Courts and the Judiciary

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, May 13, 2024

      by

      M. Cohen Direct/Hoffinger
      3277
      1
      was there at The Trump Organization about executives coming in
      2
      to meet with Mr. Trump?
      3
      A
      Mr.
      Trump had an open-door policy, which, if there was
      4
      5
      6
      somebody in there, you waited; and if not, you knocked on the
      door, and I would say, “Boss, do you have a second?”, and I
      would walk right in.
      7
      Q
      And others did the same, to your knowledge?
      8
      A
      9
      To my knowledge, yes.
      Now, when you met with Mr. Trump at The Trump
      Organization, in his office, did you, generally, need
      10
      —
      I’m
      11
      sorry.
      12
      Did you, generally, record those meetings in your calendar?
      13
      A
      No, ma’am.
      14
      15
      16
      As part of your work at The Trump Organization, did
      you feel that it was part of your job to keep him updated on
      matters that you were handling for him?
      17
      A
      Yes.
      It was actually required.
      18
      19
      20
      21
      22
      23
      A
      Tell us what you mean by that.
      When he would task you with something, he would then
      say, “Keep me informed. Let me know what’s going on.”
      And what he was saying, what everybody did is, as soon as
      you had a result, an answer, you would go straight back and
      tell him. Especially if it was a matter that was troubling to
      24
      him.
      25
      So, two things, just to break that down.
      Laurie Eisenberg, CSR, RPR
      Senior Court Reporter More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, May 10, 2024

      by

      1
      2
      J. Jarmel-Schneider
      –
      Direct/Conroy
      3217
      And if we could just continue going down January and
      February, those two columns, we talked about the one invoice,
      two vouchers; and is there only one check?
      3
      4
      A
      Yes.
      5
      with?
      How many invoices were there, in total, on this chart?
      Eleven.
      And can you just read which counts they’re associated
      Counts 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29 and 32.
      After January and February, is there one invoice for
      each month for the rest of the year?
      Going down to vouchers, same question. Could you just
      read the count number for each of the vouchers?
      ७
      A
      7
      8
      9
      A
      10
      11
      12
      A
      Yes.
      13
      14
      15
      A
      Sure.
      16
      17
      18
      A
      19
      20
      21
      A
      Sure.
      22
      23
      24
      25
      A
      Yes.
      Counts 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 and 33.
      And is there one voucher for every month in 2017?
      Yes.
      And, finally, in checks, could you read the count
      number for each check?
      It’s counts 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31 and 34.
      And after January and February, is there one check for
      each of the remaining months in 2017?
      Laurie Eisenberg, CSR, RPR
      Senior Court Reporter More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Blocks New U.S. Rule Limiting Credit Card Late Fees

      by

      Set to take effect on Tuesday, the rule would save households $10 billion a year in “junk fees,” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said.In March, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that a new federal rule would cap fees on late credit card payments at $8 a month, estimating that the change would save American households $10 billion a year.On Friday, a federal judge in Fort Worth temporarily blocked the rule, siding with bank and credit card company lobbyists who contend in a lawsuit that it is unconstitutional.The rule was scheduled to take effect on Tuesday. Now, the lobbyists can continue their legal fight in U.S. District Court before Judge Mark T. Pittman, who granted the preliminary injunction.The consumer bureau’s new rule would limit issuers to an $8 fee unless they could show that more money was needed to cover their collection costs. The bureau estimated that the rule would apply to more than 95 percent of all outstanding credit card balances.The Federal Reserve previously aimed to significantly limit credit card late fees in 2010. But a loophole in its rule, which permitted adjustments for inflation, allowed banks and credit card companies to charge an average of $32 a month in late fees, according to the consumer bureau.In announcing the new rule, Rohit Chopra, the bureau’s director, said it would end “the era of big credit card companies hiding behind the excuse of inflation when they hike fees on borrowers and boost their own bottom lines.” President Biden backed the rule, saying, “The American people are tired of being played for suckers.”Two days later, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined the American Bankers Association and the Consumer Bankers Association — whose boards of directors include executives from Bank of America, Capital One, Citibank and JPMorgan Chase — in suing Mr. Chopra and his bureau. Three Texas business associations are also plaintiffs. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, April 30, 2024

      by

      G. Farro
      –
      Cross/Blanche
      Page 1631
      1
      there helping you make things happen?
      2
      A
      I have several team members, yes.
      3
      4
      5
      And, again, if we can put up Exhibit, already in
      evidence, 371, if we can go to the second page first, and then
      the next page.
      6
      This is, again, the various documentation associated
      7
      with the LLC that ultimately was founded, correct?
      8
      A
      That’s correct.
      9
      And on page two, there are some questions about
      10
      11
      12
      13
      A
      14
      15
      16
      17
      18
      19
      A
      20
      21
      22
      whether, I believe, standard questions about whether he is
      acting as an agent for anybody.
      And Mr. Cohen answered, no, to that, right?
      That’s correct.
      And if he had answered, yes, that would have
      potentially raised more questions?
      A Well, not only would it raise more questions, it would
      require more paperwork.
      What type of paperwork?
      We would have to know. We would have to determine
      exactly who he was acting as agent for.
      And by, know, just have him tell you, or would there
      have to be
      23
      A
      No.
      24
      —
      25
      A
      – proof, documentation?
      Documentation.
      Susan Pearce-Bates, RPR, CCR, RSA
      Principal Court Reporter More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Can Weinstein’s Overturned New York Conviction Help Him Appeal California Case?

      by

      Harvey Weinstein faced similar sex crimes charges in New York and California, but the arguments used to overturn one case may not help in the other.The decision by New York’s top court on Thursday to overturn the conviction of Harvey Weinstein on sex crime charges raised many thorny legal questions. Perhaps chief among them: Will it bolster his chances of a successful appeal in a similar case in California?Mr. Weinstein’s lawyer in California, Jennifer Bonjean, plans to file that appeal next month, and has said she believes the New York decision helps her chances of winning. In both cases, prosecutors offered witnesses who said they had been assaulted by Mr. Weinstein, the disgraced Hollywood producer, even though their accounts were not tied to criminal charges.Prosecutors in sexual assault cases sometimes use such witnesses to establish a pattern of behavior, but it can be a risky move because defendants are typically supposed to be judged only on the crimes with which they have been charged. The tactic was at the heart of the 4-to-3 decision on Thursday by New York’s Court of Appeals, which concluded that the judge who presided over Mr. Weinstein’s case in 2020 had deprived him of a fair trial by allowing those witnesses to testify.Mr. Weinstein is expected to appear in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Wednesday for a procedural hearing that is the first step for prosecutors to restart the criminal case to try him again.New York and California law differ on the crucial issue of witnesses. The office of the Los Angeles district attorney, George Gascón, said that California’s law, unlike New York’s, allows evidence, at a judge’s discretion, that shows a defendant’s “propensity” to commit sexual assault.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More