|
|
|
Trump's lawyers ask judge to lift gag order imposed during New York trial
Headline Legal News |
2024/06/11 00:07
|
Donald Trump’s lawyers are asking a New York judge to lift the gag order that barred the former president from commenting about witnesses, jurors and others tied to the criminal case that led to his conviction for falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal.
In a letter Tuesday, Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove asked Judge Juan M. Merchan to end the gag order, arguing there is nothing to justify “continued restrictions on the First Amendment rights of President Trump” now that the trial is over.
Among other reasons, the lawyers said Trump is entitled to “unrestrained campaign advocacy” in light of President Joe Biden’s public comments about the verdict last Friday, and continued public criticism of him by his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen and porn actor Stormy Daniels, both key prosecution witnesses.
Trump’s lawyers also contend the gag order must go away so he’s free to fully address the case and his conviction with the first presidential debate scheduled for June 27.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to comment.
Merchan issued Trump’s gag order on March 26, a few weeks before the start of the trial, after prosecutors raised concerns about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s propensity to attack people involved in his cases.
Merchan later expanded it to prohibit comments about his own family after Trump made social media posts attacking the judge’s daughter, a Democratic political consultant. Comments about Merchan and District Attorney Alvin Bragg are allowed, but the gag order bars statements about court staff and members of Bragg’s prosecution team.
Trump was convicted Thursday of 34 counts of falsifying business records arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a hush money payment to Daniels just before the 2016 election. She claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier, which he denies. He is scheduled to be sentenced July 11.
Prosecutors had said they wanted the gag order to “protect the integrity of this criminal proceeding and avoid prejudice to the jury.” In the order, Merchan noted prosecutors had sought the restrictions “for the duration of the trial.” He did not specify when they would be lifted.
Blanche told the Associated Press last Friday that it was his understanding the gag order would expire when the trial ended and that he would seek clarity from Merchan, which he did on Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ippei Mizuhara sports betting case: Shohei Ohtani interpreter pleads guilty
Headline Legal News |
2024/06/05 16:01
|
As an interpreter, Ippei Mizuhara was supposed to bridge the gap between baseball star Shohei Ohtani and his English-speaking teammates and fans as the duo traveled from Southern California to ballparks across the U.S.
Instead, Mizuhara exploited the Japanese-English language barrier to isolate Ohtani and profit, in the truest sense, from his proximity to the two-way player ‘s power. On Tuesday, the ex-interpreter pleaded guilty in federal court in Santa Ana, California, to bank and tax fraud for stealing nearly $17 million from the unsuspecting athlete’s Arizona bank account.
He spent the money to cover his growing gambling bets and debts with an illegal bookmaker, plus $325,000 worth of baseball cards and, to the shock of prosecutors, his own medical bills.
“In fact, after we announced the charges, we only discovered more fraud in this case,” said Martin Estrada, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. “We discovered Mr. Mizuhara had victimized Mr. Ohtani to the extent that he wouldn’t even pay for dental. He stole money from Mr. Ohtani to pay for his own dental expenses.”
The case involved arguably the world’s most famous baseball player and the sport’s most valuable voice. Despite the international media frenzy, Tuesday’s 45-minute proceeding was fairly mundane: Ohtani was known as “Victim A” inside the courtroom and the ex-interpreter only spoke to acknowledge his guilt.
The case involved arguably the world’s most famous baseball player and the sport’s most valuable voice. Despite the international media frenzy, Tuesday’s 45-minute proceeding was fairly mundane: Ohtani was known as “Victim A” inside the courtroom and the ex-interpreter only spoke to acknowledge his guilt.
“I worked for Victim A and had access to his bank account and had fallen into major gambling debt,” Mizuhara told the judge. “I went ahead and wired money … with his bank account.”
He and his attorney declined to comment after the hearing.
Inside baseball, Mizuhara stood by Ohtani’s side for many of the Japanese sensation’s career highlights, from serving as his catcher during the Home Run Derby at the 2021 All-Star Game, to being there for his two American League MVP wins and his record-shattering $700 million, 10-year deal with the Los Angeles Dodgers.
Off the field, Mizuhara became Ohtani’s friend and confidant. He famously resigned from the Los Angeles Angels during the 2021 MLB lockout so he could keep speaking to Ohtani — he was rehired after a deal was struck — and their wives reportedly socialized.
But Mizuhara gambled it all away, betting tens of millions of dollars that weren’t his to wager on international soccer, the NBA, the NFL and college football — though prosecutors said he never bet on baseball.
Estrada, the U.S. attorney, said Ohtani was particularly vulnerable, despite his fame.
“Mr. Ohtani is an immigrant who came to this country, is not familiar with the ways of this country and therefore was easily prey to someone who was more familiar with our financial systems,” Estrada said during a news conference in downtown Los Angeles after the hearing.
Federal prosecutors said Mizuhara’s scheme began in 2021 when he switched the bank account’s contact information from Ohtani’s to his own, meaning any communication from the financial institution would be sent directly to him without Ohtani knowing.
