courthousenews--2020-09-29--Flynn Attorney Asked Trump to Not Pardon Former National Security Adviser

WASHINGTON ( CN ) — Michael Flynn ’ s attorney revealed during a court hearing on Tuesday that she spoke directly with President Donald Trump and asked him not to pardon his first national security adviser in the midst of a politically high-strung legal battle .
Flynn ’ s attorney Sidney Powell was averse to discussing what she said was an in-person meeting with the president , saying she believed the conversation was protected by executive privilege .
But pressed by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan , the attorney said she met with Trump and a campaign lawyer in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president with a “ brief update on the status of the litigation.
” Powell also said she asked the president to not pardon Flynn .
Asked by the judge if she also asked the president to appoint new Justice Department attorneys to the case , she answered , “ Oh , heavens no.
” Tuesday ’ s hearing marked the first time Sullivan , a Clinton appointee , heard arguments on the Trump administration ’ s motion to dismiss the case against Flynn , who pleaded guilty twice to lying to the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D.C .
Circuit ultimately rejected Flynn ’ s plea this summer to force Sullivan to grant the Justice Department ’ s motion and reassign any closing proceedings to a different judge in the Washington federal court .
A prominent judge on the appeals court emphasized what Sullivan ’ s own attorney noted in arguments : the district judge may very well sign off on dropping the case .
“ In fact , it would be highly unusual if it did not … But if the court denies the motion , General Flynn has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursue , ” U.S .
Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith , a George W. Bush .
appointee who has since retired , wrote in a concurring opinion .
In a hearing that lasted more than four hours Tuesday , Sullivan directed a plethora of questions to both parties and warned against reading into any of them .
“ I ’ m just trying to reach the right decision for the right reasons , ” the judge said .
Cautioning Sullivan against acting as a “ rubber stamp , ” the retired judge appointed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the motion to dismiss an unprecedented action taken on behalf of a close friend and ally of the president .
“ If the executive wants to take Michael Flynn off the hook he can pardon him , ” John Gleeson , who presided in the Eastern District of New York for more than two decades , argued as amicus curiae .
That constitutionally sound action would not entangle the judiciary in the “ desire to scuttle the case ” simply because Flynn has close ties to Trump , Gleeson said .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a “ very narrow role to play ” by ensuring that the motion to dismiss is “ the authoritative position of the executive branch.
” Arguing that Flynn ’ s false statements to the FBI in 2017 about communications with the then-Russian ambassador are no longer “ material , ” the government said Tuesday that new evidence uncovered in an investigation commissioned by Attorney General William Barr made clear prosecutors no longer had a case against the former Trump adviser .
Calling the argument that Flynn ’ s statements were not material @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 Trump campaign ’ s possible ties to Russia “ completely and utterly hollow , ” Gleeson argued the government had previously told Sullivan that Flynn ’ s lies “ went to the heart of that inquiry.
” The Justice Department ’ s materiality claims are unheard of , the amicus further argued , claiming the government would “ fight tooth and nail ” against them in any other courtroom in America .
“ They have been adopted just to help this one defendant , ” Gleeson said .
Trump has made prolific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution as a “ witch hunt of historic proportion ” and defending the once-close adviser ’ s innocence , claiming he was “ tormented ” by “ dirty cops ” at the FBI .
Sullivan questioned both parties Tuesday on how he should weigh the steady flow of public commentary on the case coming from the White House .
Gleeson argued that the president ’ s Twitter feed makes clear that he is closely following the case and is personally invested in bringing an end to Flynn ’ s prosecution .
But Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to drop Flynn ’ s case was made by Barr , who was not influenced by Trump ’ s tweets .
He further made the case that the president ’ s long-running public defense of Flynn does not cross the line of showing corrupt political favoritism within the Justice Department .
“ That ’ s a view about whether this is a just prosecution or an unjust prosecution , ” Mooppan said .
Kenneth Clair Kohl , a senior ranking career official in the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office for the District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying he had not witnessed the alleged corruption involving Flynn ’ s case .
“ I have never seen it in my entire career in our office and it didn ’ t happen here , ” Kohl said .
But the attorney general himself in recent months said that Trump ’ s tweets “ make it impossible to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we are doing our work with integrity , ” Gleeson argued on rebuttal .
Asked by Sullivan how he should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the District of Columbia , Timothy Shea , and not career prosecutors , signed the motion to dismiss , the Justice Department similarly argued the judge could not give weight to the matter .
Relying on testimony from William Barnett , the veteran FBI agent who handled Flynn ’ s case , the government also argued senior officials including former FBI Director James Comey pushed the prosecution when analysts expressed concern that it was “ a nightmare ” and “ not a logical investigative step.
” “ [ Barnett ] didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the special counsel ’ s office that there was nothing there with respect to Flynn , ” Kohn said .
But Gleeson pushed back , saying Barnett was only interviewed last week by DOJ officials and believed Flynn lied to the FBI .
The amicus further shot at claims that FBI officials , like former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , could not testify against Flynn to support the false testimony charge because they had lied under oath .
Gleeson argued transcripts of Flynn ’ s calls with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI .
“ Does the government really think it couldn ’ t win that case ?
Of course it doesn ’ t , ” Gleeson said .
While the government treaded carefully in arguments before Sullivan , Flynn ’ s attorney came out swinging at the judge .
Powell accused Sullivan – who was the first person in Washington appointed to three judgeships by three different presidents , namely Bill Clinton , George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan – of political bias .
She claimed that Sullivan appointed Gleeson to back his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prison and permitted the amicus to drag out the politically corrupt investigation into her client .
“ It was part of the essential coup to take out President Trump , ” Powell said , accusing former Obama-era officials of targeting Flynn to then force out the newly elected president .
In response , the judge said Flynn had sworn an oath and pleaded guilty in his courtroom in 2018 .
Before the government filed its motion to dismiss , Flynn sought to withdraw the plea earlier this year based on his claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barrage of accusations , Sullivan said he was “ proceeding very cautiously ” and encouraged Powell to pen arguments on his alleged bias in a motion to recuse .
The judge gave little time to a bombshell filing by an attorney for former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok on Monday , claiming that handwritten notes by Strzok submitted for the record by Flynn ’ s attorneys “ appear to have been altered.
” Saying he was “ floored ” and found the letter “ very unsettling , ” Sullivan asked the Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all records on the Flynn docket are “ true and accurate.
” The Justice Department did not directly respond to the claim filed by Strzok ’ s attorney , specifically that handwritten dates were added on at least one occasion to the notes that are wrong and “ could be read to suggest that a meeting at the White House happened before it actually did .
”

Michael Flynn’s attorney revealed during a court hearing on Tuesday that she spoke directly with President Donald Trump and asked him not to pardon his first national security adviser in the midst of a politically high-strung legal battle.
WASHINGTON (CN) — Michael Flynn’s attorney revealed during a court hearing on Tuesday that she spoke directly with President Donald Trump and asked him not to pardon his first national security adviser in the midst of a politically high-strung legal battle.
Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell was averse to discussing what she said was an in-person meeting with the president, saying she believed the conversation was protected by executive privilege.
But pressed by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the attorney said she met with Trump and a campaign lawyer in the last few weeks to provide the president with a “brief update on the status of the litigation.”
Powell also said she asked the president to not pardon Flynn. Asked by the judge if she also asked the president to appoint new Justice Department attorneys to the case, she answered, “Oh, heavens no.”
Tuesday’s hearing marked the first time Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, heard arguments on the Trump administration's motion to dismiss the case against Flynn, who pleaded guilty twice to lying to the FBI.
Keeping the prosecution alive, the D.C. Circuit ultimately rejected Flynn’s plea this summer to force Sullivan to grant the Justice Department’s motion and reassign any closing proceedings to a different judge in the Washington federal court.
A prominent judge on the appeals court emphasized what Sullivan’s own attorney noted in arguments: the district judge may very well sign off on dropping the case.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan. (Photo via U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia)
“In fact, it would be highly unusual if it did not ... But if the court denies the motion, General Flynn has multiple avenues of relief that he can pursue,” U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush. appointee who has since retired, wrote in a concurring opinion.
In a hearing that lasted more than four hours Tuesday, Sullivan directed a plethora of questions to both parties and warned against reading into any of them.
“I’m just trying to reach the right decision for the right reasons,” the judge said.
Cautioning Sullivan against acting as a “rubber stamp,” the retired judge appointed by the court to argue against the government called the motion to dismiss an unprecedented action taken on behalf of a close friend and ally of the president.
“If the executive wants to take Michael Flynn off the hook he can pardon him,” John Gleeson, who presided in the Eastern District of New York for more than two decades, argued as amicus curiae.
That constitutionally sound action would not entangle the judiciary in the “desire to scuttle the case” simply because Flynn has close ties to Trump, Gleeson said.
But the Justice Department contended that the court has a “very narrow role to play” by ensuring that the motion to dismiss is “the authoritative position of the executive branch.”
Arguing that Flynn’s false statements to the FBI in 2017 about communications with the then-Russian ambassador are no longer “material,” the government said Tuesday that new evidence uncovered in an investigation commissioned by Attorney General William Barr made clear prosecutors no longer had a case against the former Trump adviser.
Calling the argument that Flynn’s statements were not material to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia “completely and utterly hollow,” Gleeson argued the government had previously told Sullivan that Flynn’s lies “went to the heart of that inquiry.”
The Justice Department's materiality claims are unheard of, the amicus further argued, claiming the government would “fight tooth and nail” against them in any other courtroom in America.


