Mediaboss Marketing

William David Moore (right) appears at a hearing over suspension of his medical license with counsel (left). (screengrab via YouTube)

Dozens of women and girls have sued an Indiana gynecologist and former county health official who has already been deemed a danger to the public, accusing him of rampant sexual abuse and lawyers say even more victims are expect to come forward.

William David Moore, a 76-year-old obstetrician/gynecologist who practiced medicine in Marion, Indiana since 1994, has been sued for medical malpractice by 83 female patients ranging in age from 15 to 73 years old. The lawsuit alleges that Moore sexually assaulted them during routine exams, photographed their genitalia without their consent, and made inappropriate sexual comments, according to a report by local Fox affiliate WXIN.

The lawsuit names Moore, Dr. Moores Womens Healthcare, Ambulatory Care Center, and Marion General Hospital as defendants.

Moore retired abruptly at the end of 2022, shortly after accusations against him began to surface when a former patients Facebook post accused the doctor of misconduct went viral, sparking a wave of women to come forward with claims of sexual abuse.

In January, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General filed a petition against Moore for suspension of his license and called the doctor a clear and present danger to the public.

At the time, Moore was accused of assaulting patients during pelvic exams, failing to wear gloves, and ordering unnecessary medical tests. Nurses also say Moore was known to have erections during vaginal deliveries, and that medical staff would often cover his lap to hide them.

The allegations raised by the Jane Doe plaintiffs in the attorney generals petition were graphic.

One patient, listed as Patient A, said that during a 2021 medical exam, Moore inserted a speculum into her vagina, took photos with an iPhone, then inserted his fingers and rubbed her clitoris in a sexual manner while asking that she do kegel exercises. Patient A says that after that, Moore had a medical assistant come into the room and take another photograph while he held open her labia.

Patient B said detailed a medical appointment during which Moore allegedly asked her if her boyfriend performed oral sex on her, then said Oh, youre so pure, before telling Patient B, If you arent sexually active within the next year, I will have to manually break your hymen because its hard for me to see.

More Law&Crime coverage: Urologist at prominent hospitals federally indicted after lawsuits allege disturbing sex crimes

One Marion General Hospital nurse identified as A.M. said she was told by fellow nurses that Moore would often have to cover his lap during vaginal deliveries to hide his erections. The same nurse also said that a person who worked at a cellular store told her that after she gained access to the photographs on the cellphone, she found photographs of womens external sexual anatomy.

A.M. says she reported these things to risk management at Marion General Hospital but was told that the hospital could not take action and that she would not be privy to any further investigation or action as it related to Moores alleged erections during vaginal deliveries.

Multiple alleged victims testified against Moore during the hearing over his medical license. The doctor refused to respond to direct questions about whether he sexually assaulted his patients, and instead claimed a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

In March 2023, Moores medical license was suspended.

Moore has denied the allegations and said he is prohibited by patient confidentiality laws from discussing the specific care of any patient.

Moore became the Grant County Public Health Officer in 2019, a role in which he oversaw departments of the environment, food, nursing, emergency preparedness and vital records. At the time, he said that while he had no particular interest in public health, he took the position with the intent of addressing childhood poverty.

When asked about his role at the time, Moore acknowledged that he had what he described as a very different leadership style and maintained a high level of involvement.

I tend to be obsessive-compulsive, and I want to know everything and do everything, he said at the time.

In their medical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege not only that Moore himself is liable, but also that the hospital is at fault for having knowledge of the allegations but taking no steps to prevent or report abuse.

Lawyers for the 83 plaintiffs in the medical malpractice lawsuit say that more victims are expected to sign on to the massive legislation.

Under Indianas Medical Malpractice Act, a doctor is liable for $250,000 in damages for any one case. In the Moore lawsuit, each act alleged by each Jane Doe would constitute a separate and distinct incident of malpractice. The lawsuit also claims that Indianas two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims is unconstitutional because women who were victimized could not have reasonably been expected to recognize the scale of Moores actions.

We already represent 83 patients of Dr. Moore and receive calls daily from additional women who are continuing to come forward, said Stephanie Cassman, attorney for the plaintiffs. The staggering number of women victimized and abused by Dr. Moore is a direct result of the medical facilities for whom he worked wholly ignoring reports of his misconduct that spanned decades.

