courthousenews--2020-07-29--Judge Roasts Ghislaine Maxwell’s ‘Eleventh-Hour’ Bid to Block Deposition

MANHATTAN ( CN ) — Skewering Ghislaine Maxwell ’ s “ eleventh-hour ” request to block the release of her deposition , a federal judge on Wednesday found little substance to the jailed socialite ’ s claim that her criminal case provides a new reason for secrecy .
“ This is plowed ground , ” U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska wrote in a 6-page ruling Wednesday afternoon .
“ Indeed , in her original objection to unsealing , Ms. Maxwell argued that the specter of ongoing criminal investigations into unknown individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein — a group that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loomed large over the court-ordered unsealing process , ” the judge added .
Earlier in the day , Maxwell tried to block the release of her deposition on Thursday by claiming that federal prosecutors wrongly divulged passages from it in her indictment , which quoted her testimony in support of two perjury charges .
“ Ms .
Maxwell ’ s two deposition transcripts were designated ‘ Confidential ’ and subject to the protection of the protective order , ” Ty Gee , an attorney for the jailed socialite , wrote in a 9-page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hands of the government , which used them to bring an indictment against Ms. Maxwell , charging her with , among other things , perjury in her deposition testimony .
This is a serious violation of the protective order and merits the commencement of contempt proceedings.
” Originally ordering the release of at least one of those transcripts on Thursday , Judge Preska allowed the deposition ’ s release to be delayed one more day to allow Maxwell to petition the Second Circuit .
Now asking Preska to keep the deposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s attorneys at the firm Haddon , Morgan and Foreman want an inquiry into whether Virginia Giuffre is the government ’ s source .
In a 2015 defamation suit , Giuffre accused Maxwell of grooming her to become Jeffrey Epstein ’ s “ sex slave.
” The Southern District of New York and Giuffre ’ s attorney Brad Edwards did not immediately respond to emails requesting comment .
Prosecutors quoted multiple passages of Maxwell ’ s depositions from April and July 2016 in their indictment , claiming that she falsely denied participating in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse .
Maxwell claims only Giuffre could have tipped off the government to the existence of these passages .
“ Only two parties — [ Giuffre ] and Ms. Maxwell — and their counsel had proper access to the transcripts of Ms. Maxwell ’ s deposition , ” Wednesday ’ s letter states .
“ The transcripts , which were designated ‘ Confidential , ’ were the subject of the protective order strictly limiting the persons to whom the parties may disclose ‘ Confidential ’ -designated documents.
” In this afternoon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maxwell ’ s allegations that the government and Giuffre violated the protective order .
Law enforcement typically has the ability to request such documents , but Maxwell claims that she and Giuffre expressly removed a clause that would have created such an exception .
“ This language was rejected by Ms. Maxwell because of her concerns that [ Giuffre ] and her lawyers were acting as either express or de facto agents of the government , ” the letter states .
“ The language agreed upon , and made an order of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement.
” Maxwell pleaded not guilty earlier this month at a hearing where she was denied bail .
Her trial has been scheduled for July 2021 , a year to this month .

Skewering Ghislaine Maxwell’s “eleventh-hour” request to block the release of her deposition, a federal judge on Wednesday found little substance to the jailed socialite’s claim that her criminal case provides a new reason for secrecy.
MANHATTAN (CN) — Skewering Ghislaine Maxwell’s “eleventh-hour” request to block the release of her deposition, a federal judge on Wednesday found little substance to the jailed socialite’s claim that her criminal case provides a new reason for secrecy.
“This is plowed ground,” U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska wrote in a 6-page ruling Wednesday afternoon.
“Indeed, in her original objection to unsealing, Ms. Maxwell argued that the specter of ongoing criminal investigations into unknown individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein — a group that, of course, includes Ms. Maxwell — loomed large over the court-ordered unsealing process,” the judge added.
Earlier in the day, Maxwell tried to block the release of her deposition on Thursday by claiming that federal prosecutors wrongly divulged passages from it in her indictment, which quoted her testimony in support of two perjury charges.
“Ms. Maxwell’s two deposition transcripts were designated ‘Confidential’ and subject to the protection of the protective order,” Ty Gee, an attorney for the jailed socialite, wrote in a 9-page letter. “Both transcripts ended up in the hands of the government, which used them to bring an indictment against Ms. Maxwell, charging her with, among other things, perjury in her deposition testimony. This is a serious violation of the protective order and merits the commencement of contempt proceedings.”
British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell arrives at Epsom Racecourse on June 5, 1991. (Chris Ison/PA via AP, File)
Originally ordering the release of at least one of those transcripts on Thursday, Judge Preska allowed the deposition’s release to be delayed one more day to allow Maxwell to petition the Second Circuit.
Now asking Preska to keep the deposition under wraps, however, Maxwell’s attorneys at the firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman want an inquiry into whether Virginia Giuffre is the government’s source. In a 2015 defamation suit, Giuffre accused Maxwell of grooming her to become Jeffrey Epstein’s “sex slave.”
The Southern District of New York and Giuffre’s attorney Brad Edwards did not immediately respond to emails requesting comment.
Prosecutors quoted multiple passages of Maxwell’s depositions from April and July 2016 in their indictment, claiming that she falsely denied participating in a sex-trafficking scheme and participating in any abuse.
Maxwell claims only Giuffre could have tipped off the government to the existence of these passages.
“Only two parties — [Giuffre] and Ms. Maxwell — and their counsel had proper access to the transcripts of Ms. Maxwell’s deposition,” Wednesday’s letter states. “The transcripts, which were designated ‘Confidential,’ were the subject of the protective order strictly limiting the persons to whom the parties may disclose ‘Confidential’-designated documents.”
In this afternoon’s ruling, Preska did not comment on Maxwell’s allegations that the government and Giuffre violated the protective order.
Law enforcement typically has the ability to request such documents, but Maxwell claims that she and Giuffre expressly removed a clause that would have created such an exception.
“This language was rejected by Ms. Maxwell because of her concerns that [Giuffre] and her lawyers were acting as either express or de facto agents of the government,” the letter states. “The language agreed upon, and made an order of this court, specifically excluded an exception for law enforcement.”
Maxwell pleaded not guilty earlier this month at a hearing where she was denied bail. Her trial has been scheduled for July 2021, a year to this month.


courthousenews--2020-07-29--Florida Businesses Challenge Virus-Driven Safety Orders

( CN ) — Clashes between South Florida businesses and local governments over Covid-19-related restrictions are mounting , with one gym owner now claiming police shuttered his facility in retaliation for filing a legal challenge to a mandatory mask order .
Sunshine State lawmakers had high hopes that Florida ’ s economic recovery would go off without a hitch in the wake of shutdowns prompted by the novel-coronavirus outbreak .
As businesses across the state began reopening in May , the rate of Covid-19 tests that were coming back positive remained comfortably under 5 % .
And it appeared that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
Just as a sliver of optimism began emerging for many South Florida business owners on the brink , the rate of positive tests shot up and health officials reported an influx of patients with Covid-19 .
Miami-Dade County health officials reported that the number of Covid-19-positive patients on ventilators in that county more than doubled in July .
For South Florida , this month has in turn seen curfews reinstated , blanket closure of restaurant dining rooms in Miami-Dade , mandatory mask orders and an array of new safety regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a densely populated South Florida county , gyms have had to undergo a major transformation under executive order 20-21 , a 65-page emergency measure filed July 8 .
Fitness equipment needs to be arranged 10 feet apart , patrons must have their temperature screened to ensure they are not sick , and bathrooms need to be cleaned every hour .
When it released the measure , the county said a spike in Covid-19-linked hospitalizations compelled it to strengthen “ its regulatory efforts and increase penalties for those who violate emergency orders.
” Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said he tried to follow the mandates but that doing so became a logistical mess .
“ You close us down for three months and you open us back up to new mandates .
We were trying to follow the mandates .
But they just kept getting more and more bizarre .
At some point , we had to put our foot down and say this is too much , ” he said in an interview .
The 31-year-old hit Broward County with a lawsuit this week , claiming the county ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endangers gym patrons by requiring them to wear face coverings during strenuous exercise .
Within a day of the lawsuit ’ s filing , Carnevale says , officers from the Plantation Police Department showed up at the gym “ with an agenda to close [ him ] down.
” He claims they targeted him in retaliation for filing the case .
The police report states that the officers arrived July 27 in response to a call in which the massive gym was accused of allowing people to be onsite without masks .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s arrival , “ most patrons in the facility [ were ] without mandatory facial coverings.
” In the underlying executive order , Broward initially carved out an exception that allowed people engaged in “ strenuous physical activity or exercise ” to forgo mask-wearing .
But the exception was trimmed July 17 , such that it only applied when gym-goers are “ in a pre-swim shower or swimming pool.
” The order makes owners of gyms and other businesses responsible for ensuring everyone on their premises has a face covering .
Violations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including a misdemeanor charge and a $ 500 fine .
Carnevale claims that he ’ s afraid that forcing patrons engaged in heavy exercise to wear a mask could be dangerous , especially if they have asthma or other respiratory conditions .
According to the lawsuit , wearing a mask while doing strenuous exercise “ risks injury to Broward County residents by obstructing their breathing.
” After more than an hour of waiting for the officers to handle the arrest paperwork , Carnevale was detained and brought to a Broward County jail , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his wife shot shows him praising the police and the city of Plantation , but refusing officers ’ request that he shut down his gym for 24 hours to bring the facility into compliance with county regulations .
“ [ The officers ] say that we have to close our business … and if we don ’ t close our business , they ’ re gon na arrest us , and they ’ re gon na close us anyway , ” Carnevale explains in the video .
“ We won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming to a head right now , ” Carnevale continues .
He repeats the refrain : “ It ’ s all love .
There ’ s no ego over here.
” Carnevale said in the interview that it was a challenge to keep up with the nearly $ 30,000-a-month rent for the gym space even before the Covid-19 outbreak .
“ I took over the place in 2018 .
I was 29 at the time , overwhelmed .
I made a ton of mistakes as many business owners do .
But this isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m dealing with .
Every move is critical .
We were already in a tough bind , ” he said .
The Plantation Police Department did not respond to a request for comment .
In addition to challenging the mandatory mask order , the lawsuit asks the court to strike down Broward ’ s curfew and its restrictions on large gatherings .
Carnevale is represented by constitutional crusader Anthony Sabatini , a statehouse representative and lawyer who has filed more than a dozen challenges to mask orders around Florida .
While many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Alachua County and Leon County have rejected his argument that the orders in those jurisdictions infringe on constitutional rights .
“ An individual Alachua County citizen ’ s right to be let alone is no more precious than the corresponding right of his fellow citizens not to become infected by that person and potentially hospitalized , ” Circuit Judge Donna Keim wrote .
Carnevale ’ s lawsuit is not the only Broward County case to challenge Covid-19-related executive orders .
More than 20 local bars are asking a judge to invalidate state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from operating during the novel-coronavirus outbreak .
Insofar as the orders allow the operation of restaurants , theme parks and other commercial places of gathering , they “ implement a double standard that is unjust ” to the bars and infringes on the bar owners ’ constitutional rights , attorney Alex Arreaza says .
One of the officers who cited Carnevale ’ s gym for noncompliance mentioned on a Plantation talk show back in May that people “ are quick to call ” when they see someone allegedly violating an executive order .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ those measures themselves with the social distancing and wearing the mask .
And they get frustrated when they see other people not following the order , ” the officer said on Plantation Podcast .
On Wednesday , the Florida Department of Health ’ s daily tally reported 216 deaths linked to Covid-19 , another record .
South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn , a Democrat , meanwhile sent a letter to Florida ’ s Republican Gov .
Ron DeSantis , asking his office to outline measures the state is taking to control the outbreak @