courthousenews--2020-09-29--Kentucky AG to Release Breonna Taylor Grand Jury Records

( CN ) — Kentucky ’ s attorney general said late Monday that his office will comply with a judge ’ s order to release recordings of grand jury proceedings in the Breonna Taylor case .
Just hours after an anonymous juror disputed Attorney General Daniel Cameron ’ s public explanation of why no charges were filed directly related to the March 13 police killing of Taylor , his office agreed to release the grand jury ’ s deliberations .
The Republican attorney general also acknowledged that he never recommended homicide charges against the officers involved in a case that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , Cameron acknowledged for the first time on Monday he had recommended wanton endangerment charges .
Taylor , who was a 26-year-old Black woman , was shot and killed by officers in her apartment after police allegedly executed a no-knock search warrant related to a drug investigation involving her ex-boyfriend Kenneth Walker .
About a week after the city of Louisville reached a $ 12 million settlement with Taylor ’ s estate , Brett Hankinson on Sept. 23 was indicted on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment .
The charges were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death , but to the shots he had fired into nearby apartments during the incident .
Hankinson was only one of the three police officers involved in the death of Taylor to be criminally charged after the grand jury presented its findings to the court .
The undisclosed juror on Monday accused Cameron of failing to accurately present the jury ’ s findings during his public explanation of the lack of charges for the other two officers .
The juror ’ s lawyer , Kevin Glogower , requested in a petition that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jury proceedings be released .
“ The grand juror that we represent felt compelled to take some sort of an action based upon the indictment that was rendered in the subsequent press conference and messages from the attorney general ’ s office about how everything played out , ” the juror ’ s attorney said in a press conference on Tuesday .
Glogower told reporters that Cameron has “ yet to answer what was actually presented as far as the charges and the individual they were directed to , ” stating that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges were explored during the jury ’ s two-day deliberation .
“ Since the grand jury decision was announced , we ’ ve been saying that Daniel Cameron clearly failed to present a comprehensive case that supported justice for Breonna , ” Ben Crump , who represents Taylor ’ s family , reiterated in a news release on Tuesday .
During the hearing on Monday in which Hankinson pleaded not guilty , Jefferson Circuit Judge Ann Bailey Smith “ ordered attorneys to file a recording of the grand jury proceedings ” by Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transcripts of the jury ’ s deliberations , citing concerns that doing so is not the norm and could endanger investigation efforts .
But the attorney general made an about-face last night , deciding to heed Smith ’ s ruling and allow the recordings to be included in the court ’ s case file .
Even though Cameron contended in a statement that juries are meant to be “ secretive bodies , ” the attorney general said that “ it ’ s apparent that the public interest in this case isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He said he would not object if members of the jury want to speak publicly .
“ We have no concerns with grand jurors sharing their thoughts on our presentation because we are confident in the case we presented , ” Cameron said in a statement .

Kentucky’s attorney general said late Monday that his office will comply with a judge’s order to release recordings of grand jury proceedings in the Breonna Taylor case.
(CN) — Kentucky’s attorney general said late Monday that his office will comply with a judge’s order to release recordings of grand jury proceedings in the Breonna Taylor case.
Just hours after an anonymous juror disputed Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s public explanation of why no charges were filed directly related to the March 13 police killing of Taylor, his office agreed to release the grand jury’s deliberations.
The Republican attorney general also acknowledged that he never recommended homicide charges against the officers involved in a case that had fueled nationwide protests over the summer.
Instead, Cameron acknowledged for the first time on Monday he had recommended wanton endangerment charges.
Taylor, who was a 26-year-old Black woman, was shot and killed by officers in her apartment after police allegedly executed a no-knock search warrant related to a drug investigation involving her ex-boyfriend Kenneth Walker.
About a week after the city of Louisville reached a $12 million settlement with Taylor’s estate, Brett Hankinson on Sept. 23 was indicted on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment.
The charges were not directly related to Taylor’s death, but to the shots he had fired into nearby apartments during the incident.
Hankinson was only one of the three police officers involved in the death of Taylor to be criminally charged after the grand jury presented its findings to the court.
The undisclosed juror on Monday accused Cameron of failing to accurately present the jury’s findings during his public explanation of the lack of charges for the other two officers.
The juror’s lawyer, Kevin Glogower, requested in a petition that all recordings and documents related to the grand jury proceedings be released.
"The grand juror that we represent felt compelled to take some sort of an action based upon the indictment that was rendered in the subsequent press conference and messages from the attorney general's office about how everything played out,” the juror’s attorney said in a press conference on Tuesday.
Glogower told reporters that Cameron has "yet to answer what was actually presented as far as the charges and the individual they were directed to,” stating that the public needs to know what other potential charges were explored during the jury’s two-day deliberation.
"Since the grand jury decision was announced, we've been saying that Daniel Cameron clearly failed to present a comprehensive case that supported justice for Breonna," Ben Crump, who represents Taylor’s family, reiterated in a news release on Tuesday.
During the hearing on Monday in which Hankinson pleaded not guilty, Jefferson Circuit Judge Ann Bailey Smith "ordered attorneys to file a recording of the grand jury proceedings" by Wednesday.
Cameron has previously refused to release transcripts of the jury’s deliberations, citing concerns that doing so is not the norm and could endanger investigation efforts.
But the attorney general made an about-face last night, deciding to heed Smith’s ruling and allow the recordings to be included in the court’s case file.
Even though Cameron contended in a statement that juries are meant to be “secretive bodies,” the attorney general said that "it's apparent that the public interest in this case isn't going to allow that to happen."
He said he would not object if members of the jury want to speak publicly.
"We have no concerns with grand jurors sharing their thoughts on our presentation because we are confident in the case we presented," Cameron said in a statement.


courthousenews--2020-09-29--Disney Lays Off 28,000 Theme Park Workers Amid Pandemic Closures

( CN ) — The pandemic has hit “ the happiest place on earth ” as the Walt Disney Company announced on Tuesday 28,000 staff at its theme parks will be laid off due to closures from the novel coronavirus .
Disneyland and Disneyworld will cut employees at practically every level , including 67 % of part-time employees .
Disney employs more than 100,000 people in its parks and resorts division .
Park executives say they are in talks with union employees on what they can expect .
In a statement , Disney Parks chairman Josh D ’ Amaro addressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the theme park business , which he said has been “ exacerbated in California by the state ’ s unwillingness to lift restrictions that would allow Disneyland to reopen ” and said non-working employees have been on furlough since April .
“ For the last several months , our management team has worked tirelessly to avoid having to separate anyone from the company , ” D ’ Amaro said in a letter to employees explaining the layoffs .
“ We ’ ve cut expenses , suspended capital projects , furloughed our cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modified our operations to run as efficiently as possible , however , we simply can not responsibly stay fully staffed while operating at such limited capacity.
” California Governor Gavin Newsom earlier this month said state health officials would issue guidelines for allowing theme parks to reopen , which have been closed since March .
Earlier this week , California Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva sent a letter to the governor ’ s office asking for the “ responsible reopening of California ’ s theme parks.
” “ We ask your administration to provide the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promptly so they can ensure their preparations are consistent with state expectations , ” wrote Quirk-Silva who was joined by a bipartisan group of California legislators .
An email to the governor ’ s office for comment was not immediately answered .
As of Tuesday , California health officials have reported over 815,000 confirmed infections and over 15,000 people are dead due to the novel coronavirus since the onset of the pandemic .
Orange County , home to Disneyland , saw a slight spike in positive cases last week and health officials said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most restrictive tier set by the state .
The most recent data shows over 53,000 people in Orange County have tested positive for the virus and over 1,200 have died .
On Wednesday , Orange County health officials reported 33 new deaths .
The Walt Disney World Resort in Florida reopened this past July with infection control measures .
As of Wednesday , Florida health officials reported over 705,000 infections and over 14,000 people are dead due to the virus .

