?"

Cheney chose her words carefully because she was referring to statutory language: To corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress' official proceeding to count electoral votes is a crime. (She repeated the line to the House Rules Committee this morning.)

As Rachel noted on last night's show, the Justice Department has launched a series of prosecutions related to Jan. 6, but in each instance, federal law enforcement has charged rioters not those who invited the rioters, whipped the rioters into a frenzy, or dispatched the rioters to attack the Capitol. As best as we can tell, the Justice Department has similarly shown no interest in targeting those who tried to overturn the election results through less violent means.

But Cheney's public comments last night suggest the bipartisan select committee has possible criminal misconduct on its members' minds.

It's not just Trump. Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official Trump considered for attorney general to help him steal the election, recently pleaded the Fifth in response to questions from the Jan. 6 committee.

It was against this backdrop that Cheney said last night that Trump, after being told that his election conspiracy theories were wrong, wanted Clark to lead the Justice Department so that he could claim that the election conspiracy theories had merit. The GOP congresswoman then added, "Mr. Clark has informed this committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters, and intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his Fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As Mr. Meadows' non-privileged texts reveal, Meadows communicated multiple times with a member of Congress who was working with Mr. Clark."

I'm a little surprised this isn't generating more conversation today. Cheney said out loud, while reading from a prepared text that a then-Justice Department lawyer was allegedly involved in a scheme to overturn the election; he's told the bipartisan panel he expects possible criminal charges; and texts from the former White House chief of staff suggest the lawyer was working directly with a member of Congress.

And while the public doesn't know which member of Congress we're talking about, Meadows' texts have informed the committee of the member's identity.

Up until now, the criminal dimension of this story has been limited to contempt of Congress first for Steve Bannon, and soon for Mark Meadows and the ongoing criminal investigation into Trump's alleged efforts to interfere with election proceedings in Georgia. But there's no reason to assume the list will end here.

As Rachel put it on the show, "Whether or not the federal Justice Department is ever going to investigate or prosecute anyone for this scheme, trying to interfere in a state's elections, trying to induce officials to mess with the election results, pressuring officials to change election results, that's a crime in every state in the country."

And who allegedly engaged in such activities? According to the latest revelations, Republican officials in the Trump administration and in Congress.

Watch this space.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Originally posted here:
Liz Cheney raised the prospect of a possible Trump election crime - MSNBC

LYNN HAVEN Attorneys for former Lynn Haven Mayor Margo Anderson have requested that charges against their client be dismissed with prejudice, claiming she was indicted "based on an inaccurate, deceptive and misleading narrative."

The motion, filed Monday, claimsAnderson has provided proof of her innocence of several of the charges filed against her.

It also asserts that she was the whistleblower who brought evidence to law enforcement of a scheme to defraud the city of millions in FEMA money, a "fact" the government has withheld.

Contentious counsel: Squabbling between attorneys in federal Lynn Haven corruption case hints at more fraud

Widespread scandal in Lynn Haven: Former Lynn Haven commissioner Antonius Barnes pleads guilty to federal corruption charges

The original indictment: Lynn Haven mayor and city attorney each charged with more than 60 federal crimes

The motion also alleges that the government withheld from her counsel evidence rebutting some or all of the charges Anderson facesby redacting it from discovery material turned over to her defense team.

"She lost her job, had to relocate to a new community and endured stress-related health conditions. Her name and reputation are ruined," the motion states. "Then she had to fight the government for almost a year to get information proving her innocence that should have been provided by the government without request as a matter of constitutional right."

Anderson was still serving as mayor when she was originally indicted Aug. 18, 2020, along with then City Attorney Adam Albritton,on more than 60 federal charges. Those includedconspiring to defraud, numerous counts of wire fraud and embezzlement of federal funds. She also faced counts of depriving the city of Lynn Haven and its residents of their right to honest servicesand lying to federal agents.

The Anderson and Albritton indictments came nine months after five others, including former Lynn Haven City Manager Michael White, had been charged with federal crimes. Those charges stemmed from a scheme in which two businesses worked with White to falsifyinvoices that allowed them to steal millions in FEMA debris removal funding assistancecoming to the city following Hurricane Michael in October of 2018.

The primary business involved in the scheme was Erosion Control Specialist, owned by David White, who is not related to Michael White.

The Anderson and Albritton indictmentallegedthat following Hurricane Michael, Albritton drafted and Anderson signed off on an agreement that extended the ECS debris removal deadline indefinitelyand that both requested and received work done at their homes by the company.

Later, James Finch, owner of Phoenix Construction, would also be indicted and Anderson was further charged with conspiring with Finch to steer construction projects to his company in exchange for gifts of travel andin one instance, a motor home. Some of the illegally procured projects indirectly involved Hurricane Michael debris removal and others, the original indictment said, occurred well before the storm.

While seven of the alleged co-conspirators have now pleaded guilty to the crimes filed against them and await sentencing, Anderson and Finch have vigorously fought the charges they face.