Clashes between South Florida businesses and local governments over ramped-up Covid-19-related restrictions are mounting, with one gym owner now claiming police shuttered his facility in retaliation for filing a legal challenge to a mandatory mask order.
(CN) — Clashes between South Florida businesses and local governments over Covid-19-related restrictions are mounting, with one gym owner now claiming police shuttered his facility in retaliation for filing a legal challenge to a mandatory mask order.
Sunshine State lawmakers had high hopes that Florida's economic recovery would go off without a hitch in the wake of shutdowns prompted by the novel-coronavirus outbreak.
As businesses across the state began reopening in May, the rate of Covid-19 tests that were coming back positive remained comfortably under 5%. And it appeared that Florida may have curbed the spread of the virus.
Just as a sliver of optimism began emerging for many South Florida business owners on the brink, the rate of positive tests shot up and health officials reported an influx of patients with Covid-19. Miami-Dade County health officials reported that the number of Covid-19-positive patients on ventilators in that county more than doubled in July.
For South Florida, this month has in turn seen curfews reinstated, blanket closure of restaurant dining rooms in Miami-Dade, mandatory mask orders and an array of new safety regulations for local businesses.
In Broward, a densely populated South Florida county, gyms have had to undergo a major transformation under executive order 20-21, a 65-page emergency measure filed July 8. Fitness equipment needs to be arranged 10 feet apart, patrons must have their temperature screened to ensure they are not sick, and bathrooms need to be cleaned every hour.
When it released the measure, the county said a spike in Covid-19-linked hospitalizations compelled it to strengthen "its regulatory efforts and increase penalties for those who violate emergency orders."
Michael Carnevale, owner of 18,000-square-foot gym Fitness1440, said he tried to follow the mandates but that doing so became a logistical mess.
"You close us down for three months and you open us back up to new mandates. We were trying to follow the mandates. But they just kept getting more and more bizarre. At some point, we had to put our foot down and say this is too much," he said in an interview.
The 31-year-old hit Broward County with a lawsuit this week, claiming the county’s mandatory mask order is unconstitutional and endangers gym patrons by requiring them to wear face coverings during strenuous exercise.
Within a day of the lawsuit's filing, Carnevale says, officers from the Plantation Police Department showed up at the gym "with an agenda to close [him] down."
He claims they targeted him in retaliation for filing the case.
The police report states that the officers arrived July 27 in response to a call in which the massive gym was accused of allowing people to be onsite without masks. The report states that upon law enforcement's arrival, "most patrons in the facility [were] without mandatory facial coverings."
In the underlying executive order, Broward initially carved out an exception that allowed people engaged in "strenuous physical activity or exercise" to forgo mask-wearing. But the exception was trimmed July 17, such that it only applied when gym-goers are "in a pre-swim shower or swimming pool."
The order makes owners of gyms and other businesses responsible for ensuring everyone on their premises has a face covering. Violations of the mandate carry potential criminal penalties, including a misdemeanor charge and a $500 fine.
Carnevale claims that he's afraid that forcing patrons engaged in heavy exercise to wear a mask could be dangerous, especially if they have asthma or other respiratory conditions. According to the lawsuit, wearing a mask while doing strenuous exercise "risks injury to Broward County residents by obstructing their breathing."
Police ended up issuing Carnevale a citation that required him to temporarily close the gym. He was brought to a Broward County jail after refusing to comply, he says.
A video that he and his wife shot shows him praising the police and the city of Plantation, but refusing officers' request that he shut down his gym for 24 hours to bring the facility into compliance with county regulations.
"[The officers] say that we have to close our business ... and if we don't close our business, they're gonna arrest us, and they're gonna close us anyway," Carnevale explains in the video.
"We won't be backing down, so things are coming to a head right now," Carnevale continues.
He repeats the refrain: "It's all love. There's no ego over here."
Carnevale said in the interview that it was a challenge to keep up with the nearly $30,000-a-month rent for the gym space even before the Covid-19 outbreak.
"I took over the place in 2018. I was 29 at the time, overwhelmed. I made a ton of mistakes as many business owners do. But this isn't exactly a lemonade stand I'm dealing with. Every move is critical. We were already in a tough bind," he said.
The Plantation Police Department did not respond to a request for comment.
In addition to challenging the mandatory mask order, the lawsuit asks the court to strike down Broward's curfew and its restrictions on large gatherings.
Carnevale is represented by constitutional crusader Anthony Sabatini, a statehouse representative and lawyer who has filed more than a dozen challenges to mask orders around Florida. While many of the cases are pending, judges in Alachua County and Leon County have rejected his argument that the orders in those jurisdictions infringe on constitutional rights.
"An individual Alachua County citizen’s right to be let alone is no more precious than the corresponding right of his fellow citizens not to become infected by that person and potentially hospitalized," Circuit Judge Donna Keim wrote.
Carnevale's lawsuit is not the only Broward County case to challenge Covid-19-related executive orders. More than 20 local bars are asking a judge to invalidate state and local orders that are preventing them from operating during the novel-coronavirus outbreak. Insofar as the orders allow the operation of restaurants, theme parks and other commercial places of gathering, they "implement a double standard that is unjust" to the bars and infringes on the bar owners' constitutional rights, attorney Alex Arreaza says.
One of the officers who cited Carnevale's gym for noncompliance mentioned on a Plantation talk show back in May that people "are quick to call" when they see someone allegedly violating an executive order.
"They're trying to practice those measures themselves with the social distancing and wearing the mask. And they get frustrated when they see other people not following the order," the officer said on Plantation Podcast.
On Wednesday, the Florida Department of Health's daily tally reported 216 deaths linked to Covid-19, another record. South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, a Democrat, meanwhile sent a letter to Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, asking his office to outline measures the state is taking to control the outbreak.


courthousenews--2020-07-31--Report Finds Homeland Security Seized $2 Billion From Travelers

