Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Invoking The Fifth Amendment In Civil Cases

Although the actual wording of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says a person shall not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, the right has been found applicable to civil actions as well. Natural persons in danger of facing criminal charges do not have to testify, answer interrogatories or produce documents about matters potentially incriminating to them.

What if an employer were to browbeat an employee and extract very damning admissions after she was involved in an wreck in the company vehicle? In a related civil action, parties could obtain the investigation made by the employer. The Fifth Amendment privilege would apply neither to the vicious interrogation nor to requests for production directed to the employer.

The Fifth Amendment does not prohibit all incriminating admissions: Absent some officially coerced self-accusation, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not violated by even the most damning admissions. United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 187, 97 S.Ct. 1814, 1818 (1977); see, U.S. v. Kennedy, 122 F.Supp.2d 1195, 1198 (N.D. Okla. 2000) (privilege implicated only if government compels confession).

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in Pierce v. State, 1994 OK CR 45, 878 P.2d 369, 375, quoted from U.S. v. Washington and agreed: The Fifth Amendment is not concerned with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion. Statements coerced by non-governmental entities do not violate the privilege. See, Boyd v. State, 1987 OK CR 211, 743 P.2d 674 (physician on child abuse team); Wright v. State, 2001 OK CR 19, 30 P.3d 1148 (private citizen visiting jail); Stohler v. State, 1988 OK CR 52, 751 P.2d 1087 (news reporters outside courtroom). On the other hand, an interrogation done on behalf of law enforcement is subject to Fifth Amendment considerations. See, Dodd v. State, 2000 OK CR 2, 993 P.2d 778 (jailhouse informant working for government); Blanton v. State, 2007 OK CR 37, 172 P.3d 207 (DHS worker acting as an agent of police).

The Fifth Amendment will not be involved even if a private employer forces a confession. See, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 166-170, 107 S.Ct. 515 (1986) ( outrageous behavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a defendant does not make that evidence inadmissible ; [t]he sole concern of the Fifth Amendment, on which Miranda [v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966)] was based, is governmental coercion.); U.S. v. Stein, 440 F.Supp.2d 315, 333-334 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (amendment restricts only governmental conduct, and will constrain a private entity only insofar as its actions are found to be fairly attributable to the government. [S]tate action will be found where the government commands or significantly encourages a private entity to take the specific action alleged to violate the Fifth Amendment, as well as where the government is entwined in the management or control of specific conduct at issue.); see also, Scoggins v. State, 528 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Ark. 1975) (statement made to employers private investigator not protected). The court in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616 (1967) pointed out how coercive it can be to be interrogated by an employer when ones job is on the line, but Garrity involved action by a state attorney general, not a private employer.

In civil cases, documents may not be compelled from the person who might be incriminated by their production, but they may be obtained from third parties, including their employers or agents. In Giles v. Doggett, 1972 OK 91, 500 P.2d 574, the court held the Fifth Amendment applies to statements compelled in civil cases from the person who might be subjected to criminal charges. The privilege is personal to the individual who might be incriminated. Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 371 (1951); United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 233, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2167 (1975). Therefore, if incriminating documents are in the possession of employees, they, personally, cannot be compelled to produce them not because their answers were compelled in creating the documents, but because they cannot be compelled to divulge incriminating information in response to government action such as a subpoena or court order. See, United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 104 S.Ct. 1237 (1984).

In Giles, 500 P.2d at 576, financial documents were sought from the person who might have been incriminated for defrauding a company not from a third party. The person was not compelled to produce his own documents. In Rey v. Means, 1978 OK 4, 575 P.2d 116, the appellant had been subpoenaed to produce her own tax returns, divorce papers and other financial information. The court stated, Compulsion exists in the forced production of documents by a motion to produce or a subpoena duces tecum issued to the person claiming the privilege. The compulsion must be upon the claimant, not a third person. If the person claiming the privilege is not compelled to do something himself, his fifth amendment rights are not violated. An agency relationship does not alter this result. Id. at 119.

Therefore, an employer or insurer has no standing to withhold documents that might incriminate its employee or its insured and cannot invoke the Fifth on behalf of an employee. See, Flavorland Industries, Inc. v. United States, 591 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1979) (no standing for employer to assert Fifth Amendment rights of employees when depositions of employees and responses to interrogatories in a civil suit were subpoenaed by grand jury). In Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 69-70, 26 S.Ct. 370, 377 (1906), the court said the privilege was never intended to permit (a person) to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his testimony, even though he were the agent of such person.

Even lawyers and accountants cannot invoke or waive the privilege for their clients. See, United States v. Lightly, 677 F.2d 1027 (4th Cir. 1982). In Fisher v. U.S., 425 U.S. 391, 397-399, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (1976) tax returns given by clients to their attorneys in order to obtain legal advice were not protected by the Fifth Amendment (although they might have been protected by attorney-client privilege). In Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 93 S.Ct. 611 (1973), Fifth Amendment rights of a taxpayer were not violated by the enforcement of a summons directed to her accountant requiring production of the taxpayers records in the accountants possession.

An employee cannot claim the privilege for documents belonging to the employer. In a case in which the Securities & Exchange Commission sought financial records, the court stressed, It is settled that a person inculpated by materials sought by a subpoena issued to a third party cannot seek shelter in the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment. S.E.C. v. Jerry T. OBrien, Inc., 467 U.S. 735, 742, 104 S.Ct. 2720 (1984).

A corporation does not have a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 105, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (1988). The Fifth Amendment privilege is limited to its historical function of protecting only the natural individual from compulsory incrimination. Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 89-90, 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2184 (1974).

Contents of corporate records are not privileged under the Fifth Amendment. U.S. v. Rinehart, 539 F.Supp.2d 1334 (W.D.Okla. 2008); United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 104 S.Ct. 1237 (1984); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976). A records custodian may not resist the production of corporate records even if those records would tend to incriminate the custodian. Braswell, 487 U.S. at 108-109.

As forcefully summed up in Thomas v. Tyler, 841 F.Supp. 1119, 1124 (D.Kan. 1993) (f.n.2): [T]he Braswell case makes clear that there is absolutely, positively no circumstance in which corporate records or the act of producing corporate records, by the corporation or any person connected therewith, falls within the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Furthermore, an individual may not invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid producing the documents of a corporation or other collective entity that are in his custody, even if his act of producing those documents might be personally incriminating. Id. at 1128.