In addition to the civil lawsuit, Moore is also reportedly facing a criminal investigation, according to WXIN.

Counsel for Moore and the hospitals did not respond to request for comment.

You can read the petition for summary suspension of Moores license, via WXIN, here.

See more here:
Suspended gynecologist accused of getting aroused during vaginal deliveries faces massive lawsuit from dozens of women - Law & Crime

The special Suffolk County grand jury investigating why Thomas Valva was killed could bring criminal charges againstor recommend terminations ofcounty employees who received dozens of reports that the 8-year-old was suffering severe abuse yet allowed him to continue living with the couple later convicted of murdering him.

Besides investigating how Suffolk Child Protective Services employeeshandled the case, the grand juryalso might lookat the overall functioning and practices of CPS,and recommendimprovements or reforms to the agency, said Janet Albertson, former chief of the homicide bureau of the Suffolk District Attorneys Office.

Thomas froze to death onJan. 17, 2020, after his father, then-NYPD Officer Michael Valva, and the fathers fiancee, Angela Pollina, forced him and his 10-year-old brother, Anthony, to spend the night in their Center Morichesgarage, which was unheated, when temperatures outside had plunged to 19 degrees.

After Thomas' death, the county promoted three of the CPS employees who played key roles in investigating abuse allegations, and the union representing CPS employees said it was unaware of any agency workers being disciplined.

Suffolk County District Attorney Ray Tierney, whose office requested the grand jury and is guiding the investigation, would determine whether indictments against CPS employees are warranted and, if prosecutors believe they are, ask the grand jury to vote whether to indict,said Fred Klein, former chief of the major offense bureau of the Nassau County District Attorneys Office and a visiting assistant professor of law at Hofstra University in Hempstead. Grand jurors also could ask prosecutors whether indictments are appropriate, he said.

Tierney, through his spokeswoman, Tania Lopez, declined to comment.

Klein said if prosecutors show that CPS workers "knew there was a substantial risk that that kid was going to be killed, and they just disregarded that risk, that could be a crime. It's a very high standard. Reasonable people could differ as to risks, and the substantial nature of the risk.

Charges could be as serious as criminally negligent homicide or, if CPS employees'actions were deemed reckless and "a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do," second-degree manslaughter,he said.

Fred Klein, former chief of the major offense bureau of the Nassau County District Attorneys office and a visiting assistant professor of law at Hofstra University in Hempstead. Credit: Newsday/J. Conrad Williams Jr.

"It's a very high bar," Kleinsaid.

In a grand jury, the votes of 12 of the 23 members are needed for indictment.

Albertson believes indictments are unlikely, because if they had enough to charge any of these people criminally, they would have done that a long time ago.

Klein said the grand jury also could stop short of indictments but recommend employees terminations or other discipline for conduct amounting to misconduct, malfeasance or neglect in their duties, even if this does not amount to a crime.

Retired Suffolk County Judge William Condon, who presided over Michael Valva's trial, saidits up to Tierney and the grand jury whether to single out individual CPS employees actions, but, he said, Something like this does not happen unless either there was malfeasance or there was just lack of professionalism.

Anyone criticized in the report has the right to review and respond to the criticism before the report's release, he said.

Tierneyhas said little about the probe, other than it would be a comprehensive investigation into how this happened and maybe ways in which we can ensure that something like this never happens again, and that were going to make recommendations from those findings.

His office obtained the convictions of Valva and Pollina for second-degree murder and endangering the welfare of a child. Condon in December sentenced Valva to 25 years to life in prison. Pollina received an identical sentence in a separate trial.

The grand jury investigation is one of several that were promised into Thomas' death.

The state completed its probe in early 2021 but wont release results to the public, and other investigations, by the county legislature and the state court system, either stalled or never began.

The grand jury, as an arm of the court, has key advantages other investigative entities do not, including the ability to subpoena witnesses, who are required by law to appear before agrand jury, Albertson said.

You cant compel somebody to come to your office to talk to you, she said. But you can compel them by virtue of a subpoena to produce documents or property, or to offer testimony.

