Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a judge on Thursday to appoint an independent financial monitor to oversee Donald Trumps finances until her $250 million civil fraud lawsuit against him is resolved. James cited what she said was ongoing evidence of continuing fraud on the part of Trump and his company, including the creation of an entirely new corporate entity named Trump Organization II LLC on September 21, the same day James originally filed her suit. The new company could be part of an attempt to hide assets, James said.

James lawsuit accuses Trump, his adult children, and his companies of fraudulently manipulating statements detailing the former presidents net worth to get better deals from banks and insurance companies.

Since we filed this sweeping lawsuit last month, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization have continued those same fraudulent practices and taken measures to evade responsibility, James said in a statement Thursday.Today, we are seeking an immediate stop to these actions because Mr. Trump should not get to play by different rules.

Besides asking for $250 million to make up for the financial benefits James says the Trumps improperly received thanks to fraud, James is also asking that the Trumps and Trumps companies lose their business licenses to operate in New York and be banned from commercial real estate transactions for five years. Obviously, the newly created company was not a target of James suit and, for now at least, is not included on the list of companies that could be punished if her suit is successful. James filing on Thursday asks a judge to order the Trumps not to transfer their assets in an effort to escape her jurisdiction.James also wants the judge to require that any efforts by the Trumps to move assets beapproved in advance by the court.Finally, James is requesting the appointment of an independent overseer to monitor Trumps finances to make sure hes complying with all of the rules.

Trumps attorney in the case, Alina Habba, did not return a request for comment. However, in an email from Habba to James office that James included with her filing on Thursday, Habba wrote that her clients haveno problem agreeing not to remove assets from James jurisdiction.

We are certainly willing to provide assurance and/or reasonable advance notice to address any of your purported concerns regarding the activities of the Defendants, Habba wrote. So again, there is simply no disagreement requiring judicial intervention.

But its not just the creation of a new company that James cited as a concern in hernewest filing. She noted that Trump refused to answer nearly all of the New York attorney generals questions during a deposition, citing his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself. While a refusal to answer questions cant be used against a defendant in a criminal case, it can be used against a defendant in a civil trial. James included a transcript of Trumps deposition in which he began with a lengthy tirade in which he declared himself the most persecuted politician in history, denounced his former fixer Michael Cohen as a stone cold loser, and announced that he now understood why people invoked their Fifth Amendment right to not testify. In the past, Trump had derided people who took the Fifth.

I once asked, If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment? I was asking that question, Trump acknowledged in the deposition. Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated witch hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and even the fake news media, you really have no choice.

View original post here:
New York AG Asks Judge to Prevent Trumps From Hiding Assets Mother Jones - Mother Jones

Former president Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a rally to support local candidates at the Mohegan Sun Arena on September 03, 2022 in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump must sit for a deposition as part of a defamation lawsuit over his alleged rape of columnist E. Jean Carroll, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled Wednesday.

And that deposition is coming up fast. The date is now set for Wednesday, Oct. 19in just one week.

The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan, means Trump is now all but certain to actually have to sit down and answer questions about the incident.

Carroll accused Trump in 2019 of raping her in a New York department-store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump denied the claim, and accused Carroll of inventing the accusation to help sell a book. Trumps denial prompted Carroll to launch her lawsuit accusing Trump of defaming her with his denial.

Trump attempted to delay the deposition, and Kaplans decision formally denied that request. Kaplan said he believed Trumps appeal, which is still pending in federal court in Washington D.C., would not succeed. And in the meantime, forcing Trump to sit for the already-delayed deposition wouldnt create an undue hardship for Trump, Kaplan said.

Kaplans decision also included a reprimand for Trumps legal team, which had described Carrolls legal position as asinine.

The Court will not tolerate by counsel such inappropriate language again, Kaplan said.

Carroll is scheduled to be deposed this Friday.

Trump, who once infamously boasted of grabbing women by their genitalia, has repeatedly denied allegations from over a dozen women whove accused him of sexual misconduct.

Trumps failure to delay his deposition adds to his already towering tsunami of legal trouble. Trump faces a criminal investigation in Georgia over his alleged attempt to reverse his 2020 electoral defeat, and another from the Department of Justice over whether he improperly stored highly-sensitive classified information at his Palm Beach residence.

Trump has denied all wrongdoing and insisted that the swirl of accusations are all part of a Democratic witch hunt.

Trump invoked his constitutional Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a recent deposition in New York, which took place as part of a sweeping investigation into potential fraud at his private company. Trump declined to answer questions even though he had previously said the Fifth Amendment was only for guilty people and the mob.

A defendants decision to invoke the Fifth cannot be used against them in a criminal trial, but it can be used to draw an adverse inference in a civil lawsuit. In other words, in a civil case, lawyers are allowed to infer that a defendant refused to answer questions because the truth made them look bad.

More here:
Trump Will Finally Have to Face Questions About Alleged Rape, Judge Rules - VICE

Lee Grant and Sidney Poitier in the classic thriller, In The Heat of the Night. (Photo: Courtesy Everett Collection)

It's the slap that still reverberates through cinematic history. Fifty-five years ago only three years after the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was signed into law millions of moviegoers watched as Black police officer Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier) was struck across the face by plantation-owning Deep South tycoon Endicott (Larry Gates) in Norman Jewison's classic thriller In the Heat of the Night. But then Tibbs did something that had never been seen in a major studio movie before: He struck back.

In the immediate aftermath of being slapped, Endicott appeals to the other white man in the room, local police chief, Gillespie (Rod Steiger), saying, "You saw what he did. What are you going to do about it?" Gillespie whose racially-motivated distrust of Tibbs is slowly turning into grudging respect replies simply, "I don't know." Tibbs ultimately walks away from that encounter the victor, and the scene signaled to both Hollywood and the nation at large that something fundamental had shifted in the way that race relations could be presented onscreen.

"They rose off their chairs when he slapped him back," In the Heat of the Night co-star, Lee Grant, confirms to Yahoo Entertainment ahead of the movie's return to theaters on Oct. 16 courtesy of the TCM Big Screen Classics series, hosted by TCM and Fathom Events. "That was also Rod's best moment in the film: I thought he was extraordinary. You could really see him being pulled one way and the other, and he ultimately found a new way of life. I think he's forever changed by the experience." Steiger later earned a Best Actor Oscar for his performance, and the movie itself took home the Best Picture prize.

Now in her nineties, Grant says that she wasn't on set to witness the slap in person. But she was present for one of the movie's other signature moments, when Tibbs delivers a verbal smackdown to Gillespie that stings as much as his physical response to Endicott. Passing through Sparta, Mississippi on his way back to Philadelphia, the homicide investigator gets roped into helping solve the murder of a Chicago industrialist who planned to build an integrated factory in the economically-distressed small town.

Story continues

Gillespie is initially less than thrilled to have to work alongside a Black man, and makes a point of belittling him whenever possible, even making fun of his name. "What do they call you up there?" he asks. "They call me Mister Tibbs," Virgil responds with icy precision. (That line has since earned a spot on AFI's list of the 100 greatest movie quotes of all-time.)

"I don't remember how many times they shot that scene, but I can assure you the connection between Sidney and Rod was so strong," says Grant, who plays the small, but pivotal role of Mrs. Colbert, the wife of the central murder victim. "There was a symbiosis between them as actors. Sidney didn't have to try for anything: he knew that when Virgil came to that small town, he was the brilliant one." (Both stars have since passed on: Steiger died in 2002, and Poitier passed away earlier this year.)

Grant also notes that the "They call me Mr. Tibbs" scene crystalizes Jewison's larger intentions with the film, which was to show these two very different men forging a bond that bridges the deep racial divisions of the time. "He set up a miracle of opposites," she explains. "The whole journey for a smart Philadelphia detective to be caught by accident in this backwards Southern town, where he encounters the ignorance of the police chief. They're forced to face each other and find out where they came from and how far away they are from each other's lives. It's a kind of friendship story."

