Mediaboss Marketing

Topeka lawyer Margo E. Burson faced a formal complaint based on the losses of more than $183,000 by two Topeka women.

The family of one woman said she violated their trust. A nursing home had asked her repeatedly to fill out required paperwork for the other woman.

But when Burson appeared at a disciplinary hearing before the Kansas Supreme Court and was asked what authority she had to remove money from a clients account without a judges approval, she paused.

At this time, I decline to answer, Burson said.

Im sorry. What? Justice Dan Biles asked.

I decline to answer, Burson said.

Are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Biles asked.

Yes, Burson said.

With that, questioning about the status of the money ended. That hearing was June 15.

The Fifth Amendment protects a defendant from testifying to something that might be self-incriminating. A witness may sometimes plead the Fifth in district court cases.

But disciplinary administrator Stan Hazlett said he couldnt recall the protection being used in an attorney disciplinary hearing.

In a letter dated July 18, Burson voluntarily surrendered her Kansas law license, and the Kansas Supreme Court disbarred her a day later.

Burson was facing two complaints filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, which polices the conduct of Kansas lawyers, based on the losses of more than $183,000 by two Topeka women.

The estate of Dorothy May Harvey, an 89-year-old woman who died in September 2011, and a 96-year-old woman living in a senior care facility reported the losses. The name of the older woman hasnt been disclosed in public documents.

Betrayed

Family members were grateful for Bursons help during Harveys final illness, and Burson got initial accounting to family within days of Harveys death.

We trusted her implicitly, said Don Peters, a brother-in-law of Harvey who is married to her sister, June Peters.

Peters, who lives outside of Kansas, said Harveys obituary even reflected respect for the attorney.

The family expresses their deep appreciation to Margo Burson, who lovingly managed her health care affairs, the obituary said.

But the closing of the estate is still ongoing, Peters said. The Peterses became a little suspicious about a year after Harveys death, and by September 2016, they registered a complaint with the disciplinary administrators office.

In essence, she violated our trust, very seriously, Peters said. We feel betrayed, not so much for the money lost but for the time (lost).

Ten internet transfers totaling $66,000 were made from the Harvey estate account, then were deposited into Bursons operating account, according to disciplinary administrators records.

The transfers started on Aug. 19, 2016, and ended on Jan. 30, 2017, and ranged from $1,000 to $19,000 for each transfer, the records show.

We did trust her for years, unfortunately, until we learned she didnt merit our trust, Peters said. She is now our ex-lawyer.

In the other complaint against Burson, more than $117,249 wasnt paid to the account of a 96-year-old woman living at Brewster Place, officials said.

The disciplinary administrator received a complaint from an individual reviewing accounts on behalf of Brewster Place, where Burson had power of attorney for a resident beginning in 2005.

Records show Brewster Place sent letters and emails to Burson on numerous occasions asking her to fill out and file a Medicaid application, a request that began in March 2014.

By February 2017, the residents balance due to Brewster Place was more than $99,000, and on May 24, the balance was $117,249.

When the complaint was filed in June, Burson hadnt completed the Medicaid application process, and the resident remained at the facility.

Brewster Place does not wish to evict the woman, the complaint said.

Worn out

In an interview last week, Burson said she couldnt talk at length about the disciplinary case.

I am not in a position to discuss it at this time, Burson said.

The disciplinary action coincides with Bursons planned retirement, she said. Burson said she had planned to retire at the end of the fiscal year, which was June 30.

The timing on the other matter happened to coincide with her retirement, she said.

It was a surrender of the license, Burson said, rather than a knock down, drag out (disciplinary hearing). Some of us are worn out and ready to do something else.

A full evidentiary hearing was scheduled for Aug. 17 before a three-member panel of lawyers, but that was canceled after Burson surrendered her license.

During her June 15 appearance before the Kansas Supreme Court, Burson asked for time to complete documents for several other clients. She cited her health as a reason for retiring, saying she developed arthritis in the mid-1980s.

Lawyers facing serious allegations in disciplinary cases appear before the supreme court justices, and hearings are recorded on video. Serious cases include alleged acts of dishonesty, misappropriation of money and extreme misconduct.

The day Burson appeared before justices, they temporarily suspended her law license.

Hazlett, the disciplinary administrator, said she was disbarred a month later as a result of the allegations against her and her decision to surrender her license.

Hazlett said he would turn over the investigative materials to a law enforcement agency, and they can decide on how to proceed.

Contact reporter Steve Fry at (785) 295-1206 or @TCJCourtsNCrime on Twitter.

