Mediaboss Marketing

A Georgia man has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for hiding the death of a popular high school teacher whose disappearance remained a mystery for more than decade

ByThe Associated Press

May 23, 2022, 6:36 PM

3 min read

OCILLA, Ga. -- A Georgia man was sentenced to 10 years in prison Monday for hiding the death of a popular high school teacher whose disappearance baffled family, friends and investigators in her rural hometown for more than a decade.

Ryan Alexander Duke was sentenced in Irwin County Superior Court just three days after a jury acquitted him of murder in the 2005 death of Tara Grinstead. Duke testified that he gave investigators a false confession after a friend killed Grinstead. He was convicted only of concealing her death.

The 10-year sentence imposed by Judge Bill Reinhardt was the maximum punishment allowed. Duke has already served about half that time in jail awaiting trial.

A history teacher and former beauty queen, Grinstead vanished at age 30 from her home in Ocilla. Even as years passed, her family held out hope that Grinstead would be found alive until Duke told investigators in 2017 that he killed Grinstead and with the help of a friend burned her body to ash.

Every day, they couldnt find Tara," Judge Reinhardt told Duke at sentencing. "And it is true that despite whatever your selfish feelings were for not coming forward, you had to the power to stop that pain for years.

Five years ago, Duke told agents with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that he had broken into Grinstead's home in October 2005 to steal money for drugs. He saidhe fatally struck Grinstead when she startled him.

But Duke recanted his 2017 confession during his trial, testifying to the jury that he made it up under the influence of drugs and in fear of the real killer his friend with a similar last name, Bo Dukes.

Prosecutors insisted Duke's confession included details only the killer would know such as Duke telling investigators he called Grinstead's home from a pay phone after fleeing the house to see if she would answer. When she did not, he said, he returned to find her dead.

He confessed because he got caught, Grinstead's sister, Anita Gattis, told the court during Duke's sentencing hearing. There is nothing sanctimonious about that.

Investigators also found Duke's DNA on a latex glove found in Grinstead's yard. Still, his testimony sewed enough doubt with the jury that he was acquitted of all charges except for concealing her death.

Duke testified that his friend, Dukes, in 2005 woke him up inside the mobile home they shared and told Duke he had killed Grinstead. He testified that Dukes showed him Grinstead's purse and wallet.

He said they both took Grinstead's body to the pecan orchard and burned it. Investigators later found bone fragments at the site, but said DNA tests seeking to match them to Grinstead were inconclusive.

Dukes was called to the witness stand but declined to answer questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Dukes is already serving 25 years in prison after being convicted in 2019 of concealing Grinstead's death, giving false statements to investigators and hindering the apprehension of a criminal.

View original post here:
Acquitted of murder, man sentenced for hiding teacher's body - ABC News

Looking back at Donald Trump and his teams efforts to overturn the 2020 election, it might be tempting to think of Rudy Giuliani as some kind of hapless, buffoonish figure. It was two days after the race was called, for example, when the former New York City mayor held a head-shaking press conference in Philadelphia at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping parking lot, near a sex shop and a crematorium.

Soon after, Giuliani held a different outlandish press conference in which a strange dye ran down his face.

But as ridiculous as his political antics made him appear, Giuliani is not just some random clown in the former presidents orbit. On the contrary, for those investigating the post-election scandals and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, there are few figures more important than the Republican lawyer.

Before Election Day 2020, for example, it was Giuliani who partnered with an active Russian agent in the hopes of undermining the future American president. After Election Day 2020, Giuliani was not only a central figure in Trumps inner circle as Team Trump tried to overturn the results, and he not only spoke at the rally that preceded the riot, but the former New York City mayor also stands accused of helping coordinate the fake-electors scheme thats the subject of multiple ongoing investigations.

By some accounts, Giuliani was also directed by Trump to ask the Department of Homeland Security if it were legally possible to seize control of voting machines in key swing states.

With this in mind, it was of interest to see that Giuliani finally sat down with congressional investigators on Friday. NBC News reported:

Rudy Giuliani, one of the most prominent promoters of former President Donald Trumps lies about a stolen election, testified Friday before the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 riot, according to two sources familiar with the matter. One source told NBC News that the onetime Trump attorney met with the Democratic-controlled House committee for roughly nine hours, including breaks.

