•   
  •   
  •   

US Supreme Court's war on prosecutors meets 'Bridgegate'

15:20  13 january  2020
15:20  13 january  2020 Source:   usatoday.com

Supreme Court sets Friday deadline for responses in ObamaCare case

  Supreme Court sets Friday deadline for responses in ObamaCare case The Supreme Court on Monday told the Trump administration and a group of states to respond by the end of the week to an effort by Democrats to expedite a challenge to a lower court ruling that struck down a key tenet of ObamaCare. © Greg Nash Supreme Court sets Friday deadline for responses in ObamaCare case The court asked the health care law's opponents to file a response to the motion by Friday afternoon.

The United States Supreme Court , in a decision that surprised legal experts, last week agreed to hear an appeal of the defendants’ corruption convictions in a move that could significantly weaken the ability of prosecutors to go after what they determine to be political malfeasance. The court ’ s decision to

The U. S . Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case of Jersey-style political hardball involving a scheme to back up traffic on the world' s busiest “While there is no way to predict how the court may rule on this appeal, what is clear is that the last chapter in the Bridgegate case has yet to be written.”

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court was deep into oral argument back in 2014 about a Florida fisherman's federal conviction for destroying evidence – in his case, 72 undersized grouper.

Chris Christie wearing a suit and tie: Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, here in September 2019, was at the center of a 2013 scandal that shut down George Washington Bridge entrance lanes from Fort Lee, N.J.© Robert Deutsch, USAT Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, here in September 2019, was at the center of a 2013 scandal that shut down George Washington Bridge entrance lanes from Fort Lee, N.J.

"What kind of a mad prosecutor would try to send this guy up for 20 years?" Associate Justice Antonin Scalia railed.

"You make him sound like a mob boss or something," Chief Justice John Roberts chastised the Justice Department's lawyer.

Former OKC officer convicted of rape, other sex crimes files appeal with US Supreme Court

  Former OKC officer convicted of rape, other sex crimes files appeal with US Supreme Court Daniel Holtzclaw, an Oklahoma City police officer convicted of rape and other sex crimes in 2015, has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States. According to online records, attorney James Hankins filed the petition for writ of certiorari for Holtzclaw on Dec. 30 at the United States Supreme Court. Sign up for our Newsletters Holtzclaw was found guilty in 2015 of 18 charges, including rape and sexual battery involving eight women. He was sentenced to 263 years in prison. In the petition filed with the U.S.

Now, the U. S . Supreme Court will decide if prosecutors misapplied the law at the outset. The court ' s decision, expected this spring, could have a far-reaching impact on how public corruption investigations are handled, similar to rulings in recent years involving former Enron CEO Jeffrey

Now, the U. S . Supreme Court will decide if prosecutors misapplied the law at the outset. The court ’ s decision, expected this spring, could have a far-reaching impact on how public corruption investigations are handled, similar to rulings in recent years involving former Enron CEO Jeffrey

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

The case – which went well for the fisherman, if not the fish – was one of many recent examples in which the high court has admonished prosecutors for stretching laws to win convictions. Others rescued by the justices ranged from a jilted wife charged with assault under an international chemical weapons treaty to a legal immigrant deported for hiding four prescription tablets in a sock.

On Tuesday, the high court will shed some light on whether its forgiveness extends to shutting down access lanes to the George Washington Bridge – the busiest bridge in the world – for political retribution.

The case pits two mid-level public officials with ties to former New Jersey governor Chris Christie against federal prosecutors who charged them with fraud and won 18-month prison sentences for a political prank that ran amok.

Guilty verdict overturned in S. Korea #MeToo case

  Guilty verdict overturned in S. Korea #MeToo case A former prosecutor who was tried following groping allegations that fuelled South Korea's #MeToo movement walked free on Thursday after his conviction was quashed by the country's top court. Ahn Tae-geun, 53, was jailed for two years for abuse of power in January last year after being accused of repeatedly groping a female junior colleague at a funeral in 2015.

Now, the U. S . Supreme Court will decide if prosecutors misapplied the law at the outset. The court ’ s decision, expected this spring, could have a far-reaching impact on how public corruption investigations are handled, similar to rulings in recent years involving former Enron CEO Jeffrey

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will hear a case on the " Bridgegate " scandal. Bridget Kelly, a former aide to ex-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), was sentenced to 13 months in prison earlier this year for her role in the scandal, in which prosecutors allege officials sought to create traffic jams on

Upset by a Democratic mayor's refusal to endorse Republican Christie's re-election in 2013, the two associates created gridlock for several days in Fort Lee, N.J. As it turned out, they also helped turn a popular governor with presidential ambitions into a joke on late-night television, helping to tank his political future.

The scandal, now going on seven years, became known as Bridgegate. The Supreme Court's willingness to hear it following two lower court convictions is a positive sign for Christie aides Bridget Kelly and William Baroni, though it's too soon to tell if they'll get off the hook like the Florida fish captain.

What's clearer is the court's impatience with federal and state prosecutors, even in cases of political corruption.

Four years ago, the court vacated the conviction of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, who had been sentenced to two years in prison for accepting luxury gifts and loans from a wealthy businessman in exchange for "official acts." The justices ruled unanimously that those acts were commonplace actions taken on behalf of constituents.

Supreme Court to tackle corruption questions in Bridgegate case

  Supreme Court to tackle corruption questions in Bridgegate case The Bridgegate scandal will head to the Supreme Court next week, bringing with it complicated legal questions about whether public officials are committing fraud by lying about their reasons for making policy decisions. © Getty Images Supreme Court to tackle corruption questions in Bridgegate case On Tuesday, the court will hear oral arguments in a case that centers around the convictions of a former aide to then New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and a Port Authority official for their role in a scheme to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge in 2013 to create traffic problems for the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J.