The pandemic has hit “the happiest place on earth” as the Walt Disney Company announced on Tuesday 28,000 staff at its theme parks will be laid off due to closures from the novel coronavirus.
(CN) — The pandemic has hit “the happiest place on earth” as the Walt Disney Company announced on Tuesday 28,000 staff at its theme parks will be laid off due to closures from the novel coronavirus.
Disneyland and Disneyworld will cut employees at practically every level, including 67% of part-time employees.
Disney employs more than 100,000 people in its parks and resorts division. Park executives say they are in talks with union employees on what they can expect.
In a statement, Disney Parks chairman Josh D’Amaro addressed the “prolonged impact of Covid-19” on the theme park business, which he said has been “exacerbated in California by the state’s unwillingness to lift restrictions that would allow Disneyland to reopen” and said non-working employees have been on furlough since April.
“For the last several months, our management team has worked tirelessly to avoid having to separate anyone from the company,” D’Amaro said in a letter to employees explaining the layoffs. “We’ve cut expenses, suspended capital projects, furloughed our cast members while still paying benefits, and modified our operations to run as efficiently as possible, however, we simply cannot responsibly stay fully staffed while operating at such limited capacity.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom earlier this month said state health officials would issue guidelines for allowing theme parks to reopen, which have been closed since March.
Earlier this week, California Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva sent a letter to the governor’s office asking for the “responsible reopening of California’s theme parks.”
“We ask your administration to provide the theme park industry with their guidance documents promptly so they can ensure their preparations are consistent with state expectations,” wrote Quirk-Silva who was joined by a bipartisan group of California legislators.
An email to the governor’s office for comment was not immediately answered.
Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly, a senior health advisor for the state of California in a statement said, "The COVID 19 pandemic has impacted the health and livelihoods of too many workers across this country. In California, our number one priority is to lead with public health to slow the spread of the virus to begin reopening our economy and get Californians back to work safely and sustainably."
Without a vaccine it's unavoidable that the virus would impact the state's economy, Ghaly said, "but by taking a measured data- and science-based approach to phasing in and out transmission prevention protocols, we can minimize the health and economic risks that would be caused by opening and shutting repeatedly."
As of Tuesday, California health officials have reported over 815,000 confirmed infections and over 15,000 people are dead due to the novel coronavirus since the onset of the pandemic.
Orange County, home to Disneyland, saw a slight spike in positive cases last week and health officials said that has kept the county in the most restrictive tier set by the state. The most recent data shows over 53,000 people in Orange County have tested positive for the virus and over 1,200 have died. On Wednesday, Orange County health officials reported 33 new deaths.
The Walt Disney World Resort in Florida reopened this past July with infection control measures. As of Wednesday, Florida health officials reported over 705,000 infections and over 14,000 people are dead due to the virus.


courthousenews--2020-09-29--Immigrant in San Francisco Pier Shooting Challenges Competency Finding

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — An undocumented Mexican immigrant cleared of murder in the 2015 shooting death of Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier will challenge two doctors ’ findings that he is not competent to stand trial on federal gun possession charges .
Speaking from Alameda County ’ s Santa Rita Jail during a remote status hearing Tuesday , Jose Garcia Zarate said he has grown weary of languishing in jail for five years , first awaiting the outcome of a state court murder trial and then facing federal gun possession charges .
“ I think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prison or be deported , ” Garcia Zarate said through a Spanish interpreter Tuesday .
A federal trial was scheduled to start this past January before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria raised questions about Garcia Zarate ’ s competence and ordered him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation .
Two doctors evaluated the defendant and found him unfit to stand trial , meaning Garcia Zarate must be sent to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons treatment facility until he is declared competent .
Garcia Zarate ’ s lawyer , Tony Serra , said his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he can move on with his life , whether that means serving time in prison or being deported .
He faces a maximum 20 years in prison if convicted on two charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and being an unauthorized alien in possession of a firearm .
Serra , an 85-year-old local legend who has defended members of the Black Panthers and Hells Angels , said Garcia Zarate wants an evidentiary hearing on the competency finding as soon as practical to get his client out of limbo .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Garcia Zarate to be in limbo longer than necessary , ” Chhabria said on Tuesday .
“ The fastest way to get him out of limbo is to do the evidentiary hearing by Zoom.
” When Chhabria asked if either side intended to call Garcia Zarate as a witness , which both sides declined , the defendant unexpectedly chimed in , lamenting his protracted time in jail .
“ I think it ’ s been too long , ” Garcia Zarate said through an interpreter .
“ It ’ s been four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and none of this has resolved anything.
” Chhabria suggested the defendant could talk to his lawyers about pleading guilty to resolve the case , but Serra quickly observed that his client can not enter a plea until he is found competent .
“ It ’ s true that the standard for deciding whether somebody is competent to stand trial is the same as the standard as to whether someone is competent to plead guilty , ” Chhabria said .
Chhabria scheduled a competency hearing to be conducted by Zoom video conference on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state court jury acquitted Garcia Zarate of murder charges in the July 1 , 2015 shooting death of 32-year-old Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier .
Garcia-Zarate ’ s public defenders said the shooting was accidental , that the gun went off unintentionally after Garcia-Zarate found it wrapped in a rag beneath a bench .
The bullet ricocheted off the concrete walkway before hitting Steinle in the back .
Steinle ’ s death became a rallying cry for supporters of tougher immigration enforcement , including then-presidential candidate Donald Trump , who cited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his 2016 Republican National Convention speech .
Less than a week after the murder acquittal , prosecutors filed federal gun possession charges against Garcia Zarate .
Serra argued that the prosecution was politically motivated , but Chhabria refused to let the defense team pursue a vindictive prosecution theory .
The .40-caliber handgun used in Steinle ’ s shooting had been stolen from an off-duty U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger ’ s vehicle in San Francisco several days before the shooting took place .
Steinle ’ s family sued the federal government for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of San Francisco for failing to turn Garcia Zarate over to ICE after the seven-time felon was sent to San Francisco to face marijuana possession charges and released from county jail .
In 2019 , the Ninth Circuit ruled the city could not be held liable for Steinle ’ s death , finding the San Francisco Sheriff ’ s Department had no legal duty to help immigration agents detain and deport Garcia Zarate .
This past January , a federal judge ruled the U.S. Bureau of Land Management also could not be held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finding a lack of direct connection between a car burglary where the ranger ’ s gun was stolen and the shooting that took place three days later and half a mile away .
An appeal of that decision is pending in the Ninth Circuit .

