I was a stockbroker at UBS who went to prison for fraud. Now I'm a white-collar prison consultant who helps high-profile clients get through their time in lockup — here's what my job is like.

Justin Paperny

Summary List Placement

April 28, 2008 was a typical sunny day in California. 

My mother Tallie and my brother Todd were by my side. In hindsight, it would have been better if my mom hadn’t come along. Seeing her standing there with tears streaming down her face still haunts me today. 

Yet there we were, the three of us, standing in front of Taft Correctional Institution, a minimum security federal prison camp, saying our final goodbyes as I prepared to self-surrender and begin my 18-month federal sentence for violating securities laws while working as a stockbroker at UBS, an international investment banking company.

Prison was not part of the life trajectory I’d envisioned. 

I’d enjoyed a relatively privileged upbringing in an upper middle class Jewish community in Encino, California. Ever since l picked up a baseball bat at the age of seven, I’d dreamed of one day going pro. 

In 1993, I attended USC as a student athlete, playing baseball for The Trojans while majoring in psychology. While I’d always been a star player, it was soon clear I’d hit my baseball peak in high school and would have to carve out a different path for my future.

Read more: A former police officer turned a side hustle cleaning up crime scenes into a multimillion-dollar franchise — and now she’s taking on cleaning up the coronavirus pandemic

Playing baseball had always given me an adrenaline rush, and now I would need to find that rush somewhere else. 

After graduation, my mother arranged for me to shadow a successful cousin of ours who was a broker at Goldman Sachs. As I watched my cousin and other brokers on the desk shouting trades into their phones, I was hooked by the high energy and excitement. I’d found the adrenaline rush I’d been missing. 

By my mid-20s, I’d built a successful practice as a professional investment advisor, managing money for MLB players and executing bulk trades for hedge funds.

In 2001, my business partner and I were hired by UBS, an international investment bank, where a joint million-dollar signing bonus awaited us. A year in, we started feeling the pressure of meeting our goals, so when a former colleague reached out to me about handling $6 million in investments for his hedge fund, I jumped at the opportunity despite knowing he’d been dishonest with investors in the past.

It turned out he was running a Ponzi scheme by operating a fraudulent hedge fund. In time, me and my partner and UBS began to grow suspicious of his actions, even drawing up a disclosure letter and trying to distance ourselves from our client’s actions, yet we retained his hedge fund as our client.

Instead of blowing the whistle on him, I kept my mouth shut to allow the commissions to continue to roll in, which made me complicit. Since I was the one executing the trades on the fund’s behalf, I was in essence aiding and abetting the fraudulent fund. In the end, the fund’s clients lost approximately $9 million.

I’d let greed and self-interest run its course, leading me down a path where I eventually pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and securities fraud. 

Courtesy of Justin Paperny

I was 33 years old. I was tired and angry. After three and a half years in court, I was actually kind of relieved to begin my sentence and start getting credit for serving time. 

Within a few hours of surrendering that morning in 2008, I went from being Justin Paperny to Inmate #44499-112. Reality hit as I was handcuffed, strip searched, fingerprinted, DNA sample tested, and photographed for a mugshot. The expensive running sneakers and watch I’d assumed I could keep were quickly confiscated and replaced by prison-issued slip-on sneakers, khakis, and t-shirts. 

I’d been unwilling to embrace the reality that I was going to prison, so I hadn’t prepared at all, which made my entrance into lockup much harder.

Things might have been a lot different had I not met Michael Santos, a fellow convict, on my first day inside. 

Michael Santos and Justin Paperny

Michael had already served 20 years and immediately took me under his wing. While incarcerated, he’d earned both an undergraduate and master’s degree and written extensively on the complexities of America’s criminal justice system as well as about people who’d been convicted of white-collar crimes. 

Michael changed my perspective on prison by teaching me not to buy into the myth that there’s nothing I could do during my time in prison to advance myself and prepare for my release. He helped me understand that prisoners discount how much control they have and oftentimes focus solely on what they cannot control. Not enough federal prisoners use their time to self-reflect and analyze the motivations behind their choices. 

If I hadn’t gone behind bars, I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to reflect on my decisions and come to terms with what I’d done. 

During my time, in addition to my assigned job duties such as cleaning pots and pans in the kitchen that paid fifteen cents an hour, I spent my free time getting back in shape, handwriting letters to people in my network to prepare for my reentry into society, and writing a daily blog. 

As my friendship with Michael grew, we began to plan to build a business together once we were released from prison. During the last five months of my sentence we wrote a book, “Lessons From Prison”. We also created a curriculum we could use to help anyone who was facing a sentencing hearing. 

We wanted to build a business to support and empower people during their time in prison. 

We began writing, doing research, and talking to people while at Taft. Since Michael’s sentence was longer than mine, we decided upon my release, I’d work on launching the business from the outside while Michael would work on it from the inside until his release in 2013. 

Now, our business White Collar Advice helps clients through all three stages of the process: sentencing, prison, and probation. The more you understand about prison, the better able you’ll be to navigate it successfully. Upon Michael’s release, we also launched Prison Professors which provides digital resources to help improve outcomes of the country’s prison system.

We’re not lawyers nor do we provide legal advice, instead we’re a team of ten that often works in tandem with lawyers on behalf of clients to help prepare their sentencing mitigation packages with the goal of getting the shortest sentence possible. 

Showing up to your sentencing and saying ‘I’m sorry’ isn’t enough to convince a judge to shorten your sentence. 

It’s critical to express your remorse, identify with your victims, and most importantly, demonstrate that it’s the last time you will break the law. 

We prepare clients for what life will be like behind bars and help them create a blueprint of what life will be like upon release. We work with clients on everything from helping them create content in the form of blogs and podcasts, to ghostwriting books on their behalf, to helping them run or manage businesses while in prison.

We’ve managed to build a successful business in an extremely small niche market. Based on the scope of the work involved, our costs can range from a flat hourly fee of $400 to more inclusive packages that can run from $5,000 to six figures. 

Recently, we signed a $4,000 contract with a New York physician to help prepare him for his sentencing and another contract for $50,000 for a client who is under investigation and wants our guidance through the investigation, sentencing, prison, and probation.

We also strive to provide as much free content as possible through our blog and YouTube Channel

Read more: Billionaire David Booth says focusing on this long-term investing strategy will help you get the returns you’re expecting — and the ones you’re not

On August 16, 2009, I was released on three years probation and went to live in a halfway house in Hollywood for three months. 

At the time it was an economic recession, and I was a convicted felon stripped of my licenses to sell stocks and real estate, which I’d done up until my sentencing. I was still paying down $535,000 in restitution I owed the government, which took me until May 2019 to fully pay back. 