Beyond its larger cultural impact, In the Heat of the Night holds a special place in Grant's heart for being her re-introduction to Hollywood after spending twelve years in career purgatory due to being placed on the film industry's notorious blacklist. A rising stage and screen star in the early 1950s, she married screenwriter Arnold Manoff who was a member of the Communist Party. Amidst the "Red Scare" enveloping the country at the time, her husband came to the attention of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and was blacklisted himself.

"I refused to take the Fifth Amendment in front of the committee," says Grant, whose eulogy for blacklisted actor, J. Edward Bromberg, also made her a HUAC target. "They insisted that I name names if I wanted to work. I was told that if I named my husband as a Communist, I could work again. So I left and didn't work for the next twelve years in film or television. I worked in theater, and I didn't give a s*** about working in television or in films not if I had to name people. I had no desire to join a group of people who would name names."

Grant worked in the New York theater world as McCarthy's red-baiting reign of terror continued. In 1954, the Wisconsin senator was finally exposed as a fraud and censured by Congress, but it took another decade for blacklisted actors, writers and directors to start openly working in the industry again. Over the decades, conservative commentators like Ann Coulter have tried to rehabilitate McCarthy's destructive legacy, but Grant has no patience for that kind of historical distortion.

"He was a terrible man," she says emphatically. "And his assistant, Roy Cohn, was terrible, too. He turned people into HUAC. Remember when Donald Trump was president and he said, 'Where's my Roy Cohn?' To me, Donald Trump is no different that his predecessor. That's where I stand on his presidency." (Trump and Cohn were business associates prior to Cohn's death in 1986.)

Grant in one of her earliest roles in 1951's Detective Story. (Photo: Courtesy Everett Collection)

By the mid-60s, Grant was once again starting to find work on TV shows like Peyton Place and The Fugitive, and that's when Jewison contacted her about In the Heat of the Night. "He called me and said, 'Would you like to do this part?'" she remembers now. "He knew that I had gone through that experience [of the blacklist], and because he was and is a great progressive, he wanted to do something for me."

While In the Heat of the Night is set in Mississippi, Jewison shot the bulk of the film in Sparta, Illionis out of concerns over Poitier's safety. "Sidney had to be very careful about where he played the part," Grant remembers. "He could have been killed very easily [in the South] at that time."

Grant says she was eager to work opposite Poitier, who she knew from their shared time in New York's tight-knit stage community. (Poitier had also been blacklisted, although he returned to the screen well before Grant.) "While we had been friends, this was our first meeting as actors," she says. "I think that Sidney and I had something going for us in this film that connected to my life before it. He cared about me, and that had nothing to do with acting."

Poitier's care for his co-star his evident in their first scene together, where Tibbs tries to comfort Mrs. Colbert who is notably the first white person he touches in the movie. Grant says that they avoided speaking too much about the scene ahead of time. "Actors don't talk to each other about their work," she says, laughing. "Sidney and I were Method actors we each came with our own secrets. Our only connection on set was within our characters; we never had dinner together or chatted together. It would not be until years later that we talked about it. I made a documentary about Sidney [One Bright Light, part of PBS's American Masters series] and I don't remember us even talking about it then."

Poitier and Steiger in a scene from In the Heat of the Night. (Photo: Courtesy Everett Collection)

Poitier would go on to reprise his role as Virgil Tibbs in two follow-up movies, 1970's They Call Me Mister Tibbs!and 1971's The Organization, both of which were set in San Francisco. Meanwhile, In the Heat of the Night was later adapted into a television series that ran from 1988 until 1995 and starred All in the Family's Carroll O'Connor as Gillespie and Howard Rollins as Mister Tibbs. Grant who went on to win an Oscar for her performance in Hal Ashby's classic 1975 comedy, Shampoo says that she never watched the sequels or the series, but feels that the original movie is just as relevant today as it was in 1967, especially in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.

"The preconception of what a Black man is especially in the South with its history of hate and killing isn't gone," she notes, adding that she sees similar intolerance in other places around the world, including in war-torn Ukraine, where her mother's family emigrated from decades ago. "Ukraine has been on my mind a lot," she says. "It may not be the blacklist, but it's the newest fight, and it's one that I'm deeply involved with."

In the Heat of the Night returns to theaters on Oct. 16 and Oct. 19; visit Fathom Events for showtime and ticket information

Originally posted here:
'In the Heat of the Night' star Lee Grant on working with Sidney Poitier and being blacklisted by Hollywood - Yahoo Entertainment

Orange Julius, I know from. There used to be stores in New York City serving its unique combination of what some say contained orange juice, sugar, milk, powdered egg whites and vanilla. But it took Republican Liz Cheney, she of the successful January 6 Committee, to blow the whistle on Orange Jesus.

According to the UK Independent, on January 6, as the 2020 election results were to be certified, Liz Cheney went into the Republican cloakroom. There she saw a bunch of Republican lawmakers making sure they signed a bunch of papers certifying that they were objecting to the results.

Its only actually required that one House member object but there were so many who wanted to show they were objecting, she said. As I was sitting there, a member came in and he signed his name on each one of the sheets, she said. And he said under his breath, the things we do for the Orange Jesus.

It seems this is now a new name of Donald John Trump, the once and, many Americans still pray, future President of the United States of America. I think the term has something to do with Q. And because he so successfully mobilized a veritable army of followers, including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. And because so many are impressed he steadfastly refused to acknowledge defeat at the hands of the Democratic Devil.

Politifact points out that: Roughly 70 percent of Republicans dont see Biden as the legitimate winner. Surveys by different pollsters show virtually the same results, with the exception of a Washington Post/University of Maryland poll that dropped it to 61 percent. Now add the reality that 40 percent of Independents share the belief that Biden lost.

I must admit I am definitely late to understanding Q and the power Qs beliefs have over so many. And while I remember hearing a bit about Pizzagate, I never quite got it.

Wikipedia explains: Pizzagate resurged in 2020, mainly due to QAnon In March 2016, the personal email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clintons campaign chair, was hacked in a spear-phishing attack. WikiLeaks published his emails in November 2016. Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory falsely claimed the emails contained coded messages that connected several high-ranking Democratic Party officials and U.S. restaurants with an alleged human trafficking and child sex ring. One of the establishments allegedly involved was the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C.

In a 1950s Dwight Eisenhower America, where while Democrats and Republicans might often have disagreed, they both believed in common democratic ground rules, and I suspect many people would have quickly dismissed the claims of Pizzagate. But in Qs America, millions linger on social media networks like Reddit and 4chan and 8chanand misinformation rumors spread like the flu. On December 4, 2016, Edgar Maddison Welch, a 28-year-old man fromSalisbury, North Carolina, arrived at Comet Ping Pong and fired three shots that struck the restaurants walls, a desk, and a door. Welch later told police that he had planned to self-investigate the conspiracy theory. Welch saw himself as the potential hero of the story a rescuer of children.

The Polarization and Extremism Research Innovation Lab at Rutgers University issued a comprehensive analysis of the QAnon movement: It dates back to October 2017, when an anonymous author named Q Clearance Patriot began posting cryptic messages on the 4chan message board Q Clearance Patriots (or simply Qs) riddles are colloquially referred to as Q drops or bread crumbs, and QAnon followers (or QAnons) who seek to make meaning from them are sometimes called bakers. A core theme soon emerged, which remains central to all QAnon mythology: that the world is secretly controlled by a Satan-worshipping cabal of pedophile elites who practice human child sacrifice

For many QAnons in the U.S., this cabal is led by well-known politicians, business leaders and entertainment figures. It is opposed by a white hat movement of heroes, ordained by God and including Q himself, who work within elite institutions to battle the cabal (Q is generally assumed by believers to be a U.S. intelligence agent). Someday soon, Q predicts, The Storm will arrive. This term refers to the day when this cabal is publicly outed, arrested, and executed. This belief in the satanic cryptocracy and its preordained exposure and destruction is the defining trait of the QAnon- conspiracy culture (Emphasis added.)

