NM lawyer says civil suit against Perrault helped initiate criminal investigation – KOAT Albuquerque

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

KOAT Albuquerque

NM lawyer says civil suit against Perrault helped initiate criminal investigation
KOAT Albuquerque
A former Albuquerque priest who left the country 26 years ago is behind bars in Albuquerque, awaiting trial on child sexual abuse charges. Now, new information from a local attorney shows a civil suit may have helped federal investigators bring him

and more »

Source link

Google is scurrying to kill a new internal leak about its plans for China (GOOG, GOOGL)

Sundar Pichai

  • A Google internal memo detailing the company’s China plans was circulated within the company, according to a report in The Intercept.
  • The memo revealed that Google’s China search app would provide a third-party company in China with access to user search data.


Google’s security team as well as the company’s human resources department are trying to stop the company’s staff from sharing a memo containing secret information regarding the company’s plans for China, The Intercept reported Friday.

An  engineer who was asked to work on Project Dragonfly, the codename for a search product designed for the China market, was the person who wrote the memo, according to the news report. The information within the memo appears to contradicts statements made by Google CEO Sundar Pichai that the company’s efforts on a Chinese search engine were exploratory. 

Google’s China efforts mark a major reversal of its 2010 decision to pull its search operations out of China rather than censor information. The project to re-enter China has been hugely controversial inside the company, and several Google employees have resigned in protest

As part of Dragonfly, Google has allegedly created a search engine that would censor information that the Chinese government finds objectionable. The memo shows that Google planned to require users to log in to perform searches and the software would then track their location. The memo also said that Google would share Chinese users’ search information with a third-party Chinese company, which could then be available to government authorities, the Intercept report.

Google representatives were not immediately available for comment.

The Intercept reported that Google’s leaders learned of the memo and then made attempts to force workers who accessed or saved the memo to delete the information. The emails from HR contained special ‘pixel trackers’ to let HR know employees had read the note, The Intercept reported.

Read the full Intercept story here.

SEE ALSO: A wave of news leaks is triggering a crackdown at Google and causing fears that the culture is being ‘openly destroyed’

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: British Airways has a $13 million flight simulator that taught us how to take off, fly, and land an airplane

Source link

'Criminal Minds': Kirsten Vangsness Previews Garcia 'out of Her … – Newsweek

The resolution of the Criminal Minds Season 13 finale cliffhanger won’t just affect the two characters, Garcia and Reid, at the center of it. The events of the milestone 300th episode will impact the team—but especially Garcia—in future episodes.

The Season 14 premiere is “a pretty harrowing episode” and “to do [it] was scary,” Kirsten Vangsness told Newsweek. “Just the locations we were in and the stuff Garcia does in the episode are so out of her element.”

“Garcia is, ‘Hate the behavior, not the person.’ In the finale of Season 13, the last moment you see her screaming at Reid and saying to kill this woman, which is something Garcia would never say,” she continued. “The whole season premiere is interesting because it’s the first time she’s actively hated a person.”

“No one is at risk of mortal peril by the end, but it causes more than one character on the team to have a deep, existential crisis and personal turmoil that will affect them in dangerous ways for episodes to come,” she added.

The Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) tracked down a cult of serial killers and had its leader, Benjamin David Merva (Michael Hogan) in custody in the finale. A cult member, Special Agent Mary Meadows (Karen David) threatened to kill technical analyst Penelope Garcia (Vangsness) if Dr. Spencer Reid (Matthew Gray Gubler) didn’t free her “messiah.” 

Garcia told Reid to shoot Meadows—and she was ready to die in that moment in what would have been a best-case scenario. 

“I don’t think she’s thinking through it for herself,” Vangsness explained. “In that moment, she’s pretty sure she’s lost control of the situation and that the way to save many is someone is going to take the fall, and she’s already in the most peril. … But she’s also scared out of her mind.” 

