Jonathan Turley
·
9h
@JonathanTurley
·
Follow
Blanche just got Cohen to say that he handed over $20,000 in a paper bag to close end a financial dispute. There is something quintessentially Cohen about the scene...
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
Follow
...Weisselberg later paid Cohen for $60,000 rather than $20,000. Cohen admits that he stole from the Trump organization. He also told federal prosecutors about stealing the money but was never charged with larceny...
2:12 PM · May 20, 2024

Jonathan Turley
·
9h
@JonathanTurley
·
Follow
Replying to @JonathanTurley
...These are hits below the waterline for Cohen but also the prosecutors. They had a man admitting to a major larceny but never charged Cohen. That made Cohen not only their man, but allowed him to keep stolen money...
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
Follow
...Blanche is now going in for the kill. He was that he lied to Weisselberg and "to this day you have never fixed that" and disclosed this to the District Attorney...
2:14 PM · May 20, 2024 //

I can say with some certainty that in any normal situation, having the prosecution's star witness admit to being a dishonest thief would be a death blow to the case's credibility. Remember, everything revolves around Cohen, who is now claiming to be a patsy who was just doing the bidding of Trump in cutting the check to Stormy Daniels. //

FloridaTransplant
8 hours ago
Hey wait up. If the DA knew about the theft, didn't fix it, didn't inform the trump organization, and didn't prosecute, doesn't that make everyone involved in the DAs office and accessory to grand larceny? Arguably even conspiracy to the crime? //

FloridaTransplant DKnight
8 hours ago
Yes. Prosecutorial discretion is a thing. If for example the Trump organization discovered the fraud and reported it. Here however it seems that the DA discovered the fraud in the trial prep and DID NOT REPORT IT to the Trump organization. That is what should make them an accessory.

Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate it. Family, friends, and allies and foundationalists and honored adversaries, today we enter the next phase in the fight to protect our God-given rights from a government that wishes to take them from us and grant us mere privileges in return. To quote another patriot from another place and time, "This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. This is perhaps, the end of the beginning."

And so, as we enter this new phase, there should be no question in the mind of any patriotic American as to why we fight. After all, only slaves lack the right to arm self-defense and we are no slaves, but free citizens of a great republic and we contain multitudes each of us from builder, a healer, a teacher, a statesman, a soldier, a judge, an attorney at law, a sergeant at arms, and an image of God. So, we know why we fight.

The question before us is how we must fight. What kind of discipline we must bring with us into battle and what spirit we must show to our friends and adversaries alike and by way of answering, we refer to our core doctrines.

The foundationalist's manifesto calls us to listen closely and to speak clearly. To deny the self at the same time to defend the individual. To respect tradition and also to cultivate the future. In short, as foundationalists, we are called to embrace disciplines that seem to contradict each other but nonetheless, to embrace them with all of our strength.

So, it is in our current fight because this system as dysfunctional as it often is, as unjust as it often is, it is nonetheless, our system. It is a feature not a bug of our American civilization. Like any other structure built from man's crooked timber, it is not perfect. Judges and attorneys and trial courts and juries in the light of day are not perfect. Judges and attorneys and trial courts and juries in the light of day are merely what we have instead of the blood feud and the vendetta and the dagger in the dead of night.

Knowing this, we give challenge even as we give thanks. Knowing this, we prepare ourselves for battle in a spirit of profound dissatisfaction and profound gratitude in equal measure.
...
When I was a boy my grandfather told me that fire is a great servant, but a terrible master and so it is with Government. And to the extent that our own Government attempts to be our master, we must oppose it. We must fight to the utmost limits of our strength, but in that fight, our spirit must be one of restoration, not destruction. We must confront the enemy as the firefighter confronts his enemy and for the same reasons that the structure itself may yet, be saved.

God bless and keep you all and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you, Your Honor.

Dexter Taylor, a Brooklyn-based software engineer, has been sentenced to a decade in prison for building firearms in his home using parts purchased legally. He was arrested after a SWAT raid in 2022, and a jury convicted him of 13 counts last month. Now, he is set to spend up to ten years behind bars for what many perceive as an egregious violation of his Second Amendment rights.