Read more:
Topeka lawyer for elderly women takes Fifth, disbarred amid ethics questions - Topeka Capital Journal

Uber unsealed former CEO Travis Kalanicks deposition in the Uber versus Waymo self-driving car technology case over the weekend. Kalanick, who was deposed for more than six hours last month, spoke about when he learned that Anthony Levandowski, who formerly worked at Google, downloaded documents related self-driving technology.

The deposition yet again confirms that Uber was focused on building its technology from the ground up. Uber never wanted any Google material, and took steps to prevent any such material from ever coming to Uber, an Uber spokesperson told TechCrunch.

Waymos suit alleges Uber knew about these documents at the time when Uber acquired Levandowskis self-driving trucking startup Otto. In Kalanicks deposition, he says he did not have any knowledge of the documents until shortly Waymo first filed the complaint in February.

I was pretty serious with him about making sure that these files had not and will not make it to Uber, Kalanick said in his deposition. He went on to say that, And I wanted to make it absolutely clear that no files of any kind from anybodys previous employer make it to Uber.

While Levandowski was still employed at Uber, Kalanick at one point directly asked him if any of the files made it to Uber, to which Levandowski said no.

In his deposition, Kalanick said Levandowski was expecting a bonus at Google and downloaded the documents to make sure hed get that bonus. The deposition, which is nearly 200 pages long, also touches on whether or not Kalanick thought what Levandowski was improper. Kalanick said yes, to which he was then asked why he didnt fire Levandowski at that point.

I was really hopeful that he would cooperate and tell the Court the facts of the matter, cooperate with our investigation, he said. And that was part of what this discussion was about, was just make the declaration, testify. And it may be that I was holding onto that possibility, trying to trying to get him to cooperate with the Court, with our investigation internally. And you know, it was Fing stupid. It was it it yeah. It it just felt like if he could if he could just say what he did and why, and that if you just cooperate, the would be great.

Levandowski, of course, has not cooperated. He very early on in the case invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Another key element of this case is Alphabet CEO Larry Page, who was seemingly unprepared in his deposition last month. In Kalanicks deposition, he describes a call between him and Page from October 2016. According to Kalanick, they spoke about flying cars as well as driverless cars and potential partnership opportunities. Page was not very interested in partnering on self-driving tech, Kalanick said in his deposition.

He he was he was upset about what he what he kept talking about was us taking his IP, Kalanick said. Page kept saying that Uber had taken Googles intellectual property, Kalanick said. And I kept responding and telling him that hiring his people was not taking his IP.

Kalanick went on to describe that it felt like he and Page didnt understand each other and that Page wouldnt explain what his exact issue was.

I told him, we will open up our facility if you think we have taken IP, Kalanick said. Like, come take a look. We will have your people take a look. We will dig deep and make sure. But we were very confident about the process of acquisition and the process we have in hiring people.

Update with comment from a Waymo spokesperson:

This deposition confirms a number of points Waymo has been making since we filed this case, including not only that Mr. Levandowski improperly downloaded files from Waymo but that he had ample opportunity to inject Waymos trade secrets into Ubers technology, given he actively advised Uber engineers on LiDAR design even well before he ran Ubers autonomous driving program. Waymo has significant and direct evidence that Uber is using stolen Waymo trade secrets and we look forward to presenting that evidence at trial.

You can read the full deposition below.

Read the original:
Uber discloses details of Travis Kalanick's deposition in Waymo lawsuit - TechCrunch

What are the basic underpinnings of a federal grand jury? In the excerpt from the National Constitution Centers Interactive Constitution, Paul Cassell and Kate Stith lookat their origin as related to the Fifth Amendment.

The first part of the Fifth Amendment reads as follows: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and Stith, from the Yale Law School, explained the presence of Grand Juries in the Constitution, in a common interpretation of the Fifth Amendment:

The first of the criminal procedure clauses requires that felony offenses infederal courtbe charged by grand jury indictment. (A grand jury is a panel of citizens that hears evidence that the prosecutor has against the accused, and decides if an indictment, or formal criminal charges, should be filed against them.)

This is one of only a few provisions of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not held to apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (the others being the Third Amendments protection against quartering of soldiers, the Sixth Amendments requirement of trial in the district where the crime was committed, the Seventh Amendments requirement of jury trial in certain civil cases, and possibly the Eighth Amendments prohibition of excessive fines).

