Mediaboss Marketing

According to the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board, a nine-month suspension is the appropriate penalty for a lawyer who brandished a gun in response to COVID-19 safety measures.

Back in May, we told you about lawyer Carrie Legus, who was accused of getting angry over a homemade sign at Butchs Harvestore in Walden, Vermont, that promoted social distancing and safety. After allegedly shaking the sign, a store worker says Legus pulled out a gun. She allegedly told police she thought the sign at the store was a barricade behind which people were shooting at the road. According to police, she yelled that everyone on the road is the military and her ex-husband was behind all this.

As reported by ABA Journal, Leguss obstinance didnt end at the store. Her interactions with the disciplinary counsel also raised a few eyebrows:

She answered essentially every question by citing the Fifth Amendment or indicating that you have my response. Some testimony was disrespectful, the hearing board said. As an example, the board cited Legus response to one question: Are you asking me to do pushups?

She stopped the interview when her computers battery was running down. She refused an offer to go to another location where she could plug in her computer or to continue using cellphone audio.

Legus did not have a Fifth Amendment right to decline to be interviewed, the hearing board said.

In order to make a proper assertion of her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the board said, Legus had to sit for an interview and, during the course of the interview, raise objections to specific questions.

Every instance in which Legus was nonresponsive to questions constituted a violation of an ethics rule requiring lawyers in disciplinary matters to respond to lawful demands for information, the hearing board said. The board had scheduled the interview after Legus evaded prior requests for an in-person or video hearing.

The board added that it didnt assign any relevance to Legus refusal to answer specific questions, however, because a court had not ruled on the validity of her Fifth Amendment assertions.

Legus failure to cooperate with interview requests violated her duty of cooperation with the disciplinary counsel, the hearing board said.

The decisions of the hearing board is appealable, though it is unclear at this time if Legus intends to do so. Shes been on interim suspension since May 2020.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email herwith any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Excerpt from:
Nine-Month Suspension In The Cards For Attorney Who Pulled A Gun Because She Was Mad About COVID Protocols - Above the Law

Ex-pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli speaks to the press in front of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York with members of his legal team after the jury issued a verdict on Aug. 4, 2017.

Facing a little more than a year left of his seven-year securities fraud sentence, so-called Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli will face a civil trial later this year where state and federal regulators will try to permanently ban him from the pharmaceutical industry.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who will be hearing the case without a jury, set a bench trial date for Dec. 14.

In an order on Tuesday, Judge Cote ordered Shkrelis counsel to confirm whether Shkreli will be present at his trial.

If so, she wants the parties to request any necessary writ of habeas corpus for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to transfer the 38-year-old from the Allenwood Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania to the Southern District of New York in lower Manhattan.

Shkrelis civil litigation stems from his decision to jack up the price of the live-saving drug Daraprim 40-fold, an act that earned him national scorn and a cult following for his unapologetic defense of that hike.

At the time, Shkreli served as CEO of the company then-named Turing Pharmaceuticals, but regulators claim that the anticompetitive conduct continued after he went to prison and his company got a rebranding as Vyera.

Daraprim is a lifesaving drug for vulnerable patients, Gail Levine, the deputy director of the Bureau of Competition at the Federal Trade Commission, noted when unveiling the case in January 2020. Vyera kept the price of Daraprim astronomically high by illegally boxing out the competition.

New York Attorney General Letitia James(D), who also brought the case along with the FTC, echoed those sentiments at the time.

Martin Shkreli and Vyera not only enriched themselves by despicably jacking up the price of this life-saving medication by 4,000 percent in a single day, but held this critical drug hostage from patients and competitors as they illegally sought to maintain their monopoly, AG James wrote more than a year and a half ago. We filed this lawsuit to stop Vyeras egregious conduct, make the company pay for its illegal scheming, and block Martin Shkreli from ever working in the pharmaceutical industry again. We wont allow Pharma Bros to manipulate the market and line their pockets at the expense of vulnerable patients and the health care system.

Citing reporting in the Wall Street Journal, regulators claim that Shkreli exercised shadow power over Vyera and its Swiss corporate parent Phoenixus from behind bars.

In June, Judge Cote found that Shkreli used a contraband phone behind bars to communicate with his associates, including Vyera executive Akeel Mithani and Kevin Mulleady, an owner and former director of Vyera.

The judge gave a light sanction for that violation.

When asked during a deposition earlier this year whether he had a cell phone in prison, Shkreli invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to the ruling.

In late July, the U.S. government sold one of Shkrelis once-prized but since-forfeited possessions: Wu Tang Clans bespoke album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin. The buyers identity is currently unknown.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Originally posted here:
Now We Know When Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli Will Face Trial That Could Lead to Pharmaceutical Industry Ban - Law & Crime

A frequent flier suing seven US airlines said he plans to file an amended complaint on Monday, which will add multiple plaintiffs to his lawsuit over the airlines' mask requirements.

Lucas Wall, of Washington DC, said via email on Friday that he planned to add new charges against the airlines, including "conspiracy to interfere with civil rights."

Wall had previously told Insider: "It will be a stronger case with multiple plaintiffs showing the wide-ranging discrimination in the airline industry."

The lawsuit was filed June in US District Court in Orlando against Southwest, Alaska, Allegiant, Delta, Frontier, JetBlue, and Spirit. Wall, who is representing himself, also has an ongoing lawsuit against the Biden administration.

Wall, in his original complaint against the airlines, claimed each had discriminated against those who couldn't wear masks for medical reasons, including himself. In his initial court filings, he included his medical records for generalized anxiety disorder.

In conversations with Insider, several people who were expected to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs claimed they'd had experiences similar to Wall's.

"The disabled are being criminalized during the pandemic attacked, harassed, and blamed," said Shannon Cila, of Kentucky, in an interview on Thursday.

Cila said her involvement with the case began after she was arrested in