In Oklahoma, a person must specifically invoke the Fifth Amendment in civil cases. See, Matter of C.C., 1995 OK CIV APP 127, 907 P.2d 241, 243: In civil cases, the privilege against self-incrimination is not infringed upon by merely being called as a witness and compelled to take the oath. See Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety v. Robinson, 512 P.2d 128, 133 (Okla.1973). In this regard, the Robinson court stated, The privilege cannot be invoked to excuse the witness from appearing and taking the stand. The privilege of a witness not to incriminate himself is an option of refusal and not a prohibition of inquiry. [T]he privilege against being involuntarily called to the stand as a witness against oneself applies only in criminal cases.

The Evidence Code, 12 O.S. 2513, prohibits comment upon or drawing inferences from a claim of privilege. The 1993 Evidence Code Committee noted 2513 and other Oklahoma evidence rules do not embrace the privilege against self-incrimination but the principle is applicable. No cases have been found holding that an unfavorable inference may be drawn from the failure of a person claiming a privilege to testify.

However, in 1995 in Matter of C.C., the court did not apply the principle of 2513: [T]he Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them: the Amendment does not preclude the inference where the privilege is claimed by a party to a civil case. Moreover, [f]ailure of a party who is present at the trial to answer questions based on the privilege against self-incrimination raises a strong inference that the answers would have been unfavorable and damaging to him, and comment to that effect is proper. Id. at 244.Practical considerations

A civil case may proceed even if a party may be subject to criminal prosecution. Evidence cannot be coerced from that party, but can be discovered and placed in evidence when it comes from another source. The question will be whether evidence from third-party sources will be sufficient to prove or defend a claim.

Lynn Brusin Mares

More here:
Invoking The Fifth Amendment In Civil Cases | Abel Law Firm

Wednesday, January 19, 2022

On Jan. 14, the Supreme Court agreed to hear five cases, which present the following questions:

Does the First Amendment permit a school to bar a coach from praying on the field after games?

Can a plaintiff bring a Section 1983 damages claim based on a police officers failure to provide aMirandawarning when the interrogation results in self-incriminating statements used against the suspect at trial?

When a veterans benefits claim is denied based on a regulation later deemed invalid as contrary to the statutes plain meaning, is the denial based on a clear and unmistakable error such that the veteran can challenge the otherwise-final denial?

When, if ever, should a death-row inmates as-applied method-of-execution challenge be raised via a habeas petition rather than via a Section 1983 claim, and if it should be raised in habeas is such a challenge subject to the bar on successive habeas petitions?

May federal habeas courts use the All Writs Act to order the transportation of state prisoners for reasons other than testifying or for trial, and may such courts allow habeas petitioners to develop new evidence without first determining whether such evidence would be admissible?

After granting three cert. petitions and relisting several more following its first conference of 2022, this week the U.S. Supreme Court filled out this years docket by granting cert. petitions in five additional cases.

The Court agreed to hear cases involving: 1) the application of the First Amendment to public school coaches postgame prayers, 2) the availability of Section 1983 claims based on police officers failure to provideMirandawarnings, 3) the ability of veterans to challenge otherwise-final benefit denials on the grounds the denials violated plain statutory meaning, 4) the procedural rules that apply to death-row prisoners method-of-execution challenges, and 5) the limits on federal courts authority to issue orders allowing state prisoners to develop evidence for their claims for habeas relief.

The First Amendment case drew 10 cert-stage amicus briefs and will undoubtedly receive the most public attention of this batch of cases. All five cases received some cert-stage amicus attention and likely will find interested audiences especially among governments, civil-rights litigators, veterans-advocacy groups, and criminal-law and habeas practitioners.

InKennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Court will address a football coachs claim that his public school employer violated his First Amendment rights when it terminated him for kneeling at midfield to say brief prayers at the end of football games. This case has made its way up to the Court once before three years ago, when the coach sought review of the lower courts denial of his preliminary-injunction motion. At that time, four justices wrote separately to indicate that while they found the lower courts reasoning troubling, the ongoing factual dispute over the schools precise reason for terminating the coach weighed against the Courts hearing the case.

The Washington district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have resolved the factual dispute in question, concluding that the schools sole reason for its decision was its belief that the prayers presented a risk of liability under the Establishment Clause. And the Supreme Court has now agreed to take the case.

The schools Establishment Clause rationale could lead the Court to use this case to give public schools additional clarity on how the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause interact in the educational context (its recent decision inEspinoza v. Montana Department of Revenueaddressed this issue, as will its upcoming decision inCarson v. Makinlater this term). Yet this case also raises an important Free Speech Clause question, and the Court could use it as an opportunity to clarify the private-speech/official-speech distinction it drew inGarcetti v. Ceballos, where it upheld governmental regulation of public employee speech made pursuant to official responsibilities an issue of interest to all public employers.

In any event,Kennedyis a case to watch for public schools and public employers more broadly.

Another set of public employers police departments will be watchingVega v. Tekoh, where the Court will consider whether a police officers failure to give a suspect a Miranda warning can itself give rise to a Section 1983 claim if the un-Mirandizedstatements are later used against the suspect in a criminal trial. InMiranda v. Arizona, the Court applied the Fifth Amendment to hold that a self-incriminating statement made by a criminal defendant while he was in custody cannot be admitted as evidence against that defendant unless the defendant first received the You have the right warnings specified inMiranda. The question inVegais whetherMirandasexclusionary rule constitutes a constitutional right the violation of which gives rises to a damages claim under Section 1983 (which authorizes a cause of action for deprivation of any rights . . . secured by the Constitution).

To answer this question, the Court will need to address a tension in its Fifth Amendment precedents. On the one hand, the Court has repeatedly characterizedMirandasexclusionary rule as a prophylactic measure that goes beyond what the Fifth Amendment requires. Yet, inDickerson v. United States, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment barred a federal statute that purported to override the evidentiary ruleMirandaestablishes.

Accordingly,Vegawill give the Court a chance to clarify the foundation and limits of theMirandarule, as well as an opportunity to address the contours of Section 1983 claims more generally. Given how common police interrogations and Section 1983 claims are, this case will be of interest to police departments and civil-rights lawyers around the country.

