Connect with us

World News

Judge denies motion to dismiss case against Clinton campaign lawyer – JURIST

Published

on

A federal court judge on Wednesday refused to dismiss a case against a Hillary Clinton campaign attorney who is charged with a single count of making a false statement to the FBI. attorney James Baker. Sussmann requested the meeting to present evidence that he said supported reports of a secret communications channel between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and a Russian bank. Sussmann allegedly told Baker that he would not be meeting with him on behalf of any client, when in fact he was providing the information on behalf of two clients, Rodney Joffe, a tech industry executive, and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The indictment alleges that by withholding this information, Sussmann violated 18 USC § 1001(a)(2), which states that any person who “makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the US government is subject to a fine and imprisonment. Sussmann’s motion to dismiss the charge stated that even assuming that his statement to the FBI was false, it was not material as a matter of law. The materiality standard under § 1001 is whether the statement has a natural tendency to influence a discreet government decision, and Sussmann argued that his statement that he would not meet with Baker on behalf of a client could not have influenced the government’s decision. investigate Trump. Special counsel John Durham, arguing for the government, argued that had the FBI known that Sussmann was providing information on behalf of clients, they could have asked many relevant questions about whether or not to open an investigation. In denying the motion to dismiss, US District Judge Christopher Cooper wrote: “Thus, the battle lines are drawn, but the Court cannot resolve this standoff before trial.” Because materiality is an element of the offense, “it is a question that generally must be answered by a jury.” The court, according to Cooper, cannot make a decision on the issue before hearing the government’s evidence, so it must wait until trial.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World News

US Supreme Court Grants Review of Federal Bankruptcy Case – JURIST

Published

on

On Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, a case examining appellate court jurisdiction over sales orders in federal bankruptcy proceedings. The case revolves around the sale and transfer of a lease for a store in a shopping center. In 1991, Sears obtained a lease for a store in the Mall of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The lease only cost Sears $10 a year and was supposed to last 100 years. Sears, however, went bankrupt in 2018. As part of federal bankruptcy proceedings, Sears sold its assets and the Mall of America lease was transferred to Transform Holdco LLC, a corporation formed by Sears’ new owners. Mall of America sought to prevent the transfer because they claim that Transform Holdco LLC does not intend to occupy the leased facilities but to sublet them to other companies. Transform Holdco LLC argues that the long-term lease constitutes a substantial portion of the value Sears was sold for in the bankruptcy proceeding. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit transferred the lease as it was deemed “integral” to a court-approved bankruptcy sale. Mall of America filed a petition with the US Supreme Court, arguing that a remedy is available that would not affect the validity of the sale. Therefore, according to Mall of America, the appellate court should be allowed to intervene. Transform Holdco LLC responds that no such remedy exists, and that the Second Circuit’s ruling should stand. The US Supreme Court must now determine whether federal bankruptcy law limits appeals on sales orders deemed “comprehensive,” even when a remedy is available that will not affect the validity of the sale. The court is set to hear oral arguments in the case next term.

Continue Reading

World News

US appeals court to rehear challenge to Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine executive order – JURIST

Published

on

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order on Monday stating that the court will rehear Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, a challenge to President Joe Biden’s 2019 executive order that required federal employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or face termination. In late May and early June, America First Legal Foundation, America’s Frontline Doctors, Airline Employees For Freedom Health, and an additional group of vaccine plaintiffs filed four amicus briefs in favor of a new full hearing. The plaintiffs in Rodden v. Fauci also filed a class action lawsuit made up of federal employees who contracted COVID-19, developed COVID-19 antibodies, “but remain subject to the federal employee vaccination mandate.” The Rodden plaintiffs argue that Biden and the “agencies he directs have no power to direct the personal medical decisions of federal employees,” and therefore this executive order is like an illegal government mandate. In addition, the group asserts that the panel’s refusal to review executive employment decisions is unlawful and thus protects “the exercise of unlawful governmental power.” In January 2022, a Texas judge blocked Biden’s executive order. Other state judges have also blocked enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In December 2021, a Georgia judge blocked the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for government contractors after the Texas Governor ordered a statewide ban on all COVID-19 vaccination mandates in October 2021 .

Continue Reading

World News

Ukraine’s richest man sues Russia for loss of property and profits – JURIST

Published

on

Ukraine’s richest man on Monday filed a lawsuit with the European Court of Human Rights against Russia for “serious violations of his property rights during Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.” Rinat Akhmetov, a Ukrainian businessman who owns much of the country’s manufacturing infrastructure, says he has lost billions of dollars in business since the Russian invasion began. Akhmetov’s announcement highlighted both ongoing human rights violations and infrastructure destruction committed by Russia. He wrote: In addition to the untold human suffering he has caused, Russia’s invasion has resulted in massive destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure. The shelling of the Azovstal steel complex in Mariupol by Russian artillery seeking to eliminate the last vestiges of Ukrainian resistance in that city has become an international symbol of Russia’s disregard for international law and human rights. As the owner of the Azovstal steel complex, Akhmetov has suffered estimated losses of billions of dollars in both property and profits as a direct result of the Russian invasion. This lawsuit is one of the first initiated by a private individual against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. Akhmetov stated several times throughout the announcement that he hopes the court will award him damages so that Ukraine can begin to rebuild.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022