113045_0138b Above, Benjamin David Merva (Michael Hogan) is pictured in the “Criminal Minds” Season 14 premiere. He’s the leader of the cult that has taken Reid and Garcia captive. Cliff Lipson/CBS

Even though Garcia and Reid both make it out of the garage alive, they’re not in any less danger in the cult’s clutches in the Criminal Minds Season 14 premiere. “It’s very uncomfortable,” the actor said, previewing a first for her character. “She is so unkempt. I just remember being like, ‘I have to sit in this chair, all tied up, and my bra strap is down by my shoulder.’ It was scary and uncomfortable and very emotional. It’s very Reid and Garcia trying to save each other.”

While being kidnapped is a new situation for her, it isn’t for him. “Reid’s kind of used to it, but at the same time, he’s been through so much,” Vangsness said to Newsweek. “Garcia doesn’t really know what’s going on. He’s much more adept at this, ‘When taken captive, this is what you do.’ She’s more fish out of water, but I think he’s still in more trouble.”

The cult does need Garcia to do something for them, as you may have guessed from the glimpse of a computer in the trailer—but this is the one time she doesn’t want to be anywhere near such a device. “That in turn turns into a whole mess for her later,” Vangsness teased. “They took the experiences that not only Garcia but everyone in the team goes through in [the premiere] and then put it into upcoming episodes.” 

What Garcia goes through affects her mental state. “It’s an internal experience she’s having, where she doesn’t like how she got pushed to feel so much bad stuff and help people that are the bad guys, so she has a lot of shame about that,” she explained. 

Though her character won’t ever have a “strong friendship” like she did with Derek Morgan (Shemar Moore), who left the team in Season 11, “there’s good sisterhood that happens in upcoming episodes” as she deals with what happens, she revealed.

Garcia is due for a break and will get one. She confronted the person responsible for her parents’ deaths and forgave him only a short period of time before the events of the finale. “The emotional pimple pops,” she said. “She gets a little moment with someone from her family again to have a moment to heal. We have a little return from stuff that happened last year that is soothing and good.”

In behind-the-scenes news, cast members will direct a third of this season. Gubler, whose episodes behind the camera tend to be creepy, did the Halloween hour, which Vangsness described as “really spooky and cool.” Joe Mantegna finished directing his ninth episode of the series and Adam Rodriguez was prepping his second at the time of the interview. A.J. Cook is making her directorial debut. 

Vangsness, who has written four episodes, will be penning the season finale with showrunner Erica Messer. “I have not written a season finale, and I’m nervous, but it’s exciting,” she told Newsweek

Criminal Minds Season 14 premieres Wednesday, October 3 at 10 p.m. ET on CBS.

.node-type-article .article-body > p:last-of-type::after, .node-type-slideshow .article-body > p:last-of-type::aftercontent:none

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

5 Ways Harvey Weinstein's Lawyers Plan to Fight the Accusations Against Him – New York Times

5 Ways Harvey Weinstein’s Lawyers Plan to Fight the Accusations Against Him

The cases — one criminal, the other civil — will be decided in two Manhattan courtrooms, and include allegations ranging from sexual assault to a cover-up by his former company.

Harvey Weinstein, left, with his lawyer, Benjamin Brafman. Last month, Mr. Brafman accused prosecutors of withholding evidence in Mr. Weinstein’s criminal case.CreditCreditJeenah Moon for The New York Times
  • Sept. 21, 2018

The cases against Harvey Weinstein and his former businesses have moved from the court of public opinion into two courts in New York City.

First, at State Supreme Court in Manhattan, prosecutors filed a motion last week arguing that the rape and sexual assault charges against Mr. Weinstein should not be dismissed.

The same afternoon, less than a quarter mile away, defense lawyers in Federal District Court challenged a lawsuit accusing Miramax and the Weinstein Company — both of which have produced some of Hollywood’s biggest films — of covering up the actions of the disgraced movie mogul.

The sexual assault conviction of Bill Cosby, whose two-day sentencing is set to begin Monday, was widely viewed as evidence that juries are willing to give more weight to accusers’ voices in the wake of the #MeToo movement.

Still, prosecutors will have to prove Mr. Weinstein used physical force or threats of harm to get his way, which could be challenging with little or no physical evidence.