An undocumented Mexican immigrant cleared of murder in the 2015 shooting death of Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier will challenge two doctors’ findings that he is not competent to stand trial on federal gun possession charges.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — An undocumented Mexican immigrant cleared of murder in the 2015 shooting death of Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier will challenge two doctors’ findings that he is not competent to stand trial on federal gun possession charges.
In this 2015 photo, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, right, is led into the courtroom by San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, left, and Assistant District Attorney Diana Garciaor, center, for his arraignment at the Hall of Justice in San Francisco. (Michael Macor/San Francisco Chronicle via AP, Pool, File)
Speaking from Alameda County’s Santa Rita Jail during a remote status hearing Tuesday, Jose Garcia Zarate said he has grown weary of languishing in jail for five years, first awaiting the outcome of a state court murder trial and then facing federal gun possession charges.
“I think it’s time for me to go to prison or be deported,” Garcia Zarate said through a Spanish interpreter Tuesday.
A federal trial was scheduled to start this past January before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria raised questions about Garcia Zarate’s competence and ordered him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
Two doctors evaluated the defendant and found him unfit to stand trial, meaning Garcia Zarate must be sent to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons treatment facility until he is declared competent.
Garcia Zarate’s lawyer, Tony Serra, said his client wants to challenge that finding so he can move on with his life, whether that means serving time in prison or being deported. He faces a maximum 20 years in prison if convicted on two charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and being an unauthorized alien in possession of a firearm.
Serra, an 85-year-old local legend who has defended members of the Black Panthers and Hells Angels, said Garcia Zarate wants an evidentiary hearing on the competency finding as soon as practical to get his client out of limbo.
“Certainly, we do not want Mr. Garcia Zarate to be in limbo longer than necessary,” Chhabria said on Tuesday. “The fastest way to get him out of limbo is to do the evidentiary hearing by Zoom.”
When Chhabria asked if either side intended to call Garcia Zarate as a witness, which both sides declined, the defendant unexpectedly chimed in, lamenting his protracted time in jail.
“I think it’s been too long,” Garcia Zarate said through an interpreter. “It’s been four and a half years in county, and none of this has resolved anything.”
Chhabria suggested the defendant could talk to his lawyers about pleading guilty to resolve the case, but Serra quickly observed that his client cannot enter a plea until he is found competent.
“It’s true that the standard for deciding whether somebody is competent to stand trial is the same as the standard as to whether someone is competent to plead guilty,” Chhabria said.
Chhabria scheduled a competency hearing to be conducted by Zoom video conference on Oct. 16.
In 2017, a state court jury acquitted Garcia Zarate of murder charges in the July 1, 2015 shooting death of 32-year-old Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier.
Garcia-Zarate’s public defenders said the shooting was accidental, that the gun went off unintentionally after Garcia-Zarate found it wrapped in a rag beneath a bench. The bullet ricocheted off the concrete walkway before hitting Steinle in the back.
Steinle’s death became a rallying cry for supporters of tougher immigration enforcement, including then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, who cited the young woman’s death during his 2016 Republican National Convention speech.
Less than a week after the murder acquittal, prosecutors filed federal gun possession charges against Garcia Zarate.
Serra argued that the prosecution was politically motivated, but Chhabria refused to let the defense team pursue a vindictive prosecution theory.
The .40-caliber handgun used in Steinle’s shooting had been stolen from an off-duty U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger’s vehicle in San Francisco several days before the shooting took place.
Steinle’s family sued the federal government for negligence. They also sued the city of San Francisco for failing to turn Garcia Zarate over to ICE after the seven-time felon was sent to San Francisco to face marijuana possession charges and released from county jail.
In 2019, the Ninth Circuit ruled the city could not be held liable for Steinle’s death, finding the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department had no legal duty to help immigration agents detain and deport Garcia Zarate.
This past January, a federal judge ruled the U.S. Bureau of Land Management also could not be held liable for Steinle’s death, finding a lack of direct connection between a car burglary where the ranger’s gun was stolen and the shooting that took place three days later and half a mile away.
An appeal of that decision is pending in the Ninth Circuit.


courthousenews--2020-09-30--Election to Select John Lewis’ Short-Term Successor Heads to Runoff

ATLANTA ( CN ) — Former Atlanta City Councilman Kwanza Hall and former Morehouse College President Robert Franklin , both Democrats , will face off in a December runoff election to finish the remainder of late congressman John Lewis ’ term of office after neither candidate won a majority of the vote in Tuesday ’ s special election .
Voters in Georgia ’ s Fifth Congressional District , which includes most of metro Atlanta , selected Hall and Franklin as the two top vote-getters in a field of seven challengers competing to hold the seat until the term ends on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not advance to the runoff after Tuesday ’ s vote include state Rep. Mable Thomas , former state Rep. Keisha Waites and Barrington Martin II , a teacher who lost the June primary to Lewis .
Non-Democratic candidates Chase Oliver , a libertarian businessman , and Steven Muhammad , a minister running as an independent , failed to garner more than 2 % of the vote each .
The winner of the Dec. 1 runoff race will hold office for just 33 days .
Republican Angela Stanton-King and Democrat Nikema Williams will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election to determine who will represent the district for the next full two-year term .
Neither candidate chose to run in Tuesday ’ s special election .
Before his July 17 death from pancreatic cancer , Lewis won the June primary for the seat .
He represented the district for 33 years .
Williams , a state senator and the chairwoman of the state Democratic party , was named as the party ’ s nominee in July following a vote by the party ’ s executive committee .
Georgia law required the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ballot by the end of the first business day after his death .
Williams is highly favored to secure a win in the heavily-Democratic district against Stanton-King , an author and former reality television star who was pardoned by President Donald Trump in February for her 2004 conviction for participating in a car theft ring .

Former Atlanta City Councilman Kwanza Hall and former Morehouse College President Robert Franklin, both Democrats, will face off in a December runoff election to finish the remainder of late congressman John Lewis’ term of office after neither candidate won a majority of the vote in Tuesday’s special election.
ATLANTA (CN) — Former Atlanta City Councilman Kwanza Hall and former Morehouse College President Robert Franklin, both Democrats, will face off in a December runoff election to finish the remainder of late congressman John Lewis’ term of office after neither candidate won a majority of the vote in Tuesday’s special election.
Voters in Georgia’s Fifth Congressional District, which includes most of metro Atlanta, selected Hall and Franklin as the two top vote-getters in a field of seven challengers competing to hold the seat until the term ends on Jan. 3.
The Democratic candidates who will not advance to the runoff after Tuesday’s vote include state Rep. Mable Thomas, former state Rep. Keisha Waites and Barrington Martin II, a teacher who lost the June primary to Lewis.
Non-Democratic candidates Chase Oliver, a libertarian businessman, and Steven Muhammad, a minister running as an independent, failed to garner more than 2% of the vote each.
The winner of the Dec. 1 runoff race will hold office for just 33 days.
Republican Angela Stanton-King and Democrat Nikema Williams will face off in the Nov. 3 general election to determine who will represent the district for the next full two-year term. Neither candidate chose to run in Tuesday’s special election.
Before his July 17 death from pancreatic cancer, Lewis won the June primary for the seat. He represented the district for 33 years. Williams, a state senator and the chairwoman of the state Democratic party, was named as the party’s nominee in July following a vote by the party’s executive committee.
Georgia law required the party to nominate a candidate to replace Lewis on the ballot by the end of the first business day after his death.
Williams is highly favored to secure a win in the heavily-Democratic district against Stanton-King, an author and former reality television star who was pardoned by President Donald Trump in February for her 2004 conviction for participating in a car theft ring.


courthousenews--2020-09-30--Trump and Biden Face Off in Chaotic Presidential Debate

( CN ) — The first presidential debate kicked off in Cleveland Tuesday with President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden shouting over each other in a chaotic affair where the moderator struggled to keep control of the event .
The debate was held at Case Western University in Cleveland , where “ Fox News Sunday ” anchor Chris Wallace struggled at times to keep the candidates from interrupting each other .
“ I think the country would be better served if we allowed both people to speak with fewer interruptions , ” Wallace said mid-debate .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the former vice president continually calling attention to the interruptions .
Things got heated enough at one point that an annoyed Biden asked the president , “ Will you shut up , man ?
” Despite the interruptions , the candidates were asked a plethora of policy questions on topics like the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and race relations in America .
Biden hit the president hard on his response to Covid-19 and criticized Trump by saying “ the president has no plan.
” Trump defended his record on the pandemic saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unprompted , Trump also claimed that “ we are weeks away from a vaccine.
” “ We ’ ve done a great job , ” Trump said , before going on to blame the media for mischaracterizing his record against the virus .
Wallace also questioned Trump on his taxes , which comes in the wake of a New York Times report that Trump has paid little in the way of federal income taxes in recent years .
“ I ’ ve paid millions of dollars in taxes , ” Trump told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of such a line of questioning , Biden released his 2019 taxes to the public just hours before the debate .
Around the halfway point of the debate , Wallace questioned both candidates on race relations in America and specifically called on Trump to condemn white supremacist groups .
“ Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups ?
” Wallace asked .
“ Sure , I ’ m willing to do that , ” Trump said .
“ I would say that almost everything I see is from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wing.
” Wallace hammered down on this point , again asking the president to condemn such groups .
The statement referenced a right-wing white supremacist group known as the “ Proud Boys , ” which the Southern Poverty Law Centers labels a hate group .
Wallace then questioned Biden on what his statements of “ reimagining the police.
” “ Look , what I support is the police having the opportunity to deal with the problems they face , ” Biden said .
“ We need to have community policing like we had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know the people in the communities .
That ’ s when crime went down.
” Trump brushed aside Biden ’ s remarks and touted his support from law enforcement groups , claiming those groups do not support the former vice president .
“ He has no law enforcement support , ” Trump said .
“ Almost nothing.
” On the topic of the Supreme Court , Biden laid out his case that the American people should get to pick the next Supreme Court justice by their election of the next president .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a say in who the Supreme Court nominee is , ” Biden said “ We should wait and see what the outcome is .
Because that is the only way the American people get to express what their view is.
” Trump fired back , praising his nominee Amy Coney Barrett and calling her “ good in every way.
” The president went on to say that he has the right to make the appointment because he was elected in 2016 .
In a stark contrast to some of the primary debates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
“ I believe we have to do everything we can to have immaculate air and immaculate water and do whatever else we can that ’ s good , ” Trump said .
“ We are planting a billion trees.
” In his response , Biden claimed that his climate plan would create jobs and incentives for people to upgrade and weatherize their properties .
He also said he would rejoin the Paris Climate Accord .
Trump bashed the proposed climate policy known as the Green New Deal .
Biden responded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my plan.
” In the closing segment of the debate , Wallace asked both Trump and Biden about the integrity of the election and if they would support the outcome of the votes .
After urging people to vote and telling viewers that mail-in ballots are safe , Biden said win or lose that he would accept the results of the Nov. 3 election .
“ Win that will be accepted , if I lose that will be accepted , ” Biden said .
Trump struck up a familiar tone and made unsubstantiated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ As far as the ballots are concerned , it ’ s a disaster , ” Trump said .
“ There ’ s fraud.
” His comments come just days after FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that his bureau has not seen any credible evidence of widespread voter fraud .
The next presidential debate will take place on Oct. 15 , at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami .
While the lone vice-presidential debate will be held at the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 .