The sentence was handed down on Monday by Judge Abena Darkeh, who presided over Taylor’s trial. The judge’s handling of the case has been criticized, especially her decision to prohibit mention of the Second Amendment in the courtroom during the trial. //

“She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’” //

Taylor recalled that it “seemed like we had three prosecutors in the courtroom, the two [assistant district attorneys] and the judge working in concert.”

Indeed, in a previous interview, Varghese characterized Judge Darkeh as “the most aggressive prosecutor in the room.” //

Interestingly enough, Taylor said some of the officers who escorted him into the holding cell behind the courtroom after the verdict was read began discussing politics. “Literally, they were all talking about how this is nonsense. ‘Of course, you have a God-given right to keep and bear arms,’” he recalled the officers saying. He discussed his case with another sergeant who “thought it was a travesty.” //

When asked about the possibility that Taylor could get bail pending appeal so he could fight his case from outside of prison, the lawyer said, “It’s something that Dexter and I will have to discuss further. The chances are slim to none.”

Democrats pushing the so-called “Equal Rights Amendment” failed to follow the required procedure for advancing a constitutional amendment. Equal Protection Project had opposed the attempt to embed CRT and DEI in the state constitution.

It looks like the ‘strongest’ legal case against Trump is based on yet another set of lies from corrupt federal agencies. //

Recent court disclosures give two indications that federal employees could have planted the classified documents used to mire Trump and several aides into a sprawling investigation and an election-interfering court case. The first is the explosive evidence revealed Friday: For 11 months, the special counsel’s office hid that it misplaced some — we don’t know how many or which — of the same allegedly classified documents it claims Trump criminally possessed at Mar-a-Lago. //

Second, there’s the also newly uncovered fact that a federal agency sent “two pallets” of documents to Mar-a-Lago while the National Archives and Records Administration was setting up this documents case. It’s unknown who all had access to these document boxes during their packing, temporary storage in Virginia, and transit to Trump’s home. Were those boxes a setup too? Imagine if some boxes the feds sent amid NARA’s dispute with Trump were also boxes the DOJ can’t verify as being in their original state. //

We also learned just last week that the White House and Department of Justice lawyers colluded with NARA to develop what became the special counsel’s classified documents indictment, starting an entire year before the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, according to documents reviewed by reporter Julie Kelly. Just the News reports the collusion between NARA and the White House could have begun as early as a few weeks into the Biden presidency, according to White House visitor logs.

So of course the classified documents case didn’t arise from concern over legal improprieties, as the complete lack of prosecution for the same conduct from Joe Biden, Mike Pence, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and DOJ leakers also proves. It was a political hit from the beginning, using federal agencies and resources to strangle Democrats’ top political opponent and override the votes of half the country. Talk about an insurrection.

Tucker Carlson recently sat down with Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote. As you might expect, after 2020, True the Vote is paying very close attention to this year's presidential election. But what Engelbrecht says she found hidden in an obscure section of the U.S. code, could hold the key to a lot of what is going on, and the timing for it.

Engelbrecht told Carlson that she just happened upon it herself. Title 18, under the heading "Crimes and Criminal Procedure," states, "if the (illegal) alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States," that in Engelbrecht's words, "they are subject to no prosecution."

Wait, what?! So if someone comes into the country illegally, votes in the election, is caught, but then says they believed themselves to be U.S. citizens just because they came across the border and maybe checked in with the Border Patrol, they can now vote in the election? Engelbrecht went on to say that when she found this, she showed it to legislators, immigration attorneys, and even attorneys for True the Vote. The response was deer in the headlight stares. Engelbrecht added, "We've seen many many people coming across the border who are talking about their excitement about voting for Joe Biden, and claiming that they are citizens." //

In another part of the interview, Carlson asks if she believes that the majority of illegal immigrants would, or will, vote Democrat. Engelbrecht's answer is a sobering one. She stated, "I certainly see that the NGOs and the outfits that are bringing them across the country are grooming them for that purpose." //

Carlson then asks Engelbrecht incredulously, if the Biden administration is registering illegal immigrants to vote. In an even more sobering response, Engelbrecht states "They certainly are setting up all of the place settings to do it...It's not at all beyond the realm of possibilities, that is in fact, exactly what is happening." //