InGeorge v. McDonough, the Court agreed to decide a question that affects many veterans of Americas armed forces: Can a veteran challenge the otherwise-final denial of a benefits claim if the denial is based on a regulation later deemed invalid as contrary to the governing statutes plain meaning? This question arises from a provision of federal law that permits a veteran to challenge a decision denying a claim for benefits at any time after that decision is made even long after the ordinary appellate process has been exhausted so long as the veteran can show that the decision was based on clear and unmistakable error. InGeorge, the Court will decide whether it is a clear and unmistakable error to rely on a then-applicable regulation that a federal court later determines violated the clear meaning of the governing statute.

The veteran argues that such reliance is such an error because when a federal court interprets an unambiguous statute, it is declaring what the law has always meant, not announcing a change in meaning. The federal government, meanwhile, argues that the clear and unmistakable standard is met only when the agencys original decision is inconsistent with the prevailing view of the law at the time, and insists it is irrelevant whether that prevailing view is later held to have been incorrect (on the theory that decisions invalidating agency regulations change the law).

The parties arguments will give the Court occasion to address the difficult and recurring distinction between decisions changing the law and decisions proclaiming what the law has always been. Accordingly, whileGeorgehas obvious importance for the veterans-benefits system, it may turn out to be significant for the law more broadly as well.

The Court will address the applicable procedures for Eighth Amendment challenges to execution protocols inNance v. Ward. In this case, it will decide when, if ever, an as-applied method-of-execution challenge should be raised via a habeas petition rather than via a Section 1983 claim and if it should be raised in habeas whether such a challenge is subject to the bar on successive habeas petitions. Previously, inBaze v. ReesandGlossip v. Gross, the Court held that a death-row prisoner seeking to challenge a method of execution under the Eighth Amendment must allege a feasible alternative method.

InNance, the petitioner, a Georgia death-row prisoner, filed a Section 1983 suit that alleged that lethal injection (Georgias sole statutorily authorized method of execution) would be unconstitutionally painful for him, and he identified firing squad as an alternative method. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that this challenge should have been brought as a habeas petition, not as a Section 1983 claim, reasoning that because the proposed alternative method of execution was not permissible under current law, the suit necessarily sought relief that can be obtained only in habeas an injunction that would imply the invalidity of the prisoners death sentence. And it further held that if a prisoner has already filed one habeas petition, any subsequent petition raising a method-of-execution challenge would be subject to federal laws stringent requirements for successive habeas petitions.

The Supreme Court has now agreed to review the Eleventh Circuits two holdings, and its decision will have obvious importance for death row prisoners, as it will clarify how method-of-execution challenges should be brought and may have significant effects on the practical availability of such challenges.Nancecould have significance beyond the context of capital punishment as well, for the Court could go some way toward clarifying the often-hazy distinction between relief that can be obtained in Section 1983 suits and relief that can only be sought via habeas petitions and that is a distinction that affects countless criminal defendants and incarcerated persons, not just death-row prisoners.

The Courts consideration of habeas procedures continues withShoop v. Twyford, a case involving state prisoners requests for court orders to assist them in developing evidence for use in their federal habeas proceedings. InShoop, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit approved an order requiring Ohio to transport a death-row prisoner to a hospital for a brain scan that the prisoner argues will produce evidence relevant to his habeas case.

Ohio contends this order suffers from two independent problems and therefore raises two separate questions. First, Ohio notes that the federal habeas statute allows federal courts to order the transportation of a state prisoner only if necessary to bring him into court to testify or for trial, and it argues that the catch-all All Writs Act does not expand federal courts authority to include ordering transportation for the sake of developing evidence. Second, Ohio argues that federal law authorizes an order allowing a habeas petitioner to develop evidence for his case only when the sought-after evidence would be admissible in the habeas proceeding; it is not enough, Ohio maintains, that the evidence in question plausibly relates to the petitioners claims.

The Supreme Court has agreed to address both of these questions, and while the Courts answers will be of greatest importance to habeas practitioners, its discussion of the All Writs Act should draw broader attention. Since the All Writs Act is used in a variety of contexts, criminal and civil litigators will do well to consider what the Court says on this score.

Read the original:
SCOTUS: School Prayer, Section 1983, Veterans Benefits, And Habeas Corpus - The National Law Review

Pleading the fifth in real life is not as funny as Dave Chappelles skit on pleading the fifth, however, it may be necessary to protect yourself from self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that no person in a criminal case can be compelled to be a witness against themselves. An experienced criminal defense attorney at Moses & Rooth can help you determine if pleading the fifth is the right option for you when testifying.

In Malloy v. Hogan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a defendant has the right to plead the fifth in State criminal cases, as well as, Federal criminal cases. As a criminal defendant you can choose not to take the stand in order to protect yourself from self-incrimination, however, once you have chosen to do so you have waived your right to testify. Criminal defendants cannot choose to answer some questions and not others. Its an all or none scenario in criminal cases.

In Griffin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a jury may not infer that a defendant is guilty because the defendant pled the fifth and refused to testify. The U.S. Supreme Court later strengthened this ruling in Ohio v. Reiner.

Defendants in a civil trial may also plead the fifth, but not without risk. A jury in a civil trial, unlike a criminal trial, may make assumptions if a defendant chooses not to testify.

A witness, like a defendant, may assert their Fifth Amendment right to prevent self- incrimination. A witness may refuse to answer a question if they fear their testimony will incriminate them. The criminal activity that the witness fears does not have to pertain to the case at hand. If a witness chooses to plead the fifth, unlike criminal defendants, this does not allow them to avoid testifying altogether. Witnesses subpoenaed to testify must testify, but can plead the fifth for questions that they deem are self-incriminating. Prosecutors may offer witnesses immunity in exchange for their testimony. Witnesses with immunity will not be charged for any incriminating statements made while testifying. When immunity is not on the table there is another option. Prosecutors may offer to reduce the charges if the witness agrees to testify.

Defendants cannot assert their Fifth Amendment right to protect themselves from self-incrimination against evidence the Court deems to be non-communicative. A defendant cannot plead the fifth when objecting to the collection of DNA, fingerprint, or encrypted digital evidence. In Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of a defendant whose right to protect himself from self-incrimination was being threatened by an order to decrypt his computer, however, the Court ruled it was not a violation of the defendants rights.

