documents Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Lawyer for Infowars host Alex Jones gets reduced suspension over handling of confidential documents

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 06 Apr 2025 02:23:45 +0000

Ethics

Lawyer for Infowars host Alex Jones gets reduced suspension over handling of confidential documents

March 20, 2025, 10:06 am CDT

Norm Pattis, the attorney of Infowars host and founder Alex Jones, speaks to the media after jurors returned a $965 million judgment in a defamation trial against Jones in October 2022. (Photo by Bryan Woolston/The Associated Press)

A lawyer who formerly represented Infowars host Alex Jones has received a two-week suspension for careless handling of confidential documents after an appeals court overturned a lengthier suspension on appeal.

In a March 12 decision, Judge Robin L. Wilson of Waterbury, Connecticut, sanctioned lawyer Norm Pattis after a Connecticut appeals court’s 2024 decision that overturned a six-month suspension. The two-week suspension can be served any time within the next six months, Wilson said.

Law360 and the Darien Times have coverage.

Pattis is seeking a stay of the suspension while he appeals and has asked the judge to credit him for a one-week suspension that he served on the six-month suspension before it was stayed, Law360 reports.

Pattis was accused of violating lawyer ethics rules by careless handling of confidential documents obtained in discovery, including medical records for plaintiffs suing Jones over false claims that the 2012 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax. Twenty children and six adults were killed by the shooter.

Pattis had represented Jones in a Connecticut defamation case over the false Sandy Hook claims. The plaintiffs obtained a $1.44 billion judgment against Jones.

Pattis’ law firm had released the records to a bankruptcy lawyer who released them to a Texas lawyer representing Jones in a similar case. A paralegal for the Texas lawyer mistakenly released the documents to the opposing counsel.

Pattis has said he thought that the documents could be shared with all of Jones’ lawyers, according to Law360.

Wilson said the sensitive information, which was protected by a court order, “was carelessly passed around from one unauthorized person to another” with no effort by Pattis to safeguard the documents.

“Given the highly litigious nature of this case, Pattis should have been on heightened alert and duty” that the confidential information “had to be handled with the utmost care,” Wilson said.

Wilson wrote in the decision that “there is no acceptable excuse” for Pattis’ misconduct, given his experience.

“Pattis is a well-known attorney who handles high-profile cases on a regular basis,” Wilson wrote. “He was required to appreciate the consequences of his actions when he made the decision” to release the records.

Wilson said factors in mitigation included lack of prior discipline and absence of a dishonest of selfish motive.

Pattis claims that Wilson did not consider character evidence that he introduced in the remand hearing and improperly relied on facts used by the previous judge to determine a sanction.

Pattis told Law360 that the reprimand was too tough under ABA standards for imposing sanctions.

“I understand the passions the Sandy Hook case evokes, but at some point, those passions should cool,” he said. “When do I stop being ‘Alex Jones’ lawyer’ and resume my role as a lawyer who handles tough cases?”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Lawyer for Infowars host Alex Jones gets reduced suspension over handling of confidential documents appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Fani Willis must turn over tranche of documents to judge

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 01 Mar 2025 00:21:35 +0000

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis arrives during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, Friday, March, 1, 2024, in Atlanta (AP Photo/Alex Slitz, Pool).

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis must turn over a tranche of documents for a judge’s inspection in a public records case where her office was found to have repeatedly violated open records laws.

As Law&Crime previously reported, those violations occurred when the prosecutor’s office, in response to open records requests, denied having any documents showing any communications with special counsel Jack Smith or members of the since-defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Late last year, in response to a lawsuit filed by the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ordered the district attorney’s office to provide the requested documents and/or explain their continued absence, leaving open the possibility of attorney fees.

Now, after falsely claiming any such records exist for months, and after being assessed a fine of $21,578 in attorneys’ fees and costs, Willis and her office admit there are such documents. The DA is continuing to withhold those documents from the nonprofit on the basis that “they are exempt pursuant” to a section of Georgia law.

Following the default judgment, Judicial Watch asked for a special master to scour the agency’s files for the documents or for the court to conduct an in camera inspection of the documents. Willis, in turn fiercely opposed a special master as “incredibly intrusive.”

“Fani Willis was caught red-handed hiding records by Judicial Watch and the court,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “We’re asking the court to appoint a special master because Willis simply can’t be trusted to come clean.”