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — The Department of Homeland Security seized over $ 2 billion from airport travelers in the years leading up to a recent Supreme Court ruling that curbed the authority of state officials to seize property , a non-profit law firm revealed Thursday .
“ There have been a lot of incremental reforms at the state level over the past few years and that ’ s great .
But it just doesn ’ t go far enough , ” Jennifer McDonald , a senior research analyst for the Institute for Justice told Courthouse News .
In 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Timbs v. Indiana to limit the power of state and local agencies to impose financial penalties and seize property , an issue long raised by Justice Clarence Thomas .
“ This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use— has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses , ” he wrote in another concurring opinion two years earlier .
But the Institute for Justice found the federal government has routinely relied on civil forfeiture — allowing DHS agencies to seize property without charging owners with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travelers 30,574 times from 2000 to 2016 .
The July 30 report calls civil forfeiture a multibillion-dollar industry that puts innocent Americans at risk .
The most common reason for the seizures : paperwork .
The data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showed 50 % of airport currency seizures happened when travelers failed to report traveling internationally with $ 10,000 or more , accounting for 28 % of total value seized .
The most common airports include some of the country ’ s busiest , including Chicago O ’ Hare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million from travelers in 2014 , and more recently Washington Dulles , where officials seized over $ 40 million in 2016 .
But travelers represented by the Institute for Justice did not walk into airport security lines aiming to evade reporting requirements , McDonald explained as the author of the report .
“ The clients that we have , people who have committed absolutely no crime , would have been happy to declare their money if they knew that it was a requirement , ” she said .
Terry Rolin , 79 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the banks and was carrying his life savings of more than $ 82,000 through Pittsburgh International Airport when federal agents seized the money , according to a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania .
“ He was intending to use that money in part to pay for some really important and expensive dental work that he had to put off because all of that cash was seized , ” McDonald said .
In another lawsuit , Rustem Kazazi claims he was traveling with $ 58,100 in cash when federal agents seized the money from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newark , New Jersey , on the first leg of a trip to his native Albania .
“ Finding it suspicious that he was traveling with such a large amount of cash , the agents stripped Rustem naked and searched him from head to toe .
They found nothing illegal ; nor did they arrest Rustem , ” the report states , outlining details from a complaint filed in Ohio .
For 43 % of the cash taken in airports , the Institute for Justice was unable to determine where the money went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal agency that seized the currency , or it was transferred to another agency .
Federal agencies taking cash and using it to self-fund outside of the normal appropriations process should concern Americans , McDonald said .
U.S. Customs and Border Protection responded to Thursday ’ s report saying travelers are required by law to report the total cash in hand .
The agency ’ s spokesperson added that while the most common reason for currency seizures is travelers failing to comply with reporting requirements , the operations are also connected with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trafficking and other criminal offenses .
Ironically , the failure to fill out paperwork that McDonald described as an “ esoteric requirement , ” often leaves travelers facing on average six months of navigating bureaucracy to get their money back , according to the report out Thursday .
Rarely are individuals who have their property seized by CBP or other DHS agencies then arrested — just one in ten travelers .
That leaves 91 % of seizures to be processed under civil forfeiture procedures , with just 7 % landing in a courtroom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of cases see government attorneys rather than a judge determine whether agents had sufficient proof of a connection between property and criminal activity to seize currency .
With no right to an attorney as required under criminal proceedings , McDonald said most people just cut their losses and walk away .
“ When you go to an international terminal or departure gate , how many of us remember seeing a sign that says we have to declare if we ’ re traveling with a large amount of cash ?
” she asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the reporting rules , the CBP offices where paperwork is filed are not located inside airports .
“ This isn ’ t as simple as just filling out a little card and handing it to a customs agent right at your gate or when you clear security , ” McDonald said .
CBP stated that information on currency declaration requirements is clearly displayed inside its field offices , and is also available online .
“ CBP officers often grant travelers multiple opportunities to properly declare currency when entering or exiting the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
The agency also noted that the Institute for Justice ’ s findings cover data as far back as 2000 , but the Department of Homeland Security was not founded until 2002 , and Customs and Border Protection until 2003 .
In response , McDonald said that CBP refused to disclose which agencies conducted which seizures , making it impossible to delineate .
“ We had to go back and forth with them to make sure we understood everything that we were getting , ” she said , adding the government produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the records first requested in 2015 .
That same year , Kentucky Senator Rand Paul introduced the FAIR Act to eliminate equitable sharing , a process by which property seized locally can be handed over to federal officials .
McDonald said the legislation would go a long way , but is likely to face an uphill battle in the face of staunch opposition from law enforcement interests groups .
Her organization instead is lobbying states to prohibit their agencies from participating in the practice , while also pushing for the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Part of the problem with civil forfeiture is that where the money goes and how it is spent is still kind of a black box , federal agents don ’ t really want to disclose that information , ” McDonald said .

The Department of Homeland Security seized over $2 billion from airport travelers in the years leading up to a recent Supreme Court ruling that curbed the authority of state officials to seize property, a non-profit law firm revealed Thursday.
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Department of Homeland Security seized over $2 billion from airport travelers in the years leading up to a recent Supreme Court ruling that curbed the authority of state officials to seize property, a non-profit law firm revealed Thursday.
“There have been a lot of incremental reforms at the state level over the past few years and that's great. But it just doesn't go far enough,” Jennifer McDonald, a senior research analyst for the Institute for Justice told Courthouse News.
In 2019, the nine justices unanimously decided in Timbs v. Indiana to limit the power of state and local agencies to impose financial penalties and seize property, an issue long raised by Justice Clarence Thomas.
“This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use— has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” he wrote in another concurring opinion two years earlier.
But the Institute for Justice found the federal government has routinely relied on civil forfeiture — allowing DHS agencies to seize property without charging owners with a crime — to commandeer currency from airport travelers 30,574 times from 2000 to 2016.
The July 30 report calls civil forfeiture a multibillion-dollar industry that puts innocent Americans at risk. The most common reason for the seizures: paperwork.
The data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showed 50% of airport currency seizures happened when travelers failed to report traveling internationally with $10,000 or more, accounting for 28% of total value seized.
The most common airports include some of the country’s busiest, including Chicago O’Hare where federal agents took nearly $56 million from travelers in 2014, and more recently Washington Dulles, where officials seized over $40 million in 2016.
But travelers represented by the Institute for Justice did not walk into airport security lines aiming to evade reporting requirements, McDonald explained as the author of the report.
“The clients that we have, people who have committed absolutely no crime, would have been happy to declare their money if they knew that it was a requirement,” she said.
Terry Rolin, 79, is one such client who never trusted the banks and was carrying his life savings of more than $82,000 through Pittsburgh International Airport when federal agents seized the money, according to a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania.
“He was intending to use that money in part to pay for some really important and expensive dental work that he had to put off because all of that cash was seized,” McDonald said.
In another lawsuit, Rustem Kazazi claims he was traveling with $58,100 in cash when federal agents seized the money from the U.S. citizen who was en route to Newark, New Jersey, on the first leg of a trip to his native Albania.
“Finding it suspicious that he was traveling with such a large amount of cash, the agents stripped Rustem naked and searched him from head to toe. They found nothing illegal; nor did they arrest Rustem,” the report states, outlining details from a complaint filed in Ohio.
For 43% of the cash taken in airports, the Institute for Justice was unable to determine where the money went because it is either in limbo in the federal agency that seized the currency, or it was transferred to another agency.
Federal agencies taking cash and using it to self-fund outside of the normal appropriations process should concern Americans, McDonald said.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection responded to Thursday’s report saying travelers are required by law to report the total cash in hand.
The agency’s spokesperson added that while the most common reason for currency seizures is travelers failing to comply with reporting requirements, the operations are also connected with bulk cash smuggling, counterfeiting, narcotics trafficking and other criminal offenses.
Ironically, the failure to fill out paperwork that McDonald described as an “esoteric requirement,” often leaves travelers facing on average six months of navigating bureaucracy to get their money back, according to the report out Thursday.
Rarely are individuals who have their property seized by CBP or other DHS agencies then arrested — just one in ten travelers.
That leaves 91% of seizures to be processed under civil forfeiture procedures, with just 7% landing in a courtroom. Shuffled past administrative turnstiles, 93% of cases see government attorneys rather than a judge determine whether agents had sufficient proof of a connection between property and criminal activity to seize currency.
With no right to an attorney as required under criminal proceedings, McDonald said most people just cut their losses and walk away.
“When you go to an international terminal or departure gate, how many of us remember seeing a sign that says we have to declare if we're traveling with a large amount of cash?” she asked.
Even if travelers were made aware of the reporting rules, the CBP offices where paperwork is filed are not located inside airports.
“This isn't as simple as just filling out a little card and handing it to a customs agent right at your gate or when you clear security,” McDonald said.
CBP stated that information on currency declaration requirements is clearly displayed inside its field offices, and is also available online.
“CBP officers often grant travelers multiple opportunities to properly declare currency when entering or exiting the country,” the agency’s spokesperson said.
The agency also noted that the Institute for Justice’s findings cover data as far back as 2000, but the Department of Homeland Security was not founded until 2002, and Customs and Border Protection until 2003.
In response, McDonald said that CBP refused to disclose which agencies conducted which seizures, making it impossible to delineate.
“We had to go back and forth with them to make sure we understood everything that we were getting,” she said, adding the government produced the database only after her organization sued for the records first requested in 2015.
That same year, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul introduced the FAIR Act to eliminate equitable sharing, a process by which property seized locally can be handed over to federal officials.
McDonald said the legislation would go a long way, but is likely to face an uphill battle in the face of staunch opposition from law enforcement interests groups.
Her organization instead is lobbying states to prohibit their agencies from participating in the practice, while also pushing for the federal government to do away with all civil forfeitures.
“Part of the problem with civil forfeiture is that where the money goes and how it is spent is still kind of a black box, federal agents don't really want to disclose that information,” McDonald said.