The first presidential debate kicked off in Cleveland with President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden shouting over each other while tussling on the Supreme Court and Covid-19 pandemic and its effects on the economy.
(CN) — The first presidential debate kicked off in Cleveland Tuesday with President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden shouting over each other in a chaotic affair where the moderator struggled to keep control of the event.
The debate was held at Case Western University in Cleveland, where “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace struggled at times to keep the candidates from interrupting each other.
“I think the country would be better served if we allowed both people to speak with fewer interruptions,” Wallace said mid-debate.
Trump routinely interrupted Biden throughout the night, with the former vice president continually calling attention to the interruptions.
Things got heated enough at one point that an annoyed Biden asked the president, “Will you shut up, man?”
Despite the interruptions, the candidates were asked a plethora of policy questions on topics like the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and race relations in America.
Biden hit the president hard on his response to Covid-19 and criticized Trump by saying “the president has no plan.”
Trump defended his record on the pandemic saying that his preventing travel from China saved lives. Unprompted, Trump also claimed that “we are weeks away from a vaccine.”
“We’ve done a great job,” Trump said, before going on to blame the media for mischaracterizing his record against the virus.
Wallace also questioned Trump on his taxes, which comes in the wake of a New York Times report that Trump has paid little in the way of federal income taxes in recent years.
“I’ve paid millions of dollars in taxes,” Trump told Wallace when questioned.
Perhaps in anticipation of such a line of questioning, Biden released his 2019 taxes to the public just hours before the debate.
Around the halfway point of the debate, Wallace questioned both candidates on race relations in America and specifically called on Trump to condemn white supremacist groups.
“Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups?” Wallace asked.
“Sure, I’m willing to do that,” Trump said. “I would say that almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing.”
Wallace hammered down on this point, again asking the president to condemn such groups.
Trump eventually said, “Proud Boys stand back and stand by.”
The statement referenced a right-wing white supremacist group known as the “Proud Boys,” which the Southern Poverty Law Centers labels a hate group.
Wallace then questioned Biden on what his statements of “reimagining the police.”
“Look, what I support is the police having the opportunity to deal with the problems they face,” Biden said. “We need to have community policing like we had before, where the officers get to know the people in the communities. That’s when crime went down.”
Trump brushed aside Biden’s remarks and touted his support from law enforcement groups, claiming those groups do not support the former vice president.
“He has no law enforcement support,” Trump said. “Almost nothing.”
On the topic of the Supreme Court, Biden laid out his case that the American people should get to pick the next Supreme Court justice by their election of the next president.
“The American people have the right to have a say in who the Supreme Court nominee is,” Biden said “We should wait and see what the outcome is. Because that is the only way the American people get to express what their view is.”
Trump fired back, praising his nominee Amy Coney Barrett and calling her “good in every way.” The president went on to say that he has the right to make the appointment because he was elected in 2016.
In a stark contrast to some of the primary debates, Wallace questioned both candidates on climate change.
“I believe we have to do everything we can to have immaculate air and immaculate water and do whatever else we can that’s good,” Trump said. “We are planting a billion trees.”
In his response, Biden claimed that his climate plan would create jobs and incentives for people to upgrade and weatherize their properties. He also said he would rejoin the Paris Climate Accord.
Trump bashed the proposed climate policy known as the Green New Deal. Biden responded by saying, “that’s not my plan.”
In the closing segment of the debate, Wallace asked both Trump and Biden about the integrity of the election and if they would support the outcome of the votes.
After urging people to vote and telling viewers that mail-in ballots are safe, Biden said win or lose that he would accept the results of the Nov. 3 election.
“Win that will be accepted, if I lose that will be accepted,” Biden said.
Trump struck up a familiar tone and made unsubstantiated claims that mail-in ballots were unsafe.
“As far as the ballots are concerned, it’s a disaster,” Trump said. “There’s fraud.”
His comments come just days after FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that his bureau has not seen any credible evidence of widespread voter fraud.
The next presidential debate will take place on Oct. 15, at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami. While the lone vice-presidential debate will be held at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City on Oct. 7.


courthousenews--2020-09-30--Judge Blocks Huge Immigration and Citizenship Fee Hike

( CN ) — A U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration fee hike planned for this week was blocked by a federal judge in California on Tuesday , offering a reprieve to immigrants seeking asylum and work permits .
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California found “ serious questions ” as to the legitimacy of the fee increase because Chad Wolf , the acting secretary for the Department of Homeland Security , was not properly appointed to the position .
The department ’ s final rule , published Aug. 3 , proposed to more than double @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 700 to $ 1,710 , or $ 1,610 for online applications , and make it more difficult to qualify for a fee waiver .
Federal officials said the increase was necessary to cover operation costs .
But in a 35-page ruling , Judge White , a George W. Bush appointee , wrote “ the court concludes the plaintiffs have met their burden to show the public interest and the balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of enjoining implementation and staying the effective date of the final rule.
” The Immigrant Legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the federal government ’ s fee increase , but also questioned the legitimacy of Wolf and former acting secretary Kevin McAleenan ’ s appointments .
An independent watchdog group has concluded that neither were properly appointed to their posts following the resignation of Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in April 2019 .
White noted that when Nielsen resigned , there was no undersecretary — which would have been the next person to take her place .
McAleenan was farther down the line of succession and not eligible , according to the plaintiffs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Mr. Wolf was not validly serving in office ” when the fee hike rule was finalized .
“ At the very least , plaintiffs have shown that recent events support a finding that there a serious questions going to the merits of their claim that the final rule is contrary to law , ” wrote White .
White found “ the public has an interest in avoiding overreach of executive power with respect to appointments that require the informed consent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA ) which governs administrative agencies and their internal procedures and how they interact with the greater public .
White found the plaintiffs met their burden because the federal government did not disclose data and relied on unexplained data or outright ignored data in the record .
The federal agency argued it seeks “ full cost recovery ” with the fee hike and filed some information with the court about costs and how the agency spends its funding .
“ While this might provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion provides data showing why USCIS ’ fiscal situation has become so dire , ” wrote White .
White noted Homeland Security has not been gathering data over the years on price increases and how those would impact applications for immigration benefits .
White also agreed with the plaintiff ’ s argument that Homeland Security ’ s reliance on statistics or data on prior fee increases is not an accurate comparison because the latest proposed fee increase combines price hikes with “ a correspondent decrease in the ability to obtain waivers of fees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fee changes.
” The agency failed to show why it needed to make such a significant departure from past practice on asylum fees , White found .
He said the Immigrant Legal Resource Center proved the final rule would cause irreparable harm , because it would “ prevent vulnerable and low-income applicants from applying for immigration benefits , will block access to humanitarian protections , and will expose those populations to further danger.
” White barred the Trump administration from using or enforcing the new fee hike rule and said the preliminary injunction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tuesday ’ s ruling from White was applauded far and wide by immigration advocacy groups .
Immigrant Legal Resource Center in a tweet said , “ Thank you to our amazing partners and everyone who joined the critical fight against a # wealthtest for citizenship.
” Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment .

