Mediaboss Marketing

The FBI director, Chris Wray, is facing new scrutiny of the bureaus handling of its 2018 background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh, including its claim that the FBI lacked the authority to conduct a further investigation into the then supreme court nominee.

At the heart of the new questions that Wray will face later this week, when he testifies before the Senate judiciary committee, is a 2010 Memorandum of Understanding that the FBI has recently said constrained the agencys ability to conduct any further investigations of allegations of misconduct.

It is not clear whether that claim is accurate, based on a close reading of the MOU, which was released in court records following a Freedom of Information Act request.

Allow Scribd content?

This article includes content provided by Scribd. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click 'Allow and continue'.

The FBI was called to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation process in 2018, after he was accused of assault by Christine Blasey Ford, a professor who knew Kavanaugh when they were both in high school. He also faced other accusations, including that he had exposed himself to a classmate at Yale called Deborah Ramirez. Kavanaugh denied both accusations.

The FBI closed its extended background check of Kavanaugh after four days and did not interview either Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh. The FBI also disclosed to the Senate this June two years after questions were initially asked that it had received 4,500 tips from the public during the background check and that it had shared all relevant tips with the White House counsel at that time. It is not clear whether those tips were ever investigated.

The FBI said in its letter to two senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Christopher Coons that the FBI did not have the authority under the 2010 MOU at the time to unilaterally conduct further investigative activity absent instructions from the requesting entity. In other words, the FBI has said it would have required explicit instructions from the Trump White House to conduct further investigation under the existing 2010 guidelines on how such investigations ought to be conducted.

But an examination by the Guardian of the 2010 MOU, which was signed by the then attorney general, Eric Holder, and then White House counsel, Robert Bauer, does not make explicitly clear that the FBI was restricted in terms of how it would conduct its investigation.

The MOU, which was released in court documents in 2019 as part of Freedom of Information Act litigation brought against the US government by Buzzfeed, also does not explicitly state that the White House had the power to set the process parameters on any investigation. The MOU does seem to suggest that the White House had the authority to limit the FBI to investigate particular issues and questions.

Wray is likely to face scrutiny on why information that was specific to the allegations of sexual misconduct was not fully explored, including evidence that was reportedly offered to investigators by an alleged witness named Max Stier, an attorney and former classmate of Ramirez, who reportedly notified senators that he had witnessed an event similar to the one recounted by Ramirez.

Stiers account was never examined by the FBI.

In a statement to the Guardian,Whitehouse, the senator from Rhode Island who has led Democrats demand for answers on the investigation, said: In its years-late response to our questions, the FBI leaned hard on the notion that this MOU limited its authority to be the FBI and investigate wrongdoing. Now that we have the MOU, its even harder to understand the Bureaus excuses for ignoring credible information it received. Director Wray ought to be ready to answer my questions about this episode I wont stop asking until he does.

The FBI declined to comment.

Wray will be testifying before the Senate on Wednesday, at a hearing that will be focused on the FBIs handling of its investigation into Larry Nassar, the convicted sex offender who served for 18 years as the team doctor of the US womens national gymnastics team. Simone Biles, the US gymnast and Olympic gold medalist, will also be testifying.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to his lifetime appointment on the court on 6 October 2018 by a vote of 50-48 and helped cement a conservative majority on the powerful body.

Visit link:
FBI director faces new scrutiny over investigation of Brett Kavanaugh - The Guardian

News Photo by Julie RiddleForensic interviewer Kellie Sefernick, left, answers questions from Alpena County Prosecutor Cynthia Muszynski while observed by Judge Roy Hayes in Alpenas 26th Circuit Court on Tuesday.

ALPENA Alleged eyewitness accounts and excused jurors marked the fifth day of testimony in the trial of former Alpena Public Schools teacher Heather Winfield on Tuesday.

Judge Roy Hayes limited the testimony of several expert witnesses and allowed one witness to plead the fifth as the prosecution sought to prove that Winfield sexually assaulted a one-time student when he was between 11 and 13 years old.

Winfield denies the charges. The News does not identify alleged survivors of sexual assault.

During Tuesdays testimony in Alpenas 26th Circuit Court, a string of witnesses said they observed sexually suggestive interactions between Winfield and the student.

A relative of the now-17-year-old alleged victim said the accuser in 2017 showed him a social media message including a photo of female genitalia. The message came from Winfields social media account, the witness said.

News Photo by Julie RiddleReflected in a courtroom mirror, attorneys debate proposed testimony by forensic interviewer Kellie Sefernick, seated in the witness stand, in Alpenas 26th Circuit Court on Tuesday.

A friend of the alleged victim said he overheard Winfield promising to perform oral sex on the accuser while the two boys were playing the video game Fortnite in 2016. Attempting to cast doubt on the testimony, defense attorney Matt Wojda noted that Fortnite was not released to the public until 2017, to which the friend replied that he had been playing a pre-release version.

Another friend said he caught Winfield and the alleged victim sitting on a bed, a pile of clothes at the foot of the bed. When the friend entered, Winfield hid her body with a sheet and the alleged victim, partially clothed, laughed, according to the witness.