In her motion to dismiss, Anderson states she "was the whistleblower that brought the suspicious ECS payments to law enforcement."

Like Anderson, Finch has filed a motion to dismiss the charges he faces with prejudice, which would allow them to collect attorneys fees. Finch claims prosecutorial misconduct and violations of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

The Fifth Amendment protects defendants from self-incrimination and prevents a person from being tried more than once for the same crime.The Sixth Amendment provides for a speedy trial before an impartial jury.

In August, District Court Judge Mark Walker sided with the attorneys for Finch and Anderson and tossed out a conspiracy charge the government had built its case around.

Hewrote in his ruling that while he saw clear intent to conspire in three of five "projects" he looked at to determine whether conspiracy allegations held up, in two others he did notand due to that he could find no alternative but to toss the entire charge.

In November, the government filed another indictment alleging conspiracy. This is the one Anderson and Finch are now contesting.

Anderson's motion to dismiss claims that her lawyers have provided documentation showing that "every contract executed by Anderson in favor of Phoenix Construction, every contract change order/addendum/task order executed by Anderson in favor of Phoenix Construction, every municipal bond executed by Anderson tofinance a Phoenix Construction projectand every promissory note executed by Anderson in favor of James Finch, were presented to the (Lynn Haven) City Commission, recommended by City staffand received unanimous approval by the City Commission."

It also states Anderson's defense team has provided a survey to prosecutors showing that hurricane clean up work the government claims Anderson had ECS do at her residenceand that of her mother and neighbor, was actually work done at a city easement property.

It likewise claims to have provided proof that allegations Anderson received insurance coverage at no charge are false.

The motion also questions the government's release of information gathered through testimony from those who have already pleaded guilty what is known as Brady or Giglio material. And it claims the grand jury that indicted Finch and Anderson in November was not given all the information it needed to objectively make its decision before decidingto indict.

"The Government has a track record of skewing innocent facts to imply nefarious conduct. It has demonstrated a propensity for presenting inaccurate facts to the grand jury, for isolating select facts in a manner that is deceptive and misleadingand for standing steadfast by a flawed narrative," the motion states.

Prosecutors have been given until Dec. 22 to respond to the Anderson and Finch motions to dismiss. Counsel for the two defendants will then have until Jan. 7 to reply.

A trial date in the case has tentatively been set for Feb. 28.

The rest is here:
Former Lynn Haven mayor asserts her innocence in motion to dismiss federal charges - The News Herald

Mitch Kossoff (Getty)

Convicted real estate attorney Mitch Kossoff is on the hook to repay more than $14 million he stole from dozens of clients to support his lavish lifestyle, authorities said.

After Kossoff pleaded guilty Monday to several charges of grand larceny and fraud, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said the disgraced lawyer will be subject to judgment orders that require him to repay $14.6 million.

Its unclear, though, how he will come up with the money. A felony conviction in New York triggers automatic disbarment, so even if Kossoff somehow avoids a long prison term he faces up to 13 and a half years behind bars getting his law license back could take years if it happens at all. And he is already 68 years old.

The court ordered Kossoff to surrender a condominium he owns in Highlands, New Jersey. Proceeds from its sale would over cover a small portion of what he owes, though.

Kossoffs criminal defense attorney, Walter Mack, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

According to the district attorneys office, Kossoff used his clients escrow money to live a lifestyle that would have otherwise been beyond his means.

He lived in a Manhattan rental apartment with monthly rent in excess of $19,000 and spent an average of more than $16,000 per month on credit card bills alone, prosecutors wrote court documents.

Kossoff also used some of the money to sustain his familys struggling business, Burton Packaging Company. In a Ponzi-like cycle, he would ask clients under false pretenses to deposit funds into escrow so that he could use the money to repay other accounts he had drawn down, prosecutors said.

Kossoff pleaded guilty Monday to defrauding 35 individuals and companies over a period of three years.

I defrauded multiple clients of my law firm, Kossoff said in copping to three charges of grand larceny and one of scheming to defraud. He remains free pending his sentencing, which is scheduled for April 6.

A handful of friends were in court to lend moral support to the disgraced ex-lawyer, who was known for his expertise on rent stabilization. In a bit of gallows humor, he mentioned wanting the Yankees to win another World Series but that he might not be able to see it.

After some clients raised questions about questionable account transfers in March, Kossoff dropped out of sight in April, prompting panicked inquiries by clients about the whereabouts of the millions of dollars they had entrusted to him.

The crime threw Kossoffs law firm, Kossoff PLLC, into bankruptcy. Kossof and his attorney initially refused to hand over documents to the trustee tasked with unwinding the practices accounts.

Kossoffs attorney argued that since his client was under criminal investigation, turning over the requested documents would violate his Fifth Amendment rights. The bankruptcy judge in November found Kossoff in contempt of court and told him he could avoid jail by handing over the requested paperwork.

Mack said in court on Monday that Kossoff is now cooperating with the bankruptcy proceedings.

Contact Rich Bockmann

See the article here:
Heres where Mitch Kossoffs stolen money went - The Real Deal