Before testifying as a criminal defendant or witness let the criminal defense lawyers of Moses & Rooth in central Florida advise you on your options of pleading the fifth and protecting yourself against self-incrimination. Our lawyers have a depth of knowledge because we only handle criminal defense cases. If you fear testifying will lead to criminal charges contact us today for information on how to protect yourself.

https://www.mosesandrooth.com/self-incrimination-defense-may-block-forced-decryption/https://www.mosesandrooth.com/supreme-court-limits-power-miranda-related-silence/

Read the original post:
What Happens if I Plead the Fifth Amendment? | Moses & Rooth

1. Eric Trump Invoked Fifth Amendment About 500 Times, N.Y. AG Says  Bloomberg
2. Eric Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment 500 times, NY AG says  syracuse.com
3. Eric Trump spent six hours pleading the Fifth Amendment more than 500 times  Salon
4. Eric Trump, Weisselberg Invoked 5th Amendment Rights More Than 500 Times  Business Insider
5. Analysis | 4 big points from the N.Y. attorney general's Trump allegations  The Washington Post
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Excerpt from:
Eric Trump Invoked Fifth Amendment About 500 Times, N.Y. AG Says - Bloomberg

The police can legally steal your car. Did you know that? Im not saying they would, but they could. They would not call it stealing. Under Hawaii state law, Civil Asset Forfeiture allows law enforcement to take your property almost at will. All they have to do is claim the property, car, boat, house, gun or cash had something to do with an illegal activity. Proof is not needed, just suspicion. There is a judicial review process, but its one-sided, as easy as getting a search warrant. If you have more cash on you than they approve, they can suspect and conclude it was for an illegal drug deal. Civil Asset Forfeiture turns the Fifth Amendment: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. On its head.

The police can legally steal your car. Did you know that? Im not saying they would, but they could. They would not call it stealing. Under Hawaii state law, Civil Asset Forfeiture allows law enforcement to take your property almost at will. All they have to do is claim the property, car, boat, house, gun or cash had something to do with an illegal activity. Proof is not needed, just suspicion. There is a judicial review process, but its one-sided, as easy as getting a search warrant. If you have more cash on you than they approve, they can suspect and conclude it was for an illegal drug deal. Civil Asset Forfeiture turns the Fifth Amendment: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. On its head.

In San Diego, once the DEA found a small quantity of marijuana in the duffel bag of a student research assistant on a Scrips institute ship. They tried to confiscate the entire multi-million-dollar ship. Since the ship belonged to the University of California, the U.S. Attorney decided to drop the claim. What would DEA do with a 94-foot deep-ocean research ship anyway?

The breakthrough case involved a young man enroute from his home state to enroll in college in California. His dad gave him cash to secure an apartment. Local police in New Mexico stopped him for some minor traffic infraction, searched the car, discovered cash and concluded without any other evidence that the cash was intended to buy drugs. Dogs I hear will detect cocaine on 80% of $100 bills. Police took the car and the cash, then told him to go away, were keeping the car and cash, too bad. He went through the complex legal process to recover the assets. He had to sue in civil court. In some states the car would have to sue the police. He eventually won. New Mexico changed the law, the first state to do so. So far three states have ended Civil Asset Forfeiture. Hawaii is not one of them. Many have due process procedure that is more just. Hawaii is rated as one of the worst. Federal officers can still use Civil Asset Forfeiture, and sometimes split the take with local law enforcement. They especially like to confiscate sports cars, helicopters and fast boats along with cash. There have been tales of police chiefs enjoying cars they could not possibly afford.

Imagine you give a friend a ride. He has his prescription Oxycontin in an unlabeled container. When he gets out, he accidentally leaves the container in your car. The police stop you on some pretense and notice the container in plain sight. They can claim three felonies. Possession of a narcotic. Possession of a narcotic for sale. Having a narcotic in the wrong container. None of those charges would stand up in court, but they could easily confiscate the car. You on the other hand are stuck with huge legal expenses and no car.

Two years ago, the state Legislature, both houses, voted unanimously to restrict Civil Asset Forfeiture. Gov. David Ige vetoed the legislation at the last day of his first term, after the Legislature had recessed. The Legislature did not reconvene to overturn the veto. The 2021 session did not even bring it up. So much for government-for-the-people. This is a good time to point out there have been many corruption scandals involving Honolulu police and prosecutors. The state Legislature sometimes seems to operate as if Honolulu County and Hawaii State were one and the same.

Civil Asset Forfeiture started as a measure to deal with problems on the high seas, like piracy and smuggling where there was no real jurisdiction. Its use inland is just one of the many bizarre side effects of the war-on-drugs. Like the labor shortage aggravated by rejecting anyone who tests positive for having used marijuana in the past, even if there is no sign of impairment.

Ken Obenski is a forensic engineer, now safety and freedom advocate in South Kona. He writes a biweekly column for West Hawaii Today. Send feedback to obenskik@gmail.com

See the article here:
As I See It: So much for government-for-the-people - West Hawaii Today

A TOP lawyer for victims of Jeffrey Epstein has slammed Prince Andrew for betraying Queen and country by associating with the late pedo financier.

Los Angeles-based Gloria Allred said of the Duke of Yorks relationship with Epstein: If you get down in the mud with pigs you are going to get mud on you.

5

5

5

And she explained that Andrew, 61, could plead the Fifth Amendment and not answer questions when he is deposed in the civil lawsuit brought by his accuser Virginia Giuffre.

The veteran attorney - who has worked with 20 Epstein victims - also gave a scathing view of Andrews defence.

In comments to The Sun she said: There are so many unanswered questions.

To attend residencies and obviously see so many underage girls there - it is not just Virginia, there were others.

I represented 20 accusers of Epstein - a number of who were underage.

This is not the life that a member of the Royal Family should be choosing if they care about their duties to the country.

If you get down in the mud with pigs you are going to get mud on you.

This was always going to end badly. The benefit was never worth the risk.

He had a duty to think about others. He betrayed his duties and honours bestowed on him, and the Queen and the country.

It is a unique situation for a member of Royal Family.

There is only continued downside - anything and everything will be covered so it means continuing damage to the Royals and the Queen.

I am not passing judgment on whether he was guilty, but clearly the contact that we know of with Jeffrey Epstein, even after he was convicted of being a sexual predator, is very bad choices.

At best they are bad choices at worst they are something more than that.

The civil case against Andrew is going ahead after New York judge Lewis Kaplan rejected the royals attempt to get it tossed on a technicality.

Following the decision, Andrew was stripped of his military titles and the honorific His Royal Highness by the Queen.

The Duke of York is expected to be deposed by Ms. Giuffres star lawyer David Boies next month.