Funny, we thought Democrats were itching for another pandemic, but just maybe, illegal immigration is indeed the 2024 pandemic. //

COUltraMAGA
5 hours ago
In case anyone wanted to look at the "obscure" USC, since Redstate doesn't provide it, here it is:

18 U.S. Code § 611 (c)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611

Byron York explains:

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with falsifying bookkeeping records of a nondisclosure payment in order to commit or conceal another crime, Bragg still hasn’t revealed what that other crime is. It’s really the key to the whole case. Without the other crime, there would be no charges against Trump in this matter. The fact that we — and that includes the defendant — still don’t know what the other crime is is one of the great injustices of a felony prosecution that never should have happened...[Bragg's] theory is that if Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to keep her from going public with her story that she and Trump had a sexual encounter and then Trump repaid Cohen in 2017, then that was a campaign contribution and should have been reported to the FEC. The payments were made “for the purpose of influencing any election,” the theory continues, and the Trump campaign should have filed a document with the FEC listing among its campaign contributions and expenditures that it received and spent $130,000 for “hush money.”

If you think that sounds a little odd for an FEC disclosure, you’re right. That’s where one of the critical witnesses to be called by the Trump defense comes in. Bradley Smith is a former chairman of the FEC, and on many occasions, including long before Trump, he has argued that there are all sorts of things a candidate can spend money on that are not legally classifiable as “for the purpose of influencing any election.” ... Smith, having headed the FEC, has many examples from the commission’s enforcement of federal election law that illustrate his point. He knows what he is talking about, and it seems clear that his expert opinion is that paying off Daniels, no matter what one might think of it, is not a campaign expenditure or donation that FECA requires a candidate to disclose. The Trump defense plans to call Smith as a witness. Not because he has any personal knowledge of the Trump transaction but because he understands, and has enforced, the campaign law that Bragg’s prosecutors appear to be planning to use against Trump. But Merchan has forbidden Smith from testifying about most of the issues involved in the case.

On Monday, in the ongoing Manhattan trial of former President Donald Trump, a witness for the prosecution gave some startling testimony. While on the stand being questioned by the defense, former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney testified that former President Trump did not personally order payments made to attorney Michael Cohen, who allegedly paid the "hush money" payment to porn star Stormy Daniels. //

"President Trump did not ask you to do any of the things you just described ... correct?" Bove asked.

"He did not," McConney replied. //

The defense, clearly, cannot argue that the payments were made without the former president's knowledge since he had to sign the checks. But the original order for the payments may have originated with someone in Donald Trump's employ, rather than with the man himself; it seems like it would be difficult for the prosecution, at this point, to prove anything else beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's hard to see how this isn't damaging to the prosecution either way.

So much has gone awry with this trial that one has to begin to wonder if Alvin Bragg's motivation here isn't simply to keep former President Trump off the campaign trail. If so, it isn't working. Trump is campaigning in off-hours and receiving big rounds of applause from New Yorkers. //

cupera1 anon-l9w2
an hour ago
The Trump Soviet Union show trial in NY City is a Rube Goldberg legal construction that cannot work. The original alleged crime is a simple misdemeanor under a New York law against falsifying business records. This law passed the statute of limitations over five years ago. Bragg looked at this case at that time and passed on it. Then Trump announced his candidacy to run for president and everything changed.

To defibrillate the case against Trump they claimed that misdemeanor was connected to an election violation. The two statues that they cite: one state and one federal cannot be used. The state election statue can’t be used because the law can only be applied to NY state elected offices, Trump was running for President, a federal office. Federal law can’t be tried in a state court. The FEC looked at this case and laughed at it.

He that runs away from his master is a fugitive. But the law is every man’s master. He therefore that forsakes the law, is a fugitive. So is he, whosoever he be, that is either sorry, angry, or afraid, or for anything that either hath been, is, or shall be by his appointment, who is the Lord and Governor of the universe.

The key takeaway from this? “…the law is every man’s master.” But today, the law is not every man’s master; too many people (like, say, Hunter Biden) get away with too much, with too many things, that common people never would. “…the law is every man’s master” is another way of saying “equal treatment under the law,” which is, as we have documented many times in these virtual pages, effectively dead in this country today.