Though Giuliani was first subpoenaed in January, his testimony was not a foregone conclusion. Soon after being contacted by congressional investigators, the Republican insisted that the select committee was itself illegal and lacked the authority to subpoena anybody. (None of this reflected reality.)

Eventually, Giuliani switched gears and was scheduled to testify a few weeks ago, but he canceled at the last minute after a disagreement over recording the interview.

Then he switched gears again and testified on Friday under oath over the course of nine hours. A New York Times report noted that the Q&A was interrupted so that Giuliani could host his hourlong afternoon radio show.

As for what he actually said over the course of the many hours, we dont yet know. But given the duration of the proceedings, it seems unlikely that Giuliani simply asserted his Fifth Amendment rights over and over again.

Lets also not forget that the former mayor has drawn the scrutiny of federal law enforcement, and it was a year ago when investigators executed a search warrant at Giulianis home. At least in theory, if he were still facing a possible indictment, testifying under oath for several hours would be a highly risky move.

Watch this space.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Read the original post:
Over 9 hours, Jan. 6 committee finally gets answers from Giuliani - MSNBC

In the Dred Scott decision, Roger B. Taney, led the court in ruling that Black people could never be citizens of the United States and that slavery could not be banned in any state. The Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs, which will overturn Roe v Wade will have the same result.

Red states like Missouri already have plans that other red states will follow to sue doctors in other states that perform abortions on Missouri women. There is talk of charging women who go to another state for an abortion to face criminal charges when she returns to her home state. Such laws will in effect nationalize the ban on abortion, thus enslaving womens bodies throughout America.

Women should not count on a gang of religious zealots on the Supreme Court groomed by the Federalist Society to protect her rights under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution or under the Fifth Amendment when she goes to another state.

History rhymes in that black citizens, who sought such protections when traveling from state to state were denied them in the 19th Century. Current red state efforts will become Americas new de facto fugitive slave act, because red states will reach across borders to interfere with women getting an abortion.

Women activists are preparing for the end of Roe v Wade, and efforts are underway to create a new underground railroad that will help women get access to abortion where it is legal, and also to enable women to get necessary contraception and abortion pills as well. But these women will face the same risks of breaking the law that earlier railroaders faced.

The conservative war on women on will continue to not only deny pregnant women abortions, but to ban contraception as well. Women will become secondary citizens in America under patriarchal rule.

George Magakis, Jr., Norristown, Pa.

Read the rest here:
There will be a new version of the Underground Railroad to help women seeking abortions | PennLive letters - PennLive

Judy Huth met Bill Cosby when she was still a teenager, she has recounted in court papers. It was the mid-1970s, and Mr. Cosby had already had his breakthrough on the TV series I Spy and become a movie star, but was still years away from his huge success on The Cosby Show. Ms. Huth and a friend spotted him on a film set in a park in San Marino, Calif., and ended up meeting him in person, according to her court filings.

Days later, she asserts in the filings, she went to Mr. Cosbys tennis club at his invitation, where he gave her and her friend alcohol before taking them to the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles, where she accuses him of forcing her to perform a sex act on him in a bedroom. Mr. Cosby has described her account as a fabrication since the case was first filed in 2014.

This week the job of deciding who is credible will fall to a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court, as the civil trial of Mr. Cosby on Ms. Huths accusations that he sexually assaulted her is scheduled to get underway.

Ms. Huths recollection regarding when the encounter occurred has changed. She initially said that it had happened in 1974, when she was 15. But more recently she concluded that it was actually in 1975, when she was 16, according to court papers. Since the beginning, she has said in court papers that she recalled Mr. Cosby telling her and her friend to claim they were both 19 if asked at the mansion.

The change of dates has led Mr. Cosbys team to further dispute her account. Andrew Wyatt, a spokesman for Mr. Cosby, said in a statement that Ms. Huth had made inconsistent statements since the inception of filing this civil suit against Mr. Cosby. Ms. Huth has said that recently released information supplied by Mr. Cosbys team had led her to reconsider what year it occurred.