He has vehemently denied her claim that she was forced to have sex with him under Epsteins orders in London, New York and on the pedophiles private island in the Caribbean when she was 17.

Giving her view of Andrews car crash interview with the BBC in November 2019, Ms. Allred said: He gave the Newsnight interview where he gave the I don't sweat and went to a pizza parlour with my family defence.

Now that he said that, he has going to have to defend it, explain and provide evidence.

The Newsnight interview was not under oath. It is a different ball game now.

Ms. Allred also explained that Andrew could evoke the Fifth Amendment to any questions posed to him on camera when he is deposed by Ms. Giuffres lawyers.

It allows those involved in a criminal or civil trial to refuse to answer questions to avoid incriminating themselves.

Ms Allred said: What is especially interesting about the deposition will be if he decides to evoke the fifth amendment privilege against self incrimination.

That will be one of the issues - if he can or should invoke it.

Asked if Andrew should defend himself Allred said: I think he should sit for it. But does he have to answer the questions? No.

I am not going with a guilt by association. But in Jeffrey Epsteins depositions he answered the questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment, but he appeared in person.

So the Prince needs to appear, but as to which questions he needs to answer I am sure his attorneys will advise him.

5

5

See more here:
Andrew slammed for betraying Queen & country by getting in the mud with pig Epstein, lawyer for paedos... - The US Sun

"Pages of history" features excerpts from The News Journal archives including the Wilmington Morning News, The Morning News, the Every Evening and the Evening Journal.

President denies havingaffair with intern

President Clinton, firmly denying all accusations, sought Thursday to calm the firestorm over allegations he had an affair with a White House intern and then urged her to lie about it.

His friend Vernon Jordan acknowledged trying to find the young woman a job and taking her to see a lawyer when she came under scrutiny.

The former intern, Monica Lewinsky, meanwhile, received an indefinite reprieve in having to decide whether to stand by her earlier assertion in an affidavit that she did not have an affair with Clinton, take the Fifth Amendment or change her story.

A federal judge in Little Rock, Arkansas postponed a deposition scheduled for today for Lewinsky, 24, to testify in Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton. Lewinsky remained secluded, telling CBS News by phone that she had no comment.

With Yasser Arafat at his side in a surreal moment of White House diplomacy, Clinton made his firmest denial yet to Lewinskys claims in taped conversations with a friend, Linda Tripp, that Lewinsky had an affair with Clinton and that he and Jordan asked her to deny it to Jones attorneys….

Unabomber will get life in prison

In a deal that averted the spectacle of the government pushing to execute a mentally ill man, Theodore Kaczynski pleaded guilty to being the Unabomber on Thursday in return for a sentence of life in prison without parole.

Kaczynski sat unflinching as a prosecutor recited in detail the horror of his 17-year reign of terror bombs that killed three men and injured 29, including one who had his arm blown off….

The 55-year old mathematics professor-turned-hermit entered the last-minute plea on the day a jury was to be sworn in an opening statements were to begin. The agreement avoids the possibility of his execution. Had Kaczynski been convicted, he could have faced death by injection….

CATCH UP ON HISTORY: News Journal archives, week of Dec. 5

Cost of electricity likely to jump 40 percent

Delmarva Power customers could see their electric bills jump more than 40 percent this year after price caps are lifted in May, the companys president said Tuesday.

Last year, Delmarva President Gary Stockbridge warned consumer groups and businesses that when price caps end in the final phase of deregulation, electricity rates could rise between 30 and 40 percent. Tuesday, Stockbridge said recent changes in the market for wholesale electricity made him increase his estimate…

Delmarva officials say the potential increase is the result of rate caps that have been in place since 1999 amid steadily rising prices for the major fuels that are burned to generate electricity: coal, natural gas and oil. The company has had only modest price adjustments since the rate caps went into place, while the cost of generating electricity has skyrocketed….

Strawbridges sets sell-off as store prepares to close

These days are full of bittersweet thoughts for employees like 17-year sales associate Joyce Miller and thousands of Delaware shoppers. By fall, the Strawbridge & Clothier department store name that stoodin Delaware for 56 years will be gone, swallowed up in a corporate merger with Federated Department Stores Inc.

At Strawbridges Concord Mall and Dover Mall stores, the merger will mean a name change to Macys, one of Federateds flagships.

At Christiana Mall, which already has a Macys, it means more of an end. Starting Sunday, all Strawbridges merchandise will be liquidated in a weeks-long sale….

MORE BUSINESS DEPARTURES: Lewes restaurant closing ends 'crab bomb,' Glasgow cafe and Peruvian eatery call it quits

Space shuttle Challenger explodes

A catastrophic explosion blew apart the space shuttle Challenger shortly after liftoff Tuesday, sending schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe and six NASA astronauts to a fiery death in the sky eight miles out from Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida.

We mourn seven heroes, said President Ronald Reagan.

The accident defied quick explanation, though a slow-motion replay seemed to show an initial explosion in one of two peel-away rocket boosters igniting the shuttles huge external fuel tank. The tank burst into a fireball that destroyed Challenger high above the Atlantic while crew families and NASA officials watched in despair from the Cape….

In Delaware, though few students actually saw the heart-stopping explosion when it happened, the event will likely leave a permanent mark on their lives. The tragedy was particularly wrenching because of the drumbeat of publicity that had been given to McAuliffe and her scheduled lessons from space. Students in Delaware and around the country were planning to attend classes she was to begin teaching from space on Friday….

Reach reporter Ben Mace at rmace@gannett.com.

Go here to see the original:
Pages of history: From The News Journal archives, week of Jan. 23 - The News Journal

The quote from Kathy Schocks letter to the editor somehow got twisted to where I called her and her friends liars.

If the entire sentence from where she took the quote was read, I did not call her and her friends liars.

I asked the question if they believed that all government employees are liars.

There is no other time to be alive than in 2022.

Eighty-five million people want a leader for truth, freedom and justice.

This will be a better year then 2016.

The swamp dwellers and China bed sleepers are going down.

No more hug the thug, no bail or no jail B.S.

There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. Isaiah 57:21.

God bless this great country and lets protect law and border.

In his State of the State speech, Gov. Brad Little highlighted the important issues impacting our state and his plans for the coming year.

Once again, he failed to mention the plight of Idahos salmon and his plans to save them.

In April 2019, he formed the Governors Salmon Work Group and instructed them to find ways to save our fish.

Since he received their report in December 2020, a year has passed with no action from his office.