courthousenews--2020-07-30--Officer Who Shot Michael Brown Will Not Face Charges

CLAYTON , Mo .
( CN ) — Darren Wilson , the former police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in August 2014 , will not be charged with any crimes .
St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell made the announcement Thursday afternoon , officially ending the six-year legal saga .
Bell said the lack of charges did not exonerate Wilson , but that the five-month investigation did not find anything that could be proven beyond reasonable doubt .
“ I think we try our best to move on , ” Bell said in a press conference .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will ever heal fully .
I don ’ t know how this region is ever going to heal fully from this case , and I know the significance of it , but I think it ’ s time to try to move on.
” Brown ’ s father met with Bell before the press conference about the investigation ’ s findings .
“ Mike Brown Sr. did not leave this meeting happy and anything short of justice in this case , that being Darren Wilson being held criminally responsible , would certainly be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown family attorney , said in a statement .
Brown ’ s death sparked months of often violent protests in the streets of Ferguson , a St. Louis suburb .
The incident brought the issues of systemic racism and excessive police force into the national conversation .
The protests also produced the now popular , “ Hands up , don ’ t shoot ” chant heard in protests that continue throughout the nation after other high-profile police shootings , the most recent being the George Floyd death in Minneapolis in May .
Bell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior to the six-year anniversary of Brown ’ s death .
Wilson claimed that he was acting in self-defense after Brown , who was unarmed and 19 years old , charged at him .
Video from a nearby convenience store showed Brown allegedly stealing a box of Swisher Sweets before the encounter .
Former St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough declined to press charges against Wilson after a grand jury failed to indict him in November 2014 .
A federal investigation also failed to turn up any charges against Wilson .
Bell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of systemic overhaul of the county ’ s criminal justice system .
Immediately after his upset of McCullough in the August 2018 election , he was asked to reopen the investigation into the shooting .
Several in attendance at the press conference shouted their displeasure at Bell .
One man screamed that it would be “ his last term ” before being removed by security .
“ What I would hope is that people who are watching this , understand that we put the time in , we did a thorough and detailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the family , looked them in the eyes , and gave them the findings , ” Bell said .
“ And I think at this point that is all we can do.
” Bell said the investigation took place without any announcement because he did not want undue outside influence .
He said they went through thousands of pages of documents in the case before reaching the conclusion .
Brown ’ s death prompted a federal investigation into Ferguson ’ s police and municipal court practices .
That finding prompted an overhaul of @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Darren Wilson, the former police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in August 2014, will not be charged with any crimes.
CLAYTON, Mo. (CN) — Darren Wilson, the former police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in August 2014, will not be charged with any crimes.
St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell made the announcement Thursday afternoon, officially ending the six-year legal saga. Bell said the lack of charges did not exonerate Wilson, but that the five-month investigation did not find anything that could be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
“I think we try our best to move on,” Bell said in a press conference. “I don't know how a family will ever heal fully. I don't know how this region is ever going to heal fully from this case, and I know the significance of it, but I think it's time to try to move on.”
Brown’s father met with Bell before the press conference about the investigation’s findings.
“Mike Brown Sr. did not leave this meeting happy and anything short of justice in this case, that being Darren Wilson being held criminally responsible, would certainly be disappointing,” Anthony Gray, the Brown family attorney, said in a statement.
Brown’s death sparked months of often violent protests in the streets of Ferguson, a St. Louis suburb. The incident brought the issues of systemic racism and excessive police force into the national conversation.
The protests also produced the now popular, “Hands up, don’t shoot” chant heard in protests that continue throughout the nation after other high-profile police shootings, the most recent being the George Floyd death in Minneapolis in May.
Bell’s announcement was made 10 days prior to the six-year anniversary of Brown’s death. Wilson claimed that he was acting in self-defense after Brown, who was unarmed and 19 years old, charged at him. Video from a nearby convenience store showed Brown allegedly stealing a box of Swisher Sweets before the encounter.
Former St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough declined to press charges against Wilson after a grand jury failed to indict him in November 2014.
A federal investigation also failed to turn up any charges against Wilson.
Bell, an activist, ran on a platform of systemic overhaul of the county’s criminal justice system. Immediately after his upset of McCullough in the August 2018 election, he was asked to reopen the investigation into the shooting.
Several in attendance at the press conference shouted their displeasure at Bell. One man screamed that it would be “his last term” before being removed by security.
“What I would hope is that people who are watching this, understand that we put the time in, we did a thorough and detailed investigation, and we sat down with the family, looked them in the eyes, and gave them the findings,” Bell said. “And I think at this point that is all we can do.”
Bell said the investigation took place without any announcement because he did not want undue outside influence. He said they went through thousands of pages of documents in the case before reaching the conclusion.
Brown’s death prompted a federal investigation into Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices. That finding prompted an overhaul of the city’s justice system.


courthousenews--2020-07-30--Strip Clubs Fight Feds Over Pandemic Loan Denials

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — Lawyers for 15 strip clubs urged a federal judge Thursday to abolish a regulation that makes erotic dance clubs ineligible for emergency business loans , arguing the policy is inconsistent with a recently passed pandemic relief law and unconstitutional on its face .
Déjà vu-San Francisco and 14 other affiliated strip clubs in four Western states are challenging the Small Business Administration ’ s finding that a 1998 regulation makes businesses that offer “ live performances of a prurient sexual nature ” ineligible for emergency loans .
They claim the government ’ s reliance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and freedom of association rights under the First Amendment , and equal protection and occupational liberty rights under the Fifth Amendment .
They seek a preliminary injunction to stop the government from enforcing the eligibility requirement .
“ They ’ re trying to exclude the views of my client , ” plaintiffs ’ attorney Bradley Shafer , of Lansing , Michigan , argued in a virtual court hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on Thursday .
Beyond arguing that the policy violates free speech , the strip clubs say it contradicts the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available to all small businesses through the Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security Act ( CARES ) Act passed in March .
The law says “ business with not more than 500 employees during the covered period should be made eligible for a loan under this title , ” Shafer argued .
“ There is nothing ambiguous about an eligible entity.
” However , the government insists it has no constitutional or legal obligation to subsidize strip clubs .
U.S. Justice Department lawyer James Gilligan said the 22-year-old regulation does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Amendment .
It merely prohibits loans for businesses that offer performances or content of “ a prurient sexual nature , ” regardless of what kind of messages those businesses are trying to convey about sex , he said .
A nonprofit selling media “ of a sexual nature ” to promote awareness about the “ evils of heightened sexuality ” or an author who writes a sexually explicit work of fiction to shine a light on the “ evils of prostitution ” would not be entitled to a loan under the regulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re not going to fund speech of a prurient sexual nature , but you are absolutely free to do that with your own funds to your heart ’ s content , ” Gilligan said .
The government cites multiple Supreme Court cases to support its position , including the 2007 ruling in Davenport v. Washington Education Association , which held that “ government can make content-based distinctions when it subsidizes speech.
” Shafer replied that the government should not be allowed to deny loans to a business based on that business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You have to be neutral in the marketplace of ideas , ” he said .
Shafer ’ s position is supported by two recent federal court rulings in Michigan and Wisconsin .
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Milwaukee ruled in May that the Small Business Act and CARES Act did not “ deem certain forms of small businesses to be less deserving of the government ’ s ‘ limited resources ’ than others.
” U.S. District Judge Matthew Leitman in Flint , Michigan , also ruled in strip clubs ’ favor in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pick winners and losers ” when it authorized the Paycheck Protection Program and that it intended the program to apply to “ all Americans employed by all small businesses.
” Judicial views on the issue are far from unanimous , however .
In June , a federal judge in Buffalo , New York , reached the opposite conclusion when he denied a strip club ’ s motion for an injunction there .
On Thursday , Judge Beeler gave mixed signals on how she might rule .
Early in the hearing , Beeler said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government ’ s statutory argument .
But towards the end of the 90-minute hearing , Beeler said denial of an emergency business loan during a pandemic is “ more like a death sentence ” when compared to situations in cases cited by the government to support its position .
“ It ’ s not a case of picking one speech over another , ” Beeler said .
“ It ’ s more like , ‘ Because of your speech , sorry , no , we ’ re not going to fund you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief on the legislative history of 1994 amendments to the Small Business Act , which they argue show Congress never intended to exclude strip clubs from eligibility for small business loans .
Beeler gave the plaintiffs one week to file an amended complaint with new allegations on the 1994 Small Business Act amendments and ordered the government to file a written response in two weeks .
The judge also ordered the parties to determine if the strip clubs would be ineligible for emergency small business loans for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strip clubs are affiliated with a larger company , Las Vegas-based Déjà vu Services Inc. , which employs more than 500 workers .
The 15 strip clubs suing the federal government are in California , Colorado , Oregon and Washington state .

