Legal Claim – Monster Beats Kopfhorerde Wed, 07 Jul 2021 02:35:16 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Legal Claim – Monster Beats Kopfhorerde 32 32 Armed “Moors” at I-95 deadlock plead not guilty, deny court authority Wed, 07 Jul 2021 00:23:04 +0000

Several men associated with a group of black sovereign citizens who led an hour-long standoff with Massachusetts state police over the holiday weekend battled gun charges in court on Tuesday.

Seven of the 11 men have been brought to justice, all pleading not guilty charges related to improperly stored firearms after the standoff on I-95. Many have identified themselves as linked to Rise of the Moors, a group of black sovereign citizens, on social media.

Malden District Court Judge Emily Karstetter has heard the same argument from many men: that they are not US citizens subject to federal or state law and that they ask to be released.

An accused, who refused to disclose his name to authorities, told the court the process was unfair.

“What you are doing right now is wrong, it’s wrong,” he said. “It’s my life you’re playing with here.” It’s my life. I respect the Constitution.

The Ascension of the Moors is part of a Sovereign Moors movement which is largely black. Its members believe they are exempt from U.S. law under the 1786 Moroccan-American Friendship Treaty, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks the group.

Rachel Goldwasser, who studies Sovereign and Anti-Government Citizen Groups at the Alabama Legal Center, said court proceedings are in line with what will happen when members of different sovereign citizen movement groups are brought to justice.

“What they believe is that they are not citizens of the United States of America as we know them,” Goldwasser said. “[Rise of the Moors] believe they have their own territory, which is essentially what we would think of as Rhode Island, and that they are the inhabitants of that territory. So in their minds, they don’t think they have to comply with either law enforcement, court or any other public official. “

The Moors’ numbers are unknown, but the Southern Poverty Law Center has tracked its online presence and found that its YouTube channel has 17,000 subscribers, up from 5,000 last year.

“You can imagine that’s a pretty big increase in the number of people who see their rhetoric and potentially, you know, believe it and decide to participate in their activities – or copy their behavior,” Goldwasser said.

The Southern Pavery Law Center has no evidence that Rise of the Moors is a violent group.

“They have not been, to our knowledge, violent in the past, but they are extremely supportive of owning and carrying firearms and this has been around for a long time,” Goldwasser said, adding that they could be. potentially caused by violence. But the fact that the group did not react violently to the prolonged standoff with police in Massachusetts on Saturday is a good sign, Goldwasser said. “They won’t necessarily be violent in a confrontation if they weren’t in this one,”

Legal defenses that are based on the claim that laws or constitutional principles do not apply to particular groups have been “uniformly rejected” by the courts over the past decades, said Daniel Medwed, legal analyst at GBH. Morning edition Tuesday.

“Maybe the gist of the claim is that there is a treaty or some other exemption that applies to a particular group,” Medwed said. “This is a very tense and selective interpretation of the law, and it fundamentally rejects what is called the supremacy clause – section six, term two of our Constitution – which says that federal law is supreme. So I think, without necessarily getting into the weeds too much, that probably doesn’t have much merit.

Some defendants have refused to be represented by a lawyer and all are being held pending a dangerous hearing on Friday.

]]> 0
Rudy Giuliani’s legal defense fund raised $ 9,590 (only $ 4,990,410 to go!) Tue, 06 Jul 2021 23:03:57 +0000

When we last checked in with Rudy Giuliani, things didn’t look so hot for Donald trumpthe former personal lawyer of. Besides going from “America’s mayor” to “what happened to this guy?” – which is a big aside! – Giuliani faced a whole host of very serious legal issues, including, but not limited to: in connection with a criminal investigation into his relations with Ukraine; a ministry of justice probe his work involving Turkey; a defamation trial Dominion Voting Systems for its lies about the 2020 election; and the temporary suspension of his license to practice law. And it turns out things haven’t gotten much better for the former New York mayor, unless he’s forced to fund his legal defense – and only improving 0.1918% of his goal – could somehow be interpreted as “better”.

Yes, weeks after his mate Bernie kerik request people to spare all they could for Giuliani’s legal bills, the “Rudy Giuliani Legal Defense Fund” has raised just $ 9,590, less than 0.2% of the $ 5 million goal. (It is not clear if the RGLDF is a separate entity, the “Rudy Giuilani Freedom Fund” that Kerik helped create.) Kerik, the former New York Police Commissioner, knows a little about legal issues, having pleaded guilty in 2010 to tax fraud and other charges, before being forgiven, of course, by Donald Trump. You may also remember Kerik from other hits like apparently drive a case in an apartment near Ground Zero that had been reserved for 9/11 rescuers. On the fundraising page, the organizers encourage any type of person who identifies as a Giuliani groupie to fork out as much money as possible to defend the former lawyer of the former president, explaining “The swamp is revolting by placing a bull’s-eye on the back of every Trump loyalist. This puts Rudy at the top of their list. Rudy’s fate will determine if America is still a Republic ruled by We The People! Unfortunately for Rudy, this pitch apparently fell on deaf ears.