The civil case, one of the last unsettled lawsuits against Mr. Cosby, was largely put on hold while prosecutors in Pennsylvania pursued the criminal case that resulted in his 2018 conviction on charges of drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand. But the conviction was overturned, and Mr. Cosby was released from prison last year when an appellate panel found that his due process rights had been violated when prosecutors ignored an assurance from a prior district attorney that Mr. Cosby would not be prosecuted.

With the criminal case overturned, the significance of Ms. Huths suit has risen in the minds of some of the many women who have accused Mr. Cosby of being a sexual predator.

I think that Judys trial may be our last stand for justice and seeing accountability come to fruition in our stand against Bill Cosby, Victoria Valentino, who says Mr. Cosby drugged and raped her in Los Angeles in 1969, said in a text. (Mr. Cosby has denied all allegations of sexual assault, and said any encounters were consensual.) She said she plans to attend part of the trial, which, barring a last-minute settlement, is set to begin with jury selection this week and opening arguments expected June 1.

Patricia Steuer, who accused Mr. Cosby of drugging and assaulting her in 1978 and 1980, said that she saw the Huth civil trial as a chance to get a measure of justice. There is no other recourse at the moment, she said. It probably is the only avenue available.

Mr. Cosby, now 84, has already faced multiple other civil cases filed against him by women, many of whom sued him for defamation after his legal team dismissed as fictions their accusations of sexual misconduct by him. Eleven civil cases ended in settlements, with 10 of the settlements having been agreed to by Mr. Cosbys former insurance company over his objections, according to his spokesman.

Ms. Huths lawsuit is poised to become the first civil case accusing Mr. Cosby of sexual assault to reach trial. In court papers, Ms. Huth says that in a bedroom at the Playboy Mansion, Mr. Cosby tried to put his hand down her pants and then forced her to fondle him.

Ms. Huth filed her suit in December 2014, at a time when Mr. Cosby was facing allegations by many women who said he had drugged and sexually assaulted them, in incidents spanning several decades.

She also reported her accusation to the police, but the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office declined to file criminal charges because the statute of limitations had passed.

Her lawyers argued that the period for a civil claim had not expired, however, because in California it is extended for adults who say they were victims of sexual abuse as minors but repressed the experience. The deadline to file such a suit is determined in part by when the person, as an adult, becomes aware of the severe psychological effect of the abuse, her lawyers said.

In 2020, California law was amended to further extend the statute of limitations for sexual assault filings in civil court.

Ms. Huths revised timeline, which says Mr. Cosby assaulted her when she was 16 rather than 15, should not affect her ability to pursue the suit since the law views a 16-year-old as a minor, Ms. Huths lawyer, Gloria Allred, said.

Mr. Cosbys lawyers argued in legal papers that they felt ambushed by the sudden change in Ms. Huths account. They said that their research had been geared toward establishing Mr. Cosbys and Ms. Huths whereabouts in 1974, and said they had prepared evidence to show that the entertainer was not at the Playboy Mansion in the period she suggested in 1974.

Log books from the Playboy Mansion for 1974 do not list either Ms. Huth or her friend as having visited, according to Mr. Cosbys lawyers.

At a hearing last week, the judge asked Playboy to produce records for 1975 and agreed that Ms. Huth and the friend who accompanied her should sit for a further deposition before the trial begins.

Mr. Cosbys lawyers have also questioned whether she had only remembered the alleged abuse a short time before filing the suit because, they said, she had contacted a tabloid about it 10 years earlier.

Mr. Wyatt, the spokesman for Mr. Cosby, said in the statement, We feel confident that the Playboy records along with Ms. Huth changing her timeline of events from 1974 to 1975 in the 11th hour will vindicate Mr. Cosby.

Mr. Cosby acknowledged meeting with Ms. Huth at the Playboy Mansion, and Ms. Huth has produced photographs of them together that she said were taken there, according to court papers. But he has denied that she was a minor when they met.

While defendant does not deny that he socialized with plaintiff at the Playboy Mansion, as he did other women and men who frequented the club, his lawyers said in court papers, defendant vehemently denies that plaintiff was underage.

Ms. Huth has said that she changed the timeline of her account in part because she only recently realized, as a result of documents put forward by Mr. Cosby, that the filming of the movie Lets Do It Again, where she says they met, took place later than she had recalled.