Retired Suffolk County Judge William Condon, who presided over Michael Valva's trial. Credit: Alejandra Villa Loarca

Condon said the grand jury would want to hear testimony from CPS employees who received and reviewed reports that Thomas was being abused, from attorneys appointed by courts to represent the interests of Thomas and his two brothers, and perhaps from Thomas brothers and mother, and Pollinas daughters, and from judges in custody and visitation cases.

Condon said calling as witnesses Anthony or Thomas other brother, Andrew, or one or more of Pollinas three daughters, who lived with Thomas, could be tricky.

If theyre still minors, you dont want to do further harm, he said.

But, said Condon, who as a Suffolk sex-crimes prosecutor had child victims testify before grand juries, If its important to the investigation, if its crucial, then you may decide that the benefit of the childrens testimony outweighs the potential for a negative impact on them.

Condon said there may be no need to go into graphic detail of Thomas suffering.

I don't think that DA Tierney is looking to retry the Valva and Pollina cases, he said. So, for instance, what the kids may have seen and heard on the day Thomas died, or even the days leading up to it, I don't know what value that may add to the investigation. However, they met with members of Child Protective Services. Their testimony, their observations about what questions were asked to them by CPS, and what answers they gave, might very well be germane to the investigation.

Unlike a criminal trial, which is public, grand jury proceedings are secret, and jurors and prosecutors cannot publicly discuss testimony and other matters, said Ian Weinstein, a professor in the Fordham University law school inManhattan.

In New York, people subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury have immunity from prosecution for anything they say, unless they waive immunity, Klein said.

But, he said, although its not a crime to lie to a police officer or prosecutor outside the grand jury room, witnesses who lie before agrand jury can be prosecuted for perjury.

A witness who waives immunity can decline to answer questions by asserting a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Weinstein said. But someone with immunity must answer questions or risk being charged with contempt of court, the same charge for not showing up before a grand jury when subpoenaed, he said.

In addition to subpoenaing witnesses, the district attorneys office can subpoena documents from CPS, the family court system which in 2017 transferred custody of Thomas and his brothers from their mother, Justyna Zubko-Valva, to Valva and other government agencies, Albertson said.

CPS and other agencies may seek to quash a subpoena, arguing that records should not be released because of privacy or other concerns, she said. The judge assigned to the grand jury would then rule whether to compel the release of the documents, Albertson said.

Documents presented to grand juries are sealed and not released publicly.

Suffolk spokeswoman Marykate Guilfoyle said in an email that the county would comply with any requests and subpoenas to the extent permitted by law, but declined to say whether it has turned over documents or planned to do so, or whether it would challenge any subpoena. The county in the past has argued that state law makes CPS documents confidential.

The New York Office of Children and Family Services, which conducted the state investigation into Thomas death and has access to other records in the case, alsowould comply to the extent required by law, spokesman Solomon Syed said.

Special grand jury reports typically are highly detailed, and theres a sense of greater legitimacy to their findings because they are conclusions of random citizenswho bring a different perspective from the insiders, such as prosecutors, Weinstein said.

The Valva grand jury is the second in six years to investigate how CPS and its parent agency, the Suffolk Department of Social Services, protect children.

An 83-page Suffolk grand jury report released in 2017 said lack of coordination among Suffolk, New York City and state child-welfare agencies helped lead to the sexual and other physical abuse of dozens of foster children.

Other previous Long Island special grand jury reports include a 180-page 2003 document that concluded that local Catholic Church officials concealed priest sexual abuse of Long Island children, a 156-page 2016 report on limousine safety following a crash that killed four women, and a 55-page 2019 document on illegal dumping. All the reports included recommendations for new laws or rules.

The district attorney requests a judge impanel aspecial grand jury, and prosecutors write the final report. But the grand jury must approve the findings, Condon said. Grand juries can meet for months, usually a few days a week, he said.

Tierney declined through his spokeswoman to say when the grand jury first convened and how long it is scheduled to meet.

Condon believes it will be a lengthy process.

Albertson said the grand jury may take a very critical, very in-depth look at exactly how that agency[CPS] functions, and how they functioned with respect to this incident.

