Decisions and Verdicts

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Won’t Restore Jill Stein to the Nevada Ballot

      by

      Democrats had argued that Ms. Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, was ineligible because the party had failed to submit a required statement.The Supreme Court said on Friday that it would not restore the Green Party’s presidential candidate, Jill Stein, to the Nevada ballot in the coming election. Democrats had challenged her eligibility, saying her party had submitted flawed paperwork.The court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when it acts on emergency applications. There were no noted dissents.The Nevada Supreme Court ruled this month that the Green Party’s failure to submit a sworn statement required by state regulations meant that its candidates could not appear on the ballot. The party acknowledged the lapse but said it had relied on instructions from a state election official.The party was represented in the Supreme Court by Jay Sekulow, who has served as a lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump.In response to an inquiry from the party in July, an official sent what she said were the required forms, saying “please use the documents attached to begin collecting signatures.”The party submitted the required number of signatures, and election officials placed its candidates on the ballot after they verified a sampling of the signatures. The Nevada Democratic Party sued, saying the Green Party had failed to supply a sworn statement that the signatures were believed to be from voters registered in the counties in which they lived.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

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Jury Awards $116 Million to Family of Man Who Died in Helicopter Crash

      by

      When an open-door tourist helicopter crashed into the East River, Trevor Cadigan, 26, and four other passengers were unable to escape from cumbersome safety harnesses.The helicopter flight began with celebration. “All right — let’s do it!” the pilot shouted just before liftoff from the heliport in New Jersey.“Party,” said one passenger. “Hooo!” said another.After flybys of the Statue of Liberty, the World Trade Center and the Brooklyn Bridge, during which passengers leaned out the open door to shoot photos, the flight ended suddenly 14 minutes after takeoff when the red helicopter plunged into the East River. It tipped on its side, and as cold water flooded the cockpit, the passengers realized they could not escape.“How do I cut this?” a passenger said, struggling to free himself from the harness that anchored him to the aircraft, according to the transcript of an onboard video from the flight released by the National Transportation Safety Board.All five passengers died in the March 11, 2018, flight. Only the pilot escaped. The accident was caused by a loose, improvised safety harness that caught on the helicopter’s fuel shut-off lever, mounted on the floor. That activated the lever, killed the engine and caused the crash, the safety board found.The safety harnesses, meant to prevent passengers from falling out the open door of the helicopter, instead locked the passengers in place, exposing them to “great difficulty extricating themselves” quickly in an emergency, the safety board found.Six jurors in State Supreme Court in Manhattan agreed on Thursday, awarding $116 million in compensatory and punitive damages to family members of one of the passengers, Trevor Cadigan, 26.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

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      California Drug Clinic Operator Convicted in $3 Million Kickback Scheme

      by

      Casey Mahoney, 48, of Los Angeles, illegally paid “body brokers” to lure clients, a federal jury found.A California man who operated addiction treatment facilities in Orange County was convicted this week of paying nearly $3 million in illegal kickbacks for referrals of patients to his facilities, according to federal prosecutors.From at least October 2018 until December 2020, the man, Casey Mahoney, 48, of Los Angeles, paid about $2.87 million to “so-called ‘body brokers’” who gave thousands of dollars to patients to coax them into Healing Path Detox L.L.C. in Huntington Beach and Get Real Recovery Inc. in San Juan Capistrano, two treatment centers Mr. Mahoney operated, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California said in a statement on Friday.Some of the money that the body brokers gave to patients was used by the patients to buy drugs, the department’s statement said.After a nine-day trial, a federal jury in Los Angeles found Mr. Mahoney guilty on Wednesday of one count of conspiracy related to offering illegal remunerations for patient referrals, seven counts of illegal remunerations for patient referrals and three counts of money laundering, prosecutors said. He was acquitted on one count of aiding and assisting the preparation of a false tax document.The money-laundering charges, the most serious on which Mr. Mahoney was convicted, each carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Sentencing is set for Jan. 17, 2025.Treatment facility operators may pay a group like a marketer or an advertiser to promote their services to patients. But the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 prevents the operators from paying body brokers kickbacks based on how much revenue the patients they referred brought in, as Mr. Mahoney did, according to the indictment.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

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Peter Nygard Sentenced to 11 Years in Prison for Sexual Assault

      by

      Mr. Nygard was convicted in Toronto of sexually assaulting four women in his company’s headquarters. He also faces trials in Montreal, Winnipeg and New York.The hearing was meant to decide a prison sentence for a convicted rapist, Peter Nygard, the former Canadian fashion mogul. But for a woman who had been sexually assaulted by Mr. Nygard, being one of his victims had long made her life a prison.The trauma caused by the attack in the late 1980s, when she was 21, irreparably stunted her life, the woman told a Toronto courtroom during Mr. Nygard’s two-day sentencing hearing that began in July and was postponed until Monday.It shattered her career as a clothing designer and television presenter, caused debilitating health problems and left lasting psychological wounds, she said. “I live now still in a veil of sadness,” said the woman, whose identity is protected by a publication ban. “It breaks my heart to reflect upon the derailment of my entire life.”After listening to statements from victims and from Mr. Nygard’s defense, a judge sentenced Mr. Nygard to 11 years in prison for sexually assaulting four women, one of whom was a teenager at the time of the attack. Because of the time he has spent in custody since his arrest, Mr. Nygard has about seven years remaining in his sentence and will be eligible for parole in about two years.“Peter Nygard is a sexual predator,” said Justice Robert Goldstein of the Superior Court of Ontario, delivering his sentence before a full courtroom. “He is also a Canadian success story gone wrong.”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