Since my release, I’ve written four books, some which have been required reading at my alma mater USC as well as other universities. I also do a public speaking all around the country and have even spoken at The FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

Justin Paperny at FBI Academy.

Because I spent my time in prison preparing for my release, good opportunities awaited me and still continue to come my way. 

I’m now 45, married since 2013, and I have two small children. I recently signed a deal with CBS Studios to sell a pilot comedy show loosely based on my life and produced by Will Arnett to CBS All Access. My and Michael’s business has helped more than 1,000 people rebuild confidence, prepare for the toughest challenge they’ve ever faced, and recalibrate their lives afterwards.

We can’t change the past for anyone, but we can help guide them to the best possible future with the circumstances they’re facing in the present. By doing this and making the most of your time behind bars, a prison sentence doesn’t turn into a life sentence.

SEE ALSO: How America should be addressing its ‘dirty money’ problem around white-collar crimes, according to a legal scholar

READ MORE: How to begin investing in real estate, and why you should get started during the pandemic

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here’s what it’s like to travel during the coronavirus outbreak

Source link

DC's Acting US Attorney Describes Wednesday's Siege Of Capitol As 'Criminal' – NPR

The acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Michael Sherwin (left), is overseeing the massive criminal investigation of Wednesday’s assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Tasos Katopodis/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

Tasos Katopodis/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

The acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Michael Sherwin, says “hundreds” of people may ultimately face charges related to the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, which interrupted a session of Congress and left five people dead.

Sherwin spoke with NPR’s Martin Kaste in an exclusive interview Saturday evening about the multiagency investigation, the challenges officials face and what they’ll be looking for.

Sherwin says he doesn’t want to “Monday morning quarterback” the U.S. Capitol Police, but the fact that they allowed hundreds of potential suspects to leave the scene has made his job more difficult. Now he says staffers are putting in “24-hour shifts” to identify suspects, searching for evidence online and saving it before it can be deleted.

He says there’s likely to be a wide array of criminal charges, ranging from destruction of federal property to murder. He also expects to find evidence of coordination among at least some of the rioters.

At the same time, Sherwin is careful about what to call the violence at the Capitol. He says it’s not his place to make political judgments.

“I don’t want this tyranny of labels saying this was sedition, this was a coup,” Sherwin says. “But what I will say is, it was criminal.”

And, he says, if the evidence points to crimes by elected officials — such as incitement of violence — he’s prepared to bring the appropriate charges.

Below are highlights of the interview, edited for length and clarity.

I’m sure you have many sources of intel before an event like this. Did you get warnings about the possibility of violence?

Of course, there were warnings. I mean, look, you scrub social media, there is all types of intelligence indications. So, of course, there were warnings on social media, the different platforms, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and we were cognizant of those. There’s always outliers, but, yeah, there were warnings that people were going to coalesce and protest, and some individuals said, “Yeah, we’re going to take back our house.” So, yeah, those warnings were out there.

What is your job looking like right now? Your department, your people?

So, look, we’re in the crucible of it right now. I was looking back through the history of the [Justice] Department, and, you know, you look at Oklahoma City, obviously 9/11, and obviously those were tremendously unbelievable investigations and incidents in American history. … But this is different, I think, for a couple of reasons. One is the scale of suspects. We have potentially thousands of people that may have information about crimes … meaning there could be hundreds of people charged. I don’t think there’s any similar case in DOJ history that compares to that. Also, the litany of crimes that may have been committed. So we’re looking at everything — in a very limited period of time — we’re looking at everything from destruction of property to theft of property, to unauthorized access to restricted areas, to potential theft of national security information, to potential murder, to potential excessive [police] force investigations.

On Thursday you were quoted saying the conduct of “all actors” would be examined, which was interpreted to mean President Trump might face charges. Is that what you meant — the man who gave the speech at the start of the day could be looking at charges?

Look, I meant what I said before. In any criminal investigation, I don’t care if it’s a drug trafficking conspiracy case, a human trafficking case or the Capitol — all persons will be looked at, OK? If the evidence is there, great. If it’s not, you move on. But we follow the evidence. If the evidence leads to any actor that may have had a role in this and if that evidence meets the four corners of a federal charge or a local charge, we’re going to pursue it.

How convinced are you that there was some kind of a plan or coordination between at least some of these people?

I don’t think there was an overall command and control. However, I would not be surprised if we find loose affiliations of groups that were organized and had plans in place. Look, we saw in some of these individuals we identified — they look paramilitary almost, right? You’ve got the uniform, you’ve got communication, you have all the paraphernalia. Those show indications of affiliation and a command and control. So I believe we are going to find those hallmarks. But I think we’re weeks, if not months, out to understanding how clear that picture is.

The fact that so many people streamed out of the Capitol afterward, how does that affect your job now in finding people and arresting them?

I don’t want to Monday-morning-quarterback what the Capitol Police did when people flooded the Capitol and breached it, destroyed material, stole materials and left. But what I can tell you is, yes, there were very few people that were detained at the time of the incident and hundreds fled without being stopped. So, of course, it makes our job difficult. That’s why we have to reengineer what happened through cell site data, social media postings, witness statements, video camera footage. This is a process that’s going to take a while. But that’s why we’ve got all hands on deck trying to identify and move very quickly, charging both federal and local charges as soon as possible.

Clearly crimes were committed at the Capitol, but there are people who earnestly believe a lot of the things those people were saying. How do you as a U.S. attorney pursue these cases without this becoming politicized?

You pursue this case like any other case. You remove the politics. I don’t want to sound flippant, but it’s really not rocket science. You look at the evidence, you gather video, you gather witness statements, you scrub social media. And if that conduct fits a federal or local charge, they’re going to be charged, divorced of individual politics.

What’s your shorthand for describing what happened at the Capitol on Wednesday? What do you call it?

This is unprecedented. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a “crime scene” with such a diversity of charges, with such a large group of individuals on such a large grounds, in such egregious conduct.

Some people call this a coup. Some call it a riot. Where do you fall in that?

I don’t want this tyranny of labels saying this was sedition, this was a coup. But what I will say is, it was criminal. I’m a prosecutor. I’m not a political scientist. But what happened was criminal, and I’ll leave the labels, whatever it was, in terms of a coup or sedition, to the political scientists that I’m sure are going to look at this for decades. But as I sit here as a prosecutor, what we’ve seen and what we’ll prove and what we’ll charge is criminal conduct.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Facebook has hired a prosecutor who helped the US government go after Goldman in the 1MDB case to work on 'special investigations' for the social-media giant

mark zuckerberg facebook

Summary List Placement

A prosecutor who played a leading role in the US Department of Justice investigation of the multibillion-dollar bribery scandal tied to the investment fund 1MDB has quietly taken a role at Facebook leading “special investigations,” Insider has learned. 