Here are some of the arguments defense lawyers are preparing to use.

Mr. Weinstein was indicted on charges that he raped a woman at a Midtown Manhattan hotel in March 2013, and that he forced two other women to engage in oral sex with him — one in 2004 and the other in 2006.

Last month, Mr. Weinstein’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, accused prosecutors of withholding evidence from the grand jury, namely dozens of emails between Mr. Weinstein and a woman accusing him of rape.

Mr. Brafman said the emails — released in a motion last month — suggested the relationship was consensual and continued long after the alleged incident. He has argued the charges should be dismissed.

Mr. Brafman said the pending indictment should be dismissed because “the grand jury presentation was deeply flawed.”

A prosecutor said in response that the grand jury was provided “a full and fair account” of the relationship between Mr. Weinstein and his accuser before and after the alleged attack.

“Defendant does not allege, because he cannot, that any of the emails contain a denial of the charged rape,” the prosecutor, Joan Illuzzi-Orbon, wrote. “Rather, defendant claims that, at most, the emails could suggest a state of mind inconsistent with what defendant feels should be that of a rape victim.”

Releasing the emails is part of Mr. Weinstein’s strategy to discredit his accusers: He has previously released photographs and letters to show that the women maintained contact with him after the alleged assaults.

“It is a daunting task to sway public opinion as to Weinstein," said Evan Krutoy, a former Manhattan prosecutor who now focuses on internal sexual harassment investigations for companies.

But Mr. Krutoy added that defense lawyers might hope that challenging the grand jury proceedings “might be a step in the right direction.”

A judge, he said, “may not believe these emails affected the integrity of the grand jury process but it might cause some to revisit the merits of the case.”

Mr. Krutoy added that Mr. Weinstein’s criminal defense team is “aggressively pursuing every argument so, should there be a conviction, they have preserved all legitimate grounds for appeal.”

In Federal District Court, lawyers for Mr. Weinstein, Miramax, the Weinstein Company and its board members are trying to dismiss a lawsuit filed by six women last year seeking class-action status.

The status would enable the group to sue on behalf of the more than 80 women who have accused Mr. Weinstein of sexual harassment and assault.

The suit says the defendants operated like a criminal organization, as defined by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as RICO, “to facilitate and conceal his pattern of unwanted sexual conduct.”

In the courtroom on Sept. 12, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include specific details about the role of each defendant, and to combine the complaint with a similar one filed by three other women.

“You’re talking about conspiracy,” Judge Hellerstein said in court to the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Elizabeth A. Fegan. “You’d have to prove that each person knew and made it his own, knew of this effort by Harvey Weinstein and others he enlisted to silence the women and participate in some action.”

The RICO Act requires plaintiffs to prove that an “enterprise” engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity” over an extended period.

Lawyers for the defendants said the women have not demonstrated that their business or property was injured by any RICO violation, or provided evidence of witness tampering. They said the plaintiffs have failed to back allegations of sex trafficking because nothing of value was offered in exchange for sex.

But the women’s lawyer could argue that the “explicit exchange was a job and a good movie for sex,” Judge Hellerstein said.

Defense lawyers in the criminal case say the allegations are too old and lack forensic evidence, like DNA.

The prosecutor, Ms. Illuzzi-Orbon, wrote that the statute of limitations for rape in the third degree is five years from the date of the alleged crime.

Defense lawyers in the civil case also said the claims do not fall within the statute of limitations, which range from one to four years. These plaintiffs allege their assaults occurred before 2012, Ms. Fegan said.

However, Alafair S. Burke, a professor at Hofstra University School of Law, said the issue is complicated.

“The statute of limitations is four years, but the Supreme Court has not announced a final rule for determining when the clock starts to tick,” she said. “The conventional wisdom is that the measurement commences when the plaintiff has notice of injuries. But plaintiffs can argue that the period is tolled — the clock stopped, in other words — based on further misconduct by the defendants or a conspiracy.”

