Business
Judge Holds Trump In Contempt, Fines Him $9,000 And Raises Threat Of Jail In Hush Money Trial
New York: On Tuesday, Donald Trump was found in contempt of court and was imposed a fine of $9,000 for persistently disregarding a gag order that prohibited him from publicly discussing anybody involved in his New York hush money case, including witnesses and jurors. The judge cautioned that he may face imprisonment if he repeats the offense.
New York Judge Juan M. Merchan determined that there were nine infractions, although prosecutors had initially claimed there were ten. Trump gazed downward at the table before him while the judge pronounced the ruling, displaying a faint frown.
The verdict served as a strong criticism of the Republican former president’s claim that he was using his freedom of expression, and as a reminder that he is a defendant in a criminal case and must adhere to the strict procedures of a trial. The judge’s implicit warning to incarcerate a former president indicated that Trump’s already tenuous legal position could deteriorate further based on his conduct throughout the trial.
AP – VOR News Image
Judge Holds Trump In Contempt, Fines Him $9,000 And Raises Threat Of Jail In Hush Money Trial
Merchan expressed a strong awareness and defense of Trump’s First Amendment rights, especially considering his campaign for the presidency.
“Preserving the defendant’s lawful freedom of speech is of utmost significance. It is imperative that he is allowed to actively engage in campaigning for the office he aspires to, and that he has the opportunity to counter and protect himself from political assaults,” expressed Merchan.
However, he cautioned that the court would not tolerate deliberate breaches of its legal directives and that, if deemed necessary and suitable given the circumstances, it would impose a punitive measure involving imprisonment.
By making that statement, the court brought the possibility of Trump being the first former president of the United States to be imprisoned closer.
Trump is accustomed to having uninterrupted access to his social media platform to criticize opponents and express his thoughts. Following his ban from Twitter in the aftermath of the January 6, 2021, Capitol incident, Trump established his platform to ensure that his messages would not be subject to blocking or restrictions.
The Trump campaign was already soliciting donations based on the breaches. He has consistently attempted to disassociate himself from problematic comments that he has shared with his large number of followers by claiming that they are only “retweets.”
However, he does possess prior knowledge and familiarity with gag orders, as they were previously enforced during his civil fraud prosecution. Upon being discovered to have breached those directives, he remitted fines exceeding $15,000.
The ruling was issued on Tuesday, marking the beginning of the second week of testimony in the landmark case. Manhattan prosecutors contend that Trump and his allies engaged in an illicit plot to manipulate the 2016 presidential campaign by buying and subsequently suppressing unfavorable reports. He has entered a plea of not guilty.
Trump was instructed to remit the penalty by the end of Friday’s working day. Merchan also decreed that he must delete seven objectionable posts from his Truth Social account and two from his campaign website by 2:15 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, as stated by Merchan. The judge is considering more purported breaches of Trump’s gag order and will listen to arguments on Thursday.
Out of the 10 posts, the one that Merchan had authority over and was not considered a violation was made on April 10. This particular post referred to witnesses Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels as “sleaze bags.” Merchan expressed that Trump’s claim of responding to previous posts by Cohen gives him enough reason to hesitate and question whether the post was a violation.
Merchan determined that Trump’s statement, in which he quoted Fox News commentator Jesse Watters’ assertion that liberal activists were dishonestly joining the jury, clearly breached the gag order. Merchan observed that the statements in Trump’s post on April 17 in quotation marks inaccurately represented what Watters truly said.
AP – VOR News Image
Judge Holds Trump In Contempt, Fines Him $9,000 And Raises Threat Of Jail In Hush Money Trial
“Therefore, according to the court’s perspective, this post represents the defendant’s own words,” Merchan wrote.
Merchan warned against the misuse of the gag order, emphasizing that it should not be employed as a weapon rather than a defense by possible witnesses. He further stated that if individuals, such as Cohen, who are safeguarded by the order, persist in attacking Trump, it becomes evident that they no longer require the protection provided by the gag order. Cohen has stated his intention to abstain from making any remarks about Trump until he gives testimony during the trial.