The trial is expected to last two weeks, and Ms. Huth, who is seeking damages from Mr. Cosby, is expected to testify, along with the friend who accompanied her to the Playboy Mansion. Mr. Cosby has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and will not testify. He will not attend the trial, Mr. Wyatt said.

During pretrial hearings, Ms. Huth had asked for a bench trial, but the trial will be in front of a 12-person jury, with at least 9 of 12 votes needed for a verdict.

Mr. Cosby settled a civil case Ms. Constand brought against him in 2006 for $3.4 million. The other civil cases were settled for undisclosed terms by the insurance carried on Mr. Cosbys home policy, which provided personal injury coverage in a range of circumstances, including lawsuits that accused the policy holder of defamation.

The other ongoing civil case against Mr. Cosby was filed last year by Lili Bernard, an actor and visual artist, who accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her at a hotel in Atlantic City in 1990, when she was 26. She was able to file the suit, which is still in its early stages, because in 2019 New Jersey overhauled its laws on the statute of limitations for sexual assault cases, extending the time limit for filing suits and creating a special two-year window allowing people to bring cases regardless of how long ago the alleged assaults might have occurred.

Original post:
Lawsuit Accusing Bill Cosby of Sexual Assault Heads to Trial - The New York Times

MARY REICHARD, HOST:Good morning!

Police officers must read your Miranda rights to you if they intend to interrogate you. But what are the limits to asserting that right?

NICK EICHER, HOST:Thats ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat, well talk about a stock market that is on the brink of a bear market.

Plus the WORLD History Book. 25 years ago this week, a pilot completes Amelia Earharts journey.

REICHARD:Its Monday, May 23rd. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. Im Mary Reichard.

EICHER:And Im Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD:Up next, Kent Covington with todays news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR:U.S. military flies emergency baby formula supplies from Europe U.S. Military planes usually carry emergency supplies out of the country to other nations in need, but this time, its the other way around.

A cargo plane carrying baby formula from Germany arrived in Indianapolis on Sunday.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack:

VILSACK: The reason why we are doing this is obviously the critical need that is out there. It would take approximately two weeks for the normal commercial process to work. As a result of the United States militarys involvement, were going to get this here in a matter of days.

The C-17 cargo plane carried enough formula to fill more than a half-million bottles. The flight brought 15 percent of the specialty medical grade formula needed in the United States.

It was the first of several flights expected from Europe aimed at easing the nationwide formula shortage.

Brian Deese, director of the White House National Economic Council said people should see more formula in stores starting as early as this week.

Contamination forced a shutdown of the nations largest baby formula plant. That has fueled much of the nations shortage.

Biden wraps up South Korea trip, plans to announce economic plan in Japan President Biden wrapped up a visit to South Korea on Sunday. In remarks at Osan Air Base, Biden told service members monitoring the North Korean nuclear threat

BIDEN: You are on the front line of everything were concerned about. You represent the commitment [that] our two countries made to each other and the strength of the U.S.-ROK alliance.

He wrapped up his three-day trip to South Korea by showcasing Hyundai's pledge to invest at least $10 billion in the United States.

BIDEN: The new facility should be rolling out the latest electric vehicles and batteries to power them by 2025.

He said that will create thousands of jobs in the state of Georgia.

This morning, the president is in Japan where hes planning to announce an economic plan to counter Beijing in the Indo-Pacific region.

President Biden approves Ukraine aid While in South Korea over the weekend, President Biden signed into law a massive new aid package for Ukraine. WORLDs Josh Schumacher has more.

JOSH SCHUMACHER, REPORTER: The legislation passed Congress with big bipartisan majorities. It will provide $40 billion in military and economic aid.

It is intended to support Ukraine through September, and it dwarfs an earlier emergency measure that granted roughly thirteen-and-a-half billion.

The new legislation provides $20 billion in military assistance. That will ensure that advanced weapons continue to flow to Ukraine to help blunt Russias advances.

It also gives a billion dollars to help refugees$8 billion in economic support and $5 billion to fight global food shortages brought on by Russias invasion.

Reporting for WORLD, Im Josh Schumacher.

W.H.O. chief: The pandemic isnt over The head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Ghebreyesus, warned on Sunday that were nowhere near being out of the woods with COVID-19.