The defense in the civil suit says there is not enough evidence for a class-action lawsuit because different circumstances surround the claims, such as the state and the year the alleged assaults occurred.

Debbie Kaminer, a law professor at Baruch College, said that some of the plaintiffs’ claims did not fall under the RICO Act and that allegations of witness tampering are “one of the weaker arguments.”

Still, Ms. Kaminer said, “It’s outrageous he got away with this for so long,” adding that she believed there is “enough of a community” for a class-action lawsuit.

Jan Ransom is a reporter covering New York City. Before joining The Times in 2017, she covered law enforcement and crime for The Boston Globe. She is a native New Yorker. @Jan_Ransom

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: How Weinstein’s Lawyers Plan to Fight the Accusations Against Him. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

A gender discrimination lawsuit against Microsoft could see new light as court agrees to reconsider class action status for 8,600 current and former employees (MSFT)

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella

  • A gender discrimination lawsuit first filed against Microsoft in 2015 could get new life.
  • The Ninth Circuit court of appeals on Thursday said it will reconsider a lower court ruling denying the case class action status. The plaintiffs had sought to form a class representing more than 8,600 current and former Microsoft employees. 
  • The lawsuit, filed on behalf of three women who used to work at Microsoft, alleges that the $876 billion tech company systemically discriminated against female engineers and IT employees.

A gender discrimination lawsuit against Microsoft first filed in 2015 could see new light following an appeals court’s decision on Thursday to reconsider a lower court ruling denying class action status.

The lawsuit, Moussouris v. Microsoft Corporation, alleges that Microsoft’s “company-wide policies and practices systematically violate female technical employees’ rights and result in the unchecked gender bias that pervades its corporate culture.”

Three former Microsoft employees Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow and Dana Piermarini are named as plaintiffs in the case, first filed in September 2015. In their case, the plaintiffs describe a corporate culture in which gender bias went unchecked, and in which the human resources department was of little recourse. 

The discovery process revealed that Microsoft’s internal complaint investigation team only substantiated one out of 120 gender discrimination complaints made by female technical employees between 2010 to 2016, according to a statement issued by the plaintiffs’ team. 

The plaintiffs were denied class action status on June 25, by a district court in the state of Washington. Judge James Robart issued a 68-page denial, which ultimately argued that the plaintiffs failed to make their case that the women’s experiences affected an entire class of people. 

If the Ninth Circuit overturns the lower court ruling and grants class certification, it would represent a significant victory for the plaintiffs and expose the software company to potentially hefty financial penalties should it lose at trial. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of more than 8,600 women in various Microsoft offices across the US and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

Microsoft said in a statement that “we continue to believe that the judge made the right decision in denying class certification. There is no bias in Microsoft’s pay and promotion practices. We remain committed to increasing diversity and making sure that Microsoft continues to be a workplace where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.”

The plaintiffs still technically must file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit court. Microsoft has until January 31, 2019 to file its opposition. However, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said that this schedule could change due to the holidays.

SEE ALSO: Microsoft just hired a chief diversity officer — and IBM is suing over it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ray Dalio says the economy looks like 1937 and a downturn is coming in about two years

Source link

Mueller's Paul Manafort indictments were prosecutorial … – NBC News – NBCNews.com

Get the Think newsletter.

If there was ever any concern about the ability, professionalism or direction of Robert Mueller’s special counsel team, Paul Manafort’s guilty plea erases all such doubt. The Manafort prosecution is a textbook example of how a prosecutor, using all available investigative tools, can build a case against a secret conspiracy by identifying a key suspect and then forcing him to give up his criminal confederates, casting an ever wider and tighter net.

The speed at which this task is being accomplished is remarkable. Mueller was appointed special counsel on May 17, 2017, and almost immediately zeroed in on Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager. Based on even publicly available information, Manafort appeared to be the most likely Trump campaign official with close ties to the Russians.

We have no idea what information was available to Mueller at the start of his investigation — all we know is that Mueller knew what he was doing when he went after Manafort.