Mizuhara capitalized on the language barrier to keep Ohtani’s financial advisers from understanding their client, and at times, Mizuhara even impersonated the player to the bank to prolong the fraud.
The ploy allowed Mizuhara to plunder just under $17 million from the account — which he’d helped Ohtani set up in Phoenix in 2018 to deposit his paychecks — from 2021 until earlier this year.
Mizuhara’s winning wagers totaled over $142 million, which he deposited in his own bank account and not Ohtani’s. But his losing bets were around $183 million, a net loss of nearly $41 million.
Tuesday’s guilty plea was anticipated after Mizuhara agreed to a deal with the U.S. Attorney’s Office last month. He pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud, which carries up to 30 years in federal prison, and one count of subscribing to a false tax return, which could add a maximum of three years of incarceration.
A sentencing hearing is scheduled for October. Mizuhara also could be on the hook for restitution to Ohtani that could total nearly $17 million, as well as more than $1 million to the IRS. And as a legal permanent resident who has a green card, he might be deported to Japan. The investigation into Mizuhara stemmed from a broader probe of illegal sports bookmaking organizations in Southern California and the laundering of proceeds through casinos in Las Vegas. Overall, authorities have netted a dozen defendants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court gives homeowners another chance in escrow dispute
Attorney News |
2024/06/02 15:42
|
The Supreme Court on Thursday gave homeowners another chance to force Bank of America and other large banks to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts.
The court unanimously threw out an appeals court ruling in favor of Bank of America, which has refused to pay interest on money it collects to pay borrowers’ insurance and property tax bills. New York requires banks to pay at 2% interest on escrowed funds.
Thirteen other states have similar laws: California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin.
A federal judge initially ruled in favor of the borrowers, but the federal appeals court in New York granted Bank of America’s request to dismiss the suits, arguing that the federal law governing national banks does not permit such state-by-state regulation.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the Supreme Court that the appeals court did not perform the kind of nuanced analysis required by federal law and prior Supreme Court decisions to determine if a state law must give way to a federal statute.
In particular, Kavanaugh noted that the Dodd-Frank Act, enacted after the 2008 financial crisis, made clear that not all state banking laws are pre-empted.
Jonathan Taylor, who argued the case for the homeowners, said in an email that the decision is a victory for consumers because it “vindicates Congress’ determination in Dodd-Frank to rein in the kind of aggressive preemption of state consumer-financial laws that helped lead to the financial crisis.”
Bank of America did not immediately comment on the decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Thai court sentences an opposition lawmaker to 2 years in prison
Legal Topics |
2024/05/29 16:36
|
A Thai court on Monday sentenced a lawmaker from a progressive opposition party to two years in prison after finding her guilty of defaming the monarchy in a speech she made during a protest rally three years ago.
Chonthicha Jangrew of the Move Forward Party was greeted by several supporters when she arrived at the Thanyaburi Provincial Court in Pathum Thani province, north of Bangkok, with some party colleagues. Chonthicha, popularly known by her nickname “Lookkate,” represents a constituency in Pathum Thani.
Her charges stemmed from her speech in 2021 that demanded the release of all political prisoners during a rally in front of the same court that delivered Monday’s sentence.
She was found guilty for parts of the speech concerning how the government then led by Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha had amended laws to give King Vajiralongkorn more power to control the palace wealth, which is managed by the Crown Property Bureau.
The judge said her speech could misinform the public by suggesting that King Vajiralongkorn can spend taxpayers’ money for his personal use and use his influence to interfere with politics, which could tarnish his reputation.
The judge originally sentenced her to three years in prison, but reduced it to two years because of her cooperation in the trial. The law for defaming the monarchy, an offense known as lese majeste, carries a penalty of three to 15 years imprisonment. It is widely referred to as Article 112 from its place in the Criminal Code.
Chonthicha was afterwards released on bail of 150,000 baht ($4,100). Had bail not been granted and she been sent directly to prison, she would have immediately been removed from her seat in Parliament.
She told reporters that she wasn’t surprised about the verdict as the majority of 112 charges led to convictions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marilyn Mosby to be sentenced for mortgage fraud and perjury convictions
Legal Business |
2024/05/24 12:08
|
A former top prosecutor for the city of Baltimore will soon learn her sentence for lying about her personal finances so she could improperly access retirement funds during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Former Baltimore state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby appeared before a judge Thursday at a federal courthouse in Greenbelt, a Maryland suburb of the nation’s capital. Two juries separately convicted Mosby of perjury and mortgage fraud charges after trials involving her personal finances.
Mosby, 44, gained a national profile for charging six Baltimore police officers in the 2015 death of Freddie Gray, a Black man fatally injured in police custody. Gray’s death led to riots and protests in the city. After three officers were acquitted, Mosby’s office dropped charges against the other three officers.
In 2020, at the height of the pandemic, Mosby withdrew $90,000 from Baltimore city’s deferred compensation plan and used it to make down payments on vacation homes in Kissimmee and Long Boat Key, Florida.
Prosecutors argued that Mosby improperly accessed the funds under provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act by falsely claiming that the pandemic had harmed her travel-oriented side business.