Now, I must admit my desire to learn more about QAnon has been spurred on by recent developments in Trumpovia, especially what I heard about that strange back and forth feedback loop between the Former President and the fervent crowd at the J.D. Vance rally in Youngstown, Ohio.

While I missed that rally, I read John Cassidys description in the New Yorker Magazine: Trump played background music that the Times described as all but identical to a song associated with the QAnon right-wing conspiracy movement. Many people in the crowd responded with a one-armed salute, with their index finger raised, that reminded some observers of Nazi rallies And it came days after Trump had reposted on his social-media platform, Truth Social, a doctored image of himself wearing a Q lapel pin overlaid with the words THE STORM is COMING a QAnon meme that refers to a moment when Trump supposedly returns to power and punishes his enemies. This reposting wasnt a one-off. According to an analysis conducted by the Associated Press and published last week, Of nearly 75 accounts Trump has reposted on his Truth Social profile in the past month, more than a third of them have promoted QAnon by sharing the movements slogans, videos or imagery.

So I went back and read the transcript of what ex-President Trump said: Our country is being invaded. Its an invasion by millions of illegal aliens from all over the planet and left wing sickos pumping toxic anti-American propaganda into the minds of our beautiful youth. Theyre destroying our youth. The choice this November is simple. If you want to continue this national catastrophe, vote for the radical left Democrat. Lets do it, go ahead. You wont have a country left

For many years a vile group of corrupt power hungry globalists, socialists and liberal extremists in Washington has been waging war on the hardworking people of Ohio. They sold off your factories, shut down your coal mines, closed up your steel mill, shipped away your jobs, sacrificed your energy industry through open borders and trampled on your values.

In her essay Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming in the June 2020 issue of The Atlantic, Adrienne LaFrance conjured up what a believer might imagine as Orange Jesuss critical role in whats to come: You know that a small group of manipulators, operating in the shadows, pull the planets strings. You know that they are powerful enough to abuse children without fear of retribution. You know that the mainstream media are their handmaidens, in partnership with Hillary Clinton and the secretive denizens of the deep state. You know that only Donald Trump stands between you and a damned and ravaged world. You see plague and pestilence sweeping the planet, and understand that they are part of the plan. You know that a clash between good and evil cannot be avoided, and you yearn for the Great Awakening that is coming. And so you must be on guard at all times. You must shield your ears from the scorn of the ignorant. You must find those who are like you. And you must be prepared to fight. You know all this because you believe in Q. (Emphasis added.)

LaFrance offers a chilling connection between Qs central message and Donald Trump: One phrase that serves as a special touchstone among QAnon adherents is the calm before the storm. Q first used it a few days after his initial post, and it arrived with a specific history. On the evening of October 5, 2017not long before Q first made himself known on 4chan President Trump stood beside the first lady in a loose semicircle with 20 or so senior military leaders and their spouses for a photo in the State Dining Room at the White House. Reporters had been invited to watch as Trumps guests posed and smiled. Trump couldnt seem to stop talking. You guys know what this represents? he asked at one point, tracing an incomplete circle in the air with his right index finger. Tell us, sir, one onlooker replied. The presidents response was self-satisfied, bordering on a drawl: Maybe its the calm before the storm.

Whats the storm? one of the journalists asked. Could be the calmthe calm before the storm, Trump said again. His repetition seemed to be for dramatic effect. The whir of camera shutters grew louder. The reporters became insistent: What storm, Mr. President?

A curt response from Trump: Youll find out.

I cant think of a more compelling juxtaposition than Donald Trumps railing against corrupt power and the revelations offered by New York State Attorney General Leitita James. The press release explains her complaint against Donald Trump and his children:

New York Attorney General Letitia James today filed alawsuit against Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, senior management, and involved entities for engaging in years of financial fraud to obtain a host of economic benefits. The lawsuit alleges that Donald Trump, with the help of his children Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump, and senior executives at the Trump Organization, falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to induce banks to lend money to the Trump Organization on more favorable terms than would otherwise have been available to the company, to satisfy continuing loan covenants, to induce insurers to provide insurance coverage for higher limits and at lower premiums, and to gain tax benefits, among other things. From 2011-2021, Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization knowingly and intentionally created more than 200 false and misleading valuations of assets on his annual Statements of Financial Condition to defraud financial institutions. (Emphasis added.)

And heres Orange Jesus praising himself in Ohio: Everything changed six years ago when you finally got a president who put Ohio first and put America first. We put America first. From the moment I left my very luxurious and enjoyable life I had such a nice life. Now they want to say, Lets go get this guy. Theyve been trying for six years. They havent made it. Were not going to let it happen. Were not going to let it happen I will never be loyal to them because I will only be loyal to you and to our country.

Back to the Attorney-General: For too long, powerful, wealthy people in this country have operated as if the rules do not apply to them. Donald Trump stands out as among the most egregious examples of this misconduct. With the help of his children and senior executives at the Trump Organization, Donald Trump falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to unjustly enrich himself and cheat the system. In fact, the very foundation of his purported net worth is rooted in incredible fraud and illegality. Mr. Trump thought he could get away with the art of the steal, but today, that conduct ends. There are not two sets of laws for people in this country; we must hold former presidents to the same standards as everyday Americans. I will continue to ensure that no one is able to evade the law, because no one is above it.

Donald Trump: The unhinged persecution of me and my staff and they go into people that know me and they threaten them with jail time These people are sick But no matter what, our sick and deranged political establishment throws at me, no matter what they do to me, I will endure their torment and oppression and I will do it very willingly. They will never get me to stop fighting for you, the American people.

This claim is eerily reminiscent of a Q post:

In their complaint, the Attorney-General claims: To the extent Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization received any advice from outside professionals that had any bearing on how to approach valuing the assets, they routinely ignored or contradicted such advice. For example, they received a series of bank-ordered appraisals for the commercial property at 40 Wall Street that calculated a value for the property at $200 million as of August 1, 2010 and $220 million as of November 1, 2012. Yet in the 2011 Statement, they listed 40 Wall Street with a value $524 million and increased the valuation to $527 million in the 2012 Statement, and to $530 million in 2013 more than twice the value calculated by the professionals

It turns out Orange Jesus routinely claimed his 10,996 square feet triplex apartment at Trump Tower was 30,000 square feet. Then that wildly overstated size was multiplied by an unreasonable price per square foot Tripling the size of the apartment for purposes of the valuation was intentional and deliberate fraud, not an honest mistake The Mar-a-Lago club was valued as high as $739 million based on the false premise that it was unrestricted property and could be developed and sold for residential use, even though Mr. Trump himself signed deeds donating his residential development rights and sharply restricting changes to the property in reality, the club generated annual revenues of less than $25 million and should have been valued at closer to $75 million (Emphasis added.)

Back in Ohio, Donald Trump was implying that if the Department of Justice and the FBI can enter Mar-a-Lago and Letitia James can come after the Trump Organization, they can easily come after you:

But you know what? Were strong and were smart. Were smarter than them. Were stronger than them. Theyre a lot more of us. Our cruel and vindictive political class is not just coming after me. Theyre coming after you through me. Thats what theyre doing. And theyve already taken away your vote. Theyve taken away your voice and now they want to take away your freedom

James also demonstrated that Trump claimed money as his own but really belonged to partnerships in which he had a minority stake, with no ability to make disbursements. For example, one-third of the amount under cash and cash equivalents listed in the 2018 Statement belonged to Vornado Partnerships, not Mr. Trump.

As for Ivanka, who so many imagine has been falsely accused: Defendant Ivanka Trump was an Executive Vice President for Development and Acquisitions of the Trump Organization through early January 2017. Among other responsibilities, Ms. Trump negotiated and secured financing for Trump Organization properties. While at the Trump Organization she directed all areas of the companys real estate and hotel management platforms. This included active participation in all aspects of projects, including deal evaluation, pre-development planning, financing, design, construction, sales and marketing, as well as involvement in all decisions relating to those activities she negotiated the lease with the government and a loan related to the Old Post Office property. Ms. Trump also negotiated loans on Trump Organization properties at Doral and Chicago. On each of those transactions with Deutsche Bank, Ms. Trump was aware that the transactions included a personal guaranty from Mr. Trump that required him to provide annual Statements of Financial Condition and certifications.

