Decisions and Verdicts

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Letitia James Fights to Preserve Trump’s Over $450 Million Fraud Penalty

      by

      Ms. James, New York’s attorney general, argued that the civil fraud judgment, which the former president has appealed, should stand. It could wipe out his cash reserves.The New York attorney general’s office late Wednesday night urged a state appellate court to uphold a more than $450 million civil fraud judgment against Donald J. Trump, arguing that the punishment was needed to protect “the integrity of the marketplace.”In a legal filing, the attorney general, Letitia James, defended a judge’s February ruling that Mr. Trump had conspired to inflate the value of his properties to receive favorable loans and other financial benefits. Mr. Trump, the attorney general’s office has argued, exaggerated his net worth by as much as $2.2 billion in any given year.“Mr. Trump indisputably participated in the fraud,” Ms. James’s office wrote in response to an appeal filed last month by Mr. Trump, adding that he, his adult sons and his company had “used a variety of deceptive strategies.”The response marked the latest phase of a battle between Mr. Trump and Ms. James that has spanned the better part of five years. The appeals court will hear oral arguments on Sept. 26 and its decision could come by year-end, coinciding with the final stretch of a presidential campaign that has pitted Mr. Trump against Vice President Kamala Harris.Ms. James, a Democrat who campaigned for her office on the promise of bringing Mr. Trump to justice, began to investigate the former president in 2019 and filed the lawsuit in 2022. Since then, Mr. Trump has lost nearly every step of the way. Even before the trial, the judge overseeing the case, Arthur F. Engoron, ruled against Mr. Trump, finding that he had committed fraud by inflating his assets.The trial was held largely to determine how much Mr. Trump, his company and his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. would owe the state. Justice Engoron was the decider — there was no jury — and after 11 weeks and 40 witnesses, he ordered Mr. Trump to pay $355 million plus interest, a total of more than $450 million.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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Former Oath Keepers Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Tampering With Jan. 6 Evidence

      by

      Kellye SoRelle admitted to telling members of the far-right group to illegally delete their text messages after the mob attack.The former lawyer for the Oath Keepers militia pleaded guilty on Wednesday to advising members of the far-right group to illegally delete their text messages after the violent mob attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.At a hearing in Federal District Court in Washington, the lawyer, Kellye SoRelle, admitted to charges that included tampering with evidence and illegally entering and remaining in a restricted area of the Capitol grounds.After Donald J. Trump lost the 2020 election, Ms. SoRelle, who is based in Texas, had close ties to the “Stop the Steal” movement, which claimed that Mr. Trump had been cheated out of a victory in his run against Joseph R. Biden Jr. She also served as the general counsel of the Oath Keepers and had a romantic relationship with the militia’s leader and founder, Stewart Rhodes, who was found guilty at a trial in Washington of seditious conspiracy for his role in the attack and sentenced to 18 years in prison.During Mr. Rhodes’s trial, prosecutors presented evidence that he and Ms. SoRelle worked closely for weeks organizing the Oath Keepers to descend on Washington on Jan. 6. The evidence also showed that she was present at a mysterious meeting in an underground parking garage near the Capitol on the day before the attack where Mr. Rhodes met with Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, another far-right group instrumental in the violence.On Jan. 6 itself, Ms. SoRelle accompanied Mr. Rhodes to the Capitol, although neither entered the building. Still, court papers say that after the building was stormed and dozens of Oath Keepers came under scrutiny by federal investigators, Ms. SoRelle advised Mr. Rhodes and other members of the group to delete encrypted messages from their cellphones.In the early days of investigation, Ms. SoRelle told reporters that she was cooperating with the Justice Department’s inquiry into the Oath Keepers’ role. She also spoke several times to staff investigators working with the House committee that investigated Jan. 6.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