A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration fee hike planned for this week was blocked by a federal judge in California on Tuesday, offering a reprieve to immigrants seeking asylum and work permits.
(CN) — A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration fee hike planned for this week was blocked by a federal judge in California on Tuesday, offering a reprieve to immigrants seeking asylum and work permits.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California found “serious questions” as to the legitimacy of the fee increase because Chad Wolf, the acting secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, was not properly appointed to the position.
The department’s final rule, published Aug. 3, proposed to more than double the citizenship application fee, from $700 to $1,710, or $1,610 for online applications, and make it more difficult to qualify for a fee waiver.
Federal officials said the increase was necessary to cover operation costs.
But in a 35-page ruling, Judge White, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote “the court concludes the plaintiffs have met their burden to show the public interest and the balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of enjoining implementation and staying the effective date of the final rule.”
The Immigrant Legal Resource Center not only sought an injunction of the federal government’s fee increase, but also questioned the legitimacy of Wolf and former acting secretary Kevin McAleenan’s appointments.
An independent watchdog group has concluded that neither were properly appointed to their posts following the resignation of Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in April 2019.
White noted that when Nielsen resigned, there was no undersecretary — which would have been the next person to take her place.
McAleenan was farther down the line of succession and not eligible, according to the plaintiffs. White agreed, finding the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Mr. Wolf was not validly serving in office” when the fee hike rule was finalized.
“At the very least, plaintiffs have shown that recent events support a finding that there a serious questions going to the merits of their claim that the final rule is contrary to law,” wrote White.
White found “the public has an interest in avoiding overreach of executive power with respect to appointments that require the informed consent of the legislative branch.”
The plaintiffs also say the final rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which governs administrative agencies and their internal procedures and how they interact with the greater public.
White found the plaintiffs met their burden because the federal government did not disclose data and relied on unexplained data or outright ignored data in the record.
The federal agency argued it seeks “full cost recovery” with the fee hike and filed some information with the court about costs and how the agency spends its funding.
“While this might provide a general roadmap, nothing in that discussion provides data showing why USCIS’ fiscal situation has become so dire,” wrote White.
White noted Homeland Security has not been gathering data over the years on price increases and how those would impact applications for immigration benefits.
White also agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that Homeland Security’s reliance on statistics or data on prior fee increases is not an accurate comparison because the latest proposed fee increase combines price hikes with “a correspondent decrease in the ability to obtain waivers of fees, a variable not relevant to past fee changes.”
The agency failed to show why it needed to make such a significant departure from past practice on asylum fees, White found.
He said the Immigrant Legal Resource Center proved the final rule would cause irreparable harm, because it would “prevent vulnerable and low-income applicants from applying for immigration benefits, will block access to humanitarian protections, and will expose those populations to further danger.”
White barred the Trump administration from using or enforcing the new fee hike rule and said the preliminary injunction would remain in place until a trial.
Tuesday’s ruling from White was applauded far and wide by immigration advocacy groups.
Immigrant Legal Resource Center in a tweet said, “Thank you to our amazing partners and everyone who joined the critical fight against a #wealthtest for citizenship.”
Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.


courthousenews--2020-09-30--Russian Hacker Sentenced for 2012 Data Theft of LinkedIn, Dropbox Users

SAN FRANCISCO ( CN ) — A federal judge on Tuesday sentenced convicted Russian hacker Yevgeniy Nikulin to 88 months in prison for stealing more than 100 million user credentials from LinkedIn , Dropbox and Formspring databases in 2012 .
“ I think you ’ re a brilliant guy .
Very smart .
I urge you to apply that brilliance to a lawful profession and do something good with your life other than hacking into computers , ” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said after imposing the sentence he believes takes into account the nearly four years Nikulin has spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic and the fact that he will likely never see his mother again .
The 88 months amounts to a little more than seven years behind bars for Nikulin , who will turn 33 next month .
In 2016 , he was snatched off the streets of Prague , where he spent two years awaiting extradition to the U.S. to face nine criminal counts of computer intrusion , causing damage to a protected computer , aggravated identity theft , trafficking and conspiracy .
A jury convicted him of all counts in July , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough evidence to prove that he committed the Dropbox and Formspring hacks for financial gain .
Alsup said Tuesday that he had his doubts about the strength of the government ’ s case throughout the trial .
“ I feel I said things on the record in frustration along the way that may have led the casual observer to think the case was a weak case , ” he said .
“ It ’ s true that while the evidence was coming in at trial that me , the judge , felt the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go to the jury .
I did have that feeling from time to time.
” But any misgivings he had early on were put to rest during Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine Wawrzyniak ’ s closing argument , which Alsup said was one of the best he had heard in 21 years on the federal bench .
“ All of the loose pieces and data points fell into place and it was quite clear the government had a strong case , not a weak case , ” he said .
He also said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that Nikulin ’ s case was hurt , not helped , by going to trial .
Nikulin ’ s sentence breaks down to 64 months on counts two , six and eight related to trafficking in unauthorized access devices and causing damage to a protected computer , and 60 months for counts one , four , five and seven related to computer intrusion and conspiracy .
These will all be served concurrently .
He will also serve 24 months for aggravated identity theft .
“ I want to impose a sentence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed is harder on him than anyone in his position , ” Alsup said , adding that the Covid-19 pandemic has made being in prison harder , along with the experience of awaiting trial in a country where he does not speak English and a judicial system with which he is unfamiliar .
“ It ’ s not quite Kafkaesque because he did the crime , but it is harder on him than it is on the ordinary defendant , ” Alsup said .
The judge also seemed particularly affected by the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Russia and that his mother may not live long enough for him to see her again .
His attorney Valery Nechay said she has had four spinal surgeries and three strokes in recent years .
“ It is very possible she is at the edge of her life and that Mr. Nikulin may never get to see her again .
The weight of the guilt and the pain of being separated from these people who love and need him is far more punitive than any term of imprisonment that this court or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said , arguing for time served .
Nechay added that the psychological distress Nikulin suffered while being held in two foreign jails is enough to deter him from committing another cybercrime .
He longs for walks in the fresh air , raising his daughter , and “ having a peaceful life away from computers.
” Alsup was skeptical .
“ Let ’ s say Mr. Nikulin were released today and went back to Russia .
The only thing he knows how to do is hack into computers .
How can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back there , out of the reach of U.S. authorities , that he wouldn ’ t go back to doing it all over again ?
” Nechay said Nikulin is skilled at vehicle and watch repair and “ can have a bright future ” in Russia .
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Kane said it is exceedingly difficult to capture Russian hackers , as Russia does not have an extradition treaty with the United States .
“ It is so unusual for the United States to be able to get an individual like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many countries from which we can not extradite defendants .
This was a case in which the defendant happened to leave Russia and we were able to have him arrested and extradited , ” she said .
“ It is incredibly important for the hackers of the world to know that they can not act with impunity .
That the United States economy is not their playground .
That we may not catch all of them , but we will catch some of them and when they come here , the punishment is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a substantial risk that he will repeat the crime when he goes back to Russia , ” Alsup said .
“ I think I know enough about him to know that he will be very tempted to get back into the hacking business when he gets over there then he ’ ll be beyond the reach of the U.S. ” Alsup also took the severity of Nikulin ’ s crime into account , noting that millions of people likely lost sleep over their compromised accounts .
“ The worry never goes away , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know when someone is going to use the information that got stolen.
” Nechay ’ s co-counsel Adam Gasner said the companies , particularly LinkedIn , substantially overestimated their financial losses in remediating the attacks .
Alsup agreed , saying LinkedIn ’ s loss calculation was “ possibly exaggerated ” but that he had no doubt that all three companies suffered significant losses .
He reduced LinkedIn ’ s restitution from the $ 2 million requested to $ 1 million .
Dropbox was awarded $ 514,000 and Formspring $ 20,000 .
He also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though Nikulin was not charged for that intrusion .
“ The defense stands by its assertion that these loss amounts were not based in fact .
LinkedIn is a multi-billion dollar corporate victim who could not provide any documentation to support their claim , ” Gasner said in an email to Courthouse News Service .
“ The court agreed with the defense that LinkedIn ’ s claim was overstated and lowered the sentencing guidelines as a result .
He also then varied below the suggested sentencing guidelines because of the hardships Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face in custody as a Russian National who does not speak English and who has no ties to the United States.
” Gasner said Nikulin will not serve the full 88 months because he will get credit for time served .
“ The sentence imposed was 88 months , of which he will serve 85 % of that time – meaning he needs to serve 74.8 months of actual custody , ” Gasner said .
“ After deducting the 48 months he has already served , he has 26.8 additional months remaining .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ before he is returned home .
We wish him well .
”