In October 2020, the four-state Columbia Basin Collaborative was formed to solve the salmon problem. As of this date, no clearly defined mission has been established for this group and its next meeting remains to be scheduled.

The two Idaho agencies directed by law to look out for our fish and wildlife, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and the Governors Office of Species Conservation, remain mute.

Both the federal court and the governors of Washington and Oregon are working toward a July 31 deadline to come up with solutions for the survival of the fish.

It is well past time for Gov. Little to join with Rep. Mike Simpson and actually do something for our fish before they are gone.

The jury trial of Kyle Rittenhouse was used as a political weapon against self-defense and, thus, as a way to destroy the criminal justice system in America.

No white teenager is allowed to interfere with Democratic mob justice; so just send Rittenhouse to prison for the rest of his life.

The Associated Press and social media lied about almost every little detail of the Rittenhouse case. You should just assume that everything they publish is a lie.

Even after a jury acquitted Rittenhouse, Twitter continued to suspend accounts of users who declared him innocent.

Likewise, the House Jan. 6 committee is being used by woke Democrats to bulldoze the criminal justice system in America.

Jan. 6 committee Chairman Bennie Thompson said: If an indicted man dared to use the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the right not to incriminate himself, then he is guilty of a crime. Woke Democrats make their own laws; the Constitution be damned.

The committee sent federal agents to raid the home of Paul and Marilyn Hueper and seized their belongings, with no evidence they had done anything wrong or were even at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The Democratic-dominated committee is crushing First Amendment rights to engage in political speech and discussion.

The purpose of the Jan. 6 committee is to criminalize political dissent and personal opinion.

The Chinese Communist Party, the woke Democratic Party and corporate media can all fabricate evidence, force confessions and prosecute any charge they want while completely ignoring the facts.

Excerpt from:
Jan. 23 Letters to the Editor, Part 2: Our Readers' Opinions - Lewiston Morning Tribune

Summary

Senate vote to change filibuster rule fails. 48 Senate Democrats voted to change the rules of the Senate tonight in this one instance for this one piece of legislation on voting rights. There were 52 votes in favor of preserving the rules. President Biden today delivered the longest televised presidential press conference on record. He answered every question fully and directly.

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Rachel. And you know --

(COMMERCIAL AD)

O`DONNELL: -- rumor. You didn`t have to deny the rumor that wasn`t there - -

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST, "TRMS": It`s just weird to have two people who look like they`re in the same weird place in split screen. Like it looked like it was a fake thing. It`s not a fake thing. It`s a real thing.

O`DONNELL: I believe you. We`ve got a live situation on the Senate floor now, Rachel, that we might be cutting to during our hour.

You know, I have one ear on the Senate floor during your hour, and you missed because you were working and I recommend it to you, the speech of Jeff Merkley`s lifetime. And he`s not, you know, stylistically the most compelling speaker on the Senate floor. But he delivered the single most thorough, historical analysis the 60-vote threshold rule, the cloture vote so-called, in the Senate that has ever been delivered on that floor.

And there were some great speeches today with a lot of important historical references including from Angus King pointing out that Hamilton and Madison warned us against any kind of supermajority voting. But, boy, Jeff Merkley, who is the authority on this, the Democrats have deferred to him on it all the way through, he was really -- it`s a masterful, I don`t know, 15 minutes or so that takes you through everything you`d ever want to know about it, and really compelling style.

MADDOW: You should just do late-night coverage. You can have my re-air hour and you should just play it. I hereby give you the baton. Go on.

O`DONNELL: So let me get this straight. So then I would have to come back to work at midnight to -- yeah.

Okay. I`m going to think about that. And I don`t want anyone to worry. The re-air`s going to be there. Don`t worry. The Rachel re-air --

MADDOW: When you address the rumors it`s just like you`re confirming them.

O`DONNELL: Yeah, yeah. Okay. Good point. Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW: Thanks, Lawrence. Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

Denied. That is the last word in the first sentence of today`s Supreme Court decision, and it is the last word on Donald Trump`s unprecedented -- the court called it unprecedented attempt to overrule the current president of the United States, Joe Biden, and block the national archives from handing over all of the records and documents of the Trump presidency that the January 6th committee has demanded.

Donald Trump and his lawyers did not have to read beyond the first sentence of the Supreme Court`s very short decision today to know that the Trump dream of a total cover-up has died. The unsigned order by the court notes that only Justice Clarence Thomas disagrees with the court`s decision. All three of the judges appointed to the court by Donald Trump joined in crushing the Trump cover-up dream today.

The first sentence says, quote: The application for stay of mandate and injunction pending review presented to the chief justice and by him referred to the court is denied. The Supreme Court said that Donald Trump`s assertion of executive privilege was unprecedented coming from a former president in a case like this, but the court said that Trump`s request would have been denied even if he were still president.

Quote: Because the court of appeals concluded that president Trump`s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former president necessarily made no difference to the court`s decision.

[22:05:03]

Harvard`s constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe offered his scholarly opinion of the court`s decision today saying, "This is huge."

Tonight, the January 6th committee released this statement. Quote: the Supreme Court`s action tonight is a victory for the rule of law and American democracy. The Select Committee has already begun to receive records that the former president had hoped to keep hidden, and we look forward to additional productions regarding this important information. Our work goes forward to uncover all the facts about the violence of January 6th and its causes. We will not be deterred in our effort to get answers for the American people, make legislative recommendations to strengthen our democracy, and help ensure nothing like that day ever happens again.

And leading off our discussion tonight is Neal Katyal, law professor at Georgetown University and most importantly a former acting U.S. solicitor general who has practiced before the United States Supreme Court repeatedly. He is an MSNBC legal analyst.

Neal, I give you the floor in your reaction to the court.

NEAL KATYAL, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Lawrence, I don`t think I`ve seen this much excitement about a late-night literary release since the final "Harry Potter" book came out.

And why is everyone so excited? Because it`s a dark time in our country. People are worried about voting being under assault and rules and laws more generally, and here we`ve got at least for this moment, the rule of law coming back and in a really profound way.

You know, I was on your show last night. I told you to predict this result, that the Supreme Court wasn`t going to hear this executive privilege case. And lo and behold, that`s exactly what happened. They denied Donald Trump`s claim 8-1.

So what`s the case about? Executive privilege is this idea -- it`s a good idea. It`s the idea that presidents need a zone of secrecy around their decision-making like foreign affairs or things like that. You don`t want treaty negotiations to spill out into open court.