After leaving the Trump Organization, Ms. Trump retained a financial interest in the operations of the Trump Organization through a number of vehicles, including an interest in the Old Post Office property through Ivanka OPO LLC. In a 2021 federal filing, Ms. Trump reported total income from Trump Organization entities of $2,588,449, including income from Ivanka OPO LLC, TTT Consulting, LLC, TTTT Venture LLC and Trump International Realty. (Emphasis added.)

The way the Trumps worked was pretty much a classic two sets of books situation: while one internal set of records reached one conclusion regarding market value, the figure presented on Mr. Trumps Statement was considerably higher:

The sworn testimony of Alan Weisselberg, their Chief Financial Officer doesnt help: Before invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege, Mr. Weisselberg conceded that using the false square footage had the effect of improperly inflating the value of the apartment almost threefold Q: In fact, [the value was] overstated by a factor of 3, is that correct? A: I didnt do the math, but it should be one third, yes, I would agree with that. Q: So, its on the order of a $200 million overstatement, give or take? A: Give or take.

As for Eric Trump and his work on Trump Vegas: By using the fraudulent valuation methods and assumptions described above, the Trump Organization was able to inflate the value of Trump Vegas in each of the years from 2013 to 2016. Eric Trump, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, refused to answer questions related to his participation in the drafting of each of the 2013 through 2016 Statements.

James explains what they gained: Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization utilized the false and misleading Statements of Financial Condition in an array of financial transactions, most prominently in obtaining real estate loans and insurance coverage. Between 2011 and the present, the Trump Organization has obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate loans in reliance on, among other things, Mr. Trumps net worth. as reported in his Statements of Financial Condition [They] also helped the Trump Organization and Mr. Trump avoid having the loans placed into default, because annual certifications of the accuracy of Mr. Trumps Statements were required. All told, the interest rate savings from the issuance of the false and misleading Statements of Financial Condition totaled between $85 million and $150 million.

The complaint alleges an ongoing conspiracy: The foregoing allegations constitute a continuous, integrated scheme to inflate Mr. Trumps net worth in order to obtain financial benefits. Specifically, Defendants each agreed to participate in a scheme to use false and misleading information to increase Mr. Trumps stated net worth on the Statement of Financial Condition for each year from 2011 through the present. (Emphasis added.)

It seems Orange Jesus was always obsessed with showing he was making more and more money. In a 2015 article, Forbes wrote that of all the individuals who have appeared on its list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, not one has been more fixated with his or her net worth estimate on a year-in, year-out basis than Donald J. Trump. The article described Mr. Trumps net worth as a subject that he cares about to the depths of his soul.

How about we compare Orange Jesus to the Jesus who preceded him? Who, as Matthew 19:30 reveals, has a vastly different idea of whats important in life: But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

The AGs complaint continues: When asked if he had an ongoing agreement from at least 2005 through the present with Mr. Weisselberg, Mr. McConney, and others to prepare the Statement of Financial Condition in a manner that included intentional overvaluations, Mr. Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer. (Emphasis added.)

Its a simple question: In preparing your financial statements, did you or did you not tell the truth about your finances? Orange Jesus decided not to answer because if he did he might be charged with committing a crime. According to John 14:6, Jesus said: I am the way and the truth and the life. He didnt say I am the way and I take the Fifth.

Asked about agreeing with Weisselberg, McConney and others to include false and misleading valuation statements, Mr. Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer

Orange Jesus and the others went to great lengths to conceal their fraud Defendants would exclude key information, like lender-ordered appraisals on a given property or limitations on development like the easements on Mar-a-Lago When properties dropped in value, the change was covered up by increasing the valuation of other properties in the same category

But Jesus tells us there is a way other than fraud and theft. John 10:10-11: The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

On September 26, 2022, in North Carolina, Donald Orange Jesus Trump revealed how little he appreciates the teachings of the real Jesus:

Among our highest priorities must be to end the nightmare Joe Biden and congressional Democrats have deliberately created at our southern border. Were going to end that. We cannot continue to allow millions and millions and I believe, Ted, its 10 million people and probably more. They say, Three million, two and a half million. Its not, I believe its many times that number. Its numbers like nobodys ever seen before. Theres never been a country ever abused like this. Its an invasion. This week it was reported that border patrol agents have received an intelligence bulletin stating that Venezuelan Dictator Maduro is opening up all of his prisons and sending vicious convicts, and these are tough ones, charged with murder, rape and other heinous crimes straight across the border and into our wide open USA.

Orange Jesus must have missed Matthew 25:53: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

Missed Leviticus 19: 33-34: When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Donald Trump: As long as we are confident and united, the tyrants we are fighting do not stand a chance because we are Americans and Americans kneel to God and God alone. My fellow citizens, this incredible journey we are on together has only just begun So with the help of everyone here today and citizens all across our land, we will make America powerful again. We will make America wealthy again. We will make America strong again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And we will make America great again. Thank you. God bless you

As Orange Jesus sports a Q pin and plays a Q-like anthem, its important to appreciate the dangers Q-Anon presents. The Detroit News tells the story of Rebecca Lanis, a 21-year-old from Michigan whose 53-year father went on a Q-conspiracy inspired rampage. A Walled Lake man whose daughter said he had been struggling with mental issues after embracing conspiracy theories was fatally shot by police Sunday after he allegedly shot and killed his wife and injured another daughter.

Rebecca Lanis said after President Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, her father started falling deeper into crazy ideas online, including QAnon conspiracy theories about Trump and vaccines. Nobodycould talk him out of them, she said. She missed the shooting by dumb luck because she was at a friends house for a birthday.

Its really so shocking but it really can happen to anybody, Lanis told TheNews on Sunday night. Right-wing extremism isnot funny, and people need to watch their relativesand if they have guns, they need to hide them or report them or something because this is out of control.

Orange Jesus is so concerned with himself he could care less about what he might be unleashing. Ill leave you with the affidavit in support of a criminal complaint against Matthew Taylor Coleman: On August 7, 2021, M. COLEMAN took his two children, R.C. (10 months old) and K.C. (two years old), from the home he shared with his wife and mother of his children, A.C., in Santa Barbara, California to Rosarito, Baja California, Mexico. While in Rosarito, M. COLEMAN murdered his children by shooting a spear fishing gun into their chests. On August 9, 2021, during a Mirandized interview, M. COLEMAN confessed to the murders.

M. COLEMAN stated that he believed his children were going to grow into monsters so he had to kill them M. COLEMAN explained that he was enlightened by QAnon and Illuminati conspiracy theories and was receiving visions and signs revealing that his wife, A.C., possessed serpent DNA and had passed it onto his children. M. COLEMAN said that he was saving the world from monsters M. COLEMAN was asked whether he knew what he did was wrong. M. COLEMAN stated that he knew it was wrong, but it was the only course of action that would save the world. (Emphasis added.)

The UK Independent reported: Using his own Truth Social platform (he remains banned from Twitter and Facebook), Mr Trump re-truthed a post by another Truth Social user which read: Jesus is the Greatest. President @realDonaldTrump is the second greatest

Second only to Jesus, Orange Jesus took the Fifth. And while his supporters imagine he will save the world, hes helping to destroy it.

Original post:
THE OTHER SIDE: Orange Jesus took the Fifth - theberkshireedge.com

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE

2021 UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT

FILED WITH THE AMF ON SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2022

Universal Registration Document and annual financial report 2021 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on March 25, 2022 under No. D. 22-0156.

First amendment to Universal Registration Document and annual financial report 2021 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on May 3, 2022 under No. D. 22-0156-A01.

Second amendment to Universal Registration document and annual financial report 2021 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on June 28, 2022 under No. D. 22-0156-A02.

Third amendment to Universal Registration document and annual financial report 2021 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on July 29, 2022 under No. D. 22-0156-A03.