For one thing, Manafort was financially connected to Russian interests as a highly paid consultant working to prop up Moscow’s puppet regime in Ukraine. As Trump’s campaign manager, he was also responsible for overseeing the Republican platform committee at the GOP convention that refused to recommend additional Russian sanctions in response to its annexation of Crimea. Additionally, prior to and after the Democratic Convention, the Trump campaign constantly referenced the documents hacked from the Democratic National Committee.

We have no idea what information was available to Mueller at the start of his investigation — from national security wiretaps or other source information gathered by intelligence agencies — all we know is that Mueller knew what he was doing when he went after Manafort.

At this stage in the Mueller investigation, it is instructional to compare the Manafort plea and cooperation agreement to the Watergate prosecution, during which I served as an assistant special Watergate prosecutor. Mueller has already accomplished something that was not done in the Watergate investigation: He has flipped two major figures close to the president — Manafort and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. There was no cooperating witness comparable in Watergate who was as close to President Richard Nixon as Flynn and Manafort were to Trump. John Dean had the title of counsel to the president, but he was not one of Nixon’s close insiders.


A prosecutor’s goal is to build a case that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Mueller team took this responsibility seriously. Over the span of approximately 10 months, using subpoenas, search warrants and FBI interviews of knowledgable witnesses, Mueller’s prosecutors presented evidence to a grand jury, which handed down a massive indictment in the District of Columbia charging both Manafort and his associate Rick Gates with serious federal crimes. Four months later, in February 2018, a grand jury in Virginia charged Manafort and Gates with tax and bank fraud.

Both indictments were prosecutorial masterpieces. They were built almost entirely on documentary evidence that the defense could not cross-examine like it could live witnesses. The indictments also anticipated every conceivable defense that Manafort’s lawyers might raise at trial. Manafort could not argue he had relied on the advice of counsel or accountants because both indictments charged him with lying to his lawyers and accountants. Shortly after the announcement of the Virginia indictment, Gates agreed to cooperate. In August, a Virginia jury convicted Manafort of 8 of the 18 counts, and the Mueller team moved aggressively ahead to try the second case in DC.

On September 14, 2018, Manafort officially raised the white flag of surrender, pleading guilty and agreeing to cooperate. Remarkably, this happened only one year and four months after Mueller had been appointed — a relatively short time for a complex white collar prosecution. This was an unconditional surrender. Manafort admitted to all of the facts underlying the charges in both the Virginia and District of Columbia indictments, including the charges upon which the Virginia jury could not agree.

Manafort is subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of over 20 years and has agreed to forfeit millions of dollars worth of property that were the fruits of his criminal activity. His only escape valve to avoid what could amount to an effective life sentence is to cooperate fully on everything he knows, including what he knows about Trump. The more he cooperates and the more information he provides, the better his chances of a lower sentence.

Perhaps most significantly, Mueller flipped Manafort, a key Trump confidante, who may also be able to provide significant testimony on the Trump campaign’s involvement with the Russians. Consistent with Department of Justice policy, nothing in the plea or cooperation agreements hint at what this testimony might be. There are, however, a number of tantalizing clues that lead directly to Russia. The superseding information to which Manafort pled guilty charges him with conspiring with Konstatin Kilimnik, a reputed Russian intelligence operative, on almost every crime charged in the two indictments including attempts to intimidate or influence witnesses who were potential witnesses against Manafort.

Manafort and Kilimnik are connected to the Trump campaign via Alex van der Zwaan, who in his own guilty plea earlier this year admitted to having a conversation with Kilimnik at the urging of Rick Gates in September 2016. That conversation, according to court papers, was tape recorded. Assuming he is now in possession of the tape, Mueller may use it to clarify issues such as Kilimnik’s role in the campaign, Roger Stone’s role with Guciffer 2.0 and Wikileaks as well as the facts surrounding the infamous June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower.

I’ve been a criminal lawyer, both as, a prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer, for over four decades. Manafort’s “Superseding Criminal Information” sets forth the longest recitation of facts I have ever seen admitted to in a guilty plea — dozens of pages plus attached exhibits. In that document, Manafort admitted to every fact the government has alleged in both the District of Columbia and Virginia prosecutions.