During a Friday hearing, McBurney said it was simply far too soon to appoint a special master — but made clear he would not discount the necessity of such a move in the future. Formally, that motion was held in abeyance. The majority of the hearing hashed out how to deal with the forthcoming in camera review of the documents in question.

“I can appoint a special master,” McBurney said — but noted that it would be an expensive undertaking that would be paid for by both sides. And in the interest of economy, the judge said he would take the first stab at surveying the files the DA’s office is refusing to turn over.

The court first sought to determine the general universe of documents.

“If it’s 55 pages, we don’t need a special master, I can do that,” McBurney said. “If it’s 5,550 pages, I’m not looking at 5,500 pages. Well, I will, but I’ll get that done over the next four years. And that’s not helpful to anyone.”

Attorney John Monroe, representing Judicial Watch, said there were entirely different concerns about the number of documents at stake.

“Our big concern is we don’t have any confidence in the universe of documents,” Monroe said. “They responded without doing a search. And then they didn’t even do a search until after the complaint was filed. They don’t have any records of what they searched. They say they didn’t search even the cellphones of the six people that they knew were involved in some communication or dialogue or something with the January 6th Committee.”

The nonprofit’s attorney then put a fine point on his argument.

“And then, when you ordered them to do, I think, what would have amounted to, like, the fifth search, when they previously said they didn’t have any records at all — privileged or otherwise — now they say they have some records that are privileged. It’s just very difficult to have any confidence.”

On top of that, the plaintiff’s attorney added, the DA’s office claims they lack the expertise to use a certain piece of property cellphone-searching technology. On this point, the judge jumped in to agree the prosecutors presumably do, in fact, use that specific technology on “every cellphone they seize from a murder defendant.”

Monroe went on to say two reasons support the appointment of a special master. First, he said a special master would alleviate “the horrible lack of confidence in their searching capabilities or effort that they’re putting into it” and could “provide technological support.” Second, he said appointing a special master would help to monitor compliance with the court’s order ”

“There’s just no way to know that there has been compliance,” Monroe summed up.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘This court disagrees’: Judge strongly rejects ‘absurd’ and legally baseless effort by Fani Willis to avoid subpoenas for documents and testimony about Trump RICO prosecution

The judge, for his part, was highly sympathetic to the plaintiff’s position — even going so far as to offer a detailed criticism of the way the DA’s office has acted in the case up to this point.

“It’s kind of suspicious that you have no documents,” McBurney said — addressing the DA’s lawyer. “And then no documents because we didn’t search. And we did search and we have no documents. Then everything except what he gave the DA’s office is somehow excepted.”

Attorney Brad Bowman, representing the government, said the DA’s office had uncovered around 212 responsive documents — and conceded there were two instances of documents he thought seemed to be missing something “based on what was provided.”

The DA’s lawyer went on to explain that email accounts were searched, as well as physical files. He added that cellphones were also searched but did not know whether the aforementioned proprietary technology was used to search the phones — and he said that technology, Cellebrite, would be employed if needed.

“We do oppose the special master request,” Bowman said.

The DA’s office now, however, was willing to turn the documents over to the court — but insisted they should not be publicly released.

That answer more or less convinced the judge — for now at least.

The judge said he would issue an order in the near future containing deadlines for the DA’s office to comply. That order, the court said, would also direct the DA’s office to provide a detailed affidavit about how the search was conducted — and an appendix with the search terms used to conduct the search. Before any of that, however, the court anticipated some back-and-forth motions practice about what the affidavit and the appendix would contain.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

The plaintiffs, winning on their request for an in camera review, went on to voice concerns about the sufficiency of that relief.

“I’m troubled by the fact that we’re still leaving the DA’s office to their own devices on how to do the search,” Monroe said. “Especially with the track record.”

The judge signaled, quite volubly, that he was sympathetic to those concerns — but made clear the court was not ready to subject the DA’s office to more invasive measures at present.

“You should continue to be the skeptic and voice that skepticism,” McBurney advised — holding out the idea of a special master down the line. “I remain open to that concept, this is a graduated approach. If I look at the 212 pages and am grossly underwhelmed and it’s just patent that there’s got to be other things out there. Then, we’re done with the DA telling the county attorney: ‘Don’t worry, I got this.’ We’ll bring in the professionals. That will be messy. And, so, I won’t do that lightly … No options are off the table.”