While the explanation may seem plausible, altering the order of documents represents a serious form of evidence tampering that could completely undermine the prosecution's case.

Perhaps even more extraordinary, the prosecution then admits that they misled the court by previously indicating that the evidence had been left untouched since its seizure last year.

"The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court," the legal filing notes. //

etba_ss JSobieski
5 hours ago
It's his job to know, not guess. Therefore, he is either incompent and lied when he certified something was true when he didn't know that for a fact or he did know and lied about it. Either way, Smith lied.

It wasn't simply a random throwaway line. He certified to the court that the documents weren't viewed and weren't tampered with. Both happened. So he either lied in original filing by stating something as fact that he didn't know or he is lying now.

Otherwise, a lead prosecutor could have his team do things and not tell him and then he could claim it didn't happen and be under no obligation to the truth. He has to certify to truth, so there is no way around him lying. Either he lied about knowing or knew and lied about it not happening.

According to Kachouroff, if the court of appeals or the Georgia Supreme Court were to rule in Floyd’s favor, it would mean Willis indicted the defendants without proper jurisdiction. Not only would that cause her entire case to crumble like a house of cards, but such a ruling would also remove her immunity. This would leave her and Fulton County vulnerable to a multimillion-dollar lawsuit for violating the civil rights of each of the defendants.

This hasn't gotten the coverage it deserves — and it may turn out to mean nothing — but on April 25, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asked Trump lawyer John Sauer a question people seem to be ignoring.

“Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel," Justice Thomas queried, referring to Jack Smith being appointed by Merrick Garland. //

Two former Attorneys General, Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey, filed an amicus brief that questions whether or not Jack Smith has the right to prosecute Trump.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an attempt from left-wing organizations to have the court reconsider a ruling that found unelected bureaucrats were wrong to accept thousands of undated or incorrectly dated ballots during the 2020 election.

A three-judge panel for the 3rd Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision in March that any mail-in ballots that arrive in envelopes missing a date or with an incorrect date are invalid, upholding a state law and overturning a lower court’s decision.

Several left-wing organizations appealed the ruling by petitioning the court to review the decision en banc, a petition which was denied on Tuesday. It’s a big blow for Democrat operative and Russia hoaxer Marc Elias, whose group supported the lawsuit against the state law and which called it a “crucial” and “critical” case ahead of 2024. //

The panel for the 3rd Circuit overturned Baxter’s ruling, admitting that while their immediate reaction would be to find that a “failure to date a return envelope should not cause his ballot to be disqualified,” their role was simply to determine when the Materiality Provision can be applied.

“We hold that the Materiality Provision only applies when the State is determining who may vote,” Judge Thomas Ambra wrote. “In other words, its role stops at the door of the voting place. The provision does not apply to rules, like the date requirement, that govern how a qualified voter must cast his ballot for it to be counted.”

The Federal Aviation Administration is the subject of a massive class action lawsuit alleging that since 2013, thousands of qualified applicants have been denied employment as air traffic controllers based on race. //

These programs, run in cooperation with the FAA since 1991 to train and test future air traffic controllers, were the entry point for the overwhelming majority of the ATC workforce.

In 2013, the Obama Administration ended the program to increase diversity in ATC hiring. The screening test stopped being ATC-specific coursework and became a "biographical questionnaire." Allegedly, this questionnaire was based on the personality traits of successful ATCs. But its real purpose was to increase the number of "underrepresented" demographics. As if to underscore the point, the FAA provided the correct candidates with a list of buzzwords to use on the questionnaire. Minority applicants were also coached on how to format their job applications so friendly selection board members could recognize them. //

For reasons that aren't all that clear, this racially discriminatory hiring program continued under Donald Trump, but it really hit high gear under Joe Biden. I swear I'm not making any of this up.

The Secretary of Transportation has set a hiring goal of three (3) percent per fiscal year for individuals with targeted (severe) disabilities. //

In 2023, the situation had deteriorated to the point that even the New York Times had noticed.

They were part of an alarming pattern of safety lapses and near misses in the skies and on the runways of the United States, a Times investigation found. While there have been no major U.S. plane crashes in more than a decade, potentially dangerous incidents are occurring far more frequently than almost anyone realizes — a sign of what many insiders describe as a safety net under mounting stress. //

It is difficult to see how this policy survives a legal challenge. The American Bar Association cautions that under current Supreme Court precedents, diversity hiring cuts two ways.