Lawyers for 15 strip clubs urged a federal judge Thursday to abolish a regulation that makes erotic dance clubs ineligible for emergency business loans, arguing the policy is inconsistent with a recently passed pandemic relief law and unconstitutional on its face.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Lawyers for 15 strip clubs urged a federal judge Thursday to abolish a regulation that makes erotic dance clubs ineligible for emergency business loans, arguing the policy is inconsistent with a recently passed pandemic relief law and unconstitutional on its face.
Déjà vu-San Francisco and 14 other affiliated strip clubs in four Western states are challenging the Small Business Administration’s finding that a 1998 regulation makes businesses that offer “live performances of a prurient sexual nature” ineligible for emergency loans.
They claim the government’s reliance on that policy violates their free speech and freedom of association rights under the First Amendment, and equal protection and occupational liberty rights under the Fifth Amendment. They seek a preliminary injunction to stop the government from enforcing the eligibility requirement.
“They’re trying to exclude the views of my client,” plaintiffs’ attorney Bradley Shafer, of Lansing, Michigan, argued in a virtual court hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on Thursday.
Beyond arguing that the policy violates free speech, the strip clubs say it contradicts the intent of Congress to make emergency loans available to all small businesses through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act passed in March.
The law says “business with not more than 500 employees during the covered period should be made eligible for a loan under this title,” Shafer argued. “There is nothing ambiguous about an eligible entity.”
However, the government insists it has no constitutional or legal obligation to subsidize strip clubs.
U.S. Justice Department lawyer James Gilligan said the 22-year-old regulation does not discriminate against viewpoints in violation of the First Amendment. It merely prohibits loans for businesses that offer performances or content of “a prurient sexual nature,” regardless of what kind of messages those businesses are trying to convey about sex, he said.
A nonprofit selling media “of a sexual nature” to promote awareness about the “evils of heightened sexuality” or an author who writes a sexually explicit work of fiction to shine a light on the “evils of prostitution” would not be entitled to a loan under the regulation, he said.
“It says we’re not going to fund speech of a prurient sexual nature, but you are absolutely free to do that with your own funds to your heart’s content,” Gilligan said.
The government cites multiple Supreme Court cases to support its position, including the 2007 ruling in Davenport v. Washington Education Association, which held that “government can make content-based distinctions when it subsidizes speech.”
Shafer replied that the government should not be allowed to deny loans to a business based on that business’s First Amendment activities.
“You have to be neutral in the marketplace of ideas,” he said.
Shafer’s position is supported by two recent federal court rulings in Michigan and Wisconsin. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Milwaukee ruled in May that the Small Business Act and CARES Act did not “deem certain forms of small businesses to be less deserving of the government’s ‘limited resources’ than others.”
U.S. District Judge Matthew Leitman in Flint, Michigan, also ruled in strip clubs’ favor in May, finding Congress “did not pick winners and losers” when it authorized the Paycheck Protection Program and that it intended the program to apply to “all Americans employed by all small businesses.”
Judicial views on the issue are far from unanimous, however. In June, a federal judge in Buffalo, New York, reached the opposite conclusion when he denied a strip club’s motion for an injunction there.
On Thursday, Judge Beeler gave mixed signals on how she might rule. Early in the hearing, Beeler said she was “preliminarily persuaded” by the government’s statutory argument. But towards the end of the 90-minute hearing, Beeler said denial of an emergency business loan during a pandemic is “more like a death sentence” when compared to situations in cases cited by the government to support its position.
“It’s not a case of picking one speech over another,” Beeler said. “It’s more like, ‘Because of your speech, sorry, no, we’re not going to fund you at all.’”
Late Wednesday night, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief on the legislative history of 1994 amendments to the Small Business Act, which they argue show Congress never intended to exclude strip clubs from eligibility for small business loans.
Beeler gave the plaintiffs one week to file an amended complaint with new allegations on the 1994 Small Business Act amendments and ordered the government to file a written response in two weeks.
The judge also ordered the parties to determine if the strip clubs would be ineligible for emergency small business loans for a different reason — because all 15 strip clubs are affiliated with a larger company, Las Vegas-based Déjà vu Services Inc., which employs more than 500 workers.
The 15 strip clubs suing the federal government are in California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington state.
Beeler scheduled a tentative hearing for additional oral arguments on Aug. 27.


courthousenews--2020-07-30--California Courts Covid Update

California Courts Covid Update

Click to share on Twitter ( Opens in new window )

The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.


courthousenews--2020-07-30--Wisconsin Tribe Wins Fight Over Event Permits at Seventh Circuit

CHICAGO ( CN ) — The Seventh Circuit on Thursday unanimously sided with the Oneida Nation in its fight with a Wisconsin village over the village ’ s authority to force the tribe to get permits for the annual apple festival on its reservation .
The tribe ’ s original 2016 lawsuit started as a fairly simple action centered on a special events permit that the tribe refused to obtain for its Big Apple Fest , but it evolved into a much deeper referendum on the current state of Native American reservations and tribal land rights .
The Oneida Nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settled in the Badger State in 1822 , sought declaratory and injunctive relief in its suit against the village of Hobart , located near Green Bay in northeastern Wisconsin , when the village attempted to enforce its permitting ordinance for the tribe ’ s festival since part of its reservation crosses into Hobart .
The tribe maintained that its 65,400-acre reservation still has its original boundaries as outlined in an 1838 treaty and said all of Hobart ’ s laws were preempted by federal ones stating that tribes have inherent sovereignty and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled for Hobart in March 2019 , opining that since the tribe ’ s land had been diminished over time and now only takes up 14,078 acres held in trust by the U.S. government , the festival actually took place in the village and is therefore subject to its permit rules .
Griesbach granted summary judgment in favor of the village and the tribe promptly appealed to the Seventh Circuit , which held arguments by phone in April .
Thursday ’ s decision from the Chicago-based federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circuit Judge David Hamilton , reversed Griesbach ’ s ruling and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the tribe .
Hamilton , a Barack Obama appointee , rejected Hobart ’ s argument that the Oneida reservation had been diminished in piecemeal fashion when Congress allotted the reservation among individual tribe members , eventually resulting in much of the land getting sold off to non-Indians .
“ The reservation was created by treaty , and it can be diminished or disestablished only by Congress , ” Hamilton wrote .
“ Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The judge found “ no clear indication in the record that Congress intended to eliminate all tribal interests in allotted Oneida land , ” and further declared that “ the Supreme Court has rejected—time and time again—the village ’ s argument that diminishment can be the result of Congress ’ s general expectation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that its actions would lead eventually to the end of the reservation system.
” Hamilton summarily rejected Hobart ’ s alternative stance that the allotments handed out to the Oneida tribal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subsequent sale of lands to white settlers contributed to exceptional circumstances that give Hobart authority to enforce its permit rules .
Neither the 1887 Dawes Act , nor the 1906 Burkes Act , nor the Oneida Provision of the 1906 Appropriations Act contain language “ surrendering all tribal interests in allotted land , so there is no textual basis for diminishment , ” according to Hamilton , who was altogether unconvinced by Hobart ’ s arguments about incremental diminishment and Congress ’ general expectation that allotments would ultimately lead to the disappearance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for the diminishment , and because decades of U.S. Supreme Court and lower court rulings fly in the face of what Hobart charged , the Oneida Nation ’ s reservation is whole and sovereign and not subject to the village ’ s local regulations .
“ In sum , ” Hamilton wrote , “ as a matter of federal law , the entire reservation as established by the 1838 treaty remains Indian country .
The village lacks jurisdiction to apply its ordinance to the nation ’ s on-reservation activities.
” Rounding out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Circuit Judge Diane Sykes and U.S .
Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve , appointed by George W. Bush and Donald Trump , respectively .
Attorneys for Hobart and the Oneida Nation could not be immediately reached for comment on the Seventh Circuit decision Thursday afternoon .
The tribe put out a press release Thursday celebrating what it feels is vindication in a battle for the continued self-governance of its lands .
“ Oneida has long asserted our sovereignty and exercised it to protect our people , our lands and our government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Business will move forward as usual , although we all have been negatively impacted by the Covid pandemic , we are now more confident in how we govern our affairs without the threat of Hobart ’ s continual litigation .
”