A federal judge on Tuesday sentenced convicted Russian hacker Yevgeniy Nikulin to 88 months in prison for stealing more than 100 million user credentials from LinkedIn, Dropbox and Formspring databases in 2012.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge on Tuesday sentenced convicted Russian hacker Yevgeniy Nikulin to 88 months in prison for stealing more than 100 million user credentials from LinkedIn, Dropbox and Formspring databases in 2012.
“I think you're a brilliant guy. Very smart. I urge you to apply that brilliance to a lawful profession and do something good with your life other than hacking into computers,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said after imposing the sentence he believes takes into account the nearly four years Nikulin has spent behind bars awaiting trial, the Covid-19 pandemic and the fact that he will likely never see his mother again.
The 88 months amounts to a little more than seven years behind bars for Nikulin, who will turn 33 next month.
In 2016, he was snatched off the streets of Prague, where he spent two years awaiting extradition to the U.S. to face nine criminal counts of computer intrusion, causing damage to a protected computer, aggravated identity theft, trafficking and conspiracy.
A jury convicted him of all counts in July, but found the government did not present enough evidence to prove that he committed the Dropbox and Formspring hacks for financial gain.
Alsup said Tuesday that he had his doubts about the strength of the government's case throughout the trial.
“I feel I said things on the record in frustration along the way that may have led the casual observer to think the case was a weak case,” he said. “It's true that while the evidence was coming in at trial that me, the judge, felt the case was disjointed and possibly too weak to go to the jury. I did have that feeling from time to time.”
But any misgivings he had early on were put to rest during Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine Wawrzyniak’s closing argument, which Alsup said was one of the best he had heard in 21 years on the federal bench.
“All of the loose pieces and data points fell into place and it was quite clear the government had a strong case, not a weak case,” he said.
He also said the defense did an admirable job, but that Nikulin’s case was hurt, not helped, by going to trial.
Nikulin’s sentence breaks down to 64 months on counts two, six and eight related to trafficking in unauthorized access devices and causing damage to a protected computer, and 60 months for counts one, four, five and seven related to computer intrusion and conspiracy. These will all be served concurrently. He will also serve 24 months for aggravated identity theft.
“I want to impose a sentence that would take into account that the time imposed is harder on him than anyone in his position,” Alsup said, adding that the Covid-19 pandemic has made being in prison harder, along with the experience of awaiting trial in a country where he does not speak English and a judicial system with which he is unfamiliar.
“It's not quite Kafkaesque because he did the crime, but it is harder on him than it is on the ordinary defendant,” Alsup said.
The judge also seemed particularly affected by the fact that Nikulin has a 10-year-old daughter in Russia and that his mother may not live long enough for him to see her again. His attorney Valery Nechay said she has had four spinal surgeries and three strokes in recent years.
“It is very possible she is at the edge of her life and that Mr. Nikulin may never get to see her again. The weight of the guilt and the pain of being separated from these people who love and need him is far more punitive than any term of imprisonment that this court or any other can issue to Mr. Nikulin,” she said, arguing for time served.


courthousenews--2020-10-01--Judge Rules Three Provisions of Alabama Voting Law Unconstitutional

( CN ) — For Howard Porter , Jr. , a Black man with asthma and Parkinson ’ s disease in his seventies , it is too much to vote in person at his polling location in Mobile County , Alabama where poll workers can not enforce mask wearing during the pandemic .
“ As important as the right to vote is , I just can ’ t endure that , ” Porter testified during a trial held Sept. 8 to 18 in the U.S. District Court for Northern Alabama .
And in a ruling issued Wednesday , the judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cited the testimony of Porter and the other plaintiffs in their suit challenging three provisions of Alabama voting law , which they say burdens their right to vote in a pandemic .
Kallon said while the state argued the provisions protect the integrity of the election and guards against voter fraud , they do so only marginally .
Instead , the judge said , the provisions violate the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act during the Covid-19 pandemic because they make voting inaccessible to medically vulnerable people .
Furthermore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s efforts to disenfranchise Black voters .
It ’ s a decision the Alabama Secretary of State and Attorney General said they plan to appeal — to the U.S. Supreme Court if need be , where in July Associate Justice Clarence Thomas stayed Kallon ’ s injunction in the suit .
The provisions require Alabama voters casting ballots by mail include a copy of their photo ID when applying for a ballot and then have either a notary or two witnesses sign absentee ballot affidavits .
The lawsuit also challenged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to a polling location on Election Day and voting from their cars .
“ As applied during the COVID-19 pandemic , the Challenged Provisions unduly burden the fundamental Constitutional rights of Alabama ’ s most vulnerable voters and violate federal laws designed to protect America ’ s most marginalized citizens , ” Kallon wrote in his 197-page decision .
The judge intended the order to be narrowly tailored at a time when the state has already begun collecting absentee ballots .
Kallon said he will enjoin the de facto ban in Alabama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials could offer the service if they so desire .
He said he would also enjoin the witness requirement for voters “ who provide a statement that they have an underlying medical condition that puts them at a heightened risk from COVID-19.
” And Kallon said part of the order would apply to the photo ID requirement : “ for absentee voters over 65 or those under 65 who can not safely obtain a copy of their photo ID during the COVID-19 pandemic due to an underlying medical condition , and , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other identifiers such as their driver ’ s license number and last four digits of their social security number.
” According to Kallon ’ s findings of fact and conclusions of law , Porter testified his sister and uncle are two of the more than 206,000 Americans who died from Covid-19 .
When Porter goes out to , say , a doctor ’ s appointment , he wears a mask , socially distances and then washes his clothes and showers when he returns home .
Porter , according Kallon ’ s decision , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July 14 primary runoff election because he never received an absentee ballot .
And when he did vote in person , he parked in a disabled parking spot and walked with a cane 100 to 150 feet to enter the polling location .
That situation , Kallon said , may be enough for voters like Porter to have standing to challenge the de facto ban on curbside voting outside the pandemic , though the voters did not provide enough evidence at trial to prove their polling locations violated the Americans with Disabilities Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the state known for its history in the bitter struggle for civil rights , he testified his ancestors died in order to vote .
“ While I don ’ t mind dying to vote , I think we ’ re past that — we ’ re past that time .
Voting is the only day that rich , the poor , sick , the healthy , all should be counted as one and just as easy , ” Porter said .
Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union , Alabama Disabilities Advocacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fund and the Southern Poverty Law Center helped bring the suit .
Caren Short , SPLC senior staff attorney said in a statement Kallon ’ s decision will bring about a “ better public health situation ” and provide “ crucial relief ” for voters seeking to vote by mail .
“ We ’ re deeply hopeful that the secretary of state and county election officials will accept the court ’ s ruling and begin educating Alabama voters on how they can vote safely and easily for the general election , ” Short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of State John Merrill expressed disappointment in the ruling , saying curbside voting can break the chain of custody for ballots , calling into question election integrity , and the absentee voting provisions are needed to stymie illegal election influence .
“ We look forward to appealing this decision to the higher court as we continue fighting for safe and secure elections — free from voter fraud and judicial activism , ” Merrill said .

