Mediaboss Marketing

Uber has officially asked Anthony Levandowski the former head of the companys self-driving efforts and the executive at the center of the Alphabet lawsuit to waive his Fifth Amendment rights and cooperate with a courts order to turn over any files he may have downloaded including those on his personal device.

Levandowski asserted his Fifth amendment rights earlier this year seeking to protect himself if the case becomes criminal which is now a possibility.

Now, Ubers general counsel Salle Yoo is asking him to waive those rights and comply with the courts order to turn over his personal device as well as any downloaded materials he has and the names of all those he ever communicated about these files with. If he doesnt, Yoo reminds him that his employment is at-will.

If you do not agree to comply with all of the requirements set forth herein, or if you fail to comply in a material manner, then Uber will take adverse employment action against you, which may include termination of your employment and such termination would be for Cause, the letter from Uber General Counsel Salle Yoo reads.

Its a major shift in Ubers tone with Levandowski, who has a close working relationship with Uber CEO Travis Kalanick.

Importantly, thats because the court has ordered Uber to exercise the full extent of [its] corporate, employment, contractual, and other authority to cause them to return the downloaded materials and all copies, excerpts, and summaries thereof to Waymo.

Alphabet has sued Uber and its subsidiary Otto claiming that Levandowski stole 14,000 files that included the design for a key radar technology before leaving the company. Uber has disputed that it used any of Alphabets tech but it doesnt deny Levandowski may have taken the proprietary information.

Notably, Alphabet shifted the focus of its patent infringement claims to a radar prototype that Uber no longer uses instead of those that are still being developed.

Previously, Uber had asked Levandowski to voluntarily recuse himself of all work with the technology in question, lidar. That recusal has since been sanctioned by the court as part of a preliminary injunction the judge granted Alphabet.

Uber has otherwise handled Levandowski with a light touch.

Part of the reason could be that Uber CEO Travis Kalanick and Levandowski are close. In fact, as we first reported, Kalanick turned to Levandowski around the same time he launched Otto to help get Ubers autonomous cars on the road. The duo, who are also planning to attend the Indy 500 together later this month according to sources, spent a great deal of time together both prior to and during Levandowskis employment.

Kalanick even brought Levandowski along on some of his notoriously long walks, an activity the controversial CEO likes to do while hes thinking, according to a Bloomberg report,

But Levandowskis priorities protecting himself from criminal action has been in conflict with Ubers attempts to do away with this lawsuit and go ahead with its autonomous efforts.

Frankly, we obviously have a conflict here, Ubers attorney Arturo Gonzalez said to Judge Alsup during a closed-door hearing in April.

I would love to put Mr. Levandowski on the stand to explain to you what happened, because I think he has a good story to tell, Gonzalez said. But I can't force him to do that.

Now Uber is asking him to do just that.

The letter reads:

We understand that this letter requires you to turn over information wherever located, including but not limited to, your personal devices, and to waive any Fifth Amendment protection you may have. Also, the requirement that your lawyers cooperate with us and turn over information that may be in their possession may invade your attorney-client privilege. While we have respected your personal liberties, it is our view that the Courts Order requires us to make these demands of you. Footnote 9 of the Order specifically states that in complying with this order, Uber has no excuse under the Fifth Amendment to pull any punches as to Levandowski.

Heres the full letter:

The rest is here:
Uber is pressuring one of its top executives to comply with Alphabet's lawsuit - Recode

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