Monthly Archives: June 2021

Here we go again. The corporate influence on elections and public policies is again in the news.

The 2021 version centers on major corporations speaking out against proposed and passed voter-suppression laws in Georgia and elsewhere.

When some corporations suspended contributions to Republican politicians who voted against certifying Bidens election, the GOP expressed outrage that corporations dared to take political positions against them.

The GOP simultaneously bemoaned the prospect that the tsunami of corporate campaign contributions might be cut off or reduced. Just shut up and donate, was the message from Mitch McConnell.

My warning to corporate America is to stay out of politics, but Im not talking about political contributions, he stated in response to Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines and other national and transnational corporations that criticized new voter-suppression laws across the country. This is a brand new same old story.

var vf_ad_container = document.getElementById(vf_div_id);vf_ad_container.innerHTML = '

';AdBridg.cmd.push(function() {var vf_gpt_slot = AdBridg.defineSlot('/5195/NCPC_TheUnion/ROS/opinion', [300,250], vf_div_id).setTargeting('slot', vf_div_id);var vf_size_mapping = AdBridg.sizeMapping().addSize([320,50]).build();AdBridg.useSizeMapping(vf_gpt_slot, vf_size_mapping);AdBridg.display('ad-big-box4');AdBridg.serve();})

var r1 = vf_ad_container.closest('.vf-promo');if (typeof r1 !== undefined) r1.style.display = "block";

});

});

Remember the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision, which entrenched the notion that money is First Amendment protected free speech? This ruling allowed individuals and corporations to legally spend vast amounts of money in elections, much of it on attack ads targeting candidates on issues the funders oppose.

This decision incensed the public, which feared that the megaphone of mega money would drown out the voices of the vast majority of individuals who dont make big donations.

Here we are again. The public is justly critical of the massive hypocrisy displayed by Mitch and his GOP cohorts who welcome the cascade of corporate and CEO cash, while simultaneously expressing indignation when their corporate donors express political free speech opinions the GOP does not like.

Recall that the GOP did not attack corporate so-called free speech rights when corporations released press statements supporting the 2017 tax cut legislation for corporations and the wealthy.

As with Citizens United, the hypocritical application of the court invented so-called corporate free speech rights invites us to expose and abolish the totality and illegitimacy of anti-democratic corporate constitutional rights.

But even if corporate political free speech rights is abolished, corporate entities will still possess other century-old Supreme Court-invented anti-democratic constitutional rights that shield them from public accountability, and gives them undue political power and ensures that corporate profits preempt the rights of individuals, communities and even the natural world.

Among these never-intended corporate constitutional rights:

First Amendment right not to speak used to overturn state laws requiring the labeling of a dangerous ingredient on food products and chemicals determined to cause cancer.

Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights used to prevent surprise inspections of corporate property, even routine inspections, removing the ability of inspectors to detect dangerous conditions (food contamination, dangerous working conditions) before they are temporarily removed or covered up.

Fifth Amendment takings rights used to overturn public regulations that protect private property from corporate actions. Fossil fuel corporations would undoubtedly challenge laws to keep fossil fuels in the ground to prevent impending climate collapse as a taking of corporate property without just compensation.

Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights used to overturn laws providing protection to local businesses (and local economies) over chain stores, and due process rights used to overturn over 200 state and federal economic regulations.

The corporate hijacking of these constitutional amendments provide business corporations overwhelming unaccountable power to overturn democratically enacted laws at every level of government.

The solution is the We the People Amendment (HJR 48), recently introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., with 56 House co-sponsors. The constitutional amendment would abolish both the money equals speech and corporate constitutional rights doctrines.

Its a response to the fundamental truth that solutions must be equivalent in scale to problems, which in this case are the massive corrupting influences of money in elections from the super rich and corporate control over so many aspects of our lives, as well as plundering of the natural world.

Corporations shouldnt be allowed to meddle in elections. Its up to human persons to fundamentally define what our legal creations can and cannot do. Enactment of the We the People Amendment is a necessary and urgent step toward authentic democracy for all people. Support HJR 48 by calling your congressman and senator today!

Lorraine Reich is a member of Move to Amend, Nevada County.

The rest is here:
Lorraine Reich: It's more than corporate money in elections - The Union of Grass Valley

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

Not even a seven-year sentence for securities fraud can keep Martin Shkreli from allegedly engaging in the machinations that earned him the nickname Pharma Bro.

In a ruling on Tuesday, a federal judge found that Shkreli used a contraband phone to communicate with his associates in the company behind Daraprim, the live-saving drug whose price he jacked up 40-fold roughly half a decade ago.

