Mediaboss Marketing

It feels like a lifetime ago that Michael Flynn resigned as National Security Advisor. In administration where a scandal is now breaking on an almost daily basis, it's hard to recall something that happened as recently as Februaryeven if it might ultimately define Donald Trump's presidency.

But Flynn remains among the most important players in the mushrooming scandal over whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. Late Wednesday brought a deluge of less than flattering news about the former generalincluding his delaying an anti-ISIS operation opposed by Turkey after receiving cash apparently intended to encourage him to help its government. Then, on Thursday, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, said that Flynn would not complying with a subpoena for documents pertaining to the Russia mess.

An hour or two later, the Associated Press reported that Burr had corrected himself, and that actually, Flynn's lawyers just haven't responded yet.

To make sense of what it would mean for Flynn to simply go rogue and not play ball with Congress, I called up a law professor at the University of Baltimore named Charles Tiefer. In a past life, Tiefer worked in the Senate Legal Counsel's office and handled enforcement cases against organized crime figures, which is to say he's pretty familiar with the the procedures at hand. He said that what's happening right now is very unusual, though noncompliance might be the retired general's only move if he wants to avoid time behind bars.

"It signifies that the former high official expects prosecution," he told me of Flynn possibly not cooperating. "So it's as rare as felons in the Oval Office."

Here's a condensed and lightly edited version of what else we talked about.

VICE: So what would Flynn be thinking if he did ultimately refuse the subpoena? Charles Tiefer: Flynn may be invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege. There was an earlier time some weeks ago when he said that he wanted an immunity deal with the Senate committee, and that often signifies fear of self-incrimination.

Can you game out what's next if Flynn does refuse? Does the Senate Intelligence Committee have the ability to issue a contempt citation like a judge would? It's not clear whether a court will enforce a subpoena against someone with a well-founded fear of prosecution. And Flynn seems to be one of the main targets of the special counsel. He may be left alone with his looming prosecution problems rather than face subpoena enforcement from the Senate.

Now the Senate Intelligence Committee has two choices [if Flynn refuses to cooperate]. They can say they've done as much as is possible with a witness under criminal investigation and facing prosecution and turn to other witnesses. Or the Senate can direct the Senate legal counsel to go to court and seek a court order compelling him to provide his documents. But the Senate is unlikely to do that if his Fifth Amendment claim is valid.

If this goes to court, would Flynn also get the opportunity to argue the subpoena is unwarranted? I don't see any defense for him other than the Fifth Amendment. He would make that argument to the committee, and then if the claim is valid, the committee will not pursue him. This subpoena didn't seek his testimony, it sought his documents. And an individual's documents are not cloaked with a Fifth Amendment privilege. But the Supreme Court has said that requiring an individual to produce his own documents does have a Fifth Amendment protection because of what's called the act of production violates his privilege against self-incrimination. So if he shared his documents with someone else, you could subpoena his documents from that person without there being a Fifth Amendment privilege.

OK, so maybe we can get the documents from someone else. But would a refusal to provide docs suggest Flynn won't ever testify himself? Oh, yes. The committee can require him to show up and take the Fifth Amendment, and indeed congressional committees have done that with officials like Lois Lerner of the IRS in recent years. But committees have also accepted lawyers saying their clients would take the Fifth and not even call them in. In any event, you don't get any information from such a witness.

So Flynn refusing to cooperate might actually not be a crazy move for him?There could have always been negotiations with him had he been willing to cooperate. For example, say he's only concerned about criminal investigation about his payments from Turkey. He could have negotiated an arrangement with the Senate Intelligence Committee in which he gave them whatever documents they had like his personal calendar relating to the Russian matter but not the Turkish matter.

It was worth trying to see whether he had any willingness to cooperate at all. The answer [may ultimately be] no, which would also change how the Congress and the public visualize him. He'd look a lot less like someone caught up in an investigation, and more like a criminal defendant.