Mosby’s sentencing argument said the retirement funds came from her own income and that no one was defrauded because she paid an early withdrawal penalty and all federal taxes on the money. The government said that money remained the property of the city until she was legally eligible, and her perjury harmed everyone who followed the rules during the coronavirus pandemic.
Mosby’s mortgage fraud conviction stems from a $5,000 “gift letter” she submitted when taking a loan to buy the Long Boat Key property. Prosecutors said the letter falsely stated that Mosby’s husband was giving her a $5,000 gift for the closing when it actually was her own money.
“Without the gift letter, the loan would never have been provided and Ms. Mosby would not have obtained the property. No gift letter, no loan,” prosecutors wrote.
Federal prosecutors also said she deserves prison because unlike others convicted of white-collar crimes, she’s expressed no remorse or contrition and has tried to delegitimize the case against her. They recommended a 20-month prison sentence for Mosby, who served two terms as state’s attorney for Baltimore. She lost a reelection bid after her 2022 indictment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hunter Biden arrives at court for a final hearing before his June 3 gun trial
Legal Business |
2024/05/19 12:08
|
The judge overseeing Hunter Biden ’s federal firearms charges trial agreed Friday to block prosecutors from telling jurors about some other unflattering episodes from his personal life, but left the door open to allowing them in if the president’s son testifies.
It’s unclear whether the president’s son would take the stand during the trial that could last up to two weeks during his father’s reelection campaign and likely include sharp disagreements over evidence.
President Joe Biden’s son is charged with lying about his drug use in October 2018 on a form to buy a gun that he kept for about 11 days in Delaware. A trial is set to begin June 3 and could last up to two weeks as his father’s re-election campaign unfolds.
Hunter Biden has acknowledged an addiction to crack cocaine during that period, but his lawyers have said he didn’t break the law and the case is politically motivated. He didn’t speak to reporters as he accompanied his lawyers to and from the Wilmington courthouse for a hearing on Friday.
Prosecutors won a victory on a key point as U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika found that they wouldn’t have to prove that he specifically used drugs on the day of the purchase. She agreed to a defense push to keep out other details about his past, including a child-support case in Arkansas and his dismissal from the Navy after a positive drug test. If he does take the stand, however, “there’s a number of issues that may become more contentious,” Noreika said. Prosecutors have acknowledged those episodes likely won’t be relevant unless he testifies.
She also agreed to consider defense questions about the contents of a laptop that he allegedly dropped off at a Delaware repair shop.
Hunter Biden’s attorneys want to raise questions about the authenticity of the laptop’s data at trial. Prosecutors say that there’s no evidence it has been compromised and that a drawn-out fight would be a waste of time. The laptop has been the source of controversy for years after Republicans accessed and disseminated personal data from it.
U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika said she will consider objections to specific pieces of data as the trial unfolds.
Prosecutors also plan to show jurors portions of his 2021 memoir “Beautiful Things,” in which he detailed his struggle with alcoholism and drug abuse following the 2015 death of his older brother, Beau, of brain cancer at age 46.
Defense attorneys argued prosecutors were cherry-picking evidence, and the judge agreed to allow Biden’s attorneys to introduce wider selections.
His attorney Abbe Lowell also says there are indications that the gun-purchase form was changed by employees after the sale. Prosecutors say there were only minor additions unrelated to the parts Hunter Biden filled out.
Noreika didn’t immediately rule on whether the defense could introduce an altered version of the form at trial, which is expected to begin with jury selection on June 3.
Hunter Biden is also facing federal tax charges in Los Angeles and is set for trial in that case in September. He’s accused of failing to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes over four years while living an “extravagant lifestyle” during a period in which he has acknowledged struggling with addiction. The back taxes have since been paid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court: CFPB funding doesn't violate Constitution
Court Watch |
2024/05/17 18:51
|
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a conservative-led attack that could have undermined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The justices ruled 7-2 that the way the CFPB is funded does not violate the Constitution, reversing a lower court and drawing praises from consumers. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, splitting with his frequent allies, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who dissented.
The CFPB was created after the 2008 financial crisis to regulate mortgages, car loans and other consumer finance. The case was brought by payday lenders who object to a bureau rule that limits their ability to withdraw funds directly from borrowers’ bank accounts. It’s among several major challenges to federal regulatory agencies on the docket this term for a court that has for more than a decade been open to limits on their operations.
The CFPB, the brainchild of Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, has long been opposed by Republicans and their financial backers. The bureau says it has returned $19 billion to consumers since its creation.
Outside the Supreme Court following the decision, Warren said, “The Supreme Court followed the law, and the CFPB is here to stay.”
President Joe Biden, a fellow Democrat who has taken steps to strengthen the bureau, called the ruling “an unmistakable win for American consumers.”
Unlike most federal agencies, the consumer bureau does not rely on the annual budget process in Congress. Instead, it is funded directly by the Federal Reserve, with a current annual limit of around $600 million.
The federal appeals court in New Orleans, in a novel ruling, held that the funding violated the Constitution’s appropriations clause because it improperly shields the CFPB from congressional supervision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