After the drug went from $13.50 per tablet to $500 overnight, Shkreli was criminally prosecuted for an unrelated Ponzi-like scheme involving investors in another drug company, Retrophin.

After a federal jury convicted him of securities fraud charges, state and federal regulators piled on civil antitrust charges revived from the old Daraprim scandal. Those accusations could lead to Shkrelis lifetime ban from the pharmaceutical industry.

En route to trial, the Federal Trade Commission and multiple attorneys general asked U.S. District Judge Denise Cote to sanction Shkreli for destroying evidence. They asked the judge to effectively decide the cases major issues in their favor before a trial, seeking judicial findings that Shkreli was continuously involved in Vyera and Phoenixuss business from 2015 to present, communicated with Vyera executives about company business from prison, and engaged in the challenged conduct to restrain generic entry into the Daraprim market.

Refusing to go quite so far, Judge Cote made clear that she agreed with at least some of the regulators allegations about Shkrelis handling of the evidence.

The plaintiffs have shown that Shkreli has used a prison phone to discuss highly relevant company business and that he knew in doing so that those communications should have been but would not be preserved, the 11-page ruling states. Shkrelis use of the prison phone to discuss business development constitutes intentional spoliation and warrants sanctions.

The business communications at issue have to do with the company Vyera, the rebranded name of the company behind Shkrelis price hike of Daraprim, Turing Pharmaceuticals. Phoenixus is the parent company of Vyera. Shkreli founded the company.

Vyera executive Akeel Mithani testified that he communicated with Shkreli about business development from the end of 2018 through February 2019, while Shkreli was incarcerated inside a low-security prison in Allenwood, Pennsylvania.

Some of those communications took place over the encrypted messaging platform WhatsApp, Mithani testified.

Kevin Mulleady, an owner and former director of Vyera, produced two text messages that he received from a still-incarcerated Shkreli in October 2017, some two months after the reputed Pharma Bros conviction.

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

The plaintiffs have been prejudiced by Shkrelis conduct because they do not have access to messages about Vyera that Shkreli sent and received while in prison, Judge Cote found, opting for the lighter sanctions Shkreli proposed rather than what regulators requested.

In an exercise of discretion, however, this Court declines to impose the plaintiffs proposed sanctions, her ruling states. As a result, Shkrelis proposed sanction that he be precluded from introducing any argument or evidence contrary to the presumption that he communicated with Mr. Mulleady and Mr. Mithani about company business from prison is adopted.

Cote declined to find that Vyera fell short in failing to preserve Shkrelis messages by wiping his company-issued iPhone during a factory reset between 2016 and 2017, after regulators placed a preservation notice.

Although it is undisputed that the Shkreli phone was subject to a factory reset in or around 2016-2017, Vyera has represented that it automatically backs up employee messages to iCloud, Judge Cote found. No party has suggested that that back up would not include text messages Shkreli sent and received using the Shkreli Phone. Counsel for Vyera will be required to confirm that an appropriate search has been conducted for these messages and that any relevant communications have been produced.

Cote directed Vyera to file a letter stating whether it searched the companys iCloud backup to or from the Shkreli phone.

Shkrelis lawyer did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment.

Read the ruling below:

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

See more here:
Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli Gets a Slap on the Wrist for Using Contraband Phone to Discuss Pharma Business Behind Bars - Law & Crime

Imprisoned felon Martin Shkreli nicknamed "Pharma Bro" was busted for using a contraband phone to discuss pharmaceutical industry business matters with associates from behind bars.

Article continues below advertisement

U.S. District JudgeDenise Cote made the ruling on Tuesday, saying the 38-year-old widely disdained ex-pharmaceutical executive used the contraband phone to communicate with former Vyera Pharmaceuticals colleagues.

Article continues below advertisement

Shkreli founded Phoenixus, the parent company of Vyera, which is the rebranded name of Turing Pharmaceuticals. It's the company behind the overnight price hike of the life-saving antiparasitic medication, Daraprim, whose cost Shkreli jacked up from $13.50 per tablet to over $500 per tablet in 2015.

"The plaintiffs have shown that Shkreli has used a prison phone to discuss highly relevant company business and that he knew in doing so that those communications should have been but would not be preserved," Cote's 11-page ruling states. "Shkreli's use of the prison phone to discuss business development constitutes intentional spoliation and warrants sanctions."

Article continues below advertisement

Two Vyera executives testified that they were in communication with Shkreli from 2017 to 2019 while the reputed Pharma Bro was incarcerated at a low-security prison in Allenwood, Pennsylvania.