What it`s not about is plotting a coup and overthrow of American democracy. Trump tried to invoke it for that reason, and his claim was a loser from the start. The trial court rejected it right away. The circuit court, our nation`s second highest court, took nine days to write a 68-page opinion blowing it out of the water.

And now, today, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is a quite conservative Supreme Court to put it mildly, but totally threw out Trump`s claims.

O`DONNELL: Certainly, the judiciary at the Supreme Court level has become overpoliticized in many people`s minds, but one thing worth noting here is that the Appeals Court opinion that the Supreme Court accepted today in full was written by three judges who were appointed by Democratic presidents. Two were appointed by President Obama, one was appointed by President Biden.

And this Supreme Court with three Trump appointees on it, six appointees from Republican presidents, they accepted with only the exception of Clarence Thomas, they accepted all of the reasoning of those three judges appointed by Democratic presidents.

KATYAL: Exactly, Lawrence. And that`s the rule of law. It`s not supposed to be the way Donald Trump thought about it, Trump judges and Obama judges. They`re just federal judges. And I want to commend here judges but also the lawyers involved in this for the January 6th committee because everyone in this case understood that Donald Trump has one signature move, which is delay.

And they litigated this thing and decided this thing in the opposite of the way all the other Trump stuff has been done. I mean, this case was actually filed on my mom`s birthday, October 18th, three months and one day ago. And they went through all three layers of our court system. And the judges all ruled really quickly because they understand there`s a need to finally get at the truth and Trump`s been evading that for so, so long.

O`DONNELL: What does it mean for Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, and everyone else in the Trump team who are trying to evade the committee`s subpoenas?

KATYAL: I think the technical legal term is deep doo-doo, Lawrence. It`s a real problem for them.

So, remember that Steve Bannon has been indicted already for contempt for not giving these answers to Congress. So he`s facing criminal charges. Mark Meadows is on his way for the same thing. Both of their defenses to contempt is executive privilege. And the Supreme Court today blew that out of the water.

So that means that these two individuals really do have to talk to the investigators in Congress. But also it more significantly means that Trump`s signature move, which is not just to hide these documents but all these people from testifying on live televised hearings in Congress, he was going to invoke executive privilege for all that. That`s now decimated by the Supreme Court`s ruling.

[22:10:04]

So it`s going to be very hard for all these folks, not just Bannon and Meadows but Giuliani and Eastman and the whole cast of characters to avoid having to testify. They can try other arguments like Fifth Amendment and so on. But today is a real nail in the coffin for that.

O`DONNELL: And so we also now know for a fact with the committee staff already tonight in possession of some of these documents, more of them coming tomorrow, and they will be coming by the barrelful constantly now from the archives, that when these hearings do go public on television, when the committee goes public on television with hearings, we will be hearing readings from these documents, from memos, from e-mails, from possible texts from government phones, all sorts of information that that committee does not yet know but will be discovering over the next several days and weeks.

KATYAL: Yes, Lawrence. I agree with you. But there`s one asterisk.

So remember, Trump`s move is delay. And what I think he and his minions will do is file further lawsuits invoking executive privilege once again saying, well, these documents are different, this testimony is different and the like. All of that`s going to fail because the Supreme Court today was resounding.

And just to give our viewers some sense of this -- I mean, if you`re a former president, to have your case not heard by the Supreme Court on an executive power issue, it`s virtually unthinkable. It`s almost automatic the Supreme Court`s going to hear your case and likely rule for you.

So it`s kind of like you`ve got to try really hard. It`s kind of like if you`re a Democratic candidate in Chicago running for mayor and you lose to a Republican. It`s possible to lose, but you`ve really got to work at it.

Here Donald Trump worked at it. He made such bogus claims about executive privilege it led the Supreme Court to do what it did. And that`s going to make it virtually impossible for Donald Trump and his team of insurrectionists to try and block the testimony and documents from coming out in live televised hearings.

O`DONNELL: Neal Katyal, thank you very much for joining us on this historic night in this case. Thank you very much.

And coming up, more defendant Trump news. The New York attorney general in a court filing says that Donald Trump has engaged in fraudulent or misleading practices.

Tim O`Brien and Daniel Goldman will be joining us next, and we`re keeping an eye on the Senate floor for you on what`s happening there tonight on voting rights.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:16:43]

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): The most fundamental wellspring of this democracy, more important than a rule in this chamber. Let me --

O`DONNELL: That is a live shot of the Senate floor. Majority leader Chuck Schumer is going to move any moment now for a vote on changing the rules in the Senate to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for holding a vote on voting rights legislation. This would be a one-time change of the Senate rules just for this one piece of legislation. We`re going to monitor that situation on the Senate floor as it develops, especially when it gets to that dramatic moment of calling for that vote. We will be keeping an eye on the Senate floor.

Also today, in a 115-page legal brief filed in court in response to Donald Trump`s attempt to evade a subpoena, a civil subpoena for his testimony in a civil fraud investigation, New York State Attorney General Letitia James said that the Trump company has engaged in "fraudulent or misleading," those were her words, practices in their business.

The attorney general`s filing says, quote, "in light of the pervasive and repeated nature of the misstatements and omissions, it appears that the valuations in the statements were generally inflated as part of a pattern to suggest that Mr. Trump`s net worth was higher than it would otherwise -- would have appeared." The attorney general is seeking to enforce subpoenas against Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr. And Ivanka Trump for their testimony. Eric Trump has already given an under oath deposition in the case in which he refused to answer questions, citing his fifth amendment rights, over 500 times.

In the filing released close to midnight last night the attorney general says, quote: Since 2017, Donald Trump Jr. has had authority over numerous financial statements containing misleading asset valuations. Donald Trump Jr. should be compelled to testify before the office of the attorney general.

Until January 2017, Ms. Ivanka Trump was a primary contact for the Trump Organization`s largest lender, Deutsche Bank. In connection with this work, Ms. Trump caused misleading financial statements to be submitted to Deutsche Bank and the federal government. Ivanka Trump should be compelled to testify before the Office of the Attorney General.

In a press release, the attorney general`s office noted that they have, quote, not yet reached a final decision regarding whether this evidence merits legal action. The Trump organization, which is currently under indictment in New York City because of its practices, released a statement in response to the attorney general`s filing saying, in part, her allegations are baseless and will be vigorously defended.