Source link

The post Fani Willis must turn over tranche of documents to judge appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Federal appeals judge, 97, loses bid to unseal documents about her suspension

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 15 Feb 2025 06:43:33 +0000

Judiciary

Federal appeals judge, 97, loses bid to unseal documents about her suspension

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 4, 2025, 9:30 am CST

Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in May 2023. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled that federal law does not permit Newman, now age 97, to unseal documents about her suspension. (Photo by Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Federal law does not permit a 97-year-old federal appeals judge to unseal documents about her suspension absent consent of the chief judge of her circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Monday.

Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit wanted to unseal the documents in an appeal of a federal judge’s July ruling dismissing her challenge to the disability law governing her case, Law360 reports.

Newman was suspended in September 2023 for refusing to participate in medical evaluations to determine her mental fitness.

Newman had told the D.C. Circuit that the only confidential information in the documents concern her medical history, Law360 reported. The Federal Circuit countered that the documents were of “questionable relevance” and will soon be released with redactions.

Newman was investigated after evidence was said to show “troubling signs” of her cognitive decline. Her expert, an editor of the principal neurosurgery textbook, said Newman had an “extraordinarily high level of cognitive ability” and appears to be a “super-ager.”

The D.C. Circuit said the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act generally does not permit disclosure of records related to investigations unless written consent is obtained from the judge under investigation and the chief judge of the relevant circuit.

Federal appeals judge, 97, who refused to cooperate in fitness probe loses challenge to disability law

Investigations of federal judges are rare and should happen more, former clerk says

Federal appeals judge, 96, fails to overturn suspension order for refusing to cooperate in fitness probe

Speaking at ABA meeting, federal appeals judge, 96, doesn’t address her suspension but mentions opinion pace

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Federal appeals judge, 97, loses bid to unseal documents about her suspension appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Giuliani claims his emails are ‘not communications’ but ‘more like documents’ during hearing over whether he should be held in contempt

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 02:43:13 +0000

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the 9/11 Memorial in New York City on September 11, 2022, on the 21st anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania (John Nacion/STAR MAX/IPx).

Rudy Giuliani appeared in a federal courtroom in Manhattan on Friday for a hearing on whether he should be held in contempt after the onetime personal attorney for President-elect Donald Trump allegedly flouted multiple court orders in connection with the two Georgia election workers he defamed trying to collect the $148 million judgment awarded in their favor.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman, a Trump appointee, ordered Giuliani to appear in person for the Jan. 3 hearing on the contempt issue following numerous requests from the plaintiffs regarding his “consistent pattern of willful defiance” involving court orders to turn over of his personal property and provide information to plaintiffs for discovery.

Liman on Thursday rejected Giuliani’s last-minute request to appear virtually for the contempt hearing after the former New York City mayor said he was “having medical issues with his left knee” as well as “breathing problems due to lung issues” that were the result of him “being at the World Trade Center site on September 11, 2001.”

The hearing, which began at 10 a.m., went through the day and will be continued at the same time on Monday. However, Liman will allow Giuliani to appear virtually for the proceedings as he will not be questioned by plaintiff’s counsel again.

During the proceedings, Giuliani claimed that he part of the problem with his failure to produce pre-trial discovery was that he did not believe emails constituted “communication,” according to the Inner City Press, which attended the hearing.

According to the report, Giuliani was testifying under oath when he made the seemingly outlandish claim.

“Do you understand that the term ‘communications’ would include emails?” Freeman and Moss’ attorney asked Giuliani, per Inner City Press.

“I don’t think so, no,” Giuliani reportedly responded.

“It is your testimony that emails are not communications?” plaintiffs’ attorney said in retort.

Giuliani reportedly held his ground, saying of emails, “They are more like documents.”

Friday’s hearing came after Liman last week signaled that he was likely to punish Giuliani for his repeated failures to follow court orders and called out the former U.S. attorney for filing court documents explaining his shortcomings with assertions Giuliani knew “to be untrue.”

Giuliani has had a rocky relationship with Liman, even going so far as to interrupt the judge during an in-person hearing last month to exclaim, “You are against me!” to Liman.

Following that hearing, Giuliani spoke to reporters outside the courthouse, where he railed against Liman, accusing the jurist of being an “activist Democrat,” Politico reported. Liman was appointed to the court by Donald Trump in 2019.

“Have you figured out what side he’s on? Are you too dumb to see what side he’s on?” Giuliani reportedly asked. “I’ve been a lawyer for 55 years. I can figure out what side he’s on.”