Fourth amendment to Universal Registration document and annual financial report 2021 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on August 4, 2022 under No. D. 22-0156-A04.

This is a translation into English of the Universal Registration Document of the Company issued in French and it is

available on the website of the Issuer

Socit anonyme (Public Limited Company) with capital of 2,468,663,292 euros

Head office: 16 boulevard des Italiens, 75009 PARIS

R.C.S.: PARIS 662 042 449

1

Summary

1. APPROVAL BY THE AMF OF THE 3RD, 4TH AND 5TH AMENDMENT OF THE 2021 UNIVERSAL

REGISTRATION DOCUMENT

3

2.

GENERAL INFORMATION

5

3.

STATUTORY AUDITORS

6

4.

PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT

7

5.

TABLES OF CONCORDANCE

8

This fifth amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document has been filed with the AMF on 27 September 2022 as competent authority under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 without prior approval pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129;

The universal registration document may be used for the purposes of an offer to the public of securities or admission of securities to trading on a regulated market if approved by the AMF together with any amendments, if applicable, and a securities note and summary approved in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

This Universal Registration Document may form part of a prospectus of the Issuer consisting of separate documents within the meaning of the Prospectus Regulation.

2

1. APPROVAL BY THE AMF OF THE 3RD, 4TH AND 5th AMENDMENT OF THE 2021 UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT :

1.1. Approval of the 3rd amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document

The 3rd Amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document was approved on 27 September 2022 by the AMF as competent authority under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

The AMF approves this document after verifying that the information contained in it is complete, consistent and comprehensible. The 3rd Amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document has the following approval number: R. 22-035.

Such approval should not be considered as a favourable opinion on the issuer covered by the Universal Registration Document.

The 3rd Amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document may be used for the purpose of offering to the public of securities or for the admission of financial securities to trading on a regulated market if it is supplemented by a securities note and, where appropriate, a summary and its amendment(s). In this case, the securities note, the summary and all the amendments made to the universal registration document since its approval are approved separately in accordance with Article 10 (3), 2nd subparagraph of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

It is valid until 27 September 2023 and, during that period and at the latest at the same time as the securities note and under the conditions of Articles 10 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129, must be completed by an amendment to the Universal Registration Document in the event of significant new developments or material errors or inaccuracies.

1.2. Approval of the 4th amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document:

The 4th Amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document was approved on 27 September 2022 by the AMF as competent authority under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

The AMF approves this document after verifying that the information contained in it is complete, consistent and comprehensible. The 4th Amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document has the following approval number: R. 22-035.

Such approval should not be considered as a favourable opinion on the issuer covered by the Universal Registration Document.

The 4th Amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document may be used for the purpose of offering to the public of securities or for the admission of financial securities to trading on a regulated market if it is supplemented by a securities note and, where appropriate, a summary and its amendment(s). In this case, the securities note, the summary and all the amendments made to the universal registration document since its approval are approved separately in accordance with Article 10 (3), 2nd subparagraph of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

It is valid until 27 September 2023 and, during that period and at the latest at the same time as the securities note and under the conditions of Articles 10 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129, must be completed by an amendment to the Universal Registration Document in the event of significant new developments or material errors or inaccuracies.

3

1.3. Approval of the 5th amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document:

The 5th Amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document was approved on 27 September 2022 by the AMF as competent authority under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

The AMF approves this document after verifying that the information contained in it is complete, consistent and comprehensible. The 5th Amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document has the following approval number: R. 22-035.

Such approval should not be considered as a favourable opinion on the issuer covered by the Universal Registration Document.

The 5th Amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document may be used for the purpose of offering to the public of securities or for the admission of financial securities to trading on a regulated market if it is supplemented by a securities note and, where appropriate, a summary and its amendment(s). In this case, the securities note, the summary and all the amendments made to the universal registration document since its approval are approved separately in accordance with Article 10 (3), 2nd subparagraph of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

It is valid until 27 September 2023 and, during that period and at the latest at the same time as the securities note and under the conditions of Articles 10 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129, must be completed by an amendment to the Universal Registration Document in the event of significant new developments or material errors or inaccuracies.

4

2. GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 Documents on display

This document is available on the website http://www.invest.bnpparibas.com and the Autorit des Marchs Financiers (AMF) website, http://www.amf-france.org.

Any person wishing to receive additional information about BNP Paribas Group can request documents, without commitment, as follows:

2.2 Significant changes

Save as disclosed in this Amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document, there have been no significant adverse change in the Group's financial situation or financial performance since 30 June 2022, no material adverse change in the prospects of the Group since 4 August 2022.

To the best of the BNP Paribas' knowledge, there have not been any recent events which are to a material extent

relevant to the evaluation of BNP Paribas' solvency since 30 June 2022.

5

This is an excerpt of the original content. To continue reading it, access the original document here.

Read more from the original source:
BNP Paribas : 5th amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document - Marketscreener.com

The decadeslong battle to restore ownership of Mount Adams summit and east slope to the Yakama Nation includes an often little-remembered chapter that included actor Marlon Brando and legendary newsman Walter Cronkite.

Speaking at a ceremony Thursday commemorating the 50th anniversary of the mountains return to Yakama ownership, Jim Thomas recalled how he enlisted the two men to help bring national attention to the tribes long effort to recover its lands.

Yakama Nation royalty presented Tlingit tribal member Jim Thomas with a Pendleton blanket and gift bag on Friday, Sept. 23, 2022, after he shared his experience of helping the Yakamas get Mount Adams back. He was a featured speaker at a gathering the Yakamas held at the White Swan Pavilion commemorating the 50th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's executive order that returned the mountain and surrounding territory to the Yakamas.

Thomas, a Tlingit tribal member, was working for the National Congress of American Indians when he was asked to be part of the push that eventually led President Richard Nixon to issue an executive order returning the summit, east slope and 21,000 acres around the 12,281-foot volcano to the Yakamas.

Under the terms of the Treaty of 1855, the mountain known as Pahto was supposed to be included in the Yakamas 1.3-million-acre reservation. It was where Native people picked huckleberries and other plants and snowmelt brought life to the surrounding valleys. But in 1897, President Grover Cleveland created the Mount Rainier Forest Reserve, taking 121,000 acres of land belonging to the Yakamas, including the mountain. That land became part of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in the early 1900s, with about 98,000 acres eventually ending up in private hands.

The fight for Mount Adams and its surrounding areas was long and arduous, with the initial federal court case dragging out with only an offer of payment to the tribe.

But the mountain is sacred and wasnt for sale, said Thomas, recalling how he contacted actor Marlon Brando, who wholeheartedly joined the effort.

Brando then contacted CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite to convince him to speak to Thomas to shine light on the Yakamas concerns over the mountain.

Thomas drew applause and laughter when he dropped his voice, imitating Brando speaking in the movie The Godfather.

Thats how Brando sounded when he spoke to Cronkite, Thomas said.

I want you to treat him with the same respect youd treat me, Thomas recalled Brando telling Cronkite.

Thomas told how Brando got them on the Today show in an effort to swell up support for the Yakamas.

The only way theyd put us on is if Marlon showed up, Thomas said. And he did.

The efforts eventually paid off. Then-U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell gave Nixon a way to resolve the situation. The land was not taken as described in the U.S. Constitutions Fifth Amendment, Mitchell reasoned, so it could be returned to the Yakama through an executive order rather than an act of Congress. On May 20, 1972, just a month before the start of the Watergate scandal that would topple his administration, Nixon signed the order.

Thursdays commemoration lured tribal leaders from tribes throughout the region, including Makah and Lummi. The ceremony also kicked off the Yakamas annual National Indian Days Powwow.

Thomas recalled the many Yakama leaders who led the effort, including former tribal council members Robert Jim, Eagle Seelatsee and Genevieve Hooper.

After we won, the tribe brought me back here, he said. We spent a month preparing ceremonies.

This story has been updated to correctly identify the visiting tribes that attended the commemoration.