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

See the rest here:
Can Michael Flynn Really Defy Congress and Get Away with It? - VICE

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) A rabbi accused of repeatedly raping and molesting a teenage boy has been ordered to testify at a civil trial after invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition.

Jury selection for Rabbi Daniel Greer's trial in federal court in Hartford is scheduled to start Wednesday. Jurors could begin hearing evidence later in the day or Thursday.

Greer, 76, remains the principal at the Yeshiva of New Haven school. A former student at the Jewish boarding school, Eliyahu "Eli" Mirlis, now 29, is suing Greer and the school on allegations of sexual assault, infliction of emotional distress and other claims.

Mirlis, who attended the school from 2001 to 2005, also alleges in the lawsuit that Greer sexually abused at least one other male student. The Associated Press generally does not name people who allege sexual assault, but Mirlis wanted to come forward, his lawyer said.

Advertisement

Greer has denied the allegations and has not been criminally charged. New Haven police say they're looking into a sexual assault complaint filed by Mirlis' lawyer, Antonio Ponvert III.

Greer and his lawyers, David Grudberg and William Ward, did not return phone and email messages seeking comment.

According to court documents, Greer invoked his right against self-incrimination at a deposition last year. His lawyers asked a judge to bar Mirlis from calling Greer to the witness stand, but the request was denied.

"Parading Mr. Greer before the jury to repeatedly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege will only serve to paint him as 'a criminal who has probably eluded justice' in the eyes of the finders of fact, which will cause significant and irreparable prejudice in this case," Grudberg and Ward wrote in a motion filed last month, adding that Greer also would invoke his Fifth Amendment right if called to testify.

Although Judge Michael P. Shea denied the request this month, he said Greer's lawyers could object to specific questions to prevent Greer from having to repeatedly take the Fifth on the stand.

Ward has questioned why Mirlis came forward with the allegations years later and did not take the matter before a rabbinical arbitration court. He said the allegations have damaged Greer, his family and the good reputation he spent years building in the community.

Greer is a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School who has testified before the state legislature several times on a variety of issues, including opposing same-sex unions in 2002 before the state approved same-sex marriage. He also is a former member of the New Haven police commissioners' board and a past chairman of the New Haven Redevelopment Agency.

He also led efforts to improve New Haven's Edgewood neighborhood.

Greer's daughter was among a group of Orthodox Jewish students who sued Yale University in the late 1990s, claiming the school's requirement that they live in coed dorms violated their constitutional rights. A federal judge disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit.

Read the original:
Rabbi accused of raping student ordered to testify at trial - Santa Cruz Sentinel

A prominent New Haven rabbi whos been accused of sexually assaulting a teenage boy has been ordered to testify at a civil trial. Jury selection for Rabbi Daniel Greer is set to begin Wednesday in federal court in Hartford.

A lawsuit filed last year accuses Greer, 76, of repeatedly raping and molesting a student who attended the Yeshiva of New Haven school. During that time, Greer was the rabbi, dean, and director.

The former student, now 29, is suing Greer and the school on allegations of sexual assault, infliction of emotional distress, and other claims.

The lawsuit also alleges that Greer sexually abused at least one other student.

Greer has denied the allegations and has not been criminally charged.

The rabbi invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition in the lawsuit. But a judge recently rejected his request not to testify.

Greer has been a respected member of the New Haven community. He served on multiple city boards, and played an active role in the revitalization of declining city neighborhoods. He was also a strong proponent of sexual morality.

Read the original post:
New Haven Rabbi Accused Of Sexual Abuse To Testify At Trial - WNPR News

In United States v. Apple Macpro Computer, No. 15-3537 (Third Cir. March 20), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the district court properly found appellant John Doe in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651, which required him to producein a fully unencrypted stateseveral devices that had been properly seized, but which were in an encrypted state. The court rejected the appellant's argument that his decrypting of the devices would force him to violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court's proper ruling is an important one, as encryption of devices is prevalent in the digital world, and decryption by the target is more and more the best and least costly way for the government to access the data in devices seized.