That the Court has been reluctant to apply the grand jury requirement to the states is unsurprising. While the origins of the grand jury are ancientan ancestor of the modern grand jury was included in the Magna Cartatoday, the United States is the only country in the world that uses grand juries. In addition to the federal government, about half the states provide for grand juriesthough in many of these there exist other ways of filing formal charges, such as a prosecutorial information followed by an adversarial but a relatively informal preliminary hearing before a judge (to make sure there is at least probable cause for the charge, the same standard of proof that a grand jury is told to apply). As early as 1884, the Supreme Court held that the grand jury is not a fundamental requirement of due process, and Justice Holmes lone dissent from that judgment has been joined by only one Justice (Douglas) in the intervening years.

Recent scholarship has upset the previous understanding that the grand jury was from its inception venerated because it was not only a sword (accusing individuals of crimes) but also a shield (against oppressive or arbitrary authority). In its early incarnation in England, the grand jury was fundamentally an instrument of the crown, obliging unpaid citizens to help enforce the Kings law. Over the centuries, the idea of a citizen check on royal prerogative became more valued. By the time of the framing of our Constitution, both the grand jury (from the French for large, in sizetoday grand juries are often composed of 24 citizens), and the petit jury (from the French for smalltoday criminal trial juries may be composed of as few as six citizens) were understood, in both Britain and the colonies, to be important bulwarks of freedom from tyranny.

Few in the modern era would espouse such a view. The former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals (that states highest court) famously remarked in recent years that because prosecutors agents of the executive branchcontrol what information a grand jury hears, any grand jury today would, if requested, indict a ham sandwich. While this is a useful exaggerationthe Supreme Court has held that federal grand juries need not adhere to trial rules of evidence, or be told of evidence exculpating the defendantfew prosecutors, fortunately, are interested in indicting ham sandwiches! Rather, the greatest advantage grand juries now provide (at least in federal courts, which are not as overburdened as state courts) is allowing the prosecutor to use the grand jury as a pre-trial focus group, learning which evidence or witnesses are especially convincing, or unconvincing.

At least in federal court, grand juries are here to stay. The institution is written into the Fifth Amendment too clearly to be interpreted away. Moreover, neither pro-law enforcement forces (for obvious reasons) nor allies of those accused (because occasionally grand juries do refuse to indictin the legal parlance, returning a no true bill) have reason to urge their abolition through amendment of the Constitution.

You can read more from Cassell and Stith on the Fifth Amendment, and matters of debate from different perspectives, at our Interactive Constitution at: goo.gl/dsDFKb

Filed Under: Fifth Amendment

See original here:
Interactive Constitution: Grand Juries and the Fifth Amendment - Constitution Daily (blog)

Special counsel Robert Mueller (L) arrives at the U.S. Capitol for closed meeting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee June 21, 2017 in Washington, DC. Alex Wong Getty Images

Washington is all abuzz that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has empaneled a grand jury in furtherance of his investigation into whether or not Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. In spite of the inevitable speculation this creates, its worth remembering that a grand jury is a powerful investigative tool, but not a criminal charge. So what is the significance of a grand jury convening?

A grand jury has the power to subpoena both witnesses and documents, such as bank records and phone records. Refusal to comply with a subpoena, which has the force of a court order, without a legal basis creates the risk of the subpoena recipient being held in contempt of court and subject to criminal or civil penalties.

Legal privileges, such as the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, are a basis for a witness to refuse to testify. The only way to get around a legally applicable privilege would be to seek an order of immunity, which would protect the witness from criminal exposure and therefore render the Fifth Amendment inapplicable. Perhaps the most famous immunized witness in past independent counsel investigations is Monica Lewinsky; its easy to forget that former national security advisor Michael Flynns lawyer offered his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee if he received immunity, where anything said could not be used against him in a criminal proceeding. The Committee, perhaps anticipating a prosecutors eventual interest in Flynn, declined.

Moreover, certain evidence, such asyes, Mr. Presidenttax returns, are considered more private than others, and cannot be obtained via subpoena. Rather, Mueller would need to seek an order from a judge to obtain Trumps tax returns, a wiretap, or a pen register, for instance.

Unlike Congressional hearings, in which sworn testimony is public, grand jury investigations are secret by law. This secrecy rule is demonstrated by the fact that Muellers grand jury has apparently been working for several weeks, but was only reported in the media yesterday. Prosecutors, law enforcement, and grand jury members themselves are barred from discussing grand jury proceedings. The reasons for this are twofold: First, publicity can cripple an ongoing covert investigation; second, grand jury investigations are secret to protect subjects of an investigation who may or may not ultimately be charged.