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      A Judge’s Decision to Delay Trump’s Sentencing

      by

      More from our inbox:Risky Covid Behavior‘Glorious’ Outdoor Dining in New York CityA Librarian’s FightDonald J. Trump, the first former American president to become a felon, is seeking to overturn his conviction and win back the White House.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Judge Pushes Sentencing of Trump to After Election” (front page, Sept. 7):I must disagree with the hand-wringing of my liberal colleagues who lament the fact that Donald Trump won’t be sentenced for his conviction in the hush-money case until after the election.Your article notes that the public will not know before they go to the polls “whether the Republican presidential nominee will eventually spend time behind bars.”With all due respect, so what? The former president was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Those who recoil at the idea of their president being a convicted felon won’t vote for him; those who support him will not change their minds based on the severity of the sentence.Other than being used as a talking point on the left (“he got four years in prison!!”) or on the right (“he got probation — I told you it was no big deal”), what could a sentence now possibly achieve?While no one, including Donald Trump, is above the law, this case is unique in our history. The sentence must be viewed as judicially sound, and for that it cannot become a partisan football, especially this close to an election.Eileen WestPleasantville, N.Y.To the Editor:Donald Trump’s lawyers have consistently maintained that his trials should not go forward because it may affect the 2024 election. Their many motions have contributed to delaying three of the four trials he faces. They have now persuaded Justice Juan Merchan in New York to put off sentencing in the fourth, justified by the judge because of the unique circumstances and timing surrounding the event.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

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      California Can Ban Guns in Parks and Bars, but Not Hospitals, Court Says

      by

      California and Hawaii banned guns from various public venues. A federal appeals court dusted off the history books to help determine where to allow prohibitions.A federal appeals court on Friday partly reinstated firearm bans in California and Hawaii, finding that California could, for example, prohibit guns in parks, playgrounds and bars but not in banks or hospitals.The 3-0 ruling, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, said that the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of gun rights was “seemingly arbitrary” and “hard to explain” at the moment. The court’s findings applied only to laws in those two states.The judges found that most of the prohibitions enacted last year by California and Hawaii met the constitutional standards set in a 2022 Supreme Court decision that drastically narrowed the legal standard for restrictions on firearms.That decision struck down a New York law that had strictly limited the carrying of guns outside homes. The Supreme Court found that restrictions on guns are constitutional only if courts can find an analogue “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” But, the court added, states could ban guns in “sensitive places” such as schools and courthouses.Democratic-led states rushed to rewrite laws to comply with the new interpretation, in some cases banning guns in dozens of specific locations. But federal judges last year struck down new laws in California and Hawaii.The Ninth Circuit judges ruled on Friday that California could prohibit guns in libraries, sports arenas, casinos, museums and restaurants that serve alcohol, in addition to parks, playgrounds and bars. Hawaii can ban guns on parks and beaches and in establishments serving alcohol.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

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      2 Brothers Sentenced to More Than 17 Years in Prison in Sextortion Scheme

      by

      Two brothers from Nigeria helped run an online sextortion operation that prosecutors said resulted in the death of a high school student.A federal judge in Michigan on Thursday sentenced two brothers from Nigeria to 17 and a half years in prison for their roles in a social media sextortion scheme that claimed more than 100 victims across the United States and resulted in the death of a high school student.The brothers, Samuel Ogoshi, 24, and Samson Ogoshi, 21, who each pleaded guilty in April to one count of conspiracy to exploit minors, will be on supervised release for five years after completing their prison terms, prosecutors said in a news release.The brothers, who are from Lagos, Nigeria, were extradited to the United States from Nigeria in August 2023 after they were indicted in November 2022.The extradition marked a new chapter in cooperation with Nigerian authorities in extraditing perpetrators of this kind of scam. Last month, the Justice Department announced the extradition of two other Nigerian nationals on similar charges in Pennsylvania.A third defendant in the case, Ezekiel Robert, is pending extradition from Nigeria, prosecutors said.The brothers were sentenced in a case involving a popular relatively new scam the authorities call financial sextortion, in which scammers pose as young women on social media and send flirty messages to young men and teenage boys before soliciting nude photographs that they then hold as ransom.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

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Tries to Move Hush-Money Case to Federal Court Before Sentencing

      by

      The long-shot request, which the former president made Thursday night, is an attempt to avoid sentencing in his criminal case, scheduled for Sept. 18.Former President Donald J. Trump sought to move his Manhattan criminal case into federal court on Thursday, filing the unusual request three months after he was convicted in state court.The long-shot bid marks Mr. Trump’s latest effort to stave off his sentencing in state court in his hush-money trial, in which he was convicted of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal.He is scheduled to receive his punishment on Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, when he will square off against Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency.“The ongoing proceedings will continue to cause direct and irreparable harm to President Trump — the leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election — and voters located far beyond Manhattan,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, wrote in the filing.Their filing came even as the Trump legal team is awaiting the result of a separate effort to postpone the sentencing; it opened a second front that could complicate the first.On Aug. 15, Mr. Trump asked the state court judge who presided over the trial, Juan M. Merchan, to delay the sentencing until after Election Day. Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that they needed more time to challenge his conviction on the basis of a recent Supreme Court ruling granting presidents broad immunity for official acts.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