A federal judge in Alabama ruled parts of that state's voting restrictions violated the law and made voting inaccessible to medically vulnerable people.
(CN) — For Howard Porter, Jr., a Black man with asthma and Parkinson’s disease in his seventies, it is too much to vote in person at his polling location in Mobile County, Alabama where poll workers cannot enforce mask wearing during the pandemic.
“As important as the right to vote is, I just can’t endure that,” Porter testified during a trial held Sept. 8 to 18 in the U.S. District Court for Northern Alabama.
And in a ruling issued Wednesday, the judge overseeing that bench trial, Abdul Kallon, cited the testimony of Porter and the other plaintiffs in their suit challenging three provisions of Alabama voting law, which they say burdens their right to vote in a pandemic.
“Their testimony speaks for itself,” Kallon, an Obama appointee, wrote.
The Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama.
Kallon said while the state argued the provisions protect the integrity of the election and guards against voter fraud, they do so only marginally.
Instead, the judge said, the provisions violate the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act during the Covid-19 pandemic because they make voting inaccessible to medically vulnerable people. Furthermore, the witness requirement grew out of the state’s efforts to disenfranchise Black voters.
It’s a decision the Alabama Secretary of State and Attorney General said they plan to appeal — to the U.S. Supreme Court if need be, where in July Associate Justice Clarence Thomas stayed Kallon’s injunction in the suit.
The provisions require Alabama voters casting ballots by mail include a copy of their photo ID when applying for a ballot and then have either a notary or two witnesses sign absentee ballot affidavits. The lawsuit also challenged a de facto ban on voters driving up to a polling location on Election Day and voting from their cars.
“As applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Challenged Provisions unduly burden the fundamental Constitutional rights of Alabama’s most vulnerable voters and violate federal laws designed to protect America’s most marginalized citizens,” Kallon wrote in his 197-page decision.
The judge intended the order to be narrowly tailored at a time when the state has already begun collecting absentee ballots.
Kallon said he will enjoin the de facto ban in Alabama on curbside voting so that county election officials could offer the service if they so desire. He said he would also enjoin the witness requirement for voters “who provide a statement that they have an underlying medical condition that puts them at a heightened risk from COVID-19.”
And Kallon said part of the order would apply to the photo ID requirement: “for absentee voters over 65 or those under 65 who cannot safely obtain a copy of their photo ID during the COVID-19 pandemic due to an underlying medical condition, and, as required by the application, who provide other identifiers such as their driver’s license number and last four digits of their social security number.”
According to Kallon’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, Porter testified his sister and uncle are two of the more than 206,000 Americans who died from Covid-19. When Porter goes out to, say, a doctor’s appointment, he wears a mask, socially distances and then washes his clothes and showers when he returns home.
Porter, according Kallon’s decision, did not vote in Alabama’s July 14 primary runoff election because he never received an absentee ballot. And when he did vote in person, he parked in a disabled parking spot and walked with a cane 100 to 150 feet to enter the polling location.
That situation, Kallon said, may be enough for voters like Porter to have standing to challenge the de facto ban on curbside voting outside the pandemic, though the voters did not provide enough evidence at trial to prove their polling locations violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
As for Porter, the resident of the state known for its history in the bitter struggle for civil rights, he testified his ancestors died in order to vote.
“While I don’t mind dying to vote, I think we’re past that — we’re past that time. Voting is the only day that rich, the poor, sick, the healthy, all should be counted as one and just as easy,” Porter said.
Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Southern Poverty Law Center helped bring the suit.
Caren Short, SPLC senior staff attorney said in a statement Kallon’s decision will bring about a “better public health situation” and provide “crucial relief” for voters seeking to vote by mail.
“We’re deeply hopeful that the secretary of state and county election officials will accept the court’s ruling and begin educating Alabama voters on how they can vote safely and easily for the general election,” Short said.
But in a statement, Secretary of State John Merrill expressed disappointment in the ruling, saying curbside voting can break the chain of custody for ballots, calling into question election integrity, and the absentee voting provisions are needed to stymie illegal election influence.
“We look forward to appealing this decision to the higher court as we continue fighting for safe and secure elections — free from voter fraud and judicial activism,” Merrill said.


courthousenews--2020-10-01--Poll Shows Lindsey Graham in ‘Fight of His Political Life’

( CN ) — While President Donald Trump clings to his slight lead over Joe Biden in South Carolina , a new Quinnipiac University poll on Wednesday shows incumbent Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is neck-and-neck with his Democratic rival Jaime Harrison in the U.S. Senate race .
“ Outspent and labeled by critics as an apologist for President Trump , Lindsey Graham is facing the fight of his political life , ” said Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy in a statement .
Unchanged from Quinnipiac ’ s survey from Sept. 16 , the results on Wednesday show Graham and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 48 % support among likely voters .
Graham , who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee , has been an outspoken ally of Trump and his policies .
He won his last Senate race by a 10-point margin .
In a match-up , the favorability ratings of these two candidates show a larger difference .
“ Likely voters give Harrison a positive favorability rating , 48-35 percent , while Graham ’ s favorability rating is negative , 51-43 percent , ” the poll states .
Only 4 % of respondents said they may change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has NEVER been challenged like this in his political career .
We are here to fight until the very end .
Thirty-four days to make history , y ’ all , ” Harrison , the former South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman , said in a tweet responding to news of the poll on Wednesday .
Malloy noted in his statement that there has not been a Democrat elected to the Senate from South Carolina since 1998 .
Accentuating this pattern , the poll shows 49 % of South Carolina voters want to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 44 % are hoping for Democratic control .
Whatever residents decide in November , it could be crucial in determining which party controls the Senate going forward .
Meanwhile , in the state that opted for the Republican candidate during every presidential election since 1980 , Trump and Biden are locked in a dead heat .
Just two weeks ago , the pollsters found that Trump held a 6-point lead over the former vice president among likely voters in South Carolina .
Wednesday ’ s poll , however , shows that Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much smaller margin of 48 % to Biden ’ s 47 % .
Forty-nine percent of likely voters polled say they have a favorable view of Biden compared to 46 % responding that he is unfavorable .
When it comes to favorability in the state , Trump has a 48-48 % split .
The results of the poll were compiled before the hectic presidential debate on Tuesday night and included a look into how likely voters in the state feel about certain issues .
According to the pollsters , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the winner of the election should be the one to choose a Supreme Court replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Forty-seven percent would rather give Trump the go-ahead to do it now , even though slightly more respondents said the incumbent would better handle the Supreme Court than would Biden .
The poll surveyed 1,123 likely South Carolina voters from Sept. 23 to Sept. 27 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points .

While President Donald Trump clings to his slight lead over Joe Biden in South Carolina, a new Quinnipiac University poll on Wednesday shows incumbent Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is neck-and-neck with his Democratic rival Jaime Harrison in the U.S. Senate race.
(CN) — While President Donald Trump clings to his slight lead over Joe Biden in South Carolina, a new Quinnipiac University poll on Wednesday shows incumbent Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is neck-and-neck with his Democratic rival Jaime Harrison in the U.S. Senate race.
“Outspent and labeled by critics as an apologist for President Trump, Lindsey Graham is facing the fight of his political life," said Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy in a statement.
Unchanged from Quinnipiac's survey from Sept. 16, the results on Wednesday show Graham and Harrison tied, with both having garnered 48% support among likely voters.
Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been an outspoken ally of Trump and his policies. He won his last Senate race by a 10-point margin.
In a match-up, the favorability ratings of these two candidates show a larger difference.
“Likely voters give Harrison a positive favorability rating, 48-35 percent, while Graham’s favorability rating is negative, 51-43 percent,” the poll states.
Only 4% of respondents said they may change their mind.
“Sen. Graham has NEVER been challenged like this in his political career. We are here to fight until the very end. Thirty-four days to make history, y'all,” Harrison, the former South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman, said in a tweet responding to news of the poll on Wednesday.
Malloy noted in his statement that there has not been a Democrat elected to the Senate from South Carolina since 1998.
Accentuating this pattern, the poll shows 49% of South Carolina voters want to see Republicans in control of the Senate while 44% are hoping for Democratic control.
Whatever residents decide in November, it could be crucial in determining which party controls the Senate going forward.
Meanwhile, in the state that opted for the Republican candidate during every presidential election since 1980, Trump and Biden are locked in a dead heat.
Just two weeks ago, the pollsters found that Trump held a 6-point lead over the former vice president among likely voters in South Carolina.
Wednesday’s poll, however, shows that Trump is now leading in the Palmetto State by a much smaller margin of 48% to Biden’s 47%.
Forty-nine percent of likely voters polled say they have a favorable view of Biden compared to 46% responding that he is unfavorable. When it comes to favorability in the state, Trump has a 48-48% split.
The results of the poll were compiled before the hectic presidential debate on Tuesday night and included a look into how likely voters in the state feel about certain issues.
According to the pollsters, for example, 49% of likely voters say that the winner of the election should be the one to choose a Supreme Court replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Forty-seven percent would rather give Trump the go-ahead to do it now, even though slightly more respondents said the incumbent would better handle the Supreme Court than would Biden.
The poll surveyed 1,123 likely South Carolina voters from Sept. 23 to Sept. 27 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.