Giuliani reportedly continued the Liman diatribe as he got on the elevator.

“He doesn’t give a damn about the truth. He just gives a damn about being popular,” adding, “This is lawfare with capital letters.”

Giuliani’s legal woes are far from over, as he is scheduled to appear in federal court in Washington, D.C. next week for a separate contempt hearing before U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who presided over the defamation trial just over a year ago.

That hearing stems from Freeman and Moss seeking to hold Giuliani in contempt for allegedly violating an order barring him from repeating the defamatory claims he made about the duo. The election workers in November filed a motion claiming his defamatory campaign against them continued even after they were awarded the astronomical judgment and Giuliani declared bankruptcy.

According to the filing, the former U.S. Attorney for Manhattan had been “brazenly violating that consent injunction” by repeating “the exact same lies” that resulted in the initial defamation judgment against Giuliani.

Giuliani’s dealings with Howell have not been much better than those he’s had with Liman. After missing a filing deadline with her last month to respond to the motion for contempt, Giuliani claimed it was Howell’s bias that had made it impossible for him to hire an attorney to represent him in the matter.

“I have spoken to four attorneys and each attorney has declined to handle this matter because they believe Your Honor is unreasonable and biased about [Donald] Trump-related matters and ‘ideological rather than logical,’” Giuliani wrote. “One said it was ‘a foregone conclusion’ and ‘a no-win proposition.’ Among other numerous reasons your handling of the J6 (Jan. 6) cases is considered by many to be the most unnecessarily harsh.”

Giuliani is scheduled to appear before Liman again on Jan. 16, to begin trial over whether he will have to turnover his Yankees World Series Rings and Florida condominium to Moss and Freeman.

Source link

The post Giuliani claims his emails are ‘not communications’ but ‘more like documents’ during hearing over whether he should be held in contempt appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Redacted report documents Trump’s visit to Arlington

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 26 Oct 2024 06:48:39 +0000

Donald Trump visits Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Va., to pay tribute to the 13 service members killed during the Afghanistan evacuation on Aug. 26, 2024. (Photo by Andrew Leyden/NurPhoto via AP)

The U.S. Army on Friday released a heavily redacted incident report of a “Simple Assault” during former President Donald Trump‘s contentious August visit to Arlington National Cemetery, where an employee trying to stop Trump staffers from taking pictures and filming was “abruptly pushed aside.”

The document, published on the website of the watchdog group American Oversight, contains seven pages with three lines about the incident in an executive summary.

“On 26 August 2024 at 1030 hours, the Joint Base Myer – Henderson Hall (JBM-HH), Police Department was notified by [redacted] of the following incident: While working at the Arlington National Cemetery, [redacted] with both of [redacted] his hands while attempting to move past [redacted] did not require medical attention on scene and later refused when offered. [Redacted] rendered a sworn statement on a DA Form 2823 and stated [redacted] did not want to press charges. Investigation continues by JBMHH PD Investigations Branch.”

The document was released after a federal judge ordered the Army to release documentation about Trump’s visit earlier this week. The order is part of a lawsuit brought by American Oversight, a nonpartisan, nonprofit government transparency organization.

“We’re pleased that American Oversight was able to get the report into the hands of the American public so they can see for themselves that there is still an ongoing federal law enforcement investigation into the August incident at Arlington National Cemetery,” Chioma Chukwu, American Oversight’s interim executive director, said in a statement. “The alleged conduct of the former president and his staff aligns with his history of politicizing the military and violating clear ethical boundaries, and it’s time for the public to have all the facts. American Oversight will be closely reviewing the redactions and continuing our fight to get information to the people.”

Trump’s campaign went to the cemetery for an event commemorating the anniversary of the deaths of 13 U.S. service members in a terrorist bombing at the Hamid Karzai International Airport in 2021. At one point, a cemetery staff member who tried to stop Trump staffers from filming was “abruptly pushed aside” and contacted police but did not press criminal charges, officials said.

“The incident was reported to the JBM-HH police department, but the employee subsequently decided not to press charges. Therefore, the Army considers this matter closed,” an Army spokesperson said on Aug. 29. “This incident was unfortunate, and it is also unfortunate that the (Arlington National Cemetery) employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked.”

