|
|
|
ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Hamas officials
Attorney Interview |
2024/11/20 15:51
|
The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants on Thursday for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defense minister and Hamas officials, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity over their 13-month war in Gaza and the October 2023 attack on Israel respectively.
Netanyahu condemned the arrest warrant against him, saying Israel “rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions.” In a statement released by his office, he said: “There is nothing more just than the war that Israel has been waging in Gaza.”
The decision turns Netanyahu and the others into internationally wanted suspects and is likely to further isolate them and complicate efforts to negotiate a cease-fire to end the fighting. But its practical implications could be limited since Israel and its major ally, the United States, are not members of the court and two of the Hamas officials were killed in the conflict.
Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have condemned ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s request for warrants as disgraceful and antisemitic. U.S. President Joe Biden blasted the prosecutor and expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas. Hamas also slammed the request.
The three-judge panel issued a unanimous decision to issue warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant.
“The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity,” the decision said.
The court also issued a warrant for Mohammed Deif, one of the leaders of Hamas, over the October 2023 attacks that triggered Israel’s offensive in Gaza. The ICC chief prosecutor withdrew his request for warrants for two other senior Hamas figures, Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh, after they were both killed in the conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court won’t review Kari Lake’s appeal over 2022 governor’s race defeat
Attorney Interview |
2024/11/08 08:19
|
The Arizona Supreme Court has declined to hear Republican Kari Lake’s latest appeal over her defeat in the 2022 governor’s race, marking yet another loss in her attempt to overturn the race’s outcome.
The court made its refusal to take up the former TV anchor’s appeal public on Thursday without explaining its decision.
Lake, now locked in a U.S. Senate race against Democrat Ruben Gallego, had lost the governor’s race to Democrat Katie Hobbs by over 17,000 votes.
The courts had previously rejected Lake’s claims that problems with ballot printers at some Maricopa County polling places on Election Day in 2022 were the result of intentional misconduct and that Maricopa County didn’t verify signatures on mail ballots as required by law. A judge also turned down Lake’s request to examine the ballot envelopes of 1.3 million early voters. In all, Lake had three trials related to the 2022 election.
Despite her earlier losses in court and a ruling affirming Hobbs’ victory, Lake had asked the Arizona Supreme Court to review her case, claiming she had new evidence to support her claims. Lawyers for Maricopa County told the court that Lake failed to present any new evidence that would change the courts’ findings.
Lake is among the most vocal of Republican candidates promoting lies that Donald Trump had won the 2020 election over President Joe Biden, which she made the centerpiece of her campaign for governor. While most other election deniers around the country conceded after losing their races, Lake did not.
The Lake campaign didn’t respond to an email seeking comment on the Supreme Court’s latest decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Giuliani says he's a victim of 'political persecution' as he's told again to give up assets
Attorney Interview |
2024/11/04 08:19
|
A defiant Rudy Giuliani was ordered Thursday to quickly turn over prized assets including a car and a watch given to him by his grandfather as part of a $148 million defamation judgment, leading the former New York City mayor to emerge from court saying he expects to win on appeal and get everything back.
After the hearing in Manhattan federal court, Giuliani said he was the victim of a “political vendetta” and he was “pretty sure” the judgment could be reversed.
“This is a case of political persecution,” he told reporters, citing the size of what he described as a punitive judgment. “There isn’t a person (who) doesn’t know the judgment is ridiculous.”
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the one-time presidential candidate to report to court after lawyers for the two former Georgia election workers who were awarded the massive judgment visited Giuliani’s Manhattan apartment last week only to discover it had been cleared out weeks earlier.
Lawyers for Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, say Giuliani has mostly dodged turning over assets by an Oct. 29 deadline, enabling the longtime ally of once-and-future President Donald Trump to hang on to many of his most treasured belongings.
The possessions include his $5 million Upper East Side apartment, a 1980 Mercedes once owned by movie star Lauren Bacall, a shirt signed by New York Yankees legend Joe DiMaggio, dozens of luxury watches and other valuables.
During Thursday’s hearing, Giuliani attorney Kenneth Caruso said he believed the plaintiffs were being “vindictive” in demanding that items to be turned over include a watch that belonged to Giuliani’s grandfather.