Testimony continued on Tuesday with Gary Farro, a banker who assisted Cohen, Trump’s previous lawyer, in establishing accounts, including one that Cohen utilized to purchase the confidentiality of adult entertainer Stormy Daniels. She claimed to have had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, an allegation that he denies. Farro testified on Friday, recounting how Cohen requested the establishment of two accounts, but one was never officially opened.
Shortly after establishing a second account under Essential Consultants LLC in October 2016, Michael Cohen transferred $130,000 from his home equity loan to this account. Within the same day, he wired the exact amount of $130,000 to Keith Davidson, who was, as evidenced by the paperwork, an attorney representing Daniels at the time. The 2016 presidential election took place on November 8.
Farro stated that Cohen suggested the transaction was connected to a real estate deal rather than being associated with a political candidate, an adult film star, or the acquisition of a possible media story.
“That could be perceived as a reputational risk,” he stated.
Thus far, the jurors have been presented with testimony from two additional witnesses. Rhona Graff, Trump’s former executive assistant, remembered seeing Daniels at Trump’s office suite in Trump Tower and assumed she was a prospective candidate for one of Trump’s “Apprentice” shows.
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker disclosed his agreement to act as the Trump campaign’s informant, responsible for suppressing unfavorable rumors and allegations against Trump and women. Pecker detailed his payment of $180,000 to acquire and withhold reports from a doorman and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, but he did not participate in the payment to Daniels.
AP – VOR News Image
Judge Holds Trump In Contempt, Fines Him $9,000 And Raises Threat Of Jail In Hush Money Trial
Trump asserts that all of the stories bought were untrue. The defense lawyers employed cross-examination to imply that Trump’s true intention was to safeguard his reputation and his family rather than to manipulate the presidential election result.
Trump is facing 34 criminal charges for manipulating corporate documents about the hush money payments. He has refuted any misconduct and entered a plea of not guilty.
The comprehensive evidence regarding corporate transactions and bank accounts prepares the groundwork for Cohen’s testimony. Cohen, who was incarcerated following his guilty plea in 2018 for campaign finance violations and other offenses, will provide his story. The timing of his testimony remains uncertain.
The trial, the first of Trump’s four criminal matters to be presented to a jury, is anticipated to continue for at least another month. As Trump spends more time in court, his frustration intensifies as the November election draws nearer.
Trump has been engaging in campaign activities during his free time. However, he is obligated to attend court sessions four days a week. On Tuesday, he again expressed his disapproval of the matter outside the courtroom.
“This is a case that should never have been initiated,” he stated.
SOURCE – (AP)
Business
Internet Archive Loses Major Copyright Case Court Rejects Their Arguments
The Internet Archive has lost a critical legal battle, potentially affecting the future of internet history. Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided against the long-running digital archive, affirming a previous decision in Hachette v. Internet Archive, which determined that one of the Internet Archive’s book digitization initiatives infringed copyright law.
Notably, the appeals court’s ruling rejects the Internet Archive’s argument that its lending practices were shielded by the fair use doctrine, which permits for copyright infringement in certain circumstances, calling it “unpersuasive.”
In March 2020, the Internet Archive, a San Francisco-based nonprofit, launched the National Emergency Library, or NEL. The epidemic had forced library closures that prevented students, scholars, and readers from accessing millions of books, and the Internet Archive has stated that it was answering to calls from common people and other librarians to assist individuals at home in obtaining the books they required.
The NEL was an extension of the Open Library, an ongoing digital lending experiment in which the Internet Archive scans physical copies of library books and allows individuals to borrow digital versions as if they were conventional reading material rather than e-books. The Open Library lent the books to one person at a time—but the NEL eliminated this ratio requirement, allowing a large number of people to borrow each scanned book at once.
Shortly after its inception, the NEL faced criticism, with some authors claiming that it amounted to piracy. In response, after two months, the Internet Archive abandoned its emergency strategy and imposed lending caps. But the harm had been done. Major publishing giants, including Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley, filed the complaint in June 2020.
