Mediaboss Marketing

Mr. Shkreli taunted his critics on television (dismissing Bernie Sanders on Fox Business Network: I dont think he understands pharmaceuticals at all), on Twitter (Haters, please tell me about the latest in apicomplexa genetic drift) and on hourslong YouTube live streams (combing his hair, playing chess and chatting with a female student at Hunter College High School).

During a live stream, Mr. Shkreli discussed rap, high school and a friend of his who is in jail.

Responding to the public outrage, Express Scripts, the largest prescription drug manager in the United States, said that it would back the production of an alternative to the $750-a-pill Daraprim that would cost only $1 a pill.

In December 2015, it was revealed that Mr. Shkreli was the buyer of a one-of-a-kind Wu Tang Clan album that was auctioned for $2 million. When RZA, a co-founder of the hip-hop group, criticized the sale, Mr. Shkreli responded with an expletive and told the rapper to show me some respect.

Nine days later, Mr. Shkreli was charged with securities fraud linked to his first pharmaceutical company, Retrophin. The government accuses Mr. Shkreli of using the company to pay back investors in MSB Capital, a hedge fund he founded. The investigation began long before his notoriety. He resigned from Turing shortly after being charged.

Those who know him describe Mr. Shkreli as charismatic and intelligent. Months before he became a drug industry pariah, Mr. Shkreli made a $1 million donation to Hunter College High School, the prestigious Upper East Side school that he attended before going to work on Wall Street at 17. Some alumni later pushed for the gift to be returned.

Martin is the smartest guy in the room at all times, someone who worked with him on Wall Street told The Times. One early investor said that if you give him a science textbook on chemistry, hed give it back to you in nine months and hed have it memorized.

Despite his penchant to speak his mind, Mr. Shkreli was notably quiet in a federal court in Brooklyn in February 2016 (in response to a question: yes, judge). The same was the case during a heated congressional hearing on drug prices (he smirked and took the Fifth Amendment). But after testifying, he tweeted: Hard to accept that these imbeciles represent the people in our government.

Mr. Shkreli invoked his Fifth Amendment rights while Congress peppered him with questions about his company's increasing drug prices.

Mr. Shkreli eventually shared the spotlight with other drug industry executives portrayed as villains. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, a company that also bought patents and raised drug prices, saw its stock plummet. And Mylan, the maker of the lifesaving allergy injecting device EpiPen, was criticized for raising the price for a two-pen set to more than $600.

The outspoken Mr. Shkreli was finally forced into silence this year, but only on Twitter. He was kicked off the social media platform after harassing a female journalist, but he maintains his online presence on Facebook and YouTube.

His lead defense lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, appeared to channel some of President Trumps advisers when he said that his clients messages on social media should not be taken at face value. When people tweet, they dont always mean what they say, Mr. Brafman said.

Excerpt from:
Scenes From Martin Shkreli's Journey to Federal Court - New York Times

An Orlando businessman, Ishrat Rehmetullah, is citing the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination while arguing in federal bankruptcy court that he shouldnt have to disclose all of his assets.

Remetullah and his wife, Shama, filed a personal bankruptcy in 2014, citing almost $800,000 in debts, which included a $572,000 foreclosure on his home in Dr. Phillips. The debts were discharged and the case was closed.

But the case was reopened in 2015 when some creditors alleged that Rehmetullah had attempted to flee the country, and had failed to report a collection of gold coins, diamonds and real estate he owns in Karachi, Pakistan; those allegations were detailed in a filing by a court-appointed trustee assigned to the case, Richard Webber, .

Webber recently sought a judges order requiring Rehmetullah to report additional assets. Instead of complying, or denying the allegations, Rehmetullahs attorney filed a response saying that reporting additional assets could violate his clients Fifth Amendment rights.

According to a filing by Ishrat Rehmetullahs lawyer, Jeffrey Ainsworth, There have also been suggestions that the debtors in this case will be referred to the United States Attorneys Office for criminal prosecution, which further shows that the debtors fear of criminal prosecution in this case is legitimate.

In a court hearing Tuesday, Ainsworth suggested the political climate in the U.S. could spell trouble for his client: If you look at the current administration, a Pakistani national living in the U.S. is probably a real target.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Cynthia Jackson said that the creditors in the case have a right to know if there were additional assets, but she took the matter under advisement and said she would give her opinion later.

Regarding the Fifth Amendment claim, she said: There has to be an imminent threat of criminal prosecution, and I dont see that.

Ishrat Rehmetullah sold a home in Pakistan shortly after filing for bankruptcy, and provided $75,000 from that sale to the bankruptcy trustee, but the trustee has questioned the value of that home. Rehmetullah also turned over some of his coin collection, which was sold for $2,400.