Joining us now, Daniel Goldman, former House majority counsel during the first impeachment trial of Donald Trump. He`s also a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern district of New York and an MSNBC legal contributor.

Also with us, Tim O`Brien, senior columnist for "Bloomberg Opinion". He is the author of the book "Trump Nation."

Daniel Goldman, let me begin with you and what you read in this -- the attorney general`s filing.

[22:20:01]

DANIEL GOLDMAN, MSNBC LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it`s quite a filing, Lawrence. Somewhat unexpected I think at this stage of the civil investigation in particular because of the parallel criminal investigation that is going on. Incredible details about all the various ways that the attorney investigation that is going on. Incredible details about all the various ways that the attorney general`s office has uncovered that Donald Trump, the Trump Organization and then his children after he took over as president misstated, overinflated values of their properties in order to get financial benefits in the way of loans, insurance and tax deductions.

It is quite an extraordinary recitation of those facts, some of which are pretty alarming, some of which are somewhat humorous, including the fact that Donald Trump represented that his apartment in New York is worth $327 million, which I believe would be the most expensive residence in the world. Allen Weisselberg of course said that is an overstatement by about $200 million.

But putting aside some of the humor in some of these overstatements, it`s serious allegations of misstatements. There are a number of questions here, and, you know, they run the gamut, including whether this was wise to do in light of a criminal investigation that is ongoing. Whether it actually responds to Donald Trump`s allegations of sort of political motivations by the attorney general. Whether these depositions should go forward in light of the ongoing criminal investigation.

And then also, what impact that will have on the criminal investigation when they are in front of an active grand jury for much of the same conduct and whether this will allow witnesses to sort of -- to better prepare themselves because they know a lot of the facts.

So, there`s some inside baseball here, Lawrence, but I think the top line is that Donald Trump and the Trump Organization grossly misstated the valuations of numerous properties for their financial benefit.

O`DONNELL: And, Tim O`Brien, you have been studying and writing about Trump businesses for years. You wrote the book that Donald Trump sued you for, where you basically said a version of what the attorney general is now saying, that Donald Trump was wildly overstating his wealth. You, of course, won that lawsuit against Donald Trump.

This reading for you of the attorney general`s 115 pages today had to be quite an experience after the book pages you`ve produced on the same subject.

TIM O`BRIEN, SENIOR COLUMNIST, BLOOMBERG OPINION: It was Groundhog Day, Lawrence, as it always is with Donald Trump. It`s just a new version of the same old grift.

His children are doing what he did. He was doing what his father did. This kind of behavior is almost in the Trump family genes.

The issue is whether or not the New York attorney general can prove intent to commit a fraud here and that they knew what they were doing was wrong and they went ahead and did it anyway. That`s a high bar.

There`s no doubt I think that there was a grift going on here. There is no doubt that the Trumps routinely inflated and deflated the value of their assets to court the media, to appease Trump`s own ego, to get bank loans and to run circles around tax collectors. I think there`s ample basis in the evidence they`ve already collected in the New York attorney general`s office to proceed with this.

I think as Dan has pointed out I think there`s a number of strategic issues that get raised by why they`ve handled it this way. Undoubtedly, I think Letitia James, the New York state attorney general, is frustrated with the Trumps thumbing their nose at her subpoenas and requests for depositions. There`s a lot of bad blood among all the parties in here.

But the fact is she has started to line her ducks up. I think some of the things in this case or in this filing that were overlooked or got less scrutiny was the fact that Trump himself, there`s evidence in that filing of Trump himself signing off on some of the paperwork that involved assets with inflated valuations.

In other words, Trump was a participant. And he signed off on some of the things they`re investigating. So he has direct -- he`s got a direct connection here. In theory, this can go directly to Donald Trump.

But they`ve got a lot more evidence to collect and a lot more proof they have to put on the table. Another thing that`s in this document that I think are important is they seem to believe the Trump Organization has not been forthcoming with all the evidentiary requests they`ve made about records pertaining to Trump himself and they want more.

[22:25:07]

So I think it`s a robust, damning document, but we still have to see whether or not it rises to the level of fraud charges that they can prosecute successfully in a courtroom.

O`DONNELL: Tim O`Brien and Daniel Goldman, thank you for joining us on these important developments tonight. Really appreciate it.

GOLDMAN: Thank you.

O`BRIEN: Thank you, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: And when we come back, we`ll be covering the breaking news on the Senate floor tonight in the voting rights crusade there and the upcoming vote on changing the Senate rule. That vote might occur within this hour.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:30:51]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: -- that for this message from the House with respect to HR 5746, the only debate in order during consideration of the message beyond the question of adoption of the motion to concur in the amendment of the House. Further, that no amendments, motions or points of order be in order and that any appeals be determined without debate.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), U.S. SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: Following the rules of the Senate, the point of order is not sustained as it is a compound motion that would require consent.

SCHUMER: Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the chair.

LEAHY: The question is, so the ruling on the chair stands, is the decision of the Senate.

SCHUMER: I ask for the yeas and nays.

LEAHY: Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be. And there is. Clerk will call the roll.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Baldwin.

SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): Yea.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Barrasso.

SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): Aye.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Bennett.

More:
Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 1/19/22 - MSNBC

LONDON, Ky. (LEX 18) A man who has now been convicted twice in connection with a shooting death was sentenced Tuesday to 39-and-a-half years in prison.

Patrick Baker was first convicted in 2017 in state court of reckless homicide in the death of Donald Mills, Jr. He was sentenced to 19 years in prison, but then pardoned in 2019 by former Gov. Matt Bevin.

Federal District Court Judge Claria Horn Boom imposed a total sentence of 42 years in prison, and then gave Baker credit for 30 months he served in the related state conviction.

Authorities brought a new federal charge against Baker of murder during a drug trafficking offense, and Baker was convicted last August.

Federal District Court Judge Claria Horn Boom handed down the sentence on Tuesday in a London, Ky., courtroom.

When Bevin pardoned Baker in 2019, he wrote that the evidence against Baker in the case had been "sketchy at best."

Baker's attorneys filed a motion in November to attempt to prevent a sentence longer than 19 years, citing the federal case against him violated the "double jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment, according to court records. In the motion, attorneys argued that any sentence greater than the 19 years he was given on his state court case would be "vindictive."

Boom denied Baker's motion on January 14.

Read the original post:
Patrick Baker convicted for 2017 shooting, 39-and-a-half years sentence - LEX18 Lexington KY News