By requiring Manafort to admit to all of the facts in both cases, the conviction is essentially “pardon proof” in the sense that if Trump ever pardoned Manafort, a state attorney general could take Manafort’s admissions from the plea and his interviews with the prosecutors and use them to indict Manafort on state charges including tax violations and money laundering. In his cooperation agreement Manafort expressly agreed that “any other party” (potentially a state attorney general) can use Manafort’s statement “in any criminal or civil proceeding.”

When Manafort’s testimony is combined with the additional testimony of Flynn, Cohen and Gates, it appears that Mueller is quite likely on the verge of handing down new major indictments. These indictments could very well answer the ultimate question of what Trump knew and when he knew it.

To learn more about Akerman’s decades-long prosecutorial career and his work on the Watergate case, listen to his conversation with Chris Hayes on this episode of “Why Is This Happening?”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

The woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault reportedly had to move out of her house and hire private security after receiving death threats

Brett Kavanaugh

  • Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her during their high school years in the 1980s, has moved out of her house and hired private security because of death threats she has received since coming forward.
  • Ford, a mother of two teenagers, has received vulgar emails and messages on social media, a New York Times report said.
  • “From what I’ve heard you have 6 months to live, you disgusting slime,” one of the messages reportedly read.
  • Ford and her attorney have yet to respond to invitations to testify at a public hearing about her allegations against Kavanaugh.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her during their high school years in the 1980s, has moved out of her house and hired a private security detail because of death threats she has received since coming forward.

A person familiar with the matter told The New York Times that Ford, a mother of two teenagers, began receiving vulgar emails and messages on social media.

“From what I’ve heard you have 6 months to live, you disgusting slime,” one of the messages allegedly read.

The Times’ source added that Ford has also received supportive messages after giving her account of the alleged incident: “Ninety percent of people think she’s a hero and are extremely supportive of her, and 10 percent want her to die immediately,” the person told the newspaper.

In July, Ford initially wrote about her allegation in a letter that was eventually sent to Sen. Diane Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the time, Ford reportedly expected her story to remain confidential and her identity anonymous. Ford decided to go public with her account after it was leaked and inaccurate reports emerged.

“These are all the ills that I was trying to avoid,” Ford said to The Washington Post. “Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation.”

The committee’s planned vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Thursday was delayed after Democrats and a few key Republican lawmakers expressed hesitation about moving forward. The committee announced on Monday it would hold a public hearing next week for Kavanaugh and Ford.

Kavanaugh has denied the allegation and said he would testify to “refute this false allegation” and “defend my integrity.”

Until late Tuesday, Ford and her attorney had not yet responded to the committee’s hearing request. It soon emerged that the attorney sent a letter to the Republican Senate Judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley, asking that the FBI investigate Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh to “ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner.”

The letter revealed Tuesday evening confirmed The New York Times’ earlier reporting about threats Ford has received, saying Ford has “been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats.”

Ford’s attorney continued, according to CNN: “We would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and Ranking Member Feinstein to discuss reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security.”

SEE ALSO: Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation chances are starting to unravel

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump ‘MAGA’ hat factory

Source link

California Criminal Lawyer Tully Hits Best Seller w/ 1st Book: 'California – State of Collusion' – Benzinga