In March 2023, the district court found in favour of the publishers. Judge John G. Koeltl determined that the Internet Archive had created “derivative works,” claiming that its copying and lending had “nothing transformative” to offer. Following the initial verdict in Hachette v. Internet Archive, the parties reached an agreement, the specifics of which have not been released; however, the archive has filed an appeal.
According to James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and internet law at Cornell University, the ruling is “not terribly surprising” in light of recent court interpretations of fair use.
Internet Archive won the appeal
The Internet Archive won the appeal, but only narrowly. Although the Second Circuit upheld the district court’s first decision, it underlined that it did not regard the Internet Archive as a commercial business, emphasising that it was clearly a charitable organisation. Grimmelmann believes this is the appropriate decision: “I’m glad to see that the Second Circuit fixed that mistake.” (He joined an amicus brief in the appeal, saying that classifying the use as commercial was incorrect.)
“Today’s appellate decision upholds the rights of authors and publishers to license and be compensated for their books and other creative works, and reminds us in no uncertain terms that infringement is both costly and antithetical to the public interest,” Association of American Publishers president and CEO Maria A. Pallante said in a statement.
“If there was any doubt, the Court makes clear that under fair use jurisprudence there is nothing transformative about converting entire works into new formats without permission or appropriating the value of derivative works that are a key part of the author’s copyright bundle.”
In a statement, Internet Archive director of library services Chris Freeland expressed dismay with “today’s opinion about the Internet Archive’s digital lending of books that are electronically available elsewhere.” We are reviewing the court’s decision and will continue to defend libraries’ right to own, lend, and preserve books.
Dave Hansen, executive director of the Author’s Alliance, a nonprofit organisation that frequently advocates for increased digital access to books, also spoke out against the verdict. “The authors are researchers. “Authors read,” he says. “IA’s digital library assists authors in creating new works and encourages their desire to have their works read. This verdict may boost the bottom lines of the largest publishers and most well-known authors, but it will harm more people than it will help.
Difficult period for copyright law
The Internet Archive’s legal problems are not ended. In 2023, a collection of music labels, including Universal Music collection and Sony, sued the archive for copyright infringement on a music digitization project. That case is still working its way through the courts. The damages might total up to $400 million, posing an existential danger to the nonprofit.
The new ruling comes at a particularly difficult period for copyright law. There have been scores of copyright infringement cases filed against large AI businesses that provide generative AI tools in the last two years, and many of the defendants contend that the fair use doctrine protects their use of copyrighted data in AI training. Any big lawsuit in which judges reject fair use grounds is widely monitored.
It also comes at a time when the Internet Archive’s critical role in digital preservation is becoming increasingly apparent. The archive’s Wayback Machine, which catalogues website copies, has proven to be an invaluable resource for journalists, scholars, lawyers, and anybody interested in internet history. While there are other digital preservation programs, including national efforts by the US Library of Congress, there is nothing comparable available to the public.
Business
Hewlett Packard Won’t Drop Its UK $11 Billion Claim Against Tech Mogul Mike Lynch, Who Died When His Yacht Sank
LONDON — Hewlett Packard Enterprise announced Monday that it will not dismiss its U.K. claim for damages against the estate of British tech entrepreneur Mike Lynch, who died when his superyacht drowned last month.
In 2022, Britain’s High Court decided primarily to favor the US technology giant, which accused Lynch and his former finance director of fraud concerning its $11 billion acquisition of his software company Autonomy. Hewlett-Packard is seeking up to $4 billion in damages, and the judge is anticipated to make a ruling on the exact amount shortly.
AP News Image
Hewlett Packard Won’t Drop Its UK Claim Against Tech Mogul Mike Lynch, Who Died When His Yacht Sank
Mike perished when his yacht, the Bayesian, fell in a storm off Sicily on August 19. His widow, Angela Bacares, may now be liable for the damages.
Mike was acquitted in a separate US criminal trial of fraud and conspiracy in the agreement months before the sinking.
Hewlett Packard initially applauded its pricey 2011 acquisition of Lynch’s company but soon began to regret it. The corporation stated on Monday that it had “substantially succeeded” in its civil fraud allegations against Lynch and the former finance director, Sushovan Hussain.