A source directly familiar with the move told Insider that Woo S. Lee had joined Facebook. Lee, who is still listed on the DOJ’s website, began working at Facebook in December, according to his LinkedIn profile. He previously worked at the DOJ, where he was on the team that charged Goldman Sachs and extracted a $2.9 billion settlement over its role in the 1MDB bribery scandal.

Facebook declined to comment on the hire. A job listing for Lee’s role says he “will oversee a worldwide team of attorneys and investigators” that will field inquiries from the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The listing indicates he will also conduct internal investigations “on matters such as anti-corruption, taxation, fraud, sanctions, and international trade.”

The addition of Lee comes as Facebook faces a thicket of legal and regulatory threats. The US Federal Trade Commission and 48 state attorneys general have sued Facebook to try to force it to sell WhatsApp and Instagram. Con artists have used the site to steer victims to scams and users have sued Facebook, alleging it violated their privacy rights.

READ MORE: Facebook reportedly offered to help another company build a rival social network to fight off an antitrust lawsuit 

Facebook has also found itself thrust into the spotlight on issues around how it moderates potentially dangerous content on its platforms. After years of pressure from activists and its own employees, the company banned President Donald Trump on Jan. 7, saying his fanning the flames of conflict could “provoke further violence” after the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol by his supporters.

And as Facebook has expanded into payments, it has also faced new regulations. Job listings show it has been hiring people with experience building sanctions and compliance programs.

Lee’s move comes with several major cases that he played a role in having wound down. The Goldman investigation was settled in October with Goldman Sachs Group, the corporate parent, inking a nonprosecution agreement and a Malaysian subsidiary pleading guilty to criminal charges. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York are still set to go to trial in 2021 against Roger Ng, a Goldman banker. 

The 1MDB saga was seen as a dark cloud over Goldman for years, with three employees said by US prosecutors to be implicated in the bribery scheme others accused of ignoring “significant red flags.” The bank made $606 million in fees from arranging bonds for the state-owned Malaysian investment fund, but ended up having to pay billions in penalties, not just to US prosecutors, but also to authorities in Malaysia.

Read more: Inside the rise of Ram Sundaram, the leader of a secretive Goldman Sachs desk that’s minting billions by designing some of the bank’s most imaginative — and controversial — trades

Jho Low, a businessman who has been criminally charged with stealing billions from the 1MDB investment fund, settled several asset-forfeiture cases in 2019 for $700 million. The agency reached other civil settlements connected to 1MDB in 2020. Low has not yet been arrested and is reportedly thought by the US to be in China.

But some of the 40-plus civil forfeiture lawsuits filed by the Justice Department in connection with the 1MDB scheme are still ongoing. Even though the first complaints were filed in 2016, prosecutors are still digging, having filed suit over $96 million in allegedly ill-gotten assets as recently as July.

Other cases Lee is credited with working on involved an alleged scheme to move $20 million in violation of Iranian financial sanctions and efforts to assist South Korea in seizing assets looted by its corrupt former president Chun Doo Hwan.

It’s not clear when Lee’s last day in government was. The DOJ didn’t respond to an inquiry from Insider. His title was deputy chief of the international unit of the money-laundering and asset recovery section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. He also worked on the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative.

Lee didn’t respond to a request for comment from Insider. 

SEE ALSO: Inside the rise of Ram Sundaram, the leader of a secretive Goldman Sachs desk that’s minting billions by designing some of the bank’s most imaginative — and controversial — trades

SEE ALSO: Biden’s pick for the Department of Homeland Security raked in millions at WilmerHale advising Blackstone, Airbnb, PNC, and others

SEE ALSO: Gary Cohn, former Goldman Sachs exec and Trump economic advisor, is joining IBM as vice chairman

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What makes ‘Parasite’ so shocking is the twist that happens in a 10-minute sequence

Source link

'Criminal Minds': These Terrifying UnSubs Were Based on Real Serial Killers – Showbiz Cheat Sheet

Criminal Minds certainly wasn’t lacking when it came to memorable killers. Over 15 seasons, the BAU team tracked every kind of criminal imaginable, from devious cult leaders to a murderer who killed via hypnosis. While many of the show’s stories were wholly fictional, the show’s writers often turned to real-life cases for inspiration. These frightening characters were all based on actual serial killers. 

The killers in ‘Riding the Lighting’ were similar to Fred and Rosemary West

[embedded content]

RELATED: The Most Disturbing ‘Criminal Minds’ Episodes of All Time

The season 1 episode “Riding the Lighting” focuses on Jacob and Sarah Jean Dawes (Michael Massee and Jeannetta Arnette), who are on death row for murderings 12 young women, as well as their 2-year-old son. Jacob is believed to have masterminded the killings, with Sarah Jean helping to lure victims and also murdering their child. But the BAU team believes their more to the story. 

Real-life English killers Fred and Rosemary West appear to be the inspiration for the Dawes. Fred raped and murdered multiple girls and young women from the 1960s to the 1980s. Rosemary, his second wife, participated in his crimes and also killed her husband’s 8-year-old daughter from a previous relationship. 

Richard Kuklinski likely inspired the character of Vincent Perotta  

In season 1 episode “Natural Born Killer,” a murder that at first looks like a mob hit may be the work of a serial murderer. The killer, Vincent Perotta (Patrick Kilpatrick), was likely based on Richard Kuklinski, an alleged mafia hitman and killer who claimed to have killed hundreds of people.

Two ‘Criminal Minds’ episodes were based on Richard Ramirez, aka The Night Stalker 

 Agents Jareau (A.J. Cook, left) and Hotchner (Thomas Gibson, right Agents Jareau (A.J. Cook, left) and Hotchner (Thomas Gibson, right
Agents Jareau (A.J. Cook, left) and Hotchner (Thomas Gibson, right) in “Our Darkest Hour” | Monty Brinton/CBS ©2010 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

RELATED: The 10 Best Episodes of ‘Criminal Minds,’ According to Fans

Billy Flynn (Tim Curry) made his Criminal Minds debut in the shocking season 5 finale, titled “Our Darkest Hour” and appeared again in the season 6 premiere. During a series of rolling blackouts in Los Angeles, a killer nicknamed “The Prince of Darkness” breaks into people’s homes and then rapes and murders his victims. His crimes resemble those of Richard Ramirez, aka The Night Stalker. Ramirez was a serial rapist and murderer who killed multiple people in a series of Los Angeles-area home invasions in the mid-1980s. 