GHEBREYESUS: No, its most certainly not over. I know thats not the message you want to hear, and its definitely not the message I want to deliver.

He said cases are now on the rise in almost 70 countries in all regions, and this is in a world in which testing rates have plummeted.

He added that this virus has surprised us at every turn.

GHEBREYESUS: A storm that has torn though communities again and again, and we still cant predict its path or its intensity.

Cases continue to rise in the United States. Thats been the case for nearly two months now. That increase has been somewhat slow and steadynothing like the huge omicron spike in December and January.

Still, U.S. cases have more than tripled since Marchfrom about 29,000 infections per day to nearly 100,000 per day. But deaths have continued to slowly decline.

White House virus response coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha told ABCs This Weekthat Congress must step up with more pandemic funding now.

JHA: If they dont, we will go into the fall and winter without that next generation of vaccines, without treatments and diagnostics. Thats going to make it much, much harder for us to take care of and protect Americans.

Jha also recommended Americans continue toor return towearing masks indoors in public.

Im Kent Covington.Straight ahead: a Supreme Court oral argument lightning round.

Plus, a rock-n-roll hit makes its debut.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST:Its Monday, May 23rd and youre listening to The World and Everything in It from WORLD Radio. Good morning! Im Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST:And Im Nick Eicher. Its time for Legal Docket.

The current Supreme Court term ends next month and that means a slew of opinions will be handed down between now and then. Big issues like abortion, gun rights, and prayer still to be decided.

Last week, two opinions came down.

The first one is a win for a sitting United States senator. Ted Cruz of Texas challenged an aspect of the campaign finance law known as McCain-Feingold. That law capped the amount of personal loan money candidates can reimburse themselves using funds collected after election day.

A 6-3 decision said that rule violates the right to free speech. But the liberal justices criticized the majority opinionfor in their view ignoring the intent of the law which is to curb corruption.

Over the years, a few other provisions of McCain-Feingold already have been struck down as unconstitutional.

REICHARD:The second decision concerns immigration. A 5-4 ruling says regular courts cannot review factual findings made by judges in immigration courts.

This is bad news for a man from India in the United States for 30 years under a work visa. He didnt go through the formal inspection process when he arrived in 1992. And he checked a box on an application for a drivers license in 2008 that said US citizen when he was not.

Those things triggered deportation proceedings. The majority justices found such facts are not reviewable by a court.

EICHER:Okay, on to oral arguments.

Hang on to your seats, though, because we will hit highlights in five cases today, but within our usual time constraints. Were going to go fast, so here we go:

Dispute Number One relates to the 1966 Supreme Court decision that gave us whats been known ever since as Miranda rights. That ruling required police to advise suspects of their right to remain silent while in police custody and to obtain a lawyer before theyre interrogated.

Lets flash back to February 1966. Heres lawyer John Flynn. He represented Ernesto Miranda:

FLYNN:I believe the record indicates that at no time during the interrogation and prior to his oral confession was he advised either of his rights to remain silent, his right to counsel, or of his right to consult with counsel; nor, indeed, was such the practice in Arizona at that time, as admitted by the officers in their testimony. The defendant was then asked to sign a confession, to which he agreed.

A split court agreed that procedural safeguards are necessary to protect Fifth Amendment rights; people should be advised of their rights in order to assert those rights.

Fast forward 56 years to the question before the high court now: Just how far does Miranda go?

The facts are straightforward. Terence Tekoh worked at a medical facility in Los Angeles. Police officer Carlos Vega arrested him on suspicion of sexual assault of a patientbut Officer Vega didnt issue Tekoh his Miranda rights.

Later on, a jury acquitted Tekoh of sexual assault.

Case closed? Not quite.

Tekoh then sued Vega for that failure to issue Miranda rights to him.

But is that failure by itself a sufficient basis for a federal lawsuit?

EICHER:It is notto hear the lawyer for the federal government argue. Have a listen to this exchange between Assistant to the Solicitor General Vivek Suri and a more skeptical Justice Clarence Thomas.

SURI:Miranda recognized a constitutional right, but it's a trial right concerning the exclusion of evidence at a criminal trial. It isn't a substantive right to receive the Miranda warnings themselves. A police officer who fails to provide the Miranda warnings accordingly doesn't himself violate the constitutional right, and he also isn't legally responsible for any violation that might occur later at the trial. The Ninth Circuit's contrary decision should be reversed.

