Mediaboss Marketing

(Photo by PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

How many times will the Trump family plead the Fifth when they go under oath next month before New York Attorney General Letitia James?

Five hundred? One thousand? Do I hear two thousand?

Yesterday the states Court of Appeals rejected an eleventh-hour plea by the former president, Don Jr. and Ivanka Trump to avoid testifying in the AGs long-running investigation of the Trump Organization. Which means that the family has run out of road in their effort to avoid going under oath.

The ruling is hardly a surprise to anyone paying attention to the case. At a totally wacko hearing back in February, Trumps many lawyers tried to persuade Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron to block the AGs investigation.

Alan Futerfas argued that the existence of a criminal investigation by the District Attorney made it illegal for the AG to issue a subpoena, characterizing it as an end-run around the blanket immunity which would confer if the family were forced to testify before a grand jury.

Alina Habba argued that the investigation was tainted by bias, and the court should actually be investigating Tish James and Hillary Clinton.

And Ron Fischetti, the old bull, shouted angrily that My client cant take the Fifth Amendment. Itll be all over the papers! insisting that he didnt care whether Eric Trump took the Fifth 500 times, because My client is not Eric Trump! My client is Donald Trump!

Hell want to testify, he yelled from his video conference square, as if his inability to control his client were the courts problem.

In the event, Justice Engoron was unconvinced, ordering the respondents to turn over the contested documents within 14 days and sit for deposition within three weeks.

The reception at the First Department Appellate Division was no less chilly, with the court tossing the Trumps appeal within two weeks.

Youre asking us to eliminate dozens of years of precedent or act as legislators, Presiding Justice Rolando Acosta retorted when Futerfas restated his bizarre argument. Its not like you are unaware of your criminal jeopardy, in which case you can invoke your privilege against self incrimination. Thats the remedy that you have.

When the appellate court rejected their claim, the Trumps made one more Hail Mary pass to the states highest court. But they also signed a stipulation agreeing to go under oath the week of July 15 if their appeal was rejected. Which means that Don Jr. is probably standing in front of a mirror right now, doing his best Taxi Driver imitation, and shouting, You talkin to me? I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me. So I dont know who youre talkin to.

Theres always the off chance that the Second Circuit will take up the Trumps appeal of US District Brenda Sannes refusal to seize jurisdiction from the state court and make that mean lady stop investigating Daddy. Or Manhattan might be attacked by a flock of flying pigs you never know.

Liz Dyelives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

See the article here:
Trump Family Runs Out Of Road In Bid To Block Testimony To NYAG - Above the Law

The jurors in the Bill Cosby sexual assault trial came close to deciding the case on Friday, but their uncertainty over how to address some remaining issues in reaching a verdict led the judge to decide they should return on Monday to resume their deliberations.

Before they finished the second day of deliberations in the courthouse in Santa Monica, Calif., the judge, Craig D. Karlan, said the jurors had resolved most of the questions on a verdict sheet they were being asked to vote on. But there was no discussion of how the jury had voted on those questions including one that concerned whether Mr. Cosby should pay damages to Judy Huth, who says he molested her in 1975 at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles when she was 16.

One complicating factor is that one of the 12 jurors who sat through the two days of deliberations needs to be excused, the judge said, so an alternate will take a seat with the panel on Monday and the jurors will have to reconsider most of the issues.

Unfortunately, you will have to start from scratch, Judge Karlan said.

It is not clear, though, whether the inclusion of a new juror will have a substantial effect on the deliberations, because only nine of the 12 jurors need to agree on a verdict.

Mr. Cosby, 84, has denied having any sexual encounter with Ms. Huth. He has not been present at the trial, and did not testify after invoking his Fifth Amendment right, but he was heard by the jurors in a videotaped deposition saying that he did not remember ever meeting Ms. Huth.

Ms. Huths friend took two photos of Mr. Cosby and Ms. Huth together at the mansion, though, and they have been entered into evidence.

On Thursday, the jurors were given a verdict sheet comprising nine questions they had to answer in turn to help them reach a verdict and decide on any damages.

They had asked the judge for clarifications on a number of the questions, including one that dealt with whether Mr. Cosby was motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in Ms. Huth, a minor.

Over the course of 10 days of testimony, the jury heard Ms. Huths account that she and her friend had met Mr. Cosby in 1975 in a park in San Marino, Calif., where he was making the film Lets Do It Again.

She and the friend, Donna Samuelson, testified that Mr. Cosby had invited them to his tennis club, and then to the house where he was staying, where he gave them alcohol and got them to follow him in their car to the Playboy Mansion.

In testimony, Ms. Huth, 64, described how, in a bedroom at the mansion, Mr. Cosby had forced her to perform a sex act on him. Mr. Cosbys lawyers have described Ms. Huths account as a complete and utter fabrication.

More here:
The Jury in the Bill Cosby Sex Assault Case Says Its Close to a Verdict - The New York Times

Item 1.01 Entry Into a Material Definitive Agreement

On June 15, 2022, Inhibrx, Inc. (the "Company") and Oxford Finance LLC("Oxford") entered into a fifth amendment (the "Fifth Amendment") to the Loanand Security Agreement between the Company and Oxford, dated as of July 15,2020, as amended by the First Amendment dated November 12, 2020, the SecondAmendment dated December 15, 2020, the Third Amendment dated June 18, 2021, andthe Fourth Amendment dated February 18, 2022, (collectively, the "Oxford LoanAgreement").

