gag Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Supreme Court rejects bid to lift Trump’s NY gag order

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 09 Dec 2024 20:20:45 +0000

Left: Judge Juan Merchan poses for a picture in his chambers in New York, Thursday, March 14, 2024. Merchan is presiding over Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York (AP Photo/Seth Wenig). Right: FILE – Former President Donald Trump is escorted to a courtroom, April 4, 2023, in New York (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File).

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a bid to lift the gag order barring Donald Trump from making public statements about officials involved in the New York criminal hush-money case that saw the president-elect convicted on dozens of felony charges.

In a Monday order, the high court declined an application that sought to appeal the gag order set by Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan

“The application for stay addressed to Justice [Samuel] Alito and referred to the Court is denied,” the order list said. There were no additional comments or explanations from the justices.

During the criminal trial, Merchan, the presiding judge, prohibited Trump from speaking about witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, or court staffers and their family members.

On March 27, the day after Merchan issued the order, Trump used a Truth Social media post to criticize the judge, his daughter, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. On March 28, the 45th president leveled several more similar rhetorical jabs.

On March 29, Bragg’s office filed a letter categorizing the defendant’s posts targeting the judge’s daughter as “contumacious” and asking Merchan to “clarify or confirm that the Order protects family members of the Court.” Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche quickly fired back, arguing the state was trying to “expand” the order and that “there was nothing ‘contumacious’ about the social media posts.

By early April, the gag order had been expanded to cover the family members of any participants to the proceedings — a pointed judicial rejoinder to Trump’s criticism of Merchan’s daughter over her political consulting work for the Democratic Party.

On May 30, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records involving the hush-money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 presidential election.

In June, the New York Court of Appeals first rejected a Trump appeal to lift the gag order in his hush-money case. The defense responded by mounting yet another appeal, bringing their complaints about acting Merchan to the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, First Department.

A unanimous denial followed in August, as the court defended Merchan’s “narrowly tailored protections,” concluding that the judge “did not act in excess of jurisdiction” when he ordered Trump to “refrain” from “making or directing others to make public statements” about “family members of any counsel, staff member, the Court or the District Attorney, if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or cause others to materially interfere” with their work.

The appellate court, agreeing that there was evidence of ongoing threats to Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s staff, called Trump’s position “unavailing,” since courts are “empowered to protect against the ‘unfair administration of justice”” until sentencing or “some other final disposition” takes place.

“Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, the People’s evidentiary submissions in opposition to his motion in Supreme Court demonstrate that threats received by District Attorney staff after the jury verdict continued to pose a significant and imminent threat,” the appellate division said.

In September, the New York Court of Appeals again rejected Trump’s appeal without much of an explanation other than a line saying there was “no substantial constitutional question” directly involved in his petition.

Trump and his allies have long argued, without success, that the gag order runs afoul of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s order came in response to an application brought by a podcaster named Joseph Nierman, who operates online under the moniker “Good Lawgic.” The high court previously denied a bid to challenge the gag order filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

Despite Trump being found guilty of felony conduct, Merchan has delayed his sentencing hearing in light of Trump winning the 2024 presidential election. Trump has sought to have the case and his convictions dismissed. Bragg’s office is required to file a motion on Monday explaining why Trump’s convictions should stand. His office has previously indicated that Trump’s sentencing could remain on hold until after he leaves office in 2029.

Matt Naham contributed to this report

Source link

The post Supreme Court rejects bid to lift Trump’s NY gag order appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Diddy’s gag order proposal to crack down on ‘leaks’ revealed

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:51:16 +0000

Sean P. Diddy Combs at the 2017 Costume Institute Benefit Gala celebrating the opening of the exhibition Rei Kawakubo/Comme des Garcons: Art Of The In-Between held on May 1, 2017 at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City (zz/ESBP/STAR MAX/IPx).

Now that Sean “Diddy” Combs has persuaded a federal judge that “a gag order is appropriate,” in the words of the defense, the high-profile RICO and sex trafficking defendant’s lawyers and federal prosecutors are fighting over just how far an order should go and to whom it can and should apply.

In recent days, Combs asked U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian to put a stop to “extrajudicial statements from prospective witnesses and their lawyers” and to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial amid an avalanche of civil lawsuits that Combs claims are “opportunistic.” At the same time, the defense has claimed that “unauthorized and prejudicial leaks of grand jury information” have taken place.

For instance, defense attorney Marc Agnifilo asserted two weeks ago that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was “most likely” the “source” that handed CNN a 2016 video of him abusing his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura at the Intercontinental Hotel in Los Angeles.

While prosecutors swiftly disputed the claim, the defense went so far as to speculate that the “leak” to CNN was timed for May 17 former President Donald Trump’s hush-money trial in Manhattan was on pause for that day as he attended son Barron Trump’s high school graduation — making it “a slow news day” and a “perfect time” for the abuse video to come out and “mortally wound the reputation and the prospect of Sean Combs successfully defending himself against these allegations.”

Over the last couple of days, the defense and prosecution have submitted their own proposals about a gag order-to-be and separately offered explanations for the proposed language therein.

Combs’ proposed gag order

Prosecutors’ proposed gag order

The differences between the two stances

Combs’ lawyers told the judge that “unfortunately” the defense and prosecution could not agree on proposed language despite an “extensive back and forth since” Oct. 10, but added that the two sides are not as far apart as they could be. The defense urged Subramanian to act quickly because government “agents” allegedly haven’t stopped leaking (a recent Deadline article that quoted a “law enforcement source with knowledge of the case” was cited as one example, and a CNN story from May — predating the indictment by months — was another).