Asked why, like others on the stand, he didnt tell police what he witnessed, the friend described a bro code that forbade him from revealing his friends secrets to adults.

Hayes asked jurors to leave so attorneys could discuss unrelated illegal activity by the friend. Hayes advised the friend of his right to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination, which the friend did, declining to answer a question from the defense.

Hayes also excused the jury so attorneys could wrangle over proposed testimony from two experts.

Siding with the defense, Hayes forbade witness Kellie Sefernick from revealing what the alleged victim told her when she interviewed him at Alpenas Child Advocacy Center after he first claimed Winfield assaulted him.

Sefernicks testimony would help rebuild the youths credibility, attacked at length by the defense on Monday, Alpena County Prosecutor Cynthia Muszynski said.

Check out the interactive graphic below. Story continues below the graphic.

The defense said Muszynski could have done that herself when the alleged victim was still on the stand, arguing that statements by an expert would have too much weight with the jury.

The Michigan Court of Appeals agrees, said Hayes, citing recent jury decisions overturned by the higher court because expert witnesses influenced jurors unfairly.

Similar concerns caused Hayes to also limit the testimony of Dr. Maureen Mead, who examined the alleged victim in 2018 for physical signs of sexual assault.

Sexually assaulted children rarely show such signs, Mead testified.

The jury could not hear her diagnosis that the alleged victim had sustained sexual abuse by an adult authority figure, despite no physical indications, Hayes said.

Hayes issued a stern warning that the attorneys and witnesses not cross the lines drawn by Michigans higher courts.

Ill declare a mistrial if this goes haywire, Hayes said. We start over. Everyone understand that?

Tuesdays witnesses also included a teacher who worked with Winfield at Thunder Bay Junior High School, where Winfield first developed a close relationship with her accuser while he was a student in her 6th Grade classroom.

The teacher related once finding Winfield locked in a classroom with the student. She said Winfield neglected her work to talk to the boy via social media, received a sexually suggestive message from him, and repeatedly watched video clips of the boy dancing.

The trial, expected to last at least through Friday, continues today.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Recent actions by law enforcement agencies in Northeast Michigan. This has been only lightly edited.ALCONA ...

Continue reading here:
Expert testimony restricted in Winfield trial | News, Sports, Jobs - Alpena News

According to the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board, a nine-month suspension is the appropriate penalty for a lawyer who brandished a gun in response to COVID-19 safety measures.

Back in May, we told you about lawyer Carrie Legus, who was accused of getting angry over a homemade sign at Butchs Harvestore in Walden, Vermont, that promoted social distancing and safety. After allegedly shaking the sign, a store worker says Legus pulled out a gun. She allegedly told police she thought the sign at the store was a barricade behind which people were shooting at the road. According to police, she yelled that everyone on the road is the military and her ex-husband was behind all this.

As reported by ABA Journal, Leguss obstinance didnt end at the store. Her interactions with the disciplinary counsel also raised a few eyebrows:

She answered essentially every question by citing the Fifth Amendment or indicating that you have my response. Some testimony was disrespectful, the hearing board said. As an example, the board cited Legus response to one question: Are you asking me to do pushups?

She stopped the interview when her computers battery was running down. She refused an offer to go to another location where she could plug in her computer or to continue using cellphone audio.

Legus did not have a Fifth Amendment right to decline to be interviewed, the hearing board said.

In order to make a proper assertion of her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the board said, Legus had to sit for an interview and, during the course of the interview, raise objections to specific questions.

Every instance in which Legus was nonresponsive to questions constituted a violation of an ethics rule requiring lawyers in disciplinary matters to respond to lawful demands for information, the hearing board said. The board had scheduled the interview after Legus evaded prior requests for an in-person or video hearing.

The board added that it didnt assign any relevance to Legus refusal to answer specific questions, however, because a court had not ruled on the validity of her Fifth Amendment assertions.

Legus failure to cooperate with interview requests violated her duty of cooperation with the disciplinary counsel, the hearing board said.

The decisions of the hearing board is appealable, though it is unclear at this time if Legus intends to do so. Shes been on interim suspension since May 2020.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email herwith any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Excerpt from:
Nine-Month Suspension In The Cards For Attorney Who Pulled A Gun Because She Was Mad About COVID Protocols - Above the Law

Ex-pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli speaks to the press in front of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York with members of his legal team after the jury issued a verdict on Aug. 4, 2017.

Facing a little more than a year left of his seven-year securities fraud sentence, so-called Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli will face a civil trial later this year where state and federal regulators will try to permanently ban him from the pharmaceutical industry.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who will be hearing the case without a jury, set a bench trial date for Dec. 14.

In an order on Tuesday, Judge Cote ordered Shkrelis counsel to confirm whether Shkreli will be present at his trial.

If so, she wants the parties to request any necessary writ of habeas corpus for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to transfer the 38-year-old from the Allenwood Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania to the Southern District of New York in lower Manhattan.

Shkrelis civil litigation stems from his decision to jack up the price of the live-saving drug Daraprim 40-fold, an act that earned him national scorn and a cult following for his unapologetic defense of that hike.