NEW YORK, Sept. 14, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — California's best criminal lawyer, Joseph Tully, adds Best Selling Author to his legal bio with his book California – State of Collusion (Sutton Hart Press) hitting #1 on Amazon in its category the first week.California: State of Collusion looks at entrenched conspiracy among the Golden State's judges, prosecutors and police – fabricated testimony, doctored evidence, proof of innocence buried, and judges turning a blind eye while imposing voter-pleasing sentences and ignoring misconduct to satisfy police unions at election time.Joseph Tully, labeled by one reviewer as a Ferocious Warrior, a Gunslinger among Paper Pushers, exposes California's corrupt criminal justice system with examples of:
Psychopathic police officers – unpunished for horrific abuses
Prosecutors trampling Constitutional rights to fuel career advancement
Judges ignoring police and prosecutorial misconduct – to get re-elected
An institutionalized culture of power, conspiracy and law enforcement cover-ups
"Innocent people can be subjected to a 'power trip' police encounter, arrested by a megalomaniacal cop, jailed by a sadist, prosecuted by a manipulative Machiavellian, and judged by an ego-tripping sociopath." – from California: State of CollusionAmong the book's topics:
California prisons' systemic racism, medical abuse, and cruelty
Flawed (cash sponsored) media portrayal of law enforcement as incorruptible
Faux science and known deceitful witnesses presented as incontrovertible evidence
California prosecutors' massive Snitch-for-Hire network
Weaponized firearm and drug prohibitions
"Joseph Tully offers a close-up and eye-opening account of the most political, systemic corruption of this decade. Illuminating, incendiary, and brilliantly argued." – Jail Death and Injury Law ReporterAttorney Joseph Tully delivers frightening examples of police, prosecutors, judges and politicians acting badly from Redding to the San Francisco Bay Area to Silicon Valley, Los Angeles and everywhere in between.Media Booking: Contact Mr. Tully's representatives at Elite Lawyer ManagementSutton Hart Press: Award winning non-fiction publisher of valuable and extraordinary content authored by high authority thought leaders across many specialties.Joseph Tully: One of California's most successful and controversial criminal defense and civil rights lawyers, Contra Costa based legal author Joseph Tully helps people defend their liberty and reputation in a deeply flawed and unjust legal system. With an unparalleled record for earning Not Guilty verdicts in major felony cases, Tully's work has been featured on 60 Minutes, in Rolling Stone Magazine, the Los Angeles Times and in outlets across the U.S.More Information: SuttonHart.com or maggie@suttonhart.com  View original content to download multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/california-criminal-lawyer-tully-hits-best-seller-w-1st-book-california–state-of-collusion-300712994.htmlSOURCE Sutton Hart Press

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Brett Kavanaugh's accuser wants the FBI to investigate her claims before she testifies to the Senate, and it could delay his Supreme Court confirmation indefinitely

Brett Kavanaugh

  • Attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when the two were in high school in the 1980s, wants “a full investigation by law enforcement officials.”
  • Ford’s attorneys said in a letter that a federal investigation must be conducted before Ford testifies to the Senate to “ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed.”
  • Observers had expected Ford to testify at a newly scheduled public hearing set for Monday.
  • The letter confirmed reports that Ford was targeted with death threats after she came forward with her allegations against Kavanaugh.
  • The Justice Department previously said her allegation against Kavanaugh “does not involve any potential federal crime” to warrant an FBI investigation.

Attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when the two were in high school in the 1980s, say she wants “a full investigation by law enforcement officials” before she’ll appear in a public hearing, according to a CNN report published Tuesday.

Ford’s attorney’s wrote a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying an FBI investigation would “ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner” and would be critical “before conducting any hearing or making any decisions.”

“We would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and Ranking Member Feinstein to discuss reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security,” the letter reportedly said.

“What we’re saying is there should be an investigation because that’s the right thing to do,” Lisa Banks, Ford’s attorney, told the CNN host Anderson Cooper. “She is prepared to cooperate with the committee and with any law-enforcement investigation.”

Sen. Diane Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, cosigned Ford’s request for an investigation.

“We should honor Dr. Blasey Ford’s wishes and delay this hearing,” Feinstein said in a statement on Tuesday. “A proper investigation must be completed, witnesses interviewed, evidence reviewed, and all sides spoken to. Only then should the chairman set a hearing date.”

The letter also confirmed that Ford, a mother of two teenagers, had been targeted with death threats since coming forward against Kavanaugh, whom President Donald Trump nominated for the Supreme Court in July after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement.

Earlier Tuesday, The New York Times reported that after coming forward, Ford had moved out of her house and arranged for a private security detail after she received vulgar emails and messages on social media.