Nathan Tubbs had an MO like Ted Bundy’s 

Season 3 killer Nathan Tubbs (Vince Grant) was dubbed the “Campus Killer” before his identity was finally discovered by the BAU team. He worked as a security officer at a college, where he found his victims — all attractive female students with brown hair. 

Tubbs bears more than a passing resemblance to the notorious Ted Bundy. Many of Bundy’s known victims were young women with brown hair, and several were abducted from college campuses. Like Tubbs, Bundy appeared to be non-threatening. He often faked an injury or posed as a police officer to get a victim to let her guard down. 

The Boston Reaper is basically the Zodiac Killer 

C Thomas Howell in Criminal Minds C Thomas Howell in Criminal Minds
C. Thomas Howell as George Foyet in Criminal Minds| Richard Foreman/CBS via Getty Images

C. Thomas Howell played George Foyet, aka the Boston Reaper, one of the most memorable killers in Criminal Minds history. Foyet (who appeared in multiple episodes) often killed couples in cars in isolated locations and then taunted the authorities (including Hotch) after committing his crimes. Foyet’s all-black getup and habit of killing couples in out-of-the-way spots are similar to the Zodiac Killer. The Zodiac is a still-unidentified murderer who killed multiple people in Northern California in the 1960s and 1970s. 

This ‘Criminal Minds’ killer resembled Jeffrey Dahmer

In season 7’s “There’s No Place Like Home,” the BAU heads to Wichita, Kansas, to investigate the mysterious killings of a number of vulnerable teenage boys with a history of drug use and working as prostitutes. A man named Travis James (Alex Weed) is responsible, and he has been collecting body parts from his victims. The killer in this episode seems to have been inspired by Jeffrey Dahmer. The Milwaukee-based serial murderer lured vulnerable men to his apartment. He then sexually assaulted and murdered his victims before dismembering them, keeping body parts as souvenirs.

Check out Showbiz Cheat Sheet on Facebook!

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

From Defense Attorney to Municipal Prosecutor: Jake Hudnut's Path to Becoming Jersey City's Lead Lawyer – TAPinto.net

JERSEY CITY, NJ – When Jersey City Municipal Prosecutor Jake Hudnut was a law student, he faced a career dilemma: should he become an assistant prosecutor representing municipalities in criminal cases, or a defense lawyer advocating for clients’ innocence in court? 

After interning at a personal injury firm and clerking for the presiding judge of the Essex County Vicinage’s criminal division, the Seton Hall University School of Law graduate confirmed his enthusiasm for criminal defense law. Hudnut ran a one-man, Jersey City-based firm from 2011 until 2017 and represented approximately 500 private and court-appointed defendants, but he noticed a recurring issue whenever he stepped before a local judge.

“When I was practicing as a defense attorney, I went to municipal courts throughout the state, from a court like Jersey City that has about 18 sessions a day, to courts in northwest New Jersey that meet once a month in the back of a random building that the municipality happens to own,” Hudnut said. “I, statewide, felt that municipal court, the experience for my client, left something to be desired in terms of justice.” 

Our newsletter delivers the local news that you can trust.

In 2018, Hudnut, who also joined a New York City criminal defense firm for a year prior to becoming municipal prosecutor, described reading an exposé in the Asbury Park Press that detailed the ways towns use steep municipal court fines as revenue generating machines. He expressed his belief that the courts should instead serve as an outlet to spearhead crime reduction and quality of life strategies. 

Motivated by his observations, and Gov. Phil Murphy’s 2017 election platform of marijuana decriminalization and legalization, Hudnut explained that he saw an opportunity to switch from defense attorney to municipal prosecutor and attempt to reform the system. 

“[Marijuana] was a social justice issue on the campaign, but by spring of 2018, not only was it clear that the legislature wasn’t taking action, but the conversation was sort of dominated by revenue and tax revenue on the product,” Hudnut said. He added that he discussed decriminalization with Mayor Steven Fulop and believed the city’s attorney had the power to stop prosecuting marijuana possession. 

Given the widespread approval for marijuana legalization in New Jersey at that time, Hudnut thought it was unnecessary to risk a defendant losing access to housing, education, employment, and immigrant visas from a conviction. And when Fulop appointed Hudnut the municipal prosecutor in July 2018, Jersey City’s municipal courts began dismissing cases involving the drug or downgrading penalties to an ordinance.

Today, Hudnut promotes reform as the leader of Jersey City’s Quality of Life Task Force, which responds to community and public safety concerns using professionals from different local agencies without sending armed police officers. By collaborating with the mayor and a blend of city councilmembers, law enforcement officials, assistant prosecutors, and code enforcement supervisors, Hudnut helps determine best practices for handling misdemeanors, housing violations, and other non-emergency matters. 

“I hope, at least subconsciously, we are showing the state that a municipal prosecutor does have an obligation to his or her community, and if given the right resources by a mayor and a governing body, [the prosecutor] can make an independent review of every summons, and ticket, and complaint that ends up in court, and that the public is better served for it,” Hudnut said.

Follow us on Facebook and sign up for TAPinto Jersey City E-News alerts to be the first to read about all things Jersey City!

Download the FREE TAPinto App!  Click here for Android Click here for iOS for breaking news, traffic/weather alerts and special offers.

Know a story we should share with readers? Email editor Steve Lenox and tell him about it.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Meet the 11 people helping Robinhood navigate regulatory matters and customer lawsuits, from SEC veterans to a former Goldman Sachs in-house lawyer

Robinhood Legal

Summary List Placement

The fintech startup Robinhood has been growing like crazy amid the pandemic. The trading app’s revenue from routing trades roughly doubled from the first quarter of 2020 to the second. And as its valuation skyrocketed, Robinhood has been hiring software engineers, data analysts, and product managers. And lawyers.

The investing and trading app has onboarded millions of casual traders with its low-friction, no-fee trading model. But it has also drawn scrutiny from federal and state regulators who accuse Robinhood of deceiving customers and using a “gamified” product design that leads them to make risky trades they don’t fully understand.

In December, Massachusetts securities regulators lodged a complaint against Robinhood, alleging that it aggressively marketed to inexperienced investors and exposed them to “unnecessary trading risks. The same month, Robinhood agreed to pay $65 million to settle an investigation from the SEC, which accused the company of making “misleading statements and omissions” about its revenue. Robinhood declined to comment on ongoing legal matters.

Read more: The inside story of how Robinhood blew a huge launch so badly that Congress got involved

The new hires also come as Robinhood is said to be eyeing to go public in the new year. The company has picked Goldman Sachs for an IPO that could value it at more than $20 billion, according to Reuters, nearly double its current valuation of $11.2 billion. While the recent scandals haven’t scared off investors — Robinhood nabbed $1.26 billion in private funding in 2020 — these legal hurdles aren’t likely to dissipate without a fight.