The Seventh Circuit on Thursday unanimously sided with the Oneida Nation in its fight with a Wisconsin village over the village’s authority to force the tribe to get permits for the annual apple festival on its reservation.
CHICAGO (CN) — The Seventh Circuit on Thursday unanimously sided with the Oneida Nation in its fight with a Wisconsin village over the village’s authority to force the tribe to get permits for the annual apple festival on its reservation.
The tribe’s original 2016 lawsuit started as a fairly simple action centered on a special events permit that the tribe refused to obtain for its Big Apple Fest, but it evolved into a much deeper referendum on the current state of Native American reservations and tribal land rights.
The Oneida Nation, the first group of which initially settled in the Badger State in 1822, sought declaratory and injunctive relief in its suit against the village of Hobart, located near Green Bay in northeastern Wisconsin, when the village attempted to enforce its permitting ordinance for the tribe’s festival since part of its reservation crosses into Hobart.
The tribe maintained that its 65,400-acre reservation still has its original boundaries as outlined in an 1838 treaty and said all of Hobart’s laws were preempted by federal ones stating that tribes have inherent sovereignty and the right to regulate themselves on reservation land.
U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled for Hobart in March 2019, opining that since the tribe’s land had been diminished over time and now only takes up 14,078 acres held in trust by the U.S. government, the festival actually took place in the village and is therefore subject to its permit rules. Griesbach granted summary judgment in favor of the village and the tribe promptly appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which held arguments by phone in April.
Thursday’s decision from the Chicago-based federal appeals court, penned by U.S. Circuit Judge David Hamilton, reversed Griesbach’s ruling and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the tribe.
Hamilton, a Barack Obama appointee, rejected Hobart’s argument that the Oneida reservation had been diminished in piecemeal fashion when Congress allotted the reservation among individual tribe members, eventually resulting in much of the land getting sold off to non-Indians.
“The reservation was created by treaty, and it can be diminished or disestablished only by Congress,” Hamilton wrote. “Congress has not done either of those things.”
The judge found “no clear indication in the record that Congress intended to eliminate all tribal interests in allotted Oneida land,” and further declared that “the Supreme Court has rejected—time and time again — the village’s argument that diminishment can be the result of Congress’s general expectation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that its actions would lead eventually to the end of the reservation system.”
Hamilton summarily rejected Hobart’s alternative stance that the allotments handed out to the Oneida tribal members in the early 19th century and the subsequent sale of lands to white settlers contributed to exceptional circumstances that give Hobart authority to enforce its permit rules.
Neither the 1887 Dawes Act, nor the 1906 Burkes Act, nor the Oneida Provision of the 1906 Appropriations Act contain language “surrendering all tribal interests in allotted land, so there is no textual basis for diminishment,” according to Hamilton, who was altogether unconvinced by Hobart’s arguments about incremental diminishment and Congress’ general expectation that allotments would ultimately lead to the disappearance of reservations.
Because Congress never specifically called for the diminishment, and because decades of U.S. Supreme Court and lower court rulings fly in the face of what Hobart charged, the Oneida Nation’s reservation is whole and sovereign and not subject to the village’s local regulations.
“In sum,” Hamilton wrote, “as a matter of federal law, the entire reservation as established by the 1838 treaty remains Indian country. The village lacks jurisdiction to apply its ordinance to the nation’s on-reservation activities.”
Rounding out the Seventh Circuit panel were Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Sykes and U.S. Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve, appointed by George W. Bush and Donald Trump, respectively.
Attorneys for Hobart and the Oneida Nation could not be immediately reached for comment on the Seventh Circuit decision Thursday afternoon.
The tribe put out a press release Thursday celebrating what it feels is vindication in a battle for the continued self-governance of its lands.
“Oneida has long asserted our sovereignty and exercised it to protect our people, our lands and our government,” said tribe chairman Tehassi Tasi Hill. “Business will move forward as usual, although we all have been negatively impacted by the Covid pandemic, we are now more confident in how we govern our affairs without the threat of Hobart’s continual litigation.”


courthousenews--2020-07-30--Tennessee Supreme Court Weighs Vote-by-Mail Expansion During Pandemic

( CN ) — Appearing virtually before the Tennessee Supreme Court on Thursday , an attorney for the state argued a judge essentially rewrote vote-by-mail laws when she issued an injunction allowing all Tennesseans to send in their ballots during the Covid-19 pandemic .
Janet Kleinfelter , deputy attorney general , argued the high court should overturn the Davidson County Chancery Court ’ s “ broad-ranging injunction ” that she said misinterpreted Tennessee election statute and only ends once the pandemic is over .
“ Courts don ’ t construe statutes based upon what the current circumstances are , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ construe statutes based upon the plain language and the legislative intent.
” The two-month-old injunction , which prohibits election officials from rejecting absentee ballot applications by Tennesseans concerned with getting the coronavirus , was still in place as the five-member Supreme court heard from the state and attorneys representing Tennesseans challenging the state ’ s position .
The Volunteer State allows voters to cast absentee ballots if they have an excuse , such as if they are over 60 or are hospitalized , but election officials said in May the fear of getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to obtain an absentee ballot .
In response , two groups of voters sued in state court , arguing they did not fit into any of the excuses the state already provided but should be allowed to vote by mail .
They have underlying health issues that make the thought of getting Covid-19 especially fraught or they live with family members who , for example , are immunocompromised .
Since Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle issued her June 4 decision , the pandemic has only gotten worse , attorneys noted in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state stemming from Covid-19 has doubled to over 1,000 , and total confirmed cases stand at 102,000 .
Under early questions from Justices Holly Kirby and Sharon Lee , Kleinfelter said the state believed the statute allowing Tennesseans to vote by mail if they are ill meant they could vote absentee if they had an underlying condition , depending on the facts related to the individual voter , but not if they were simply concerned about being exposed to the respiratory disease .
Kleinfelter asked the judges to take judicial notice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Thursday morning , the Tennessee Secretary of State reported 426,600 voters had already voted by mail or showed up in person to cast an early ballot .
Because the injunction came out of a hearing where the chancellor heard two cases , two attorneys argued for keeping the judge ’ s injunction in place .
Steve Mulroy , a law professor at the University of Memphis , said the application to vote by mail does not offer any guidance to voters if they have underlying medical conditions .
Kleinfelter ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can make the determination they have an excuse to vote by mail is an “ entirely novel interpretation ” and voters will have little guidance on a form they have to sign under penalty of perjury , he said .
While states surrounding Tennessee have loosened their procedures around absentee voting , those states have done so either by legislative action or through the interpretation of their secretaries of state , Mulroy said in answering the justices ’ questions .
“ You ’ re asking this court to be the only court in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis that there is a right to an absentee ballot under these circumstances , ” Chief Justice Jeffrey Bivins asked Mulroy .
Mulroy responded that the voters bringing the suits are saying the chancellor did not abuse her discretion when she found the “ once-in-a-century pandemic ” placed an unreasonable burden on the Tennessee ’ s Constitution ’ s “ very specific provisions expressing and generally guaranteeing a right to vote.
” Angela Liu , an attorney at Dechert LLP who represented some of the Tennessee voters , said the issue over voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote at all.
” She said the state ’ s logic , allowing voters to vote in “ medically inadvisable conditions , ” was akin to directing voters to cast ballots in a polling location on fire and filled with smoke .
“ We ’ re in a public health crisis and we ’ re meeting today virtually by Zoom , ” Liu said .
“ I mean , you don ’ t have to look beyond this courtroom to really see how Covid-19 is impacting each one of us .
I suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ canceled the in-person bar exam in the fall.
” Ahead of Thursday ’ s arguments , the Republican National Committee and the Tennessee Republican Party submitted an amici brief with the high court arguing even after Hurricane Katrina , a federal court in Louisiana did not extend the time to count absentee ballots there .
“ The Chancery Court incorrectly held that Tennessee ’ s ‘ excuse requirement ’ implicated plaintiffs ’ voting rights , despite the inescapable reality that countless other courts have refused to recognize a fundamental right to vote by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s brief said .
A group of organizations that include the League of Women Voters and the Tennessee NAACP also filed an amici brief of their own .
They are a part of another lawsuit challenging Tennessee ’ s absentee ballot policies during the pandemic that is being heard in federal court .
Tennessee , the voting advocates said , has created a situation where it has told people to stay home to stop the spread of the virus yet expects them to turn out to vote in person .
“ But as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 , 2020 elections approach , the state has exhibited indifference to Tennessee voters ’ reasonable fears around how the pandemic will impact their ability to vote , ” the brief states .
Thursday ’ s hearing ended without the justices saying when they would rule on the cases .
But near the end , both sides agreed the justices could issue one opinion for both cases .