Rehmetullah is the father of two Orlando entrepreneurs who launched a financial technology startup in 2014 called Fattmerchant Suneera Madhani and Sal Rehmetullah. Both siblings were deposed in the bankruptcy case. In 2016, Sal Rehmetullah offered to pay $100,000 to prompt a settlement of his fathers debts, but later that offer was withdrawn. The siblings argued that their father is not formally part of the Fattmerchant business.

Ishrat Rehmetullah and his wife have registered several businesses with the state, including I Travel Florida LLC, Discount Holidays LLC, and Pizza Romas LLC, among others. They had also reported a loan of $100,000 from a Florida company called Oyster Bay Investments.

Got a news tip? pbrinkmann@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5660; Twitter, @PaulBrinkmann

More here:
Orlando businessman cites Fifth Amendment in bankruptcy case - Orlando Sentinel

Some notable cases include:

In Jennings v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause entitles aliens being held in federal facilities to a bond hearing, such that if they post bond they could be released into the U.S. civilian population. Justices asked hard questions of both sides during oral argument in November.

In Sessions v. Dimaya, another case involving aliens, the Court will decide whether a key provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) governing the deportation of certain aliens is so vague that it violates the Due Process Clause.

In Lee v. Tam, the justices will decide whether the provision of federal law that authorizes denying trademark protection because of content some consider disparaging violates the First Amendment. The Federal Circuit invalidated the restriction, which has direct application to the Washington Redskins and billboards expressing views critical of militant Islam.

In Ziglar v. Abbasi, the High Court will determine whether a plaintiff can directly sue individual FBI agents for detaining illegal aliens after the 9/11 attacks.

In Hernandez v. Mesa, the Court will decide whether Fourth Amendment protections apply to a cross-border shooting involving U.S. agents on the American side and a Mexican across the border, where the Mexican died and his family is suing the American agents. During oral argument, the justices focused heavily on the foreign-affairs aspect of this situation and whether the U.S. State Department should be in the lead, rather than courts.

In Packingham v. North Carolina, the justices will consider whether registered sex offenders can be banned from social network platforms like Facebook, given the number of children the offender could have contact with.

In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court will consider aspects of when government so completely regulates a piece of property that the land becomes unusable by the owner, such that this triggers the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause requiring the government must pay the owner. The question here is how much of the land the government must compensate the owner for.

In Lee v. United States, a legal alien allowed to stay permanently in the United States pleaded guilty to a nonviolent drug crime involving ecstasy, not knowing that his plea deal would automatically result in his deportation. The case is about whether his rejecting the deal was rational, such that it was ineffective counsel for his lawyer to fail to explain the deportation consequences of the deal. Judge Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit ruled that his rejection was rational but explained that controlling precedent required her to do so, flagged problematic aspects of those precedents, and managed to get the Supreme Court to reconsider them.

In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the Supreme Court is considering whether Blaine Amendments which forbid state funds from going to providers of public service programs only when those providers have a religious mission violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal ProtectionClause.

In Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of San Francisco County, the justices are exploring how far the Fourteenth Amendment permits state courts to have jurisdiction over out-of-state businesses.

The justices are currently scheduled to hand down all remaining decisions this year on the next two Mondays, June 19 and June 26. However, the Thursday in between, June 22, is often converted into another daily session for handing down decisions. If there are still undecided cases after June 26, the Court could also announce one final session later that week.

One uncommon wild card in play this year is that, for most of the term, there was a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. Now that Justice Neil Gorsuch has been confirmed to the seat formerly held by the iconic Justice Antonin Scalia, cases that were originally 4-4 tie votes might be rescheduled for a new hearing next year, with Gorsuch as the tiebreaking vote.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read the original:
Big Cases Still Waiting for Supreme Court Decisions in 2017 - Breitbart News

The protections of the Fifth Amendment are running up against technology and often coming out on the losing end. Court rulings have been anything but consistent to this point. So far it appears password protection beats fingerprints, but not by much.

It all comes down to the individual court. Some view passwords as possibly testimonial in and of themselves, and side with defendants. Others view passwords as something standing in the way of compelled evidence production and punish holdouts with contempt of court charges.

That's what's happening to a Florida man suspected of child abuse. He claims he's given law enforcement his phone's password already, but prosecutors claim the password failed to unlock his phone. They believe his phone holds evidence of the physical abuse alleged -- a claim that seems a bit less believable than those made about child porn viewers and drug dealers.

The court, however, has sided with prosecutors.