Over the past year, Robinhood has hired lawyers and some of the most well-connected law firms in the US to negotiate deals, scale up its compliance efforts, and spar with regulators whose investigations and penalties could hinder its ambitions for growth. The company is also looking to make more hires, including lobbyists and lawyers who can advise on transactions, fundraising and the process of going public, job listings show.

Read more: Robinhood rival Webull is plotting an aggressive growth push

Here are 11 in-house and external lawyers — from ex-SEC commissioners to former lawyers at Fortune 500 companies — who are helping Robinhood tackle class-action lawsuits and high-stakes regulatory actions.

Daniel Gallagher Jr.

Daniel GallagherA former SEC commissioner under Barack Obama, Gallagher was tapped by Robinhood as its chief legal officer last May. During his tenure as commissioner, from 2011 to 2015, he championed corporate governance reform and, in the language of his SEC bio, advocated against the “encroachment” of bank-regulatory measures into the capital market. Gallagher held several other positions on the SEC before being appointed commissioner, including deputy director and coacting director of the division of trading and markets.

Gallagher also has significant regulatory experience in the private sector. In 2016, he joined Patomak Global Partners, a financial-services consultancy that provides industry and regulatory expertise, as its president, before becoming the top lawyer at the pharmaceutical company Mylan — now Viatris — in 2017. He rejoined WilmerHale, where he was a partner before his nomination to the SEC, in September 2019 as its deputy chair of the law firm’s securities department.

Lucas Moskowitz

Moskowitz, who was named Robinhood’s vice president and deputy general counsel in August, has worked closely with Gallagher since they were both in private practice at WilmerHale. Moskowitz held several positions at the SEC, including a stint in 2012 as one of Gallagher’s lieutenants and serving as chief of staff under former SEC chairman Jay Clayton from 2017 to 2019.

According to his LinkedIn, Moskowitz also joined Gallagher at Patomak Global Partners in 2016 as its managing director. He then rejoined WilmerHale’s securities group alongside Gallagher in 2019.

As Robinhood’s deputy general counsel, Moskowitz will be overseeing litigation, regulatory, and government affairs and be reporting to Gallagher.

Christina Lai

Holding the titles of vice president, deputy general counsel, and corporate security at Robinhood, Lai will oversee and grow the company’s legal group, according to the company’s announcement. She will also be reporting to Gallagher.

Before joining Robinhood in July, Lai held similar positions at Applied Materials, a materials-engineering company that serves the solar energy industry, where she worked from 2014 to 2020. The former Latham lawyer also worked in house at Yahoo from 2003 to 2014.

John Markle

Markle was hired in November as vice president and deputy general counsel for regulatory and product at Robinhood, which he joined after spending more than 19 years in house at TD Ameritrade ahead of the closure of its $26 billion sale to Charles Schwab & Co., as reported in Bloomberg Law.

Before his lengthy tenure at TD Ameritrade, Markle spent six years at the SEC, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Janet Broeckel

Robinhood’s new head of litigation as of December, Broeckel brings 15 years of experience as managing director and lawyer for Goldman Sachs. As the company’s associate general counsel and vice president, she’ll be heading its litigation matters and regulatory enforcement and investigations.

She previously served as senior counsel of the SEC from 1990 to 1994, before moving into private practice, where she spent 11 years, according to her LinkedIn profile. As litigation partner at Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, Broeckel drew on her government regulatory experience, working on matters related to SEC regulatory-enforcement proceedings, white-collar securities, and securities class-action defense.

Erica Crosland

Crosland joined Robinhood as its principal counsel for litigation and enforcement in December, according to her LinkedIn profile. Crosland is another alum from WilmerHale, where she spent more than eight years as a securities-litigation and enforcement counsel, according to Bloomberg Law.

Andrew Ceresney, Julie Riewe, Maeve O’Connor, and Elliot Greenfield

These lawyers from Debevoise & Plimpton have helped Robinhood with two major legal challenges. In December, the company agreed to pay $65 million to settle the SEC’s claims that it misled customers by giving them worse prices than competing brokerage platforms. It’s also facing a raft of litigation relating to the outage that struck the platform as stock prices plunged in March.

Andrew Ceresney of Debevoise & Plimpton.

The company had two former senior SEC officials at Debevoise advising it in its negotiations with their former agency. Andrew Ceresney led the SEC’s enforcement division from 2013 to 2017 — while the agency itself was being led by Mary Jo White, another Debevoise partner — and Julie Riewe cochaired the enforcement division’s asset-management unit for three years that party overlapped with Ceresney’s tenure.

Julie Riewe of Debevoise & Plimpton.

Court records indicate Ceresney recently represented McKinsey & Co. in a dispute with Jay Alix, the founder of AlixPartners, over alleged conflicts of interest, and Ripple Labs and its CEO Brad Garlinghouse in a civil lawsuit. And in 2019, Riewe represented Mylan, where Gallagher led the legal department, in a $30 million SEC settlement.

Maeve O'Connor of Debevoise & Plimpton

Elliot Greenfield of Debevoise & Plimpton

Two other Debevoise partners, Maeve O’Connor and Elliot Greenfield, have been advising Robinhood in a group of lawsuits that traders filed over its March trading outage. The users who sued said they lost thousands of dollars over Robinhood’s negligence. O’Connor, a leader of Debevoise’s securities and insurance litigation teams, has represented Prudential Financial and Metlife in numerous big cases. She also helped members of Dell’s board of directors fend off shareholder suits over its 2013 sale to private owners. Greenfield has worked on some of those same matters, as well as on numerous disputes for Tribune Media Co.

Neal Sullivan

Robinhood hasn’t stinted in its other headline-grabbing regulatory fight, either. Massachusetts authorities accused Robinhood last month of engaging in “unethical or dishonest” conduct and of breaching the heightened fiduciary standards that broker-dealers like Robinhood have been subject to in Massachusetts since early 2020.

Representing Robinhood in the dispute is Neal Sullivan, who leads the securities regulation and enforcement practice at Sidley Austin and is a go-to lawyer for broker-dealers and accountants facing government scrutiny. His team is advising Morgan Stanley on the regulatory aspects of its merger with E-Trade, and Sullivan represented a Chinese affiliate of KPMG in a dispute with the SEC in 2013-14.