Grand jury witnesses, however, are not subject to the secrecy rules. So any legal reports from the grand jury room will come from the witnesses.

Grand juries, like Congress, can issue subpoenas. Unlike Congress, they can vote to criminally indict the subjects of their investigations. The purpose of empaneling a grand jury is to gather and assess the weight of the evidence. It does not mean that there exists enough evidence to amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard for a conviction, or probable cause, which is the standard the grand jury must find in order to vote to indict. Given the grand jury secrecy rules described above, there is no way for the public to know with certainty how much evidence Mueller has amassed, or its value in a criminal case. So the smart money wont bet on criminal charges by the mere fact of empanelment alone.

In summary, empaneling a grand jury is consistent with Muellers reputation as a lawyer and investigator: a meticulous and thorough officer of the court who is committed to accuracy and the rule of law. But the grand jurys existence doesnt amount to a criminal charge, and it definitely doesnt equate a criminal conviction. As were whipsawed by Washington, its worth taking a page from Muellers book, and following the evidence where it leads.

Juliet S. Sorensen is a clinical associate professor of law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. She is the co-author of Public Corruption and the Law: Cases and Materials (West Academic 2017).

See the article here:
Why Robert Mueller's Grand Jury Isn't Really a Big Deal - Fortune

Xconomy New York

After days of deliberation, a New York jury Friday afternoon found Martin Shkreli guilty of securities fraud.

According to a report from CNBC, the jury in the civil case said that Shkreli is guilty on three of eight counts, two of which are securities fraud and the other conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Shkreli, according to the CNBC report, could face up to 20 years in prison upon his sentencing. Shkreli was charged with conspiracy for bilking investors in his New York-based hedge funds, MSMB Capital Management and MSMB Healthcare, and looting his own biotech firm, Retrophin (NASDAQ: RTRX), to cover investments gone wrong at MSMB.

Those actions took place from 2009 to 2014, according to the government. Shkreli left Retrophin in September 2014, and the company filed suit against him soon after. Many of those allegations lined up with the charges filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Shkreli and his lawyer, Evan Greebel, in late 2015.

By then, Shkreli was running a new company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, and had gained worldwide notoriety as the pharma bro for raising the price of pyrimethamine (Daraprim), an off-patent drug often used by people with HIV to ward off parasitic infections, from $13.50 to $750 a pill. Shkreli compounded the backlash by taunting his critics and showboating on social media.

Shkreli left Turing after his arrest. He also got the boot from KaloBios Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: KBIO), a Bay Area biotech that Shkreli and allies had grabbed in a hostile takeover. Under Shkreli, KaloBios had designs to buy a drug for Chagas disease, which is endemic to Latin America, and raise its prices to levels comparable to hepatitis C drugsthat is, in the neighborhood of $80,000 a year.

At a Congressional hearing on drug pricing in early 2016, Shkreli pleaded the fifth amendment, invoking his Constitutional right not to testify. Afterwards, he insulted the committee members on Twitter.

Shkrelis abrasive personality factored into his trial, as well. After calling the prosecution junior varsity in comments to reporters, and taking to Twitter under an alias (he had been permanently banned under his own name for harassing a reporter), the federal judge presiding over the case issued a gag order on Shkreli.

Before Shkreli, Gilead Sciences (NASDAQ: GILD) and its hepatitis C drugs were the focal point for industry critics, but his notoriety seemed to galvanize public opinion against high drug prices. Shkrelis Turing and other pharma price-gougers, such as Valeant Pharmaceuticals (NYSE: VRX) and Mylan (NASDAQ: MYL), maker of the Epi-Pen anti-allergy injection, took turns in the shame spotlight. When President-elect Trump said in January that drug companies were getting away with murder, the die seemed cast. Washington was prepared to take on the thorny problem of drug pricing, the industrys lobbying muscle be damned.

It hasnt happened. A draft of a presidential executive order on drug pricing that has circulated this summer seems to benefit drug companies, not rein them in.

There is no word yet when a final order is due, or if one is even coming. But Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY) CEO David Ricks said last week on a conference call that he expects one in the second half of 2017. In the wake of the Republicans failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, Democrats have plugged their own agenda, including drug-price controls. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) unveiled his own plan this week.

Alex Lash is Xconomy's National Biotech Editor. He is based in San Francisco.

Read the original here:
Report: Martin Shkreli Faces Prison Term After Fraud Conviction - Xconomy