At the time, Shkreli served as CEO of the company then-named Turing Pharmaceuticals, but regulators claim that the anticompetitive conduct continued after he went to prison and his company got a rebranding as Vyera.

Daraprim is a lifesaving drug for vulnerable patients, Gail Levine, the deputy director of the Bureau of Competition at the Federal Trade Commission, noted when unveiling the case in January 2020. Vyera kept the price of Daraprim astronomically high by illegally boxing out the competition.

New York Attorney General Letitia James(D), who also brought the case along with the FTC, echoed those sentiments at the time.

Martin Shkreli and Vyera not only enriched themselves by despicably jacking up the price of this life-saving medication by 4,000 percent in a single day, but held this critical drug hostage from patients and competitors as they illegally sought to maintain their monopoly, AG James wrote more than a year and a half ago. We filed this lawsuit to stop Vyeras egregious conduct, make the company pay for its illegal scheming, and block Martin Shkreli from ever working in the pharmaceutical industry again. We wont allow Pharma Bros to manipulate the market and line their pockets at the expense of vulnerable patients and the health care system.

Citing reporting in the Wall Street Journal, regulators claim that Shkreli exercised shadow power over Vyera and its Swiss corporate parent Phoenixus from behind bars.

In June, Judge Cote found that Shkreli used a contraband phone behind bars to communicate with his associates, including Vyera executive Akeel Mithani and Kevin Mulleady, an owner and former director of Vyera.

The judge gave a light sanction for that violation.

When asked during a deposition earlier this year whether he had a cell phone in prison, Shkreli invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to the ruling.

In late July, the U.S. government sold one of Shkrelis once-prized but since-forfeited possessions: Wu Tang Clans bespoke album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin. The buyers identity is currently unknown.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Originally posted here:
Now We Know When Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli Will Face Trial That Could Lead to Pharmaceutical Industry Ban - Law & Crime

A frequent flier suing seven US airlines said he plans to file an amended complaint on Monday, which will add multiple plaintiffs to his lawsuit over the airlines' mask requirements.

Lucas Wall, of Washington DC, said via email on Friday that he planned to add new charges against the airlines, including "conspiracy to interfere with civil rights."

Wall had previously told Insider: "It will be a stronger case with multiple plaintiffs showing the wide-ranging discrimination in the airline industry."

The lawsuit was filed June in US District Court in Orlando against Southwest, Alaska, Allegiant, Delta, Frontier, JetBlue, and Spirit. Wall, who is representing himself, also has an ongoing lawsuit against the Biden administration.

Wall, in his original complaint against the airlines, claimed each had discriminated against those who couldn't wear masks for medical reasons, including himself. In his initial court filings, he included his medical records for generalized anxiety disorder.

In conversations with Insider, several people who were expected to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs claimed they'd had experiences similar to Wall's.

"The disabled are being criminalized during the pandemic attacked, harassed, and blamed," said Shannon Cila, of Kentucky, in an interview on Thursday.

Cila said her involvement with the case began after she was arrested in Kentucky. The arrest rattled her, she said.

"That set me up for a lot of anxiety, with having to deal with these mask exemptions, non-exemption policies, with private businesses everywhere, including airlines," she said. "If you have an invisible disability, people look at you. They think because you're not on an oxygen tank, or something they can't tell what your problem might be."

Cila found Wall through his GoFundMe campaign, she said.

Uriel ben-Mordechai and his wife, Adi, planned to join the lawsuit, he said on Friday. He moved to Israel about four decades ago, but regularly flies back to the Bay Area and Southern California to visit family.

A Torah scholar and lecturer, ben-Mordechai said his decision to join Wall's lawsuit was in part driven by his faith. He said he looked to Deuteronomy 16:20, part of which translates to "justice, pursue justice."

"It tells you, you have to make justice happen and it's not going to happen unless you do the part that God is giving you to do," ben-Mordechai said in a phone interview from Israel.

Leonardo McDonnell, another traveller seeking to join Wall's lawsuit, was more forceful in his language. "I will sue these sick tyrants' granddaughters if the legal system lets me," McDonnell, of Florida, said in an email when Insider reached out to him.

The airlines in late August filed their initial responses to Wall's lawsuit. Each one sought to dismiss the case on technical grounds, saying in part that Wall didn't have the standing to sue them in federal court under the Air Carrier Access Act.

Some legal experts and academics said they have doubts about whether the wave of lawsuits over federal mask requirements will put an end to Biden's mandate, although they weren't asked specifically about Wall's case.

Others said there were flaws in the Biden administration's argument that the mask mandates were not unconstitutional.

Paul Engel, founder of The Constitution Study, an online guide to the constitution, said the federal mandates were unconstitutional for a few reasons. The Fifth Amendment, for example, requires "due process of law," he said.

"[G]overnments at all levels are prohibited from enforcing mask mandates until they have shown probable cause that the individual is a danger to others," Engel said via email.

Monday is Wall's deadline for filing an amended complaint.

Go here to see the original:
Man suing airlines over mask rule plans to accuse them of a conspiracy - Business Insider