A video of Trump at the cemetery was later posted on his campaign TikTok page, with him smiling and showing a thumbs-up sign while posing for photos. The video is overlaid with text discussing his record as president and taking a swipe at President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. The cemetery directly prohibits political campaigns from filming videos.

Harris, the Democratic nominee, reacted to the video, saying Trump “disrespected sacred ground, all for the sake of a political stunt.”

Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said the Republican presidential candidate’s team was allowed to have a photographer and contested the allegation that a campaign staffer pushed a cemetery official, The Associated Press reported.

“The fact is that a private photographer was permitted on the premises and for whatever reason, an unnamed individual, clearly suffering from a mental health episode, decided to physically block members of President Trump’s team during a very solemn ceremony,” he said.

Calls were made for documents seeking information about the events of that day. American Oversight made a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documentation on Aug. 30. The U.S. House Oversight Committee also took an interest in documents related to the incident.

“It appears that the Trump campaign refused to abide by Arlington National Cemetery’s absolute prohibition on ‘filming for partisan, political, or fundraising purposes’ and ‘abruptly pushed aside’ Cemetery staff trying to ‘ensure adherence’ to these rules,” Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, wrote to Army Secretary Christine Wormuth. “Accordingly, I ask you to provide the Committee with the incident report and a briefing to Committee staff on the facts of this incident, including whether Trump campaign staff violated federal law or Cemetery rules and whether the Trump campaign informed the families of service members buried at the Cemetery that their gravestones would be used in Mr. Trump’s political campaign ads.”

“Although the incident was reported to the Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall police department, reporting indicates the employee declined to press charges for fear that Trump supporters would retaliate against her,” Raskin added.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Redacted report documents Trump’s visit to Arlington appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Jack Smith files mystery documents in Trump Jan. 6 case

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 27 Sep 2024 07:02:31 +0000

Left: Jack Smith speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at a Department of Justice office in Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File). Right: Donald Trump speaks to members of the media before departing Manhattan criminal court, Monday, May 6, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson, Pool).

Special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday filed a massive opening brief addressing presidential immunity issues in the Jan. 6 case against former President Donald Trump.

But substantial portions of that brief may never see the light of day — at least so far as the general public is concerned.

Earlier this week, the prosecutor was given permission to file an “oversized brief” by Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — frustrating a request by the defense to keep the special counsel confined to the typical 45-page limit under local court rules.

In an order, the court gave the government up to 180 pages to make their case — exactly quadruple the typical limits.

Late Thursday, a spokesperson for the special counsel’s office confirmed that their brief had been filed — but the public docket in the case showed no evidence of that filing. In fact, it’s unlikely to.

“We have complied with the court’s order,” the spokesperson told Politico.

While the legal and political press waited with something not entirely unlike bated breath for the lengthy filing pre-berated by Trump’s attorneys as an “unnecessary tome,” the special counsel’s original request spelled out the request in slightly-decipherable legalese.

From the government’s Monday filing, at length:

For the Court’s awareness, the opening brief and its exhibits contain a substantial amount of Sensitive Material, as defined by the Protective Order. Consistent with the Protective Order, the Government intends to file a motion for leave to file under seal that attaches an unredacted copy of the motion and appendix and proposed redacted versions to be filed later on the public docket at the Court’s direction. Because of the extensive and time-consuming logistics involved in finalizing the brief, appendix, and proposed redacted public versions of the same, the Government respectfully requests the Court’s decision on this motion as soon as practicable.

In other words, Smith’s filing anticipated at least three (and as many as five) different documents — all of which would be filed under seal.

Those documents include: (1) the unredacted brief; (2) the redacted brief; and (3) a motion for leave to file under seal. The inclusion of appendices — unredacted and redacted versions both being anticipated — could bring the total number of documents up to five depending on whether the special counsel files them separately.

More Law&Crime coverage: Rudy Giuliani’s 2020 election lawyering for Trump comes back to haunt him again as another court orders him disbarred

An October 2023 minute order by Chutkan explains why everything is — as of the 5 p.m. Thursday deadline at least — under wraps.

“Going forward, if any party seeks to make a filing under seal, the party shall file a sealed motion for leave to file under seal that attaches (1) an unredacted copy of the filing to be docketed under seal, and (2) a redacted copy of the filing that may be publicly docketed.”

This order means that even Smith’s motion to file the unredacted version on the public docket is currently sealed. As the special counsel’s office previously explained, a protective order controls the release of so-called “Sensitive Materials” used in the case.