Continued here:
Tlingit tribal member shares his story of helping the Yakamas get Mount Adams back - Yakima Herald-Republic

Former President Donald Trump might have kept himself out of jail by invoking his Fifth Amendment rights in testimony with New York Attorney General Letitia James, but some law experts predicted that the action doomed him in the civil case filed against him Wednesday morning.

James announced that she would sue Trump, some members of his family and Trump Organization executives Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney for allegedly enriching the Trump family over a 10-year period with fraud, misrepresentation and by inflating Trump's net worth by billions to cheat lenders and others with false and misleading financial statements. During depositions in James' investigation, Trump and some of his associates allegedly pleaded the Fifth "hundreds" of times, according to several reports.

Pleading the Fifth protects someone from incriminating themselves in a criminal trial, but the protections are murky in a civil trial. When someone invokes their Fifth Amendment rights in a criminal trial, a jury cannot infer guilt based on the defendant's silence. However, inferences can be made against someone who invokes their Fifth Amendment rights in a civil trial.

Former federal Prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted that Trump and his son Eric have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights "hundreds of times." In certain criminal cases, that could be a smart action, but Mariotti said the action "screwed" the family in the civil case.

"A jury would likely be instructed to presume their answers would have hurt Trump," Mariotti tweeted.

Senior political reporter Aaron Blake tweeted a reminder shortly after James' announcement that her office was filing a lawsuit against Trump.

"James keeps citing Trump and Weisselberg pleading the Fifth. As a reminder: That can be used against you in a civil case in NY state unlike in a criminal case," Blake tweeted.

In her press conference, James said Trump and Weisselberg invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in many instances, such as when asked if Trump told Weisselberg he wanted his net worth reflections to increase on the statements and on whether Trump continued to review and approve the financial statements after becoming president in 2017.

James said the investigation unearthed how Trump, three of his children and the Trump Organization allegedly created and used more than 200 false and misleading asset valuations on statements of financial condition over a 10-year period. She said the family clearly violated generally accepted accounting principles.

Law experts anticipated that Trump's actions would save him from jail time but potentially crumble his business in New York.

"When he pled the Fifth last month before the NY AG, Trump may have effectively sacrificed his entire real estate empire to keep himself out of prison," lawyer Tristan Snell tweeted.

James announced the lawsuit after a years-long investigation into the Trump Organization's financial statements. ABC News reported that the lawsuit seeks a $250 million judgment and would prohibit any of the Trumpsincluding children Donald Jr., Eric and Ivankafrom leading a company in the state of New York.

In the past, Trump said he believes pleading the Fifth implies guilt, specifically when he spoke on the topic during his presidential campaign in 2016. However, Trump posted a lengthy statement on his app Truth Social in August that he had "no choice" in pleading the Fifth in regard to James' investigation.

"I once asked, 'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?'" he said in the statement. "Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the Fake News Media, you have no choice."

Trump called James a "failed politician" and condemned her for targeting his family and business.

A spokesperson from the Trump Organization told Newsweek that James was putting her own "political ambitions" ahead of the safety of New York residents, citing increased crime trends. The spokesperson called James' filing a "targeted, unethical political harassment."

"While the job of the Attorney General is to protect the interests of the public, today's filing, for the first time in the history of the Attorney General's office, seeks to protect the interests of large, sophisticated Wall Street banks. However, not only was no bank harmedactually, they profited handsomelyto the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in interest and fees," the statement said.

The statement called James' efforts to "[go] after President Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization" as an "abhorrent abuse of power, waste of valuable resources and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars."

The statement also accused James of filing the lawsuit as a "desperate attempt to pander to voters," as she is running for re-election against Republican Michael Henry.

"An attorney general is supposed to be fair, impartial and unbiasednot weaponize their office to pursue a political vendetta or target their political opponents. Today's filing by Attorney General James sets a dangerous precedentnot just in New York, but for our entire nation," the statement added. "The good people of New York should be disgusted."

Newsweek reached out to the New York Attorney General's Office for comment.

Update 9/22/22, 1:37 p.m. ET: This story was updated with a statement from a Trump Organization spokesperson.

Read the original post:
Trump Pleading the Fifth Might Have Doomed Him in Civil Case - Newsweek

In a rally promoting the new and improved Commitment to/on America, or the warmed-over Eye of Newt Gingrichs Contract with/on America, Kevin McCarthy made a seemingly bizarre promise to liberate parents from the Department of Justices war against parents. Although faithful MAGA attendees knew exactly what McCarthy was alluding to, many commentators on left of center broadcast news outlets were a bit befuddled. They can be forgiven for not following the many lawsuits that many from the MAGA base have launched as closely as they follow Twitter accounts. The one lawsuit that caught my attention is Saline Parents, et al, v. Merrick Garland filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Courts September 23, 2022, 10-page memorandum opinion granting Garlands motion to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction is the backstory that helps to make sense of McCarthys promise to parents. The full document is docketed at Case 1:21-cv-02775-DLF Document 16 Filed 09/23/22 Page 1 of 10. I have excerpted relevant portions below:

Background [taken directly from U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrichs (a Trump appointee) opinion]

On October 4, 2021, the Office of the Attorney General issued a memorandum titledPartnership Among Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Law Enforcement to AddressThreats Against School Administrators, Board Members, Teachers, and Staff. The memorandum targets a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running . . . public schools. Id. It states: While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.

The Attorney Generals memorandum announced two action items. First, [i]n the comingdays, the Department [of Justice] w[ould] announce a series of measures designed to address therise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel. Id. Second, the Attorney Generaldirected the FBI to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders ineach federal judicial district to discuss strategies for addressing threats against schooladministrators, board members, teachers, and staff and to open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.

Following the Attorney Generals memorandum, on October 20, 2021 the FBI sent an internal email to agents describing its efforts to identify and track these threats. The email stated that the FBI share[s] an obligation to ensure all individuals [, including school staff,] are able to do their jobs without threats of violence or fear for their safety. As a result, [the FBI] created a threat tag, EDUOFFICIALS, to track instances of related threats. Id. The email asked FBI offices to apply the threat tag to investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, in order to scope this threat on a national level and provide an opportunity for comprehensive analysis of the threat picture. Id.

The Plaintiffs: On October 19, 2021, plaintiffs filed this suit against Merrick Garland in his official capacity as Attorney General

The plaintiffs are Saline Parents, an unincorporated association of parents, and six parents who reside in either Saline, Michigan or Loudoun County, Virginia. Both the Saline Parents organization and the individual plaintiffs oppose progressive policies and curricula in their respective school districts, Saline Area Schools and Loudoun County Public Schools.

The plaintiffs explicitly state that their activities did not include widespread threat of criminalviolence, and that their meetings with school officials involve[d] [only] private citizensexpressing their opposition to harmful policies being considered by government officials . . . as istheir right to do under the First Amendment.

The plaintiffs allege that the Attorney General adopted an unlawful policy (AG Policy) to use federal law enforcement resources to silence parents and other private citizens who publicly object to and oppose the . . . policies of the progressive Left that are being implemented . . . in public school districts such as Saline and Loudoun County. Specifically, they allege that the AG Policy labels them as domestic terrorist[s] and criminalize[s] their speech, thereby chilling their opposition and outrage to progressive school board curricula and policies.

The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the AG Policy and any federal actions taken pursuant to it. Their complaint pleads causes of action based on the First Amendment; equal protection under the Fifth Amendment; protection of parental rights under the Fifth Amendment; and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on multiple grounds, including for lack of standing.

Analysis and Findings

A. Threat of Enforcement

The plaintiffs first alleged injury amounts to a pre-enforcement challenge because itderives from the threatened enforcement of a law. First Am. Compl. 83, 99. In such cases,plaintiffs need not show [a]n actual arrest, prosecution, or other enforcement action. Woodhull Freedom Found. v. United States, 948 F.3d 363, 370 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Instead, they must plead facts establishing that the threatened enforcement of a law issufficiently imminent. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To do so, the plaintiffs must satisfy three requirements. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014). First, the plaintiffs must allege an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest. Id. at 161 (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, their intended future conduct must be arguably proscribed by the [law] they wish to challenge. Id. at 162 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Third, the threat of future enforcement must be substantial. Id. at 164.