Appearing virtually before the Tennessee Supreme Court on Thursday, an attorney for the state argued a judge essentially rewrote vote-by-mail laws when she issued an injunction allowing all Tennesseans to send in their ballots during the Covid-19 pandemic.
(CN) — Appearing virtually before the Tennessee Supreme Court on Thursday, an attorney for the state argued a judge essentially rewrote vote-by-mail laws when she issued an injunction allowing all Tennesseans to send in their ballots during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Janet Kleinfelter, deputy attorney general, argued the high court should overturn the Davidson County Chancery Court’s “broad-ranging injunction” that she said misinterpreted Tennessee election statute and only ends once the pandemic is over.
"Courts don't construe statutes based upon what the current circumstances are,” Kleinfelter told the justices. “Courts construe statutes based upon the plain language and the legislative intent."
The two-month-old injunction, which prohibits election officials from rejecting absentee ballot applications by Tennesseans concerned with getting the coronavirus, was still in place as the five-member Supreme court heard from the state and attorneys representing Tennesseans challenging the state's position.
The Volunteer State allows voters to cast absentee ballots if they have an excuse, such as if they are over 60 or are hospitalized, but election officials said in May the fear of getting Covid-19 would not be enough for someone to obtain an absentee ballot.
In response, two groups of voters sued in state court, arguing they did not fit into any of the excuses the state already provided but should be allowed to vote by mail. They have underlying health issues that make the thought of getting Covid-19 especially fraught or they live with family members who, for example, are immunocompromised.
The Tennessee Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday, July 30, 2020, over whether a trial judge properly issued an injunction allowing Tennesseans to vote by mail in light of the coronavirus crisis.
Since Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle issued her June 4 decision, the pandemic has only gotten worse, attorneys noted in their arguments. The number of deaths in the state stemming from Covid-19 has doubled to over 1,000, and total confirmed cases stand at 102,000.
Under early questions from Justices Holly Kirby and Sharon Lee, Kleinfelter said the state believed the statute allowing Tennesseans to vote by mail if they are ill meant they could vote absentee if they had an underlying condition, depending on the facts related to the individual voter, but not if they were simply concerned about being exposed to the respiratory disease.
Kleinfelter asked the judges to take judicial notice of the state’s early voting period. On Thursday morning, the Tennessee Secretary of State reported 426,600 voters had already voted by mail or showed up in person to cast an early ballot.
Because the injunction came out of a hearing where the chancellor heard two cases, two attorneys argued for keeping the judge's injunction in place.
Steve Mulroy, a law professor at the University of Memphis, said the application to vote by mail does not offer any guidance to voters if they have underlying medical conditions. Kleinfelter’s argument that Tennesseans who have underlying conditions can make the determination they have an excuse to vote by mail is an “entirely novel interpretation” and voters will have little guidance on a form they have to sign under penalty of perjury, he said.
While states surrounding Tennessee have loosened their procedures around absentee voting, those states have done so either by legislative action or through the interpretation of their secretaries of state, Mulroy said in answering the justices’ questions.
“You’re asking this court to be the only court in the country to hold as a constitutional basis that there is a right to an absentee ballot under these circumstances,” Chief Justice Jeffrey Bivins asked Mulroy.
Mulroy responded that the voters bringing the suits are saying the chancellor did not abuse her discretion when she found the “once-in-a-century pandemic” placed an unreasonable burden on the Tennessee’s Constitution’s “very specific provisions expressing and generally guaranteeing a right to vote.”
Angela Liu, an attorney at Dechert LLP who represented some of the Tennessee voters, said the issue over voting absentee was "about the right to vote at all." She said the state's logic, allowing voters to vote in "medically inadvisable conditions," was akin to directing voters to cast ballots in a polling location on fire and filled with smoke.
"We're in a public health crisis and we're meeting today virtually by Zoom,” Liu said. “I mean, you don't have to look beyond this courtroom to really see how Covid-19 is impacting each one of us. I suspect there are reasons why the court has canceled the in-person bar exam in the fall.”
Ahead of Thursday's arguments, the Republican National Committee and the Tennessee Republican Party submitted an amici brief with the high court arguing even after Hurricane Katrina, a federal court in Louisiana did not extend the time to count absentee ballots there.
“The Chancery Court incorrectly held that Tennessee’s ‘excuse requirement’ implicated plaintiffs’ voting rights, despite the inescapable reality that countless other courts have refused to recognize a fundamental right to vote by absentee ballot,” the RNC’s brief said.
A group of organizations that include the League of Women Voters and the Tennessee NAACP also filed an amici brief of their own. They are a part of another lawsuit challenging Tennessee's absentee ballot policies during the pandemic that is being heard in federal court.
Tennessee, the voting advocates said, has created a situation where it has told people to stay home to stop the spread of the virus yet expects them to turn out to vote in person.
“But as the August 6, 2020 and November 3, 2020 elections approach, the state has exhibited indifference to Tennessee voters’ reasonable fears around how the pandemic will impact their ability to vote,” the brief states.
Thursday’s hearing ended without the justices saying when they would rule on the cases. But near the end, both sides agreed the justices could issue one opinion for both cases.


courthousenews--2020-07-30--EU, in First-Ever Cyber Sanctions, Hits Russian Intelligence

BRUSSELS ( AP ) — The European Union on Thursday slapped sanctions on six people and three organizations , including Russia ’ s military intelligence agency , accusing them of responsibility for several cyberattacks that threatened EU interests .
EU headquarters said in a statement that those targeted include people considered to be involved in the 2017 “ WannaCry ” ransomware attack , the “ NotPetya ” strike that notably caused havoc in Ukraine , and the “ Operation Cloud Hopper ” hacking campaign .
The sanctions are the first that the EU has ever imposed for cyberattacks .
EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the measures concerned are a travel ban and asset freeze to natural persons and an asset freeze to entities or bodies .
It is also prohibited to directly or indirectly make funds available to listed individuals and entities or bodies.
” Four members of Russia ’ s GRU military intelligence agency were singled out .
The EU accuses them of trying to hack the wifi network of the Netherlands-based Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons , which has probed the use of chemical weapons in Syria .
The 2018 attack was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationals were also targeted over “ Operation Cloud Hopper , ” which the EU said hit IT systems in companies on six continents , including Europe , and “ gained unauthorized access to commercially sensitive data , resulting in significant economic loss .
”

The European Union on Thursday slapped sanctions on six people and three organizations, including Russia's military intelligence agency, accusing them of responsibility for several cyberattacks that threatened EU interests.
BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union on Thursday slapped sanctions on six people and three organizations, including Russia's military intelligence agency, accusing them of responsibility for several cyberattacks that threatened EU interests.
EU headquarters said in a statement that those targeted include people considered to be involved in the 2017 "WannaCry" ransomware attack, the "NotPetya" strike that notably caused havoc in Ukraine, and the "Operation Cloud Hopper" hacking campaign.
The sanctions are the first that the EU has ever imposed for cyberattacks.
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said that "the measures concerned are a travel ban and asset freeze to natural persons and an asset freeze to entities or bodies. It is also prohibited to directly or indirectly make funds available to listed individuals and entities or bodies."
Four members of Russia's GRU military intelligence agency were singled out. The EU accuses them of trying to hack the wifi network of the Netherlands-based Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which has probed the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The 2018 attack was foiled by Dutch authorities.
Two Chinese nationals were also targeted over "Operation Cloud Hopper," which the EU said hit IT systems in companies on six continents, including Europe, and "gained unauthorized access to commercially sensitive data, resulting in significant economic loss."


courthousenews--2020-07-30--Hiroshima Court Recognizes Atomic Bomb ‘Black Rain’ Victims

TOKYO ( AP ) — A Japanese court on Wednesday for the first time recognized people exposed to radioactive “ black rain ” that fell after the 1945 U.S. atomic attack on Hiroshima as atomic bomb survivors , ordering the city and the prefecture to provide the same government medical benefits as given to other survivors .
The Hiroshima District Court said all 84 plaintiffs who were outside of a zone previously set by the government as where radioactive rain fell also developed radiation-induced illnesses and should be certified as atomic bomb victims .
All of the plaintiffs are older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their 90s .
The landmark ruling comes a week before the city marks the 75th anniversary of the U.S. bombing .
The U.S. dropped the world ’ s first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6 , 1945 , killing 140,000 people and almost destroying the entire city .
The plaintiffs were in areas northwest of the ground zero where radioactive black rain fell hours after the bomb was dropped .
The plaintiffs have developed illnesses such as cancer and cataracts linked to radiation after they were exposed to black rain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by taking water and food in the area contaminated with radiation .
They filed the lawsuit after Hiroshima city and prefectural officials rejected their request to expand the zone to cover their areas where black rain also fell .
In Wednesday ’ s ruling , the court said the plaintiffs ’ argument about their black rain exposure was reasonable and that their medical records showed they have health problems linked to radiation exposure .
One of the plaintiffs , Minoru Honke , who was exposed to black rain at age 4 , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial .
“ I want to tell them that we won , ” he said .
Osamu Saito , a doctor who has examined atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima , welcomed the ruling for considering the survivors ’ welfare based on an assumption that anyone who was in these areas and hit by the rain could have been affected by radiation .
Earlier in the day , dozens of plaintiffs walked into the Hiroshima court in the rain , showing a banner saying “ Certificates to all ‘ black rain ’ victims.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued , lawyers for the plaintiffs ran out of the court , showing a banner saying “ Full victory , ” and their supporters applauded and cheered .
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters that the government will closely examine the ruling and respond after consulting with related government agencies and Hiroshima officials .

A Japanese court on Wednesday for the first time recognized people exposed to radioactive "black rain" that fell after the 1945 U.S. atomic attack on Hiroshima as atomic bomb survivors, ordering the city and the prefecture to provide the same government medical benefits as given to other survivors.
TOKYO (AP) — A Japanese court on Wednesday for the first time recognized people exposed to radioactive "black rain" that fell after the 1945 U.S. atomic attack on Hiroshima as atomic bomb survivors, ordering the city and the prefecture to provide the same government medical benefits as given to other survivors.
The Hiroshima District Court said all 84 plaintiffs who were outside of a zone previously set by the government as where radioactive rain fell also developed radiation-induced illnesses and should be certified as atomic bomb victims. All of the plaintiffs are older than their late 70s, with some in their 90s.
The landmark ruling comes a week before the city marks the 75th anniversary of the U.S. bombing.
The U.S. dropped the world's first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, killing 140,000 people and almost destroying the entire city. The plaintiffs were in areas northwest of the ground zero where radioactive black rain fell hours after the bomb was dropped.
The plaintiffs have developed illnesses such as cancer and cataracts linked to radiation after they were exposed to black rain, not only that which fell but also by taking water and food in the area contaminated with radiation.
They filed the lawsuit after Hiroshima city and prefectural officials rejected their request to expand the zone to cover their areas where black rain also fell.
In Wednesday's ruling, the court said the plaintiffs' argument about their black rain exposure was reasonable and that their medical records showed they have health problems linked to radiation exposure.
One of the plaintiffs, Minoru Honke, who was exposed to black rain at age 4, said more than a dozen people died during the trial. "I want to tell them that we won," he said.
Osamu Saito, a doctor who has examined atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima, welcomed the ruling for considering the survivors' welfare based on an assumption that anyone who was in these areas and hit by the rain could have been affected by radiation.
Earlier in the day, dozens of plaintiffs walked into the Hiroshima court in the rain, showing a banner saying "Certificates to all 'black rain' victims." As soon as the ruling was issued, lawyers for the plaintiffs ran out of the court, showing a banner saying "Full victory," and their supporters applauded and cheered.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters that the government will closely examine the ruling and respond after consulting with related government agencies and Hiroshima officials.
By MARI YAMAGUCHI Associated Press


courthousenews--2020-07-30--Jailed Basque Leader Swaps Prison for House Arrest in France