“At this juncture, the Court’s intervention is critical because agents involved in the investigation have continued their leaks, and their damaging and false information to the press in the wake of the October 10 status conference, only heightening the need for the gag order to be issued as soon as possible,” the defense said, noting that the “principal disagreement between the parties stems from the fact that the government continues to resist language that will ensure that the order covers all the agents who may be exposed to grand jury materials and other confidential information related to the investigation and prosecution of this case.”

“The government wanted the order only to cover agents ‘assigned to’ the investigation, rather than any agents who acquire confidential information about the investigation and objected to the specific reference to the Department of Homeland Security,” Combs’ lawyers continued. “These objections would defeat the purpose of the order. Whether an agent is officially ‘assigned’ to the investigation or not should not matter.”

In response, prosecutors clarified that the primary lingering disagreement boils down to “the definition of the government” and who in law enforcement can be restrained from leaking.

“Accordingly, the only remaining disagreement between the parties is the language concerning who would be bound by the order. The Government’s proposed order reflects the reality that the Government has two separate obligations—maintaining the secrecy of grand jury material in accordance with Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and complying with the directives set forth in Local Criminal Rule 23.1,” prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York said. “The parties agree that the Government attorneys assigned to the matter and staff members working under their supervision or at their direction are bound by both obligations. However, the parties disagree about the extent to which law enforcement agents and/or officers may be bound by those obligations.”

Slamming Combs’ proposal as “plainly overbroad,” prosecutors said there’s “simply” no way to enforce it and noted that the “purported leaks […] have not been of grand jury material and—as the defendant concedes—are not alleged to be from the agents and officers assigned to this case”:

By contrast, the defendants—citing no authority—have insisted that such an order bind any “local and federal law enforcement agents assisting any aspect of the investigation or prosecution of the above-referenced case, and any related grand jury proceedings, including but not limited to the Department of Homeland Security.” Defendant’s proposal is plainly overbroad as it would require the Government to be held accountable for potentially thousands of agents in an independent law enforcement agency over whom the Government has no authority or oversight. Indeed, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) employs over 200,000 individuals and includes the investigating agency here, Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), in addition to multiple other law enforcement agencies (such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secret Service, and others) with no role in this case whatsoever. Such an order would simply be unenforceable.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Diddy’s gag order proposal to crack down on ‘leaks’ revealed appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Manhattan DA and Trump lawyer go on offense over gag order

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:07:02 +0000

Left: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. (Lev Radin/Sipa USA/Sipa via AP Images); Right: Former President Donald Trump (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

Widely anticipated fallout from the limited gag order placed on former president Donald Trump in his New York City hush money case rained down quickly in a series of court filings on Friday.

On March 26, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan M. Merchan imposed a gag order on the 45th president that bars him from attacking witnesses, line prosecutors and staff, and jurors in the case.

The very next day, Trump used a Truth Social media post to criticize the judge, his daughter, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Another such post, using similar language, came the day after that.

“Judge Juan Merchan is totally compromised, and should be removed from this TRUMP Non-Case immediately,” the second post reads. “His Daughter, Loren, is a Rabid Trump Hater, who has admitted to having conversations with her father about me, and yet he gagged me.”

By Friday afternoon, Bragg’s office filed a pre-motion letter arguing that Trump had violated the terms of the court’s order.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Did the right thing’: Federal judge defends Trump’s hush-money trial gag order, warns of ‘greater number of threats’ since Jan. 6 and says America on road to ‘tyranny’

Earlier this month, Merchan decided he had seen enough pre-trial motions and issued an order requiring all parties to seek leave from the court, by way of a one-page letter, before filing additional motions.

Before issuing the gag order, the judge angrily reminded the defense of his those prior instructions to file a “one page pre motion letter” before attempting to file another motion in the case – warning Trump’s attorneys that failure to abide by the court’s rules could result in criminal contempt charges.

“The People believe that the March 26 Order is properly read to protect family members of the Court,” the state’s two-page letter reads. “But to avoid any doubt, this Court should now clarify or confirm that the Order protects family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order.”

Bragg’s office cites Trump’s two posts criticizing Merchan and his daughter in footnotes and refers to them in the body as “social media posts targeting a family member of this Court.”

The letter penned by Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass clarifies why the judge issued the order in the first place by arguing that “potential trial witnesses and prospective jurors who are not currently the subject of defendant’s invective will likely fear having themselves and their family members be subject to similar attacks.”

Several such individuals, the district attorney’s office claims, have spoken to prosecutors and expressed fears for themselves and their families in the event they are called to testify against Trump.

“[T]his Court should make abundantly clear that the March 26 Order protects family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order,” the state’s letter continues. “Furthermore, the Court should warn defendant that his recent conduct is contumacious and direct him to immediately desist. If defendant continues to disregard such orders, he should face sanctions.”

The district attorney’s office recommends sanctions under Empire State law that call for a $1,000 fine and/or up to 30 days in jail.

Trump’s defense attorney Todd Blanche sharply rejected those claims in a two-page letter filed late Friday afternoon.

“The express terms of the gag order do not apply in the manner claimed by the People, which they seem to acknowledge by suggesting the need to ‘avoid any doubt,”” the defense letter reads. “That the gag order has been publicly interpreted in the way that President Trump reads it further supports the defense position on the order’s meaning. As a result, there was nothing ‘contumacious’ about the social media posts cited.”

The defense insists the court “cannot” direct Trump “to do something” beyond what the gag order requires.

“To ‘clarify or confirm’ the meaning of the gag order in the way the People suggest would be to expand it,” the defense letter continues. “No expansion is appropriate.”

Trump’s reply also requests “a complete opportunity for full adversarial briefing” to delve into “the constitutional problems attendant with any additional improper restrictions on protected campaign speech,” among other things.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Manhattan DA and Trump lawyer go on offense over gag order appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.