Diversity initiatives should not be a zero sum game. Lawful diversity initiatives should be designed to expand opportunity for underrepresented groups without also negatively impacting opportunities for those in the majority.

Creative works may not have intellectual property protections for a number of reasons. In most cases, the rights have expired or have been forfeited. Basically, no one holds the exclusive rights to these works, meaning that living artists today can sample and build off those works legally without asking anyone’s permission to do so.

That’s why the New York Public Library (NYPL) has been reviewing the U.S. Copyright Office’s official registration and renewals records for creative works whose copyrights haven’t been renewed, and have thus been overlooked as part of the public domain.

The books in question were published between 1923 and 1964, before changes to U.S. copyright law removed the requirement for rights holders to renew their copyrights. According to Greg Cram, associate general counsel and director of information policy at NYPL, an initial overview of books published in that period shows that around 65 to 75 percent of rights holders opted not to renew their copyrights.

But corporate mega-publishers want purchasing a book to be like renting a movie or streaming an album. //

Buying a book should be no different from buying an apple. When you buy an apple, the farmer can’t show up in your kitchen later and decide your time is up, and you’ve got to pay for it again. It’s yours forever—to eat, or paint in a still life, or cut up for a kid’s snack. And thanks to the first sale doctrine of copyright law, codified by Congress in 1909, the books on your shelves are yours forever, too, in exactly the same way your apple is; you’re free to read them (or not), loan them to friends, or sell them to a used bookshop, without restriction. Copyright law balances the public good—our collective right to access information—with the rights it grants to authors and inventors.

Publishers can’t demand more money for the paper books you’ve already bought, but the technology for copying and distributing books has evolved a lot since 1909. So four titanic corporate publishers are currently in court, insisting on the effective right to barge in and demand multiple, recurring payments for digital books–like they do for digital movies, music, and software–and they want to exercise that same power over the books in libraries.

This threat to the ownership of books is what makes the ongoing publishers’ lawsuit against the Internet Archive politically dangerous, and in an altogether different way from earlier challenges and amendments to copyright law. At a time of increasing book bannings and attacks on libraries, public schools and universities, it is not safe for democracy, or for our cultural posterity, to leave an “on/off” switch for library books in the hands of corporate publishers. //

As I’ve argued before, the lawsuit hinges on the question of whether ebooks are books, subject to the existing laws governing the sale of books, or whether the publishers can redefine ebooks as temporary, rental-only media–a new class of unownable goods, like streaming-only films from Disney or subscription-only software from Microsoft. But libraries must have the option to buy and own their books–all their books, including ebooks–and own them absolutely, like an apple. //

In the summer of 2020, Hachette, Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, and Wiley accused the Internet Archive of “mass-scale copyright infringement” because of the way the Internet Archive’s Open Library loans its ebooks to patrons. Instead of renting their ebooks from publishers, the Internet Archive scans them from the paper books it owns, stores the paper originals, and loans each scan out to only one patron at a time, a common library practice known as Controlled Digital Lending (CDL). Following the reasoning of expert copyright lawyers and library scholars over the last twelve years, the Internet Archive, along with hundreds of other libraries and archival institutions, maintains that CDL is a fair and logical way to preserve traditional library practices for the digital world. //

The publishers’ objective had been to forbid the Open Library to loan any of their in-copyright books as ebooks. That was the explicit request in the original complaint. But not even this industry-friendly judge was willing to go that far; he sided with the Internet Archive’s interpretation of the decision instead. For now, the Open Library will have to stop loaning only those ebooks for which the publishers are offering their own “competing” ebooks for license. In other words, the order relies solely on the argument that the Open Library is harming the publishers’ revenues from ebooks, a distinction that seems to go to the heart of the dispute. //

The publishers shouldn’t be able to pick and choose the bits of copyright law they want to abide by; as we’ve noted, copyright law balances the public good with commercial rights. If publishers’ ebook revenues are protected by the extant provisions of copyright law protecting rights holders, then, presumably, readers and libraries should also be protected. The Internet Archive, and all libraries, should have the same protections under the first sale doctrine that have always allowed them to preserve and lend books to readers.