The Fifth Amendment amends and restates the Fifth Draw Period and Sixth DrawPeriod (each as defined in the Fourth Amendment) to end on the earlier of (i)June 30, 2022 and (ii) the occurrence of an Event of Default (as defined in theLoan and Security Agreement).

Except as noted above, the terms of the Oxford Loan Agreement remain unchanged.

The foregoing description of the Fifth Amendment is qualified in its entirety byreference to the Fifth Amendment attached as Exhibit 10.1 to this Current Reporton Form 8-K and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation Under anOff-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant

The information set forth in Item 1.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K isincorporated by reference herein.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

See the original post here:
INHIBRX, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet...

U.S. Supreme Court

By Debra Cassens Weiss

June 13, 2022, 12:13 pm CDT

Image from Shutterstock.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled against immigrants seeking bond hearings and injunctive relief through class actions. Both decision were based on statutory text.

In Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, the high court ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require the government to give bond hearings to detained citizens under deportation orders after six months of detention. The court interpreted a provision of the law that says a person may be detained or released under terms of supervision after a 90-day removal period.

In the second case, Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, the Supreme Court held that district courts didnt have the power to consider classwide claims by noncitizens seeking an injunction requiring the kind of bond hearings sought in the first case.

The plaintiff in the first case, Mexican citizen Antonio Arteaga-Martinez, had sought withholding of removal because of a reasonable fear of persecution if he returned to Mexico. He had contended that the government was required to show by clear and convincing evidence in a bond hearing that he was a flight risk or a danger to the community.

The court rejected the claim in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

On its face, the statute says nothing about bond hearings before immigration judges or burdens of proof, nor does it provide any other indication that such procedures are required, Sotomayor wrote.

Arteaga-Martinez had argued that he was entitled to a bond hearing under Zadvydas v. Davis, a 2001 decision that found that immigrants can be held only long enough to accomplish the purpose of removal. The case involved a noncitizen who could find no country to accept him, making his removal not reasonably foreseeable, SCOTUSblog previously reported.

The court in Zadvydas read the statute in way to avoid Fifth Amendment concerns about indefinite detention and found that the period reasonably necessary to bring about removal was presumptively six months.

Sotomayor noted that Arteaga-Martinez had made a due process argument that was not addressed by the courts below because they ruled on statutory grounds. The constitutional claims must still be addressed by the lower courts, Sotomayor said.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. One of his arguments was that the court should overrule Zadvydas at the earliest opportunity.

Justice Stephen Breyer, the author of Zadvydas, partly concurred and partly dissented.

In my view, Zadvydas controls the outcome here, Breyer wrote.

Since the court remands this case for further proceedings, Breyer wrote, I would add that, in my view, Zadvydas applies (the court does not hold to the contrary), and the parties are free to argue about the proper way to implement Zadvydas standard in this context, and, if necessary, to consider the underlying constitutional question, a matter that this court has not decided.

The author of the majority opinion in the second case was Justice Samuel Alito.

Hat tip to SCOTUSblog.

Continue reading here:
Supreme Court rules against immigrants seeking bond hearings and injunctive relief - ABA Journal

Pleading the fifth is one of our constitutional rights, and it's all thanks to a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that started in Phoenix, Arizona.

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

It's a phrase we're all familiar with, and it's part of what's called, the Miranda warning. Nowadays, police officers are required to read it to a suspect when they make an arrest.

The warning is made up of five statements that lay out the rights and protections one has under the constitution.

But police officers weren't always required to read someone their Fifth Amendment rights. That practice came about because of the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. And that case was decided on today's date, Jun. 13.

Confession without rights

In 1963, Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and sexually assaulting an 18-year-old girl.

While in police custody, officers obtained a written confession from Miranda... But something wasn't right.

During the trial, Miranda and his lawyer protested that he didn't know he could have an attorney present at his interrogation, or that he could choose to say nothing at all.

And it was true. Phoenix police officers admitted that, during the interrogation, they hadn't directly informed Miranda of those rights.

Despite the defense's objections to using the confession as evidence, Miranda was found guilty of the crimes (mostly because of the confession) and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

Miranda's conviction was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court, so in 1965 he submitted a plea for review to the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union stepped in to argue his case.

Miranda v. Arizona

Does the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

That was the question at the heart of Miranda's hearing before the Supreme Court. The first day of the case started in February of 1966, and arguments ran all the way through June.

Then on Monday, Jun. 13, 1966, the court delivered its opinion: the person in custody must be clearly informed of their rights.

The court was split with a 5-4 ruling. Dissenting opinions argued that this was too strict of an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, or that it would get in the way of officers being able to do their jobs.

All the same, the Miranda rights are here to stay.

Now the Miranda warning is such a cultural staple that you can find it in almost every T.V. show, book, or movie with police involved. It's hard to imagine, but we wouldn't have those protections if it weren't for this Arizona case.

What happened to Miranda?

After the Supreme Court invalidated Miranda's conviction due to the improper confession, he was retried by the State of Arizona.

At his second trial, the confession wasn't brought up but Miranda was still found guilty on charges of kidnapping and sexual assault.

On Mar. 1, 1967, Miranda was once again sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

He was paroled in 1972 and died on Jan. 31, 1976, in a fight at a bar in downtown Phoenix. Miranda was buried in the City of Mesa Cemetery.

Arizona Politics

Get the latest Arizona political news on our 12 News YouTube playlist here.

Follow this link:
You have the right to remain silent, thanks to this 1966 Arizona-based court case - 12news.com KPNX