Now, the U. S . Supreme Court will decide if prosecutors misapplied the law at the outset. The court ' s decision, expected this spring, could have a far-reaching impact on how public corruption investigations are handled, similar to rulings in recent years involving former Enron CEO Jeffrey

Now, the U. S . Supreme Court will decide if prosecutors misapplied the law at the outset. The court ' s decision, expected this spring, could have a far-reaching impact on how public corruption investigations are handled, similar to rulings in recent years involving former Enron CEO Jeffrey

The ruling made it harder for prosecutors to use federal fraud statutes against public officials by characterizing what the justices called common favors as crimes. That could work against the Trump administration in the New Jersey case.

“A good number of the recent cases are examples of where prosecutors stretched the law," says Ellen Podgor, a white-collar crime research professor at Stetson University College of Law.

Siding with defendants

The Supreme Court began pushing back against public corruption prosecutions in 1987, reversing the conviction of Kentucky officials who had skimmed money paid by the state to insurance companies. The court reasoned that fraud statutes do not guarantee officials will "perform their duties honestly." A generation later, it added that "honest services" fraud must include bribery or kickbacks.

More recently, the justices have sided frequently with small-time criminal defendants swept up by large-scale prosecutions:

In 2014, the court ruled unanimously that the federal government had no business using an international chemical weapons treaty to prosecute a jilted wife who committed a "two-bit local assault" against her husband's lover.

'Bridgegate': From Fort Lee, N.J., to the Supreme Court. This is how we got here

  'Bridgegate': From Fort Lee, N.J., to the Supreme Court. This is how we got here Years after Fort Lee, N.J., was snarled in traffic jams for political payback, Bridgegate's questions may be answered — by the nation's highest court.What Michel did not realize was that he was trapped in what came to be known as “Bridgegate” — the bizarre plot to punish Fort Lee’s Democratic mayor with traffic jams because he refused to endorse the reelection of Republican Gov. Chris Christie.

Will SCOTUS bring the Bridgegate scandal to an end, once and for all? John Moore/Getty Images. The United States Supreme Court has created hope that justice will prevail over the public’ s blood lust that someone—anyone—must suffer for Bridgegate , even if it is not former Governor Chris Christie

The court met last Thursday to decide whether her case would move forward, announcing its decision without explanation. Federal prosecutors rejected the arguments in opposing a review by the court . They said the fact that the lane closures at the George Washington Bridge may have been politically

In 2015, it chastised federal prosecutors for deporting a Tunisian man on drug paraphernalia charges based on four Adderall tablets hidden in a sock.

In 2017, the justices ruled unanimously that a Serbian immigrant's lie about her husband's military record was not reason to strip away her citizenship.

Last year, the court again ruled unanimously that states, along with the federal government, cannot impose excessive fines as criminal penalties – such as the seizure of a small-time drug dealer's $42,000 Land Rover.

"The protection against excessive fines guards against abuses of government’s punitive or criminal law-enforcement authority," Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote.

'Honest government'

Perhaps sensing a sympathetic audience, lawyers for Kelly have raised another recent Supreme Court decision: last year's ruling against the Trump administration's effort to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

Noting that Chief Justice John Roberts said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross' reason for adding the question "seems to have been contrived," Kelly's lawyers said Ross could have been imprisoned for fraud under the reasoning used to convict their client.

"That astoundingly expansive theory of criminal fraud cannot be correct," they wrote. "It would undo, in one fell swoop, three decades of this court’s precedents rejecting attempts to enforce 'honest government' through vague federal criminal statutes."

Trump asks Supreme Court to let immigrant 'public charge' rule take effect

  Trump asks Supreme Court to let immigrant 'public charge' rule take effect The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to move forward with a rule aimed at cutting back benefits for immigrants while litigation plays out in court.The Justice Department, on behalf of the administration, asked the justices to lift a nationwide halt on President Trump's "public charge" rule that links immigrants' legal status to their use of public benefits.The move came after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit last week kept in place a nationwide injunction entered by a federal district judge in New York.

Now, the U. S . Supreme Court will decide if prosecutors misapplied the law at the outset. The court ' s decision, expected this spring, could have a far-reaching impact on how public corruption investigations are handled, similar to rulings in recent years involving former Enron CEO Jeffrey

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a case involving two former state officials convicted in New Jersey’ s “ Bridgegate ” scandal. Prosecutors alleged that Kelly and Baroni’ s motive in realigning the lanes was to punish Fort Lee’ s Democratic mayor for not endorsing their boss, Republican Gov.

But there's another side to the Bridgegate saga. The Justice Department says Kelly and Baroni didn't just conceal political motives. Rather, it says they blatently made up a non-existent traffic study and used Port Authority of New York and New Jersey resources to manufacture what Kelly warned would be "some traffic problems in Fort Lee."

Unlike some of the small fish the Supreme Court saved from overzealous prosecutors, such as Florida fish captain John Yates, public officials "are in positions of power," says Jennifer Ahearn, policy director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an anti-corruption group.

"This is really how our system works," Ahearn says. "We give discretion to prosecutors in the federal criminal justice system writ large. You don’t have courts stepping in and saying, 'This person isn’t worthy of being prosecuted.'"

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court's war on prosecutors meets 'Bridgegate'

Donald Trump's looming legal problems continue past impeachment trial .
The impeachment of President Donald Trump is center stage, but when the last vote in the Senate trial is cast, it won't mark an end to the investigations looming over the President and his company, the Trump Organization. Investigators in New York and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives have several inquiries that will continue well into the presidential campaign. Their focus touches an area that Trump has long tried to shield from scrutiny: his finances. The investigations have been underway for nearly a year.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 2
This is interesting!