These are events that took place three and a half years ago. This indictment could have been brought three years ago, or two years ago. There is a reason why it is being brought right now. It is to freeze the Arizona Republican Party so that they cannot organize themselves to win that Senate seat. //

Proft (05:30):

So then, we should expect since Dana Nessel, the AG of Michigan, has a similar investigation ongoing. We should expect that indictment maybe right after Labor Day?

WAJ (05:40):

Oh, yeah. I mean, that’s what’s going on this year. All of these Trump indictments, with the exception of the Mar-a-Lago one, where the events took place later, all of these lawsuits, criminal prosecutions are regarding events that took place over three years ago. They are brought so that the trials will take place in this election year, including the one that’s ongoing now in Manhattan, [which] involves events six or seven years ago. //

Going to the merits of it. the claim is that there was a fraud perpetrated on the Congress and the public regarding the Arizona election. The problem with that, is that there was no deception. No one was deceived…

This took place in plain sight. It was in the media. People were on TV. //

Proft (09:35):

Well, it’s more than freezing. What they’re really going to do is now they’ve got this indictment, and now they’re going to run tens of millions of dollars of ads saying the Arizona Republican party leadership has been indicted for trying to steal the 2020 election. //

So I say that as somebody who disagreed with John Eastman at the time, on the record. But you know, they have not only criminalized politics, they have now criminalized lawyering if you’re a Republican lawyer.

So people make aggressive arguments in court all the time. People make arguments for the extension of the law. I think Eastman’s argument was wrong. I don’t think it rose to such a frivolous level that you should lose your Bar license over it. //

There is a group, I think they’re called the 65 Group or something like that, which is going around the country trying to get Republican lawyers disbarred. They have weaponized not just the Democrat prosecutorial offices, they are now weaponizing Bar counsel and they’re now weaponizing the disciplinary process. And they have said explicitly, they advertise it, that they want to make Republican lawyers toxic in their communities.

So people need to wake up. What’s going on in this country is really totalitarian, and it is an attempt to not enforce the rule of law, but to destroy the rule of law and to prevent Republicans from ever mounting an election challenge again. What Republican lawyer, if there is an alleged fraud in the next election, is going to dare to raise legal arguments against it knowing that John Eastman has now been disbarred for that? //

Subotai Bahadur | April 26, 2024 at 11:01 pm
The actual charge is, I believe, “objecting to election theft while Republican”.

Subotai Bahadur

America First Legal
@America1stLegal
·
Follow
/1🚨EXPLOSIVE — Unsealed docs reveal just how intimately the Biden White House worked with NARA to trigger the Special Counsel classified docs investigation of President Trump.

This confirms our own research that this prosecution is politically tainted and should be dismissed:
1:27 PM · Apr 26, 2024 //

As RedState previously reported, this week, an unredacted version of former President Trump's motion for discovery in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case released by Judge Aileen Cannon has already suggested collaboration between NARA, the Justice Department, and the Biden administration. The motion shows bias within NARA, including internal emails from General Counsel Stern discussing strategies to prejudice President Trump and timing public communications with Congress. Three days after these communications, the Biden Administration directed NARA to reject Trump's claim of executive privilege and disclose records to the January 6th Committee.

A scathing report by three federal judges on the “misconduct” of plaintiff lawyers in a challenge to Alabama’s ban on gender-transition medicine for minors illustrates something we learned a long time ago: Many on the far Left, including radical lawyers employed by self-proclaimed civil rights organizations, believe the ends always justify the means and that rules of ethics don’t apply to them. //

After the case was assigned to Judge Burke, the lawyers dismissed the lawsuits, then refiled almost immediately to get a different judge. //

Yes, Charles—a lawyer who now works for the Department of Justice—lied to the panel of judges under oath until he was confronted with hard evidence that exposed the lie.

Ruling: Thumbprint scan is like a "blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking." //

The US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law.

The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had to grapple with the question of "whether the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone was testimonial," the ruling in United States v. Jeremy Travis Payne said. "To date, neither the Supreme Court nor any of our sister circuits have addressed whether the compelled use of a biometric to unlock an electronic device is testimonial."