DON’T MISS: 7 lawyers helping Google fight landmark antitrust charges in a battle that could stretch on for years, from in-house pros to DOJ veterans

SEE ALSO: The former CEO of a high-speed-trading firm is taking aim at Robinhood with a fintech startup that wants to pay you to trade

SEE ALSO: The inside story of how Robinhood blew a huge launch so badly that Congress got involved

SEE ALSO: Read the full memo Goldman Sachs just sent to staff announcing its new head of regulatory affairs. The former White House counsel will be tasked with helping clean up the bank’s 1MDB drama.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The racist origins of marijuana prohibition

Source link

Texas Criminal Appellate Law, Dallas Criminal Appeals Lawyer John Helms Educates – What are Acquittals versus Appeals? – GlobeNewswire

Dallas, TX, Jan. 08, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — For many people, the legal terminology involved in a criminal case can be confusing or overwhelming. When your freedom is at stake, you might feel frustrated by an unfamiliar process and all the new words and phrases that go along with it. 

One area that can spark confusion is the difference between being acquitted of a crime and filing an appeal after a conviction. Navigating the criminal justice system is difficult for most people, which is why it’s important to discuss your case with an experienced Texas criminal appeals lawyer as soon as possible.

What is Acquittal vs. Appeal?

In short, an acquittal means a person goes all the way through a criminal trial and is ultimately found not guilty. There is no reason to appeal their case because the court or jury has determined that they are not guilty of any offense.

When someone is acquitted, the government cannot appeal the jury’s finding of not guilty, but in some circumstances, the government can appeal jury instructions, rulings on evidence, and the like. By contrast, someone who is convicted of a crime has the right to appeal their conviction to a higher court.

If you’ve been acquitted of some charges but not others, you can appeal the charges that resulted in a conviction.

Depending on the circumstances of the conviction, you may also be able to file a motion asking for a mistrial due to an error or some sort of prosecutorial or juror misconduct during your trial. 

When someone files an appeal, they ask a higher court to review the trial court’s decision and to change it or reverse it, or to send the case back for a new trial. In most cases, the defendant appeals the actual conviction.

However, there are instances where a defendant might appeal the sentence rather than the conviction. 

Courts of Appeal in Texas

In Texas, there are 14 courts of appeal, which are considered intermediate courts. Courts of appeal hear cases from both the criminal system and the civil system. The courts of appeal are assigned cases within their geographical jurisdiction. 

Every court of appeal in Texas has a chief justice and a minimum of two additional justices that hear cases as part of a panel. Under Texas law, there can be up to 13 justices on a court of appeal. 

How an Appeal Works

In state court, the appeals process typically starts with the defendant filing a “notice of appeal” within a certain timeframe.  This is a short document saying that the defendant intends to appeal. It’s very important to file the notice of appeal before the filing deadline, as missing this deadline can result in the defendant losing their right to an appeal. 

After the notice of appeal has been filed, the defendant will file a “brief,” which is a written argument identifying errors that the trial court made and arguing why the errors justify a new trial, a reversal of the conviction, or other relief. 

Once the defendant files their brief, the government will respond with its own brief, which responds to the defendant’s brief.

After that, the defendant can file a reply brief, which responds to the government’s brief.  A reply brief cannot raise new arguments or claimed errors that were not made in the original brief. 

The appeals court, which is made up a panel of judges, will then either decide the appeal just based on the briefs, or the court may hear oral arguments from both sides. During oral argument, it’s typical for the judges to ask each side questions about their position on the issues in the case. 

It’s important to note that the appeals court can only review the parts of the trial case in which the defendant asserts that the trial court got it wrong. That is, the appellate court can’t simply redo the entire trial.  An appeal is not a “second opinion.” The appeals court will uphold the conviction unless there was a serious error, even if the appeals court judges might not agree with the outcome. 

If the appeals court upholds the defendant’s conviction, the defendant then has the right to ask the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state’s highest criminal court) to consider the appeal.  An appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals is not automatic. That court gets to decide which cases it wants to consider. The Court of Criminal Appeals actually accepts a low percentage of the cases that it is requested to hear.  If the Court of Criminal Appeals agrees to consider the appeal, you still have to convince that court that you should win.

If the Court of Criminal Appeals refuses to consider the appeal, or if it upholds the conviction, the defendant may be able to ask the Supreme Court of the United States to hear their case. However, the U.S. Supreme Court accepts very few cases, and only those that raise important legal or constitutional issues that would apply to cases around the country. 

Can You File an Appeal If You Pleaded Guilty?

The fact that you pleaded guilty does not technically mean that you cannot appeal.  However, the situations in which you might actually win on appeal are very limited, because you have admitted you are guilty.  In fact, in most plea agreements, the defendant gives up the right to appeal as part of the plea bargain, except in extremely limited circumstances.  

When a person or a family member comes to me about a possible appeal after a guilty plea, I normally offer to investigate the possibility of an appeal for a reduced rate rather than agreeing to file an appeal brief.  If I investigate and believe that there is no basis for an appeal, I tell them. If I think there is a possible basis for an appeal, we can discuss whether they want to proceed. I do this is because it is rare that there is any real basis to appeal after a guilty plea.

Working with a Texas Criminal Appeals Lawyer

Appeals cases can be quite complex, which is why it’s in your best interest to work with a lawyer who has experience handling Texas criminal appeals cases. If you have been convicted of a crime, talk to a knowledgable Texas criminal appeals lawyer like Attorney John Helms in Dallas about your case.  

John Helms Texas Criminal Appellate Lawyer

Media contact:

R. William

 (214) 666-8010

Sources:

  1. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.44.htm 
  2. https://www.txcourts.gov/about-texas-courts/courts-of-appeals/ 

This news has been published for the above source. Law Office of John M. Helms [ID=12599]

Disclaimer: The information does not constitute advice or an offer to buy. Any purchase made from this story is made at your own risk. Consult an expert advisor/health professional before any such purchase. Any purchase made from this link is subject to the final terms and conditions of the website’s selling. The content publisher and its distribution partners do not take any responsibility directly or indirectly.  If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the company this news is about.

Attachment

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Twitter and Facebook both banned Trump from their platforms. Here's why that doesn't violate the First Amendment — or any other laws

twitter trump

Summary List Placement

After months of escalating tensions between President Donald Trump and social media companies, Twitter and Facebook finally decided this week that the president had crossed a line too far.

On Wednesday, after Trump incited a mob of his supporters, thousands of them violently stormed the US Capitol, where Congress was voting to certify the results of the election, in an attempted insurrection that left five dead.

Though Trump posted a video briefly denouncing the violence, he then continued to use social media platforms to praise his supporters and once again repeat debunked conspiracy theories about the election.

Twitter and Facebook, both of which have policies against inciting violence, undermining democratic processes, and spreading election misinformation, decided that — given the impact that the president’s comments were having and continue to have — they would no longer let him use their platforms.