That comment drew a scoff and rebuke from Liman, who said individuals are forced to give up family heirlooms all the time to satisfy debts.
“They have to pay the debt. It doesn’t matter that it’s in the form of a watch or a watch that somebody passes down to him,” the judge said.
Caruso also claimed that the car was worth less than $4,000, an amount that might exempt it from the turnover order. But the judge said he’d already ordered that the car be turned over.
“Your honor has ample discretion to change an order,” Caruso said. When he arrived at the courthouse, Giuliani told reporters that he has not stood in the way of the court’s orders.
“Every bit of property that they want is available, if they are entitled to it,” he said. “Now, the law says they’re not entitled to a lot of them. For example, they want my grandfather’s watch, which is 150 years old. That’s a bit of an heirloom. Usually you don’t get those unless you’re involved in a political persecution. In fact, having me here today is like a political persecution.”
Aaron Nathan, an attorney for the election workers, told Liman that most of the New York apartment’s contents, including art, sports memorabilia and other valuables, had been moved out about four weeks prior to an attempt to recover the materials. Some of was believed stored on Long Island in a container Giuliani’s lawyer said they could not access.
At the hearing, Nathan complained that efforts to get assets were met by “delay and then evasion” and that Giuliani had only recently revealed the existence of new bank accounts containing about $40,000 in cash.
Giuliani spoke directly to the judge at one point, saying he’d been “treated rudely” by those trying to take control of his assets.
His lawyers have so far argued unsuccessfully that Giuliani should not be forced to turn over his belongings while he appeals the judgment.
Giuliani was found liable for defamation for falsely accusing Freeman and Moss of ballot fraud as he pushed Trump’s unsubstantiated election fraud allegations during the 2020 campaign.
The women said they faced death threats after Giuliani accused the two of sneaking in ballots in suitcases, counting ballots multiple times and tampering with voting machines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fraud trial of George Santos to begin next month with an anonymous jury
Attorney Interview |
2024/08/15 14:00
|
The fraud trial against former U.S. Rep. George Santos, slated to start in a matter of weeks, is coming into focus after a federal judge ruled Tuesday that jurors will have their identities kept secret from the public.
They won’t, however, be required to fill out a written questionnaire gauging their opinions of Santos when they arrive for jury selection Sept. 9, as his lawyers had requested.
Judge Joanna Seybert said during a brief hearing in federal court on Long Island that she agreed with the government’s assessment that a questionnaire would only bog the proceedings down.
She said questioning each potential juror in person would allow her and both sides to ask more varied and probing questions to elicit more truthful responses.
Prosecutors told the judge the trial could last three weeks because they expect to call at least three dozen witnesses, including some victims of Santos’ alleged crimes.
Santos has pleaded not guilty to a range of financial crimes, including lying to Congress about his wealth, collecting unemployment benefits while actually working, and using campaign contributions to pay for personal expenses such as designer clothing.
Seybert urged both sides to work together to “streamline” the proceedings where possible.
“Make me hopeful. Seriously,” she said. “Sit down and discuss what is absolutely necessary.”
Santos, who was dressed in a blue suit, declined to speak with reporters outside the courthouse after the hearing, the last expected before the trial.
But when asked whether he believed his client could receive a fair trial, Santos’ lawyer Robert Fantone said, “I think we’re going to be alright.”
In court, Santos’ lawyers pushed back at claims prosecutors made in prior legal filings that they’re not participating fully in the required pretrial document-sharing process known as discovery.
Prosecutors this month said they’ve turned over more than 1.3 million pages of records, while defense lawyers have produced just five pages. But when pressed by the judge, Santos’ lawyers maintained that they’ve turned over every document in their possession.
“We’re not stonewalling,” said Joe Murray, another Santos lawyer. “Trial by ambush is not how I operate.”
The New York Republican’s lawyers had argued in recent court filings that a questionnaire addressing potential jurors’ “knowledge, beliefs, and preconceptions” was needed because of the extensive negative media coverage surrounding Santos, who was expelled from Congress in December after an ethics investigation found “overwhelming evidence” he had broken the law and exploited his public position for his own profit. |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