A Hollywood man must serve 180 days in jail for refusing to give up his iPhone password to police, a Broward judge ruled Tuesday the latest salvo in intensifying legal battles over law-enforcement access to smart phones.

Christopher Wheeler, 41, was taken into custody in a Broward Circuit Court, insisting he had already provided the pass code to police investigating him for child abuse, although the number did not work.

All that can be said for certain is prosecutors still don't have an unlocked phone. As prosecutors and this judge see it, the only explanation is that Wheeler lied. That earns him six months of jail time. Maybe Wheeler should have said he couldn't remember.

As Wheeler was jailed Tuesday, the same issue was unfolding in Miami-Dade for a man accused of extorting a social-media celebrity over stolen sex videos.

That man, Wesley Victor, and his girlfriend had been ordered by a judge to produce a pass code to phones suspected of containing text messages showing their collusion in the extortion plot.

Victor claimed he didn't remember the number. He prevailed.

This would be the same judge who determined turning over a password had no Fifth Amendment implications. However, the court found it plausible the defendant might not be able to remember the password to a phone he'd last used over ten months ago. But the ruling doesn't necessarily say the defendant is telling the truth. It only goes so far as saying it's almost impossible to prove he's lying. Given the gap between the phone's seizure and the demand for a password, it's a plausible claim.

His co-defendant made no such claim. Like Wheeler above, Victor's girlfriend handed over a password but it didn't work. The court has asked her to explain why. Given the judge's earlier Fifth Amendment determination, it's safe to assume Hencha Voigt will be facing jail time if the explanation isn't to the judge's liking.

See the original post here:
Man To Spend 180 Days In Jail For Turning Over Non-Working Password - Techdirt

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the inalienable rights of citizens.

"You have the right to remain silent, and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Those familiar words, part of an accused's Miranda rights (and a staple of police dramas), came into play in a grand fashion this week as Bridget Anne Kelly, a former aide to embattled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, chose to remain silent about her role in the now-infamous lane closures on the George Washington Bridge in September 2013.

In refusing to testify, Kelly exercised her Fifth Amendment rights, one of the original provisions of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. Though it's been part of U.S. law since 1791, many Americans are still confused when a defendant decides to "plead the Fifth." [8 Supreme Court Decisions that Changed US Families]

Innocent until proven guilty

The Fifth Amendment contains several familiar protections against government intrusion, including the clause against double jeopardy (trying a defendant more than once for the same offense), the right to due process of law (including a fair trial) and the right to just compensation when the government takes private property for public use.

The clause regarding self-incrimination was developed to prevent anyone from being forced to testify against themselves, leaving the burden of proving that a person has committed a crime to the government. Thus, the Fifth Amendment enshrines the maxim that someone is "innocent until proven guilty."

John Lilburne, an obstreperous political firebrand who lived in 17th-century England, is sometimes regarded as the godfather of the right to remain silent. When brought before the Star Chamber court for the crime of circulating Puritan pamphlets, Lilburne refused to take an oath that he would answer every question asked of him.

For his intransigence, Lilburne was publicly whipped, dragged through the streets behind an ox cart, gagged and throw in prison, where he continued to campaign for what he called the "freeborn rights" of all people the precursor to what are now called civil rights.

The Miranda Decision

It's been argued that James Madison, who would eventually serve as the fourth U.S. president, had the experience of Lilburne and other English law-enforcement practices including torture and forced confessions in mind when he penned the original words of the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Madison took care to include the right to avoid self-incrimination in the Fifth Amendment, in part because several of the states did not include that protection in their original state constitutions.

This right was extended to U.S. citizens in a fundamental manner in the Supreme Court's 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. In that landmark ruling, the court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated after he was arrested and tried for rape and kidnapping.

While the Fifth Amendment protects an arrested person from being compelled to be a witness against himself (self-incrimination), the Sixth Amendment guarantees that a person will have access to legal counsel for his or her defense. It was deemed that Miranda was denied these rights.

Limits to the Fifth

Though the Fifth Amendment offers broad protections, there are limits to its use. An important exception was added in 1984, when the U.S. Supreme Court found, in New York v. Quarles, that if public safety is at immediate risk, a suspect's statements are admissible in court, even if his or her Miranda rights have not been explained.

And in an important child-abuse case, Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Jacqueline Bouknight, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that a parent with limited custody rights cannot refuse to tell a judge the child's whereabouts. Protections against self-incrimination did not apply because of the immediate risk to the safety of the child.

Follow Marc Lallanilla on Twitter and Google+. Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Read more here:
What Is the Fifth Amendment? | Plead the Fifth