Twitter suspended Trump’s personal account, @realDonaldTrump, permanently, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence.” Facebook and Instagram suspended Trump “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”

Read more: Google and Apple are banning Parler from their app stores for allowing violent content in the wake of attempted insurrection that left 5 dead

Within hours of Twitter’s ban on Friday, Trump tried to bypass it by tweeting from the official presidential account, @POTUS. He posted a series of tweets railing against the social media company for “banning free speech” and taking aim at one of his favorite targets, Section 230. (Twitter quickly removed the tweets.)

But Trump’s implication — that Twitter somehow violated his First Amendment right to free speech — is a complete misunderstanding of what the First Amendment says.

Here’s why Twitter and Facebook, like other social media companies, have the right to ban Trump, and why Trump and other far-right politicians often take it out on Section 230.

What is the First Amendment?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” [emphasis added].

In other words, it bans the government from infringing on free speech (with some limited exceptions).

What does that mean for social media companies?

Not much.

“The First Amendment is a constraint on the power of government. It doesn’t apply to Twitter,” said Daphne Keller, an attorney and internet law expert who leads the program on platform regulation at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, adding: “Twitter is not a state actor.”

Why are Trump and his allies so mad then?

Trump, his allies, and others who have been hit with account suspensions, had warning labels applied to their posts, or had their advertising revenue shut off by companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube may disagree with those companies’ rules or approach to enforcing them — or they may just be mad that they can’t get their message out or make money from their audience or advertisers.

But legally, there’s very little they can do.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 gives legal protections to “interactive computer services” — like social media companies — that: 1) prevents them from being held liable for content posted by their users (with some limited exceptions), and 2) allows them to moderate content on their sites as they see fit.

“Section 230 makes it relatively easy for platforms to go to court and win saying ‘we have the right to enforce whatever policies we want,'” Keller said. But even without Section 230, she said, Twitter would win if Trump sued “based on their own First Amendment right to set editorial policy on the platform.”

So, why do Trump and his allies still want to get rid of Section 230?

Trump and many far-right politicians have repeatedly claimed (without evidence) that social media companies are systemically biased against them, and they believe repealing or curbing Section 230 would allow them to use the government to deny Section 230’s legal protections to platforms that aren’t “politically neutral.”

Ironically, that’s exactly what the First Amendment prohibits, which legal experts quickly pointed out when Trump tried to use executive orders to accomplish that last summer. (Still, Trump loyalists in the Federal Communications Commission tried to implement it anyway.)

What would happen if they did repeal Section 230? 

Ignoring for a second that it’s legal for social media companies to be “biased” when enforcing content rules, right-wing politicians’ criticisms of Section 230 tend to ignore several key facts about who social media currently benefits — and who it would benefit if they repealed the law.

First, the evidence has consistently shown that conservatives tend to enjoy some of the widest reach and engagement on sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube — or at the least, conservatives have failed to produce evidence that their views are being silenced or their reach is being throttled.

Second, if social media companies lost the legal protections offered by Section 230, they would be more, not less likely to remove questionable content from their sites, because they’d (rightfully) be fearful of getting sued.

That purge could very likely hurt far-right accounts — something Facebook itself has implicitly acknowledged, according reports from The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.

And increased legal liability could also make it harder for new competitors, like “alternative” social media sites Parler, Gab, and MeWe — where Trump supporters have flocked due to their lax approaches to regulating content — to get off the ground in the first place.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why thoroughbred horse semen is the world’s most expensive liquid

Source link

7 TV Shows Like 'Criminal Minds' to Watch if You Can't Believe It's Over – Decider

After 15 seasons, Criminal Minds has finally come to an end. The crime drama, which first premiered on CBS in 2005, took us into the world of the FBI’s most elite criminal profilers, a team who worked together to track down notorious killers, kidnappers, and more.

While fans stuck with Spencer Reid (Matthew Gray Gubler), Penelope Garcia (Kirsten Vangsness), and Derek Morgan (Shemar Moore), for years, it’s finally time to say goodbye to the crew now that Criminal Minds is calling it quits with the end of Season 15, which wraps up next month.

Thankfully, the past seasons of the show will still be available to stream on platforms like Netflix. But what about if you’re looking for some new crime content? We’re here to help. Once Criminal Minds is over, we’ve rounded up a list of similar shows to turn to next, from Law & Order: SVU to Mindhunter.

Read on for our full list of shows like Criminal Minds.


1

‘Law & Order: SVU’

law_and_order_svu
Photo: NBC

If you’re hooked on Criminal Minds, you’ve got to check out Olivia Benson and her squad on Law & Order: SVU. The Dick Wolf series, now in its 22nd season, has been on air since 1999, and there’s a reason why they’re still churning out new seasons after all of these years — they’ve nailed the crime drama formula. Benson and her team help victims and track down the criminals with a satisfying end to each and every episode, but the story never gets old.

Where to Watch Law & Order: SVU 


2

‘Dexter’

Dexter
Photo: Everett Collection

To watch a crime thriller from a new perspective, stream Dexter next. While Criminal Minds is all about the team chasing down the perpetrators and getting in their heads, Dexter plain shows us the criminal himself, a killer with a conscience who works for the police department by day and murders his victims by night, choosing people he deems evil enough to kill. Michael C. Hall stars as the vigilante serial killer, and he’ll be returning to the role for a Dexter Showtime revival this year.

Where to watch Dexter 


3

‘NCIS’

NCIS
Photo: CBS

Like Criminal Minds, NCIS follows the agents working to stop notorious killers, terrorists and more. Led by Naval Criminal Investigative Service Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs (Mark Harmon), the team of investigators use their different backgrounds and skills to thwart the plots of evil masterminds across the country. Like Law and Order: SVU, NCIS has developed a cult following since it first premiered in 2003, and it’s still going strong on CBS today.

Where to watch NCIS


4

‘Forensic Files’

forensic-files-2
Photo: HLN

While it’s not a drama like Criminal Minds, Forensic Files delivers all of the true crime content you could ever want. The docuseries follows forensic scientists as they deconstruct real-life crimes, using evidence left behind by perpetrators to solve the case. Examining accidents, violent incidents, and outbreaks of disease, the Forensic Files team takes viewers behind the scenes to show what it takes to unravel the mystery behind each crime.

Where to watch Forensic Files 


5

‘Bones’

BONES
Everett Collection

Dr. Temperance Brennan (Emily Deschanel) and Special Agent Seeley Booth (David Boreanaz) team up on Bones, a crime drama all about their work solving complex cases. Temperance, who has earned the nickname “Bones” for her ability to solve cases through skeletons when bodies are badly decomposed, and Seeley, a cocky former Army sniper, form a quirky, unexpected duo with their sleuthing skills, helping to crack some of the toughest cases around.