Akeel Mithanisaid he communicated with Shkreli about business development from the end of 2018 through February 2019, sometimes using the encrypted messaging platform, WhatsApp, while Kevin Mulleady provided two text messages he received from Shkreli in October 2017.

Article continues below advertisement

When asked during a deposition earlier this year whether he had a contraband phone in his procession or had access to one in prison, Shkreli invoked his Fifth Amendment right.

"The plaintiffs have been prejudiced by Shkreli's conduct because they do not have access to messages about Vyera that Shkreli sent and received while in prison," Cote said. "In an exercise of discretion, however, this Court declines to impose the plaintiffs' proposed sanctions. As a result, Shkreli's proposed sanction that he be precluded from introducing any argument or evidence contrary to the presumption that he communicated with Mr. Mulleady and Mr. Mithani about company business from prison is adopted."

Article continues below advertisement

Cote did not find that Vyera as a company fell short in failing to preserve Shkreli's messages by wiping his company-issued iPhone during a factory reset, even after regulators implemented a preservation notice; however, she did order Vyera to file a letter stating whether it searched for the messages in the company's iCloud backup.

"Although it is undisputed that the Shkreli phone was subject to a factory reset in or around 2016-2017, Vyera has represented that it automatically backs up employee messages to iCloud," she said. "No party has suggested that that back up would not include text messages Shkreli sent and received using the Shkreli Phone. Counsel for Vyera will be required to confirm that an appropriate search has been conducted for these messages and that any relevant communications have been produced."

Article continues below advertisement

After a federal jury convicted Shkreli in 2017 of securities fraud for an unrelated "Ponzi-like scheme" involving investors in another drug company, Retrophin, he was slapped with additional civil antitrust charges in connection to the Daraprim scandal.

Those accusations, says Law & Crime, could lead to Shkreli'slifetime banfrom the pharmaceutical industry.

Read more:
Imprisoned Felon Martin Shkreli Busted For Using Contraband Phone To Discuss Pharma Business With Associates Following Daraprim Scandal - Radar Online

Inside the safe deposit box they rented at U.S. Private Vaults in Beverly Hills, California, Jennifer and Paul Snitko kept the sort of things that any law-abiding American might want to store securely: a will, backup copies of their home computer's hard drive, and some family heirlooms including jewelry, a fancy watch, and a class ring.

The Snitkos are not criminals. They've not been charged with any crimes. During his career as an aerospace engineer, Paul even held several security clearances.

But since March 22, they've been treated like criminals. The Snitkos' valuables have been in the possession of federal prosecutors following an FBI raid that resulted in hundreds of safe deposit boxes being seizeddespite the fact that the warrant authorizing the raid, as Reason previously reported, explicitly forbade federal agents from conducting "a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safe-deposit boxes."

But the FBI did not merely seize the safe deposit boxes housed at U.S. Private Vaults. Federal agents then proceeded to search each box, even brazenly tearing open sealed envelopes and rummaging through the belongings found inside. More than two months after the raid at U.S. Private Vaults, the Snitkos and other innocent people who had their stuff taken have no idea when their valuables might be returned.

"When you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't be subjected to an investigation," says Paul Snitko. "That the federal government broke open our safety deposit box was shocking and that we have no idea when we will get our property back is infuriating."

On Friday, just hours after the Snitkos filed a lawsuitwith help from the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian law firmchallenging what they say was the FBI's unlawful seizure of their safe deposit box, they finally got some good news. Sort of. According to IJ, the couple received a phone call from the FBI informing them that they would have their property returned in "about two to three weeks from now."

As of Friday afternoon, two other clients represented in the same lawsuit have not received similar phone calls.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, joins several other legal actions already launched on behalf of anonymous individuals whose property was similarly caught up in the FBI raid of U.S. Private Vaults. Federal prosecutors have charged U.S. Private Vaults with several crimes including conspiracy to commit money laundering and, earlier this week, filed forfeiture motions against roughly 400 of the nearly 1,000 safe deposit boxes seized in the raid.

As Reason previously reported, the unsealed warrant authorizing the raid of U.S. Private Vaults granted the FBI permission to seize the business's computers, money counters, security cameras, and "nests" of safe deposit boxesthe large steel frames that effectively act as bookshelves for the boxes themselves. However, FBI procedure required federal agents to take the safe deposit boxes into custody as well.

What happened after that is what's truly enraging about the situation. Federal agents were supposed to identify the boxes' owners so property taken in the raid could be returned. In many cases, that was as easy as checking the documents that were taped to the tops of the boxesbut, instead, legal filings show that investigators brazenly rifled through the boxes.

Like other victims of the raid, the Snitkos also had identifying information attached to the lid of their safe deposit box. Opening the box, their lawsuit argues, is a clear violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, while the FBI's continued retention of their property represents both Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment violations.