What does Trump think of Giuliani’s precarious financial situation? According to a new author reveal Michel Wolff, very little! Speak Independent:

A new book says Donald Trump “kicked out” and “cut off” his former lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, for daring to ask the former president to pay him. “Trump is annoyed that he tried to get paid for his campaign defiance work,” writes Michael Wolff in the book, Landslide: The Last Days of the Trump Presidency, according to an extract published in Time. After Mr. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, Mr. Giuliani tried to overturn the results of dozens of unsuccessful lawsuits. But according to Landslide, all the former mayor received for his efforts is the “cold shoulder” of Mr. Trump and his family.

In the last week of his presidency, isolated and twice indicted, Mr. Trump ordered assistants not to pay Mr. Giuliani’s fees. According to The Washington Post, the outgoing president was furious with his allies for not doing enough to keep him in the White House, even against Mr Giuliani, who had done more than most.

To be fair, Giuliani probably should have seen this coming, given that Trump is known to have stiffened his contractors, to dishwasher to painters to architects, and when faced with it saying things like, “Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was dissatisfied with his job.” “

If you would like to receive the Levin report daily in your inbox, click here register.

Alabama representative offers familiar legal argument as to why he cannot be prosecuted for helping incite the January 6 riot

Like Donald Trump, congressman Mo Brooks thinks he should shirk responsibility on his part in fostering the insurgency because he is a government employee and somehow everything is fine. Through The Washington Post:

Brooks (R-Ala.) Has asked to be returned from a federal lawsuit alleging he instigated mobs to storm the United States Capitol on January 6, claiming he could not be held responsible because ‘he was acting as a federal employee while contesting the 2020 election sparked a heated speech just before the riot began. Brooks said in a motion on Friday that he should be dropped as a defendant or represented by the Department of Justice in the case, filed March 5 by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-California). The lawsuit names former President Donald Trump, Brooks, Donald Trump Jr., and Rudolph W. Giuliani and seeks damages in connection with their statements from a crowd near the White House that the former president said to march to the Capitol.

“Today is the day that American patriots start removing names,” Brooks said, echoing Trump’s baseless claims that the election was rigged. Brooks told people in the crowd that they had been the victims of a historic robbery and asked them if they were prepared to sacrifice their lives for their country.… In his filing on Friday, Brooks cited a 1988 law that protects federal employees from personal liability while acting within the scope of their duty or employment. He argued that his speech, tweets and demeanor “were unmistakably delivered in the context of and in preparation” for a joint session of Congress on January 6 to confirm the results of the presidential election. Trump asked the judge to dismiss the case on similar grounds, saying that as president he had absolute immunity from prosecution for his official actions and was free to urge Congress to take action in his favor during his electoral count.

]]> 0
FCA’s fraudulent inducement request requires causal link – appeals court Tue, 06 Jul 2021 22:48:00 +0000 A man stands near an IBM logo at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, ​​Spain on February 25, 2019. REUTERS / Sergio Perez

The company and law firm names listed above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this functionality as we continue to test and develop in beta. We appreciate comments, which you can provide using the comments tab on the right of the page.

(Reuters) – A whistleblower must litigate causally in order to bring a fraudulent inducement complaint under federal false claims law, a federal appeals court has ruled, allowing a case accusing International Business Machines Corp of having defrauded the government.

A DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Tuesday rejected the argument of former IBM sales representative Paul Cimino that he did not have to allege except for causation, but nonetheless quashed the lower court ruling dismissing the lawsuit, finding that Cimino had met the pleading standard.

IBM and its attorney Cate Stetson of Hogan Lovells did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Neither does Cimino’s lawyer, Tejinder Singh of Goldstein & Russell.

Cimino filed his 2013 lawsuit in federal court in Washington under the False Claims Act, which allows whistleblowers to sue companies on behalf of the government to recover taxpayer money paid on the basis of fraudulent claims.

He alleged that IBM faked an audit to show that the Internal Revenue Service owed the company $ 91 million in misuse penalties under the agency’s existing software license in order to put pressure on the company. IRS to renew the license for $ 265 million.

In 2018, the US Department of Justice refused to intervene in the case.

In 2019, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta concluded that Cimino’s trial had failed because he did not allege that the IRS would not have entered into the license agreement without IBM’s deceptive audit. The judge’s conclusion was based in part on the fact that the IRS continued to pay IBM after the complaint was filed.

On appeal, Cimino argued that causation was not a necessary element of a fraudulent inducement claim under the FAA.

Circuit judge Neomi Rao noted that the court had never directly addressed the issue, but said common law principles weighed against Cimino.

“Because the fraud must be in the inducement, liability under the FCA for fraudulent inducement must depend on whether the fraud caused the government to contract,” she wrote.

However, the court concluded that Mehta dismissed the case simply because he “doubted” Cimino’s claims, while at the plea stage they must be considered true.

“But this disbelief did not deserve rejection in light of Cimino’s allegations,” Rao wrote, overturning the denial of Cimino’s request for fraudulent inducement.

Rao was joined by circuit judge Sri Srinivasan and senior circuit judge Douglas Ginsburg.

The case is Cimino v. International Business Machines Corp, United States Court of Appeals for DC Circuit, No. 19-7139.

For Cimino: Tejinder Singh of Goldstein & Russell

For IBM: Cate Stetson of Hogan Lovells

Read more:

Justice Department backs relaunch of accusations IBM defrauded IRS