      New Real Estate Rules Sow Confusion, at Least in Short Term

      by

      Changes in how real estate commissions are advertised and paid went into effect this weekend. Buyers and even some agents aren’t sure what they mean.An hour before the open house on Saturday afternoon, a real estate agent paced across the dark bamboo floors, straightening the throw blanket, fluffing the pillows and lighting a scented candle.The last-minute sprucing at the $1.2 million condo in Jersey City, N.J., was exactly what agents have done at open houses for decades before this weekend.The difference now is the information they are required to disclose and where they can disclose it when it comes to real estate commissions — a charge that had hovered between 5 to 6 percent of the sales price, and until now was typically paid by the seller and split between the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent.The changes that went into effect this weekend decouple the two commissions: Sellers are no longer expected to pay buyers’ commissions, though they can still choose to do so, and the proposed commission split can no longer be advertised on the online database commonly used to sell homes, the M.L.S.The new rules went into effect across the United States as part of a $418 million settlement agreement with the National Association of Realtors, a powerful real estate trade group that was successfully sued by a group of homeowners in Missouri who argued that the longtime practice requiring them to pay agents’ commissions led to inflated fees. Brokerages have spent months trying to educate agents and consumers on the looming changes.But when they were implemented nationwide this Saturday, buyers remained befuddled.Sarthak Jain, left, and his wife, Aditi Maheshwari, touring a duplex in Jersey City alongside their Realtor.Andres Kudacki for The New York TimesWe 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

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court, for Now, Blocks Protections for Transgender Students in Some States

      by

      The order maintained halts by lower courts on federal rules prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in schools.The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily continued to block Education Department rules intended to protect transgender students from discrimination based on their gender identity in several Republican states that had mounted challenges.The emergency order allowed rulings by lower courts in Louisiana and Kentucky to remain in effect in about 10 states as litigation moves forward, maintaining a pause on new federal guidelines expanding protections for transgender students that had been enacted in nearly half the country on Aug. 1.The order came in response to a challenge by the Biden administration, which asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a number of Republican-led states sought to overturn the new rules.The decision was unsigned, as is typical in such emergency petitions. But all nine members of the court said that parts of the new rules — including the protections for transgender students — should not go into effect until the legal challenges are resolved.“Importantly,” the unsigned order said, “all members of the court today accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”The decision handed a victory to the Republican-led states that had challenged the rules. A patchwork of lower court decisions means that the rules are temporarily paused in about 26 states.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Finds Flaws in New York City’s Cannabis Enforcement Efforts

      by

      The city has appealed the judge’s ruling in favor of a convenience store in Queens that could have broader implications for enforcement.A state judge has ordered New York City to allow a convenience store in Queens to reopen after it was accused of selling cannabis illegally, a decision that could significantly affect the city’s effort to wipe out thousands of unlicensed sellers.The city quickly appealed the ruling issued Wednesday by Justice Kevin J. Kerrigan. He found that the city sheriff’s office had no legal reason to keep the store at 35-12 Bell Boulevard padlocked because the underlying summons had been dismissed after the city could not prove it had delivered it to the right person. The sheriff’s office issued the summons during an inspection in June, charging the store with selling cannabis without a license.After the summons was dismissed on procedural grounds, that should have been the end to the case, Justice Kerrigan wrote in his decision.Instead, the hearing officer, a lawyer who assumes the role of a judge in the case, went on to recommend that the sheriff’s office keep the business closed because she believed illegal activity was taking place at the store. She also concluded that she did not need to determine whether the illegal activity was more than minimal in making her recommendation, he said.The sheriff’s office accepted the hearing officer’s recommendations. The hearing officer’s guidance was wrong, Justice Kerrigan ruled.The series of decisions, he wrote, resulted in “a clear violation of due process under the 1aw.”“The court acknowledges that the unlicensed sale of cannabis within the City of New York represents an enormous public health concern,” he added. “However, summarily shuttering businesses prior to taking the necessary steps to determine whether a violation has occurred stands against the cornerstone of American democracy and procedural due process.”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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ACLU Must Reinstate Employee Falsely Accused of Racist Language, Court Rules