At the first prong, it is undisputed that the plaintiffs intend to engage in conduct that isarguably affected with a constitutional interestnamely, the First Amendment. The FirstAmendment protects free speech, including advocacy against school officials, but does not extend to true threats and [t]hreats of violence. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003). The plaintiffs allege, see First Am. Compl. 107, and the defendant agrees, see Def.s Mem. at 19, that their activities are limited to constitutionally protected activities covered by the FirstAmendment.

But the plaintiffs fail at the second prong for two independent reasons. The alleged AGPolicy does not arguably proscribe[] plaintiffs conduct, Susan B. Anthony List, 573 U.S. at 162, because it is not regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory in nature, Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 (1972). And even if it were, the policy does not apply to the plaintiffs constitutionallyprotected conduct. The alleged AG Policy is not regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory in nature because it does not impose any regulations, requirements, or enforcement actions on individuals. None of the documents that the plaintiffs allege establish the policy create an imminent threat of future legal actions against anyone, much less the plaintiffs. The Attorney Generals October 4memorandum simply announced a plan to announce a series of measures in the future anddirected the FBI to convene meetings with leaders in each federal judicial district. AG Memo at

2. At most, it charged the FBI with open[ing] dedicated lines of communication for threatreporting, assessment, and response at these meetings, without requiring any particular regulatory or enforcement action. Id. Similarly, the FBIs October 20 internal email created a new threat tag to track threats against school officials and listed a few guidelines along which to evaluate those threats. FBI Email at 2. Nowhere in the email did the FBI require that any particular action be taken in response to a threat labeled with the new tag. See id. Finally, the plaintiffs photo of one marked Homeland Security vehicle outside a school board meetingin a city that is neither Saline nor in Loudoun Countydoes not plausibly establish an inference that the Attorney General has taken or intends to take any kind of enforcement action. First Am. Compl. 87. The plaintiffs future conduct therefore cannot be considered arguably proscribed by the alleged AG Policy.

The Attorney Generals memorandum explicitly states that it does not target what is protected under our Constitution, which includes spirited debate about policy matters. AG Memo at 2. It only covers criminal conduct that is not constitutionally protected, such as threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views. Id.; seeVirginia, 538 U.S. at 35960 (stating that the First Amendment protects neither true threats[,] . . statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commitan act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals nor [i]ntimidationin the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word . . . , where a speaker directs a threat to aperson or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death).

Similarly, the FBIs internal email applies a new threat tag only to threats specifically directedagainst school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff. Assuming, as the Court must, that the complaints factual allegations are true, Cause of Action Inst. v. Internal Revenue Serv., 390 F. Supp. 3d 84, 91 (D.D.C. 2019), none of the plaintiffs conduct, which is limited to constitutionally protected speech, falls within the scope of the alleged policy.

Despite the alleged policys explicit terms, the plaintiffs blithely assert that they arenonetheless the subjects of the alleged policy, Pls. Oppn at 39, based solely on its timing andthe fact that members of school boards have complained that plaintiffs were attacking the board, see First Am. Compl. 89, 9394. Without more, this allegation is unpersuasive. The plaintiffs also contend that they are currently targets of investigation and data collection, Pls. Oppn at 38, but the complaint contains no such factual allegations. See generally First Am. Compl. Based on the complaint, the Court cannot conclude that the alleged AG Policy arguablyproscribe[s] the plaintiffs conduct. Woodhull, 948 F.3d at 371. Thus, there is somethingfundamental to a pre-enforcement challenge that is missing here. Matthew A. Goldstein, PLLCv. U.S. Dept of State, 851 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Because the plaintiffs have not identified any desired conduct . . . that might trigger an enforcement action, id., they lack standing to challenge the alleged policy.

B. Reputational Injury

The plaintiffs further allege that they have suffered reputational harm caused by the AGsdesignation of [the] [p]laintiffs as criminal threats and domestic terrorists. Pls. Oppn at 38.Reputational injury can be a cognizable type of injury in fact. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 473 (1987) (statutes labeling of a plaintiffs activities as political propaganda inflicted injurybecause the plaintiffs personal, political, and professional reputation would suffer and his ability to obtain re-election and to practice his profession could be impaired). Here, however, the plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that they will imminently suffer any reputational injury as a result of the AG Policy. As noted, the Attorney Generals memorandum does not apply to the plaintiffs activities, and even if it did, the policy does not label anyone a domestic terrorist, as the plaintiffs suggest, First Am. Compl. 38, 65. Nor does it create a reputational association.

The only concrete evidence that the plaintiffs provide of reputational injury is the NationalSchool Board Associations use of the words domestic terrorism in a September 29, 2021 letterto the White House. See First Am. Compl. 9394; Def.s Mem. at 1314. This letter raisedconcerns about acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials andcharactered these heinous actions as equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism. Def.s Mem.at 1314. But for the reasons stated above, the letter cannot fairly be interpreted as directed at theplaintiffs activities. Moreover, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the letter cannot plausiblybe considered part of the alleged policy, much less the sole basis for the AG Policy, First Am.Compl. 76. The letter was sent by a private entity unaffiliated with the Attorney General, andthe Attorney Generals October 4 memorandum does not even mention the letter. See AG Memo

10at 2. [T]he court need not accept inferences unsupported by the facts alleged or legal conclusions that are cast as factual allegations. Gregorio v. Hoover, 238 F. Supp. 3d 37, 44 (D.D.C. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that they will suffer a reputational or other cognizable injury caused by the AG Policy, they lack standing to challenge the policy.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted. A separate order consistentwith this decision accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Dabney L. Friedrich

United States District Judge

After reading through Judge Friedrichs opinion alongside that of the 11th Circuit in the case of Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, I was left wondering if there is a template for these lawsuits circulating among MAGA republicans. Trump and Saline Parents raise similar objections to actions taken by the Attorney General: Threat of Enforcement and Reputational Injury. If this is the case, then the attorneys representing both sets of plaintiffs are overcharging for their servicesnot that Im bothered by unscrupulous attorneys ripping off unscrupulous human beings. At any rate Kevin McCarthys cowardice was on full display at that Contract, I mean Commitment, on America. Too afraid to publicly rebuke a Trump nominated and confirmed District Court Judge, McCarthy resorted to speaking in tongues before Trumps MAGA cult base.

Continued here:
Why is Kevin McCarthy Promising to Remove Parents from the Terrorist Watch List? - Daily Kos

Alex Jones told reporters he may invoke the Fifth Amendment as he headed into a Connecticut court Thursday where he was expected to testify in a trial over how much in damages he must pay Sandy Hook families.

"I'm probably going to have to take the Fifth, not because I've done anything wrong but because she's saying she'll fine me or put me in jail if I answer these questions truthfully. It's a trap,'" Jones said before entering court.

The trial will determine how much Jones must pay the families of victims who died in the 2012 shooting and who he was previously found liable of defaming by theorizing that the massacre was a "hoax."

Twenty first-graders and six adults were killed in the school shooting.

This is the second of what's expected to be a four to six-week long trial, involving 15 plaintiffs most of whom were parents of the victims.

On Wednesday, family members testified about the ongoing harassment they faced because of Jones' "hoax" claims, which included the falsehood that they were actually actors working with the government.

Jones told reporters Thursdays that he is "between a rock and a hard place" and said "since when is someone not allowed to say they're innocent."

He was referring to the fact that since he was found liable in the defamation case, he is not allowed to now proclaim his innocence.

The default judgment came after Jones refused to turn over records during the discovery process.

Court opened Thursday with Judge Barbara Bellis canvassing Jones on what he is and is not allowed to say, including that he is not allowed to talk about the fact that he is challenging the default ruling.