PARIS ( AP ) — A longtime chief of the violent Basque separatist group ETA was freed Thursday from a French prison , swapping a jail cell for house arrest in Paris with an electronic monitoring bracelet .
José Antonio Urruticoetxea Bengoetxea , known by the alias Josu Ternera , will only be able to leave his residence on pre-agreed days and at hours determined by the Paris Court of Appeal .
It ruled on Wednesday that he should be released from Paris ’ La Santé prison .
He was freed Thursday morning .
Supporters opened umbrellas to shield from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought to have been driven away .
As well as ordering the electronic tracking bracelet and house arrest at his Paris residence for a minimum of six months , the court also banned Ternera from leaving mainland France .
ETA , whose initials stand for “ Basque Homeland and Freedom ” in the Basque language , killed more than 850 people during a decades-long violent campaign to create an independent state in northern Spain and southern France .
The militant group gave up its arms in 2017 and then disbanded after being weakened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its operations and arrest its leaders .
Ternera ’ s son , Egoitz Ternera , said being out of prison will allow his father to better prepare his defense against French and Spanish legal proceedings still outstanding .
“ This is a new phase in the judicial process .
The presumption of innocence is taken into account , he will be able to defend himself as a free man , ” the son said .
In October , the Paris court will weigh appeals against sentences for terrorism and other charges handed down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run .
He also faces Spanish efforts to extradite him and an outstanding European arrest warrant .
His son said that Ternera is in fragile health having undergone surgery for a condition he didn ’ t elaborate on .
“ There was a five-month wait before he was operated on .
That operation should have been done urgently after the arrest .
Now , he will be able to get the treatment adapted to his condition , ” he said .
“ We can only be relieved by this outcome ” .
Ternera @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in May 2019 after 17 years on the run .
He had been the most wanted ETA member since 2002 .
By NICHOLAS GARRIGA Associated Press AP Writer John Leicester contributed from Le Pecq , France .
BARCELONA , Spain ( AP ) — Two Catalan separatist politicians filed a lawsuit Thursday against the former head of Spain ’ s intelligence agency and an Israeli technology company for allegedly trying to hack their cellphones .
Roger Torrent , the speaker of Catalonia ’ s regional parliament , and Ernest Maragall , a member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed the suit at a Barcelona courthouse against former spy chief Félix Sanz Roldán and the Israeli company NSO Group .
The newspapers El País and The Guardian reported earlier this month that Torrent had been targeted by spyware that , according to its maker NSO Group , is sold only to governments and national security services .
The Spanish and British newspapers cited a separate U.S. lawsuit involving the spyware , saying it exploits an earlier vulnerability in WhatsApp and could potentially provide access to everything on a person ’ s cellphone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Torrent ’ s phone was hacked .
Spain ’ s intelligence service , known by its acronym CNI , declined to answer questions about the allegations .
Spain ’ s government said it was not aware that the phones might have been hacked and said that such an action would require a judge ’ s authorization .
Catalonia ’ s separatist movement is supported by around half the 7.5 million residents of the northeast Spanish region .
Several of its top leaders are serving prison sentencing for their roles in an illegal secession @ @ @ @

Two Catalan separatist politicians filed a lawsuit Thursday against the former head of Spain's intelligence agency and an Israeli technology company for allegedly trying to hack their cellphones.
PARIS (AP) — A longtime chief of the violent Basque separatist group ETA was freed Thursday from a French prison, swapping a jail cell for house arrest in Paris with an electronic monitoring bracelet.
José Antonio Urruticoetxea Bengoetxea, known by the alias Josu Ternera, will only be able to leave his residence on pre-agreed days and at hours determined by the Paris Court of Appeal. It ruled on Wednesday that he should be released from Paris' La Santé prison. He was freed Thursday morning.
Supporters opened umbrellas to shield from view the car in which Ternera is thought to have been driven away.
As well as ordering the electronic tracking bracelet and house arrest at his Paris residence for a minimum of six months, the court also banned Ternera from leaving mainland France.
ETA, whose initials stand for "Basque Homeland and Freedom" in the Basque language, killed more than 850 people during a decades-long violent campaign to create an independent state in northern Spain and southern France.
The militant group gave up its arms in 2017 and then disbanded after being weakened by a sustained police effort to dismantle its operations and arrest its leaders.
Ternera's son, Egoitz Ternera, said being out of prison will allow his father to better prepare his defense against French and Spanish legal proceedings still outstanding.
"This is a new phase in the judicial process. The presumption of innocence is taken into account, he will be able to defend himself as a free man," the son said.
In October, the Paris court will weigh appeals against sentences for terrorism and other charges handed down to Ternera when he was on the run.
He also faces Spanish efforts to extradite him and an outstanding European arrest warrant.
His son said that Ternera is in fragile health having undergone surgery for a condition he didn't elaborate on.
"There was a five-month wait before he was operated on. That operation should have been done urgently after the arrest. Now, he will be able to get the treatment adapted to his condition," he said. "We can only be relieved by this outcome".
Ternera was arrested in a French Alps town in May 2019 after 17 years on the run. He had been the most wanted ETA member since 2002.
___
By NICHOLAS GARRIGA Associated Press
AP Writer John Leicester contributed from Le Pecq, France.
Catalan Separatists Sue Spain's Ex-Spy Chief Over Phone Hack
BARCELONA, Spain (AP) — Two Catalan separatist politicians filed a lawsuit Thursday against the former head of Spain's intelligence agency and an Israeli technology company for allegedly trying to hack their cellphones.
Roger Torrent, the speaker of Catalonia's regional parliament, and Ernest Maragall, a member of Barcelona's town council, filed the suit at a Barcelona courthouse against former spy chief Félix Sanz Roldán and the Israeli company NSO Group.
The newspapers El País and The Guardian reported earlier this month that Torrent had been targeted by spyware that, according to its maker NSO Group, is sold only to governments and national security services.
The Spanish and British newspapers cited a separate U.S. lawsuit involving the spyware, saying it exploits an earlier vulnerability in WhatsApp and could potentially provide access to everything on a person's cellphone. The reports provided no evidence that Torrent's phone was hacked.
Spain's intelligence service, known by its acronym CNI, declined to answer questions about the allegations.
Spain's government said it was not aware that the phones might have been hacked and said that such an action would require a judge's authorization.
Catalonia's separatist movement is supported by around half the 7.5 million residents of the northeast Spanish region. Several of its top leaders are serving prison sentencing for their roles in an illegal secession bid in 2017.


courthousenews--2020-07-30--Study Finds Dangerous Mercury Levels in Amazon Fish

SAO PAULO , Brazil ( AFP ) — Nearly one-third of the fish in the Brazilian Amazon state of Amapa have such high levels of mercury caused by illegal mining that they are dangerous for human consumption , according to a new study .
Scientists from the World Wildlife Fund ’ s Brazil office and three Brazilian research institutes found startling levels of mercury in more than 400 fish collected in five regions of Amapa , on the border with French Guyana .
The research included fish from included river systems near environmentally protected areas .
“ The level surpassed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fish , 20 % of omnivores and 2.4 % of herbivores , ” they said in the study , published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health .
“ Four of the species with the highest concentrations of mercury are among those most widely consumed ” by humans in the region , it added .
Eating more than 7 ounces of those species could be harmful to a person ’ s health , it said .
The high levels of mercury in the region are being caused by illegal gold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WWF-Brazil .
“ This study brings to light damning data on the level of destruction being caused by illegal gold mining in the Amazon , ” he said .
“ We already knew it was destroying the forest .
Now we know how it is destroying the health of those who live there , too.
” Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro faces criticism for pushing to open up protected lands in the Amazon to mining and agricultural activity .
Activists say that will only accelerate the destruction of the world ’ s biggest rainforest @

Nearly one-third of the fish in the Brazilian Amazon state of Amapa have such high levels of mercury caused by illegal mining that they are dangerous for human consumption, according to a new study.
SAO PAULO, Brazil (AFP) — Nearly one-third of the fish in the Brazilian Amazon state of Amapa have such high levels of mercury caused by illegal mining that they are dangerous for human consumption, according to a new study.
Scientists from the World Wildlife Fund's Brazil office and three Brazilian research institutes found startling levels of mercury in more than 400 fish collected in five regions of Amapa, on the border with French Guyana.
The research included fish from included river systems near environmentally protected areas.
"The level surpassed safety limits in 77.6% of carnivorous fish, 20% of omnivores and 2.4% of herbivores," they said in the study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
"Four of the species with the highest concentrations of mercury are among those most widely consumed" by humans in the region, it added.
Eating more than 7 ounces of those species could be harmful to a person's health, it said.
The high levels of mercury in the region are being caused by illegal gold mining, said conservationist Marcelo Oliveira of WWF-Brazil.
"This study brings to light damning data on the level of destruction being caused by illegal gold mining in the Amazon," he said.
"We already knew it was destroying the forest. Now we know how it is destroying the health of those who live there, too."
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro faces criticism for pushing to open up protected lands in the Amazon to mining and agricultural activity.
Activists say that will only accelerate the destruction of the world's biggest rainforest.
© Agence France-Presse