      by

      The case put the legal group on the spot for taking positions on free speech and workers’ rights that seemed at odds with its mission.The American Civil Liberties Union lost a case about offensive speech and workers’ rights — over its own workplace.A judge ruled on Wednesday that the A.C.L.U. had illegally fired an employee, Kate Oh, from her job as senior policy counsel. The group had accused her of using language that was racist and that singled out people of color in the office.Michael A. Rosas, an administrative law judge, said that the A.C.L.U.’s accusation that she had targeted people of color “is not borne out by the facts.” He noted that her complaints were not about colleagues but superiors within the organization, and that she had also complained about white managers.Ms. Oh never uttered a racial slur or invoked race, court filings showed. She said that she considered herself a whistle-blower and advocate for other women in the office, drawing attention to an environment she said was rife with sexism and fear. Her frequent, sometimes intemperate, complaints irritated her bosses, she argued, so they retaliated by firing her.The case placed one of the nation’s leading defenders of workers’ rights under scrutiny for violating the very workplace protections it typically seeks to enforce.The judge ordered the A.C.L.U. to reinstate Ms. Oh, who was fired in May 2022, and to give her back pay.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

      Lawyer Who Tried to Set Off Bomb Outside of Chinese Embassy Pleads Guilty

      by

      Christopher Rodriguez tried to detonate a bag of explosives at the embassy in Washington, D.C., by firing a rifle at it but missed, prosecutors said.A Florida lawyer pleaded guilty on Friday to placing a bag of explosives near the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C., and trying to detonate it with a rifle, according to court records.This was not the first time the lawyer, Christopher Rodriguez, had attempted a detonation, prosecutors said. He had previously set off explosives in 2022 that caused “significant damage” to a statue of the Communist leaders Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong in San Antonio, Texas, by shooting at canisters of explosives with a rifle, according to court records.But when Mr. Rodriguez, 45, of Panama City, Fla., employed a similar tactic by shooting at a 15-pound backpack of explosives that he dropped near the fence of the Chinese Embassy on Sept. 25, 2023, he missed, and the explosives did not detonate, according to court records.Federal authorities say a Florida lawyer tried to detonate a backpack with explosives outside the Chinese Embassy in Washington in September.U.S. District Court for the District of ColumbiaMr. Rodriguez pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to damaging property occupied by a foreign government, using explosive materials to cause malicious damage to federal property, and receipt or possession of an unregistered firearm.The charges cover his attack on the statue in San Antonio and his attempt to damage the Chinese Embassy.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

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Man Who Killed 4 After Dispute Over Stimulus Check Gets 145 Years in Prison

      by

      Malik Halfacre, 28, wounded his girlfriend and killed four of her family members in Indianapolis in 2021 after a dispute with her over money, prosecutors said.An Indianapolis man who killed four people, including a child, after a dispute with his girlfriend over a coronavirus stimulus check was sentenced on Friday to 145 years in prison.The man, Malik Halfacre, 28, pleaded guilty in June to four murder counts in the March 2021 shooting deaths of Eve Moore, 7; Dequan Moore, 23; Anthony Johnson, 35; and Tomeeka Brown, 44, in Indianapolis. He also pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of Jeanettrius Moore, then his girlfriend, whom the police say Mr. Halfacre shot multiple times. The four people killed were relatives of Ms. Moore.Judge Jeffrey Marchal of Marion Superior Court sentenced Mr. Halfacre to two consecutive 57-year prison terms for the murder counts and a 31-year prison term for the attempted murder count, according to court records.On the night of March 13, 2021, the police received a report of a person shot inside an Indianapolis home.Malik Halfacre.Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, via Associated PressThe victim was Ms. Moore, who had fled to a neighbor’s home after being shot. Before she was taken to a hospital, Ms. Moore told the police that there were multiple victims inside her home. She told them that Mr. Halfacre had fled and taken their 6-month-old daughter.The police eventually found the young girl at Mr. Halfacre’s sister’s home. They caught Mr. Halfacre the next day after an hourslong standoff at a friend’s home, where he was hiding.Mr. Halfacre later told investigators that he and Ms. Moore had been arguing because he “wanted some of her stimulus check,” according to a probable cause affidavit.Mr. Halfacre also admitted that he had shot everyone in his girlfriend’s home and then stole her purse and fled in her car with their daughter, the affidavit said. He told the police that he had dropped their daughter off at his sister’s house.As part of the deal under which Mr. Halfacre pleaded guilty, related charges of armed robbery, auto theft and illegal possession of a handgun were dropped. More