The first of three damages trials wrapped up in August, with an Austin, Texas, jury ordering Jones to pay the parents of 6-year-old Sandy Hook victim Jesse Lewis nearly $50 million in damages. A third trial back in Texas is pending from Leonard Pozner and Veronique de la Rosa, the parents of victim Noah Pozner.

Jones skipped the first week of his Connecticut trial but arrived in town for the second week. On Tuesday and Wednesday, he showed up to court and gave press conferences to the media but was not called to testify. In his speeches, he branded Bellis a "tyrant."

"I was not wrong about Sandy Hook on purpose. I questioned itThere have been a lot of staged events in history, like WMDs in Iraq, and I questioned every major event that we see," Jones said Tuesday.

See the original post:
Alex Jones said he may have to plead the Fifth as he's set to testify - Insider

Background

On 17 June 2017, the ACX Crystal, a 730-foot foreign flagged container ship chartered by NYK, collided with the destroyer USS Fitzgerald in Japanese territorial waters. Several midship compartments on the Fitzgerald flooded, killing seven United States Navy sailors and injuring dozens of others. Personal representatives of the deceased sailors sued NYK in federal court, asserting wrongful death claims under the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. 30301 et seq. The injured sailors and their families sued NYK separately, asserting negligence and loss of consortium claims.

In both cases, plaintiffs alleged that NYK, a foreign corporation headquartered in Japan, was amenable to federal court jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) based on its substantial, systematic and continuous contacts with the United States.

NYK is a global logistics company that transports cargo by air and sea. On the seaside of its operations, NYKs fleet of owned and chartered vessels includes bulk carriers, container ships, car carriers, tankers, shuttle tankers, drill ships, and LNG carriers. Between 2017 and 2019, about seven percent of NYKs worldwide port calls were in the United States, totaling about 1,500 calls annually.

Because of NYKs shipments bound for the United States, NYK litigates in American courts. Since 2010, NYK has filed approximately thirty lawsuits in federal courts, most involving claims for freight charges. And, occasionally, NYK and its vessels are sued in American courts. Typically for cargo damaged en route, or for injuries occurring during cargo operations in the United States.

However, overall, NYKs business in the United States and North America accounts for less than ten percent of its annual revenue.

The Dispute

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) provides:

Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction.For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if:

(A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction; and

(B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.

NYK was not subject to jurisdiction in any state court in the United States because plaintiffs could not meet the established due process test for personal jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment, which limits state court jurisdiction.

Personal jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment requires a finding of either general or specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. General jurisdiction is only appropriate when a non-resident corporations contacts with a forum state are so continuous and systematic that the defendant is essentially at home in the forum state. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 139, 134 S. Ct. 746, 761 (2014). In other words, the forum state must be considered the center of the non-residents activities or a surrogate for its place of incorporation or head office. If general jurisdiction is found, then the corporation is amenable to suit for any of its activities anywhere in the world.

If the non-resident corporation is not at home in the forum state, then the alternative is specific jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction is appropriate when: 1) a non-resident corporation avails itself of the benefits and protections of the forum state; and 2) the claims arise out of or result from the corporations forum related activities. In other words, the claims must arise from or relate to the business activities conducted in the forum state.

Since plaintiffs could not show that NYK was at home in any state, and since plaintiffs claims did not arise from or relate to its business activities in any state, plaintiffs filed in federal court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), arguing that the due process test for personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment which limits federal court jurisdiction should be different than the Fourteenth Amendment test.

Specifically, because the United States Supreme Court has yet to definitively speak to the Fifth Amendment test, plaintiffs proposed a national contacts test whereby NYK, a foreign corporation headquartered in Japan, was amenable to federal court jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) based on its substantial, systematic and continuous contacts with the United States, regardless of whether the contacts are sufficient to consider NYK at home in the United States. Said differently, in the plaintiffs view, the Fifth Amendment due process inquiry is simply whether a defendant, sued on a federal claim, was doing enough systematic and continuous business in the United States that it had fair notice it could be subjected to suit in federal courts.

NYK moved to dismiss the suits for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that plaintiffs proposed test was inconsistent with the United States Constitution and laws. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana agreed and granted NYKs motion. The cases were consolidated on appeal, and on 30 April 2021 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court judgment. On 14 May 2021 plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc (rehearing by the entire Court).

The Decision

In Stephen Douglass, et al. v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, 20-30382 c/w 20-30379 (5th Cir. August 16, 2022), Judge Edith Jones writing for the majority of the Court rejected plaintiffs proposed national contacts test. Five of the seventeen justices dissented.

Noting that the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment Due Process Clauses use the same language to protect persons from the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and serve the same purpose, the Court dismissed plaintiffs foundational contention that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause vindicates federalism principles that are irrelevant under the Fifth Amendment. Acknowledging that the Fifth Amendment focuses on the United States sovereign limits rather than the states reciprocal sovereign limits, the Court nonetheless disagreed with the premise that the distinction warranted a more permissive standard under the Fifth Amendment. Mainly, because in the Courts view the emphasis on sovereignty was not the focus of the analysis.

Citing to Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S. Ct. 2099 (1982), the Court stated that individual liberty is what the Supreme Court emphasizes as the foundation of the personal jurisdiction requirement. That requirement represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty. Id. at 2104.

On this basis, the Court held that the tried-and-true dichotomy between general and specific jurisdiction applies under the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, the Fifth Amendment due process test for personal jurisdiction mirrors the Fourteenth Amendment test, except that the Fifth Amendment test looks at contacts with the United States as a whole, rather than any one state.

Further, because neither complaint alleged that the federal claims at issue arose out of or were related to NYKs contacts with the United States, the Court went on to find that NYK could only be amenable to the district courts jurisdiction under a general jurisdiction theory. Meaning, NYK was amenable to jurisdiction if and only if its contacts were so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home in the United States.

Turning to NYKs specific contacts, the Court found that exercising general jurisdiction over NYK did not comport with its Fifth Amendment due process rights.

The Court recognized that NYKs contacts with the United States are, in absolute terms, substantial. NYK vessels call on at least forty-one separate ports, with several vessels dedicated exclusively to delivering cars between Japan and the United States. At one time, NYK even operated twenty-seven shipping terminals and six air-cargo terminals in the United States, with its North American entities generating about $1.47 billion in consolidated revenue every year.

But the Court also noted that the general jurisdiction test is an inherently comparative inquiry. And comparatively, NYKs contacts with the United States comprise only a small fraction of its worldwide contacts.

Therefore, the Court found that the United States is not the center of NYKs activities or a surrogate for NYKs head office or place of incorporation.

Comments by the Court

In footnotes 5 through 7 of the majority Opinion, the Court felt it was important to place the Opinion in further context. The Court emphasized that NYK was a time charterer of the ACX Crystal, and that time charterers typically have little or no control over the vessels navigation. As such, a time charterer almost never bears liability for a collision stemming from navigational error. Citing Moore v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 912 F.2d 789, 792 (5th Cir. 1990).

Thus, in the Courts view, even if plaintiffs could establish personal jurisdiction over NYK, their claims would face other substantial hurdles. Including the fact that the after-accident reports issued by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Japanese Transport Safety Board largely fault the United States Navy for the collision and, according to the Court, neither places any fault on NYK.

The Court noted that the personal representatives of the deceased sailors and the injured sailors and their families also sued the owner of the ACX Crystal, Olympic Steamship Company, and its bareboat charterer, Vega Carriers Corporation, both Panamanian corporations, in Japan for the same injuries at issue in this lawsuit.

Gard Comment

Had the accident occurred in Untied States waters, the District Court presumably would have had jurisdiction over NYK, as well as the owner and the bareboat charter because the incident would have likely satisfied the specific jurisdiction requirements under the Fifth Amendment as applied to admiralty claims. This decision does, however, set a limitation as to personal jurisdiction for claims against a foreign corporation that arise outside of the United States where the claim does not arise from activities of the corporation in the United States.

See the rest here:
USS Fitzgerald and ACX Crystal collision: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delineates the reach of personal jurisdiction - GARD