One result, she said, may be to recommend changes in order to make the agency better, and to ensure that a death like this doesn't happen again.

SOURCE: CPS and court documents

David Olson covers health care. He has worked at Newsday since 2015 and previously covered immigration, multicultural issues and religion at The Press-Enterprise in Southern California.

See original here:
Suffolk grand jury could bring criminal charges against CPS workers in Thomas Valva child-abuse case - Newsday

NEW YORK -- Former President Donald Trump arrived at the offices of New York's attorney general Thursday for his second deposition in a legal battle over his company's business practices, with his lawyer signaling that he intends to answer questions this time instead of invoking his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

"President Trump is not only willing but also eager to testify before the Attorney General today," his attorney, Alina Habba, said in a statement. "He remains resolute in his stance that he has nothing to conceal, and he looks forward to educating the Attorney General about the immense success of his multibillion dollar company."

The Republican was meeting with lawyers for Attorney General Letitia James, who sued Trump last year. Her lawsuit claims Trump and his family misled banks and business associates by giving them false information about his net worth and the value of assets such as hotels and golf courses.

The lawsuit is unrelated to the felony criminal charges filed against Trump by the Manhattan district attorney, which led last week to his historic arraignment, the first for a former president.

In a social media post Thursday morning, Trump called the suit "ridiculous, just like all of the other Election Interference cases being brought against me."

He raised his fist as he left his apartment at Trump Tower, with his motorcade arriving at the attorney general's office at around 9:42 a.m.

James declined to answer a question about the deposition at a news conference on an unrelated matter Wednesday.

Trump previously met with James' lawyers Aug. 10, but refused to answer all but a few procedural questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights more than 400 times. At the time, James had not yet brought her lawsuit and it was unclear whether questions about the way Trump valued his company would become the basis of a criminal case.

"Anyone in my position not taking the Fifth Amendment would be a fool, an absolute fool," he said in that deposition, which was recorded on video and later released publicly. Trump predicted a "renegade" prosecutor would try to make a criminal case out of his answers, if he gave them.

"One statement or answer that is ever so slightly off, just ever so slightly, by accident, by mistake, such as it was a sunny, beautiful day, when actually it was slightly overcast, would be met by law enforcement at a level seldom seen in this country, because I've experienced it," he said.

Circumstances since then have changed. The criminal charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney focused on how the company accounted internally for payments to a lawyer, Michael Cohen, for his work paying off people not to go public with stories about extramarital sexual encounters Trump said were made up.

The lawsuit James brought is scheduled to go to trial in October.

Thursday's deposition will be conducted in private.

Visit link:
Trump will answer questions in New York fraud lawsuit, lawyer says - Daily Herald

The Fourth Amendment of our Constitution addressed that unalienable right of privacy.

Paul G. Summers| Guest Columnist

The FBI is using Best Buys Geek Squad as informants

Does it violate the Fourth Amendment?

Time

Editor's note:This is a regular feature on issues related to the Constitution and civicswritten by Paul G. Summers,retired judge and state attorney general.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of America. Amendments are part of the Constitution. The first 10 Amendments, or Bill of Rights, were submitted to the state legislatures in September 1789. The Bill of Rights was ratified in December 1791.

Amendment Four to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from unreasonable searches and seizures and provides that warrants shall issue based upon probable cause.

Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Before the Revolutionary War, Great Britain considered America to be a financial investment; and colonists had few rights, including rights against invasion of privacy into their own homes. Writs of assistance could easily be issued by the government for searching and seizing, irrespective of probable cause. If an official or agent just thought there was contraband in any place, they could seize and seize. The Fourth Amendment of our Constitution addressed that unalienable right of privacy.

Courts since 1791 have determined what is or is not probable cause as well as when warrantless searches and seizures are allowed. These rules apply to the states as well as the federal government.

For example, if a person is suspected of having committed a felony, he can be arrested without a warrant. As another example, if she is suspected of having committed a misdemeanor; and it was committed in the officers presence, she can be likewise arrested in most jurisdictions. If he or she is arrested properly, then searches incident to arrest are allowable.