THOMAS:What if the police officer purposely lies in order to convince the prosecutor to use the statement?

SURI:We would still say that there is no Miranda claim, but I have to be clear that that issue is not properly presented in this case.

REICHARD:What stood out to me in this and several other arguments this term are comments from the justices about the role of the Supreme Court.

Listen to Justice Elena Kagan address the attorney for the police officer. She refers to what Miranda and subsequent case law has come to mean to Americans.

KAGAN:that it, you know, was sort of central to people's understanding of the law and that if you overturned it or undermined it or denigrated it, it would be -- you know, it had -- would have a kind of unsettling effect not only on people's understanding of the criminal justice system but on people's understanding of the Court itself and the legitimacy of the Court and the way the Court operates and the way the Court sticks to what it says, you know, not just in a kind of technical stare decisis sense but in a more profound sense about the Court as an institution and the role it plays in society.

Alright, cases two and three both involve questions of procedure.

In one case, a man convicted of drug and firearm offenses appealed and lost. Then he tried to have the sentence vacated on the basis that he had a lousy lawyer.

But the crux of this case is based upon whether the judge was lousy, too: specifically, a mistake by the judge who found that the man missed a filing deadline, but in fact he really didnt miss it.

So now the question is whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow courts to fix that problem.

Sounds straightforward. But it isnt.

Listen to Justice Amy Coney Barrett opine that maybe both sides have this wrong.

BARRETT:You have the difficulty of distinguishing between fact and law, and then you also have the difficulty in identifying whose error was it? I mean, I think the government makes a good point, that it can be difficult to figure out if a legal error was by the litigant or by the court.It could be categorized as the counsels error. It could be categorized as the courts error.

Justice Stephen Breyer acknowledged human error.

BREYER:Look, the judges do make mistakes. Give them a quick chance to do it, even if its one of law. Call it to their attention. Six of one, half dozen of the other because we have problems both ways.

The other procedural dispute involves two companies fighting over alleged fraud in a business transaction. Theyd each signed an arbitration agreement to settle problems before an arbitration board in Germany.

But before arbitration can proceed, one company seeks discovery, that is, relevant documents and testimony, and wants a federal district court to compel the other party to provide it.

The question is whether federal district courts even have authority to make such an order.

Justice Kagan doubted one sides interpretation of the law:

KAGAN:I mean, it all depends, right? And I guess my broader question is, like, really, what can you take from this language? I'm all for, you know, being serious about language when there's something to be serious about, but I don't know

On to our fourth argument, a case captioned United States v Washington.

This one asks how state laws around workers compensation apply when federal contractors are involved.

Heres the situation. The Department of Energy oversees cleanup of a nuclear waste site in the state of Washington. Its expected to take 60 years! Some of those doing the work are federal contractors.

An old state law presumes health problems like cancer and lung disease will occur as a result of doing this kind of work. The law says thatll trigger workers compensation benefits. The federal government contests that aspect.

After the Supreme Court took the case, Washington state changed that law, so now theres an additional question of whether the case is now moot.

This dispute involves a doctrine called intergovernmental immunity. That prevents the federal government and state governments from intruding on each others sovereignty.

Lawyer for the state of Washington argued all this doesnt matter anymore because the new law resolves the old problems.

But Justice Breyer wasnt so sure about that.

BREYER:if its a real problem, then I cant say its moot.

OK, fifth and final argument today, this one about Chapter 11 bankruptcy and quirky laws governing bankruptcy in Alabama and North Carolina.

Those two states oversee corporate bankruptcies by the Judicial Conference and leave the appointment of trustees to handle the cases to the bankruptcy judges.

Thats different from the rest of the country. The US Trustees Office oversees Chapter 11 proceedings for the 48 other states.

Therere reasons for that. Too in the weeds for our purposes here, so Ill spare you.

This is the point, though: The law requires payment to Trustees to come from the debtors estate.

A few years ago, Congress raised those fees up to $250,000. But that fee increase didnt apply to Alabama and North Carolina.

Chief Justice John Roberts:

See the original post:
The World and Everything in It - May 23, 2022 - WORLD News Group