"The government's dragnet search of innocent peoples' private security boxes is the most outrageous Fourth Amendment abuse that the Institute for Justice has ever seen," says Robert Frommer, a senior attorney with IJ. "It is like the government breaking into every apartment in a building because the landlord was dealing drugs in the lobby."

Read the original post:
The FBI Took Their Safe Deposit Box and Everything Inside It. Two Months Later, They're Still Waiting for It To Be Returned. - Reason

The city of Huntsville isnt explaining why it hasnt rescheduled a disciplinary hearing for the police officer convicted of murder more than three weeks ago.

To somebody who is familiar with the citys process its really astounding, said Eric Artrip, a Huntsville attorney who has more than a decade of experience representing city employees in disciplinary hearings.

Ive never seen a city employee afforded the opportunity to remain on the payroll and ride it out using their accrued leave, he said. That just hasnt happened in my experience.

Will Culver, who was a Huntsville city councilman for 12 years, said the city could have avoided this predicament if it had either fired Darby or put him on leave without pay after he was indicted. If Darby was acquitted at trial, Culver said, the city could have reinstated him and given him back pay.

If it had been an officer that the chief of police wanted to terminate who had been in a situation like that or who was not in good graces with the mayor, said Culver, that never would have happened like that.

He would have been terminated before he was indicted, if you want to know the truth, he said, because they wouldnt want to have that on the citys roll as one of their own indicted. They went above and beyond to protect this officer.

In a statement released almost two weeks after Officer William Ben Darbys conviction, the city said it had scheduled and then later indefinitely postponed a disciplinary hearing to consider whether to fire Darby.

The city said it canceled the hearing because Darby availed himself to certain rights under federal law and changed his status from leave with pay to accrued pay.

As a result, his formal hearing has been postponed and will be promptly rescheduled to a later date following a change in his leave status, the city said in the statement.

City Attorney Trey Riley in an interview with AL.com last week declined to cite which laws the city took into account when it indefinitely postponed Darbys disciplinary hearing. Riley said that identifying which laws are involved could be a violation of Darbys privacy.

Under federal law, attorneys told AL.com, Darby could be entitled to postponement of his hearing if he is on medical or sick leave.

Riley declined to comment further on Darbys leave status, but said Darby is not on vacation.

We are treating Mr. Darby the same as we would a similarly situated city employee, Riley told AL.com.

But some attorneys and employment law experts question whether Darby is getting preferential treatment from city officials who have defended him since he shot and killed Jeff Parker three years ago.

Its just a very curious result, given the facts of this particular case, said Artrip. Far less serious infractions have resulted in termination within days, without a look at accrued leave.

Attorneys representing Darby in his employment case declined to comment and referred all questions to the city attorneys office.

The city has faced criticism including from two former federal prosecutors for keeping Darby employed after his conviction.

This situation in Huntsville, Alabama, where an officer convicted of the murder of a suicidal man who called for help, is still employed by the PD is badly wrong, Joyce White Vance, a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama wrote on Twitter. It will take a public spotlight to fix it, apparently a conviction wasnt enough.

Jay Town, Vances successor, also weighed in on Twitter.

Riley told AL.com the city did not pursue a disciplinary hearing after Darby was indicted because calling him to testify in the hearing would have violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent about the pending murder charge.

Peter Joffrion was the city attorney in Huntsville for 30 years until he retired in 2015. He explained how the disciplinary hearing process works.

At a disciplinary hearing, both the city and the employee can present arguments and witnesses to a hearing officer. Joffrion said the city has a roster of local attorneys who agree to serve as hearing officers.

The hearing officer decides the facts and sends a report to the employees department head. The department head in Darbys case thats police Chief Mark McMurray decides whether punishment is appropriate and what the punishment should be.

If the employee is fired, the city would have to pay them for their accrued benefits, like vacation days.

In Darbys disciplinary hearing, the city will have to show evidence proving he was convicted of a felony murder and stripped of his law enforcement certification.

The city hasnt yet rescheduled a disciplinary hearing.

Darby was found guilty of murder on May 7. Another officer testified against Darby, saying that she was trying to de-escalate the situation with Parker, a man who wanted to kill himself, before Darby showed up and killed him.

Mayor Tommy Battle and Chief McMurray have continued to support Darby, saying they disagreed with the jurys decision.

Meanwhile, Darby awaits sentencing for his murder conviction on Aug. 20 in Madison County Circuit Judge Donna Pates courtroom.

See the article here:
Citing privacy concerns, Huntsville wont explain why convicted officer is still employed - AL.com