“It is HPE’s intention to follow the proceedings through to their conclusion.”
However, the U.K. civil action judge has already concluded that the amount payable in damages will be “substantially less” than what the company is demanding.
The Lynch family’s spokesman declined to respond.
Mike and his daughter Hannah were among six passengers killed when the 56-meter (184-foot) luxury boat sank. One crew member, the boat’s chef, also perished, while 15 people escaped the accident. They gathered on the yacht to celebrate Lynch’s acquittal.
Hewlett Packard Won’t Drop Its UK Claim Against Tech Mogul Mike Lynch, Who Died When His Yacht Sank
Officials first reported that the boat was hit by a tornado over the water, known as a waterspout, but the weather phenomena was later identified as a downburst. Italian prosecutors are investigating the captain on possible accusations of manslaughter.
SOURCE | AP
Business
2024 | Elon Musk Hits Out At Judge Threatening To Suspend X In Brazil
Elon Musk has escalated his online attacks on a Supreme Court judge who has threatened to stop social media platform X in Brazil, labeling him “an evil dictator” in an ongoing battle between the two men.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes threatened to suspend X if Musk did not identify a new legal agent for the company in Brazil and pay any outstanding daily fines within 24 hours.
“Alexandre de Moraes is an evil dictator cosplaying as a judge,” the world’s richest person commented on X.
Elon Musk Hits Out At Judge Threatening To Suspend X In Brazil
Musk, who previously referred to de Moraes as “Darth Vader,” retweeted a statement from X’s Global Government Affairs team announcing that the judge’s “illegal demands and all related court filings” would be published in the coming days.
Brazil is a key market for social media networks. According to the Associated Press, around 40 million Brazilians, or roughly 18% of the population, use X at least once a month.
The trash-talking is the latest salvo in Musk’s spat with de Moraes, which revolves around free speech and alleged disinformation. X said earlier this month that it would suspend its business and lay off its employees in Brazil owing to what it described as “censorship orders” from the judge.
De Moraes had ordered the social media company to ban several X accounts he claimed were disseminating misinformation.
The most recent statement, signed by de Moraes, was also posted on the Supreme Court’s official X account, tagging both Musk and X’s Global Government Affairs account.
The Supreme Court statement was uploaded around 8:30 p.m. local time on Wednesday, giving Musk till Thursday evening local time to answer.
‘Censorship Orders’
On August 17, X issued a lengthy statement announcing that it would be forced to suspend operations and terminate employees in Brazil due to de Moraes’ “censorship orders.”
“Despite our numerous appeals to the Supreme Court not being heard, the Brazilian public not being informed about these orders and our Brazilian staff having no responsibility or control over whether content is blocked on our platform, Moraes has chosen to threaten our staff in Brazil rather than respect the law or due process,” according to the statement from X.
Elon Musk Hits Out At Judge Threatening To Suspend X In Brazil
“As a result, to ensure the safety of our employees, we have decided to close our activity in Brazil, effective immediately. The X service remains available to Brazilians. We are profoundly saddened to have been compelled to make this decision. Alexandre de Moraes is exclusively responsible.
“Due to demands by ‘Justice’ Alexandre [de Moraes] in Brazil that would require us to break (in secret) Brazilian, Argentinian, American and international law, X has no choice but to close our local operations in Brazil,” he said on X’s website.
SOURCE | AP
-
Business4 weeks ago
Are You A Cash App User? You May Be Eligible For A Piece Of This $15 Million Settlement
-
Celebrity4 weeks ago
Liza Minnelli Is ‘Mad As Hell’ And Writing New Memoir
-
Business4 weeks ago
Susan Wojcicki, Former YouTube CEO And Longtime Google Executive, Has Died At 56
-
News4 weeks ago
Travis Scott Is Arrested At A Paris Hotel After Altercation With A Security Guard, Prosecutors Say
-
Sports4 weeks ago
Lydia Ko Finally Gets Her Olympic Gold. It Puts Her Into The LPGA Hall Of Fame
-
Business4 weeks ago
After A Rash Of Stolen Cars, Hyundai And Kia’s New Anti-Theft Software Is Showing Results