Ford’s accusation prompted the Judiciary Committee to delay its planned Thursday vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation. A public hearing is scheduled for next Monday, and both Kavanaugh and Ford were expected to testify after both had indicated a willingness to do so. Before the letter from Ford’s attorneys, however, lawmakers had been in limbo after multiple messages for Ford to appear at the hearing went unanswered. 

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Republican chair of the Senate Finance Committee, pushed back on Ford’s request for an FBI investigation. “The FBI does not do investigations like this. The responsibility falls to us,” Hatch wrote, reiterating Grassley’s offer to let Ford testify before the Judiciary Committee.

“We should proceed as planned,” he said.

The Justice Department said in a statement on Monday that the sexual-assault allegation “does not involve any potential federal crime” to warrant an FBI investigation, according to the Associated Press. It added that the department’s role in conducting background investigations during the nomination process was to determine whether the nominee might be a national security risk.

Ford has said Kavanaugh was “stumbling drunk” during a small party in high school at which he pinned her to a bed, groped her over her clothes, and covered her mouth with his hand when she started to scream.

Kavanaugh has categorically denied Ford’s claim and said he would testify to “refute this false allegation.”

A full investigation would be unlikely to conclude before Monday’s planned public hearing. Key witnesses have appeared reluctant to discuss the incident or have no memory of it. Mark Judge, a former classmate of Kavanaugh’s who became implicated in the allegation, has signaled he is unwilling to appear before the Judiciary Committee.

“I have no more information to offer the committee and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford’s letter,” Judge said in a statement.

SEE ALSO: Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation chances are starting to unravel

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump ‘MAGA’ hat factory

Source link

'Criminal Minds' Season 14: Rossi's Ex-Wife Returns – PopCulture.com

Criminal Minds will be bringing back a familiar face after its milestone 300th episode.

The series will celebrate the big episode for its season 14 premiere with some memorable guests stars of their own. But the following episode will see the return of David Rossi’s (Joe Mantegna) ex-wife Krystall (Gail O’ Grady), who was first introduced in a season 13 episode of the CBS drama.

According to the episode synopsis for “Starter Home,” set to air Wednesday, Oct. 10, “when the mummified remains of numerous victims are found in the walls of an elderly couple’s remote South Carolina home, Rossi, J.J. and Simmons are dispatched to track down a trail of clues that date back over 20 years.” The hunt becomes urgent after BAU learns the killer has a specific ritual of when to strike, and like clockwork another person goes missing. Also, Rossi reconnects with his ex-wife, Krystall.

(Photo: CBS)

When viewers first met Krystall Richards, the reunion had quite a bit of drama for the leader of the Behavioral Analysis Unit. Krystall was revealed to be Rossi’s third ex-wife, a blackjack dealer from Las Vegas.

The two married in a drive-thru wedding chapel and their marriage was quickly annulled after the pair got sober. She then moved to Los Angeles, married someone else and was in town for her daughter’s wedding.

During their gracious encounter, Kystall asks Rossi to be her plus one for her daughter’s wedding, as she has always been impressed by the fact her mother was once “married for 36 hours.”

Later on in the sweet reunion Rossi notices that Krystall’s daughter Portia’s husband to-be has some misogynistic tendencies, and after doing some digging with the help of Penelope Garcia (Kirsteen Vangsness), they discover the man has an ulterior motive for the marriage.

Despite the sad turn of events, which ended with Portia’s wedding being called off upon the realization her beau was a con artist looking for money, the episode ended on a rather sweet note, when Krystall showed up at Rossi’s house and the two listened to music and played cards.

Though no details were given as to what will prompt Krystall to come back to town, we wouldn’t necessarily be upset if it was to woo Rossi back into the dating scene.


Before we get to that, the BAU will have to deal with the big season finale cliffhanger, which found Spencer Reid (Matthew Gray Gubler) having to decide between helping a dangerous cult free their leader from jail, or let Penelope die.

Watch it all unfold when Criminal Minds returns for its 14th season Wednesday, Oct. 4 at 10 p.m. ET on CBS.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link