Here’s what the court’s protective order says:

The parties may include designated Sensitive Materials in any public filing or use designated Sensitive Materials during any hearing or the trial of this matter without leave of court if all sensitive information is redacted, and the parties have previously conferred and agreed to the redactions. No party shall disclose unredacted Sensitive Materials in open court or public filings without prior authorization by the court (except if the defendant chooses to include in a public document Sensitive Materials relating solely and directly to the defendant’s personally identifying information). If a party includes unredacted Sensitive Materials in any filing with the court, they shall be submitted under seal.

All this secrecy is relevant because the gargantuan filing is likely the special counsel’s last chance to make a case against the 45th president before the November election.

For years, Smith has been frustrated by court after court — high, low, and in between — as he sought to bring Trump to trial for alleged crimes in both the District of Columbia and Florida.

A trial, of course, is nowhere in the offing anytime soon, and certainly not before November. So, now, the special counsel has to make do with the next best thing: convincing Chutkan to keep his superseding indictment more or less intact with an “oversized” argument.

A fringe benefit for the government — and a decided drawback for the defense — is that some of these arguments will likely make their way before the court of public opinion. When they are released, and how many are released, however, is entirely up to Chutkan.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Jack Smith files mystery documents in Trump Jan. 6 case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Baker McKenzie partner sues IRS for documents on partnership audit strategies

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 08 Apr 2024 21:54:41 +0000

Law Firms

Baker McKenzie partner sues IRS for documents on partnership audit strategies

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 20, 2024, 2:10 pm CDT

A lawsuit filed by a Baker McKenzie tax partner is seeking to compel the Internal Revenue Service to disclose documents about its tougher policies for auditing partnerships, other pass-through entities and their owners. (Photo from Shutterstock)

The March 18 suit filed by tax partner George M. Clarke says the IRS has not produced records in response to his Dec. 19 request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Law.com, Reuters and Law360 have coverage.

Among the documents sought is a paper discussed by its author, an IRS employee, at a November 2023 conference sponsored by the ABA Section of Taxation. An article about the employee’s remarks appeared in Tax Notes with the headline “IRS Taking Partnership Audits to New Level.”

The IRS is auditing 75 of the country’s largest partnerships and has sent compliance letters to 500 partnerships, according to the Tax Notes article attached to the complaint. The scrutiny is part of the agency’s increased focus on wealthy taxpayers.

Clarke says in the suit he wants to learn more about IRS practices, “so that I can better represent my clients.”

Source link

The post Baker McKenzie partner sues IRS for documents on partnership audit strategies appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Judge orders return of photographed legal documents taken by officers in raid of BLM attorney’s home

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 09 Feb 2024 22:31:59 +0000

Criminal Justice

Judge orders return of photographed legal documents taken by officers in raid of BLM attorney’s home

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 30, 2024, 10:48 am CST

A Los Angeles judge has ordered police to return or destroy photographs that they took of legal documents in a search last week of the home of an attorney representing a leader of Black Lives Matter. (Image from Shutterstock)

A Los Angeles judge has ordered police to return or destroy photographs that they took of legal documents in a search last week of the home of an attorney representing a leader of Black Lives Matter.

Judge Rupert Byrdsong issued the order Friday, report the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times.

Lawyer Dermot Givens, 67, said about a dozen Los Angeles police officers in tactical gear surrounded his townhouse Jan. 23, showed him a partial warrant that had his address but no name, and proceeded to ransack the home.

Givens was at first ousted from his home, but when he returned, he saw police photographing documents from the case of Melina Abdullah, the co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Black Lives Matter. She has sued police for allegedly mishandling a response to a false report of an emergency at her home in 2020.

The documents were on Givens’ kitchen table.

The warrant sought guns, ammunition, identity theft materials, cameras, lock-picking equipment and electronic devices, according to the Los Angeles Times. Police told Givens that they were looking for a younger man named “Tyler,” and an Apple AirTag near his home led to the police response.

Givens does not know anyone by that name, and he has lived in the home for more than 20 years. He told the AP that police “know exactly who I am and where I live,” and this is the latest instance of police harassment for his lawsuits against the Los Angeles Police Department.

A Los Angeles police spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times and the AP that it could not comment because of open criminal and internal-affairs investigations.

Source link

The post Judge orders return of photographed legal documents taken by officers in raid of BLM attorney’s home appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.