Likewise, searches without warrants are allowed if contraband or evidence is in plain view; and the officer did not create the opportunity for a plain view exception. There are several warrant exceptions. But officials should procure a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate if there is probable cause, and it can be done timely.

The Constitution and Amendments are the supreme law of the land. The judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court, is the independent branch of our federal government.

Judges decide controversies on the rule of law. They act as checks and balances on abuse of power by any of the branches, whether by act or action. I have argued on behalf of my State in a capital murder case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I can attest to the solemnity of the highest court in our land.

The Courts decision on the Constitution is final. The Court hears about 2% of all applications for permission to appeal each year. All cases are important and decide issues the parties could not decide. The Courts decision is final, and it means much to some person or sometimes millions of people.

We shall continue in our next column with the Fifth Amendment. Please study the Constitution.

Paul G. Summers, lawyer, is a former appellate and senior judge; district attorney general; and the Attorney General of Tennessee. Raised in Fayette County, he resides in Holladay and Nashville.

See the original post here:
Why the Founding Fathers passed the Fourth Amendment to the ... - Tennessean

Former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro acknowledged that at least 200 to 250 records in his possession belong to the government. | Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo

A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday rejected a bid by former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro to retain hundreds of government records despite a judges order to return them promptly to the National Archives.

There is no public interest in Navarros retention of the records, and Congress has recognized that the public has an interest in the Nations possession and retention of Presidential records, the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in a unanimous two-page order.

The Justice Department sued Navarro last year, seeking to reclaim hundreds of records contained in Navarros personal ProtonMail account that the government said should have been returned to the National Archives after the Trump administration came to an end in January 2021.

Navarro acknowledged that at least 200 to 250 records in his possession belong to the government, but he contended that no mechanism exists to enforce that requirement and that doing so might violate his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected that claim, ordering Navarro to promptly return the records he had identified as belonging to the government.

But Navarro appealed the decision, rejecting the notion that the Justice Department had any legitimate mechanism to force him to return the records. And he urged the court to stay Kollar-Kotellys ruling while his appeal was pending. But the appeals court panel which included Judges Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins, both appointees of President Barack Obama, and Judge Neomi Rao, an appointee of President Donald Trump rejected Navarros stay request.

Within minutes, Kollar-Kotelly put the squeeze on Navarro, ordering him to turn over the 200 to 250 records on or before Friday. She also ordered him to perform additional searches or presidential records that might be in his possession by May 8, with further proceedings scheduled for later in the month.

The flurry of filings is the latest twist in a saga that began when the National Archives discovered that Navarro had relied on a ProtonMail account to do official government business the result of a congressional investigation into the Trump administrations handling of the coronavirus crisis.

Navarro is also trying to fend off criminal charges for defying a different congressional investigation the probe by the Jan. 6 select committee into his role in strategizing to help Trump overturn the results of the 2020 election. He faces charges for contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena issued by the select committee, a case that has been repeatedly delayed amid battles over executive privilege and immunity for presidential advisers.

In its brief order rejecting Navarros stay, the appeals court panel concluded that returning the documents would not violate Navarros protection against self-incrimination.

Navarro has failed to articulate any cognizable Fifth Amendment injury, the panel wrote. Because the records were voluntarily created, and he has conceded both that they are in his possession and that they are the property of the United States, the action of physically returning the United States records to it will not implicate his [Fifth Amendment right].

It was not immediately clear whether Navarro would appeal the panels ruling.

Justice Department attorneys argued that despite Navarros claim, there is a method for the government to enforce its ownership interest in the records Navarro has acknowledged retaining a provision of the Washington, D.C., code. That statute, known as replevin, provides a mechanism for property owners to reclaim stolen materials even while court proceedings are pending.

Navarro has contended that this procedure was not contemplated in federal recordkeeping laws and had never been used to enforce the return of presidential records before. But the appeals court panel said he had not adequately demonstrated that the United States cannot proceed under the replevin statute.

However, the panel said it would not prejudge any additional arguments about that issue that might be made as the case proceeds.

Excerpt from:
Appeals court rejects Peter Navarro's bid to retain hundreds of ... - POLITICO