Special to the Law Weekly Leonard Deutchman is a legal and technical consultant. Previously, he had been general counsel for KrolLDiscovery, which he helped build into the largest e-discovery provider in the United States, specializing in data recovery, data archiving, electronic discovery, data hosting, TAR and managed review, collections and digital forensics, with offices across the country and around the world. Before joining KrolLDiscovery, he was a chief assistant district attorney at the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, where he founded the Cyber Crime Unit and conducted and oversaw hundreds of long-term investigations involving cybercrime, fraud, drug trafficking and other offenses.

See more here:
Order to Decrypt Digital Devices: A Violation of the Fifth Amendment? - The Legal Intelligencer

Invoking the Fifth Amendment wont protect Auditor General Frank Mautino from House Joint Resolution 9, Rep. Grant Wehrli (R-Naperville) said after the State Board of Elections hearing on Mautino recently.

Today we heard that his Fifth Amendment rights were invoked in response to a State Board of Elections subpoena, Wehrli told the Edgar County Watchdogs (ECW), a government oversight group. That should tell us everything we need to know about the ethics of Mr. Frank Mautino.

Wehrli said a bill to force Mautinos ouster is currently in the General Assembly.

I think its time for Frank Mautino to resign, he said. House Joint Resolution 9 was filed back in January; it calls for his resignation. It would give him the opportunity to come forward and answer these questions questions that he has had multiple, multiple opportunities to answer, and he simply decides not to.

The scandal surrounding Mautinos campaign contribution spending began in January 2016 after the Illinois Times reported that Mautino had continued to collect campaign donations between his appointment to the auditor general post in October 2015 and assuming the position on Jan. 1, 2016.

The ECW, intrigued by the story and the campaigns explanation that the donations were used to pay for office expenses and close up shop, conducted an investigation of Mautinos campaign spending, reviewing data in his Campaign Disclosure Expenditure List. The group found that the campaign had paid more than $213,000 to one service station for fuel and repairs between March 2005 and December 2015.

The campaign also wrote checks totaling a similar amount to Spring Valley City Bank, which the campaign said was a method to get cash for campaign-related payments, but no receipts for those payments have been provided.

Illinois resident David Cooke submitted a complaint to the State Board of Elections that led to that bodys investigation and the recent hearing. Mautinos campaign contribution spending is also now the subject of a federal investigation.

Despite mounting evidence of suspicious spending, Mautino has not answered questions to ease the concerns of some lawmakers and Illinoisans, culminating in his invoking Fifth Amendment protections at the State Board of Elections hearing. While Mautino has refused to offer explanations, his supporters, including Speaker of the House Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), have maintained that a full review of the case will prove his innocence.

One of the things that Speaker Madigan said was that Frank Mautino would be vindicated once all evidence was out there, and now here today we heard that Frank Mautino invoked his Fifth Amendment [rights] in response to a subpoena, Wehrli said. So, I dont know how were ever going to get to the bottom of this if Frank wont even testify on his own behalf.

The ECW pointed out in its interview with Wehrli, who was accompanied by fellow Mautino critic Rep. Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton), that the documents presented in the hearing have been sealed, even though the hearing itself was open.

It once again just makes me question the transparency of all of this, Wehrli said. These records should be public. This was a public hearing in which documents were provided. Those records should absolutely be a matter of public record. Now, as of today [] Im not a lawyer, but they should be.

Wehrli has also pushed for greater transparency in campaign spending through House Bill 0415, which would require copies or images of receipts to be submitted along with expenditure reports. At the hearing, Wehrli and Ives were the only two of the states 118 representatives to have their campaign reporting brought to the table.

You know youre over the target when youre taking flak, Wehrli said. That was a shot right at us [], but its simply a low form of intimidation, and it wont stick. If we can get the speaker to get HB 415 out of Rules and get that as law, then all of this goes away because everything will be out there for all to see.

See the rest here:
Fifth Amendment won't save Mautino, Wehrli argues - DuPage Policy Journal