Where to watch Bones


6

‘Mindhunter’

mindhunter-season-2-groff
Photo: Netflix

While we only have two seasons (for now), we wish we had more of Mindhunter, David Fincher’s chilling Netflix series about FBI criminal profilers Holden Ford (Jonathan Groff) and Bill Tench (Holt McCallany). By studying the minds and motives of serial killers, the agents try to track them down and stop them from committing more murders. Using their new method of identifying and finding killers, Holden and Bill help forge the way for future criminal profilers.

Stream Mindhunter on Netflix


7

‘Hannibal’

hannibal-lecter
Photo: NBC

Silence of the Lambs series Hannibal stars Hugh Dancy as Will Graham, a criminal profiler working with psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter (Mads Mikkelsen). While Will and Hannibal form an impressive and successful partnership, the brilliant doctor is hiding a nasty secret from his partner. Sadly, Hannibal ended in 2015, but we’re getting another Silence of the Lambs series, a CBS drama titled Clarice, in February.

Where to Watch Hannibal

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Here are the potential criminal charges Capitol rioters could face – The Washington Post

Manuel Balce Ceneta

AP

Trump supporters confront U.S. Capitol Police on Wednesday in the hallway outside of the Senate chamber at the Capitol in Washington.

Federal prosecutors and the FBI are scouring photos and videos of Wednesday’s riot at the U.S. Capitol, looking for evidence of a long list of crimes to charge those who engaged in wanton acts of violence on federal property.

Seditious conspiracy. Damage to federal property. Use of explosives. Crossing state lines to commit crimes. Those are just some of the unlawful acts listed in a September memo by then-Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen — now the acting attorney general — urging prosecutors to consider tough federal charges for those engaged in violent unrest.

At the time, Rosen and his boss, then-Attorney General William P. Barr, were pushing for federal prosecutors to aggressively charge, and hopefully deter, further civil unrest over police conduct in cities like Portland, Ore., New York and Chicago. In turn, civil rights advocates and liberals expressed concerns that the Trump administration was seeking to overcharge crimes more typically prosecuted at the local level with lesser prison sentences.

[Photos: Scenes from U.S. Capitol as rioters storm building]

Now, however, amid disturbing scenes of a mob of people smashing their way into a joint session of Congress to disrupt a ceremonial but essential part of the installation of the next president, law enforcement officials say Rosen’s memo is a blueprint for pursuing federal cases against Wednesday’s rioters.

“The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that those responsible for this attack on our Government and the rule of law face the full consequences of their actions under the law,” Rosen said in a statement Thursday. “Some participants in yesterday’s violence will be charged today, and we will continue to methodically assess evidence, charge crimes and make arrests in the coming days and weeks to ensure that those responsible are held accountable under the law.”

The potential charges include seditious conspiracy, an ominous-sounding and rarely used criminal statute that bars the use of force “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.”

The charge carries a maximum possible prison sentence of 20 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/local/violent-scene-unfolds-as-pro-trump-mob-storms-capitol/2021/01/06/ec71b0bd-3e55-428d-89af-948d26b14e11_video.html

[Live updates from the U.S. Capitol]

Other lesser charges such as unlawful entry are also likely, and may be easier to prove, given the voluminous social media postings of rioters storming into lawmakers’ offices, taking material and smashing things.

Federal law explicitly makes it a crime to damage federal property, engage in civil disorder or cross state lines in a conspiracy to commit certain crimes of violence.

On Wednesday night, a number of federal prosecutors publicly declared their intention to bring cases against anyone from their districts or states who traveled to Washington to riot.

U.S. Attorney R. Trent Shores tweeted that if anyone from his district in northern Oklahoma “traveled to DC to commit these violent acts then they’ll be prosecuted” by his office. “We take an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign & domestic,” he said.

Traditionally, most crimes arising from public protests in Washington, D.C., have been prosecuted locally, but with poor results, particularly in the case of scores of people charged with crimes in the city on the day of President Trump’s 2017 inauguration.

Because two suspected pipe bombs were found outside the Republicans’ and Democrats’ party headquarters Wednesday, there is also the potential for terrorism charges to be filed, depending on what evidence the FBI finds.

Shawn Thew

EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Shattered glass and other debris litter the east steps of the U.S. Capitol early Thursday, the morning after hordes of President Trump’s supporters broke into the complex and rioted as Congress met to certify the 2020 election results.

FBI Director Christopher A. Wray on Thursday decried the “blatant and appalling disregard for our institutions of government and the orderly administration of the democratic process. As we’ve said consistently, we do not tolerate violent agitators and extremists who use the guise of First Amendment-protected activity to incite violence and wreak havoc.”

He said the FBI has deployed its “full investigative resources” and will “hold accountable those who participated in yesterday’s siege of the Capitol.”

While about a dozen people were arrested by Capitol Police as the rioting was ongoing, the vast majority of those in the mob that broke into the building were allowed to politely leave once the chaos ended. One online video even showed an officer holding the door for a stream of angry individuals, including one who triumphantly shouted: “We stopped the vote!”

Now, investigators face a more complex task of piecing together digital evidence to identify and charge those who engaged in violence. That could take weeks or in some cases months, meaning that the bulk of that prosecutorial work may be left to the Biden administration.

D.C. Metro police released dozens of photographs Thursday seeking to identify and possibly charge with unlawful entry some of those who stormed into Congress, including a heavily tattooed shirtless man draped in animal fur and wearing Viking horns.

[Shaken, angry lawmakers return to Congress after violence]

Jim Lo Scalzo

EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Trump supporters assemble outside the Senate chamber after they breached security Wednesday.

The political fallout from the rioting continued Thursday, as Republicans faced a deep, angry rift within their party between those who condemned the violence and Trump’s instigation of it and those who continued to foster the unfounded notion behind the mayhem — that the presidential vote count giving Democrat Joe Biden a clear victory was somehow amiss.

Barr — who had been one of Trump’s most loyal and effective Cabinet secretaries — issued a statement condemning the president.

“Orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress is inexcusable,” Barr said in the statement, released through his former spokeswoman. “The President’s conduct yesterday was a betrayal of his office and supporters.”

Barr resigned as attorney general on Dec. 23, his relationship with the president having soured in his last months in office. Although he had before the election warned of the dangers of fraud from mass mail-in voting, Barr said afterward that the Justice Department had not detected evidence of such conduct that could affect the result, infuriating the president.

On Wednesday after the mob stormed the Capitol, Barr had issued a statement condemning the violence and calling on federal agencies to disperse it — though not taking aim at Trump. His Thursday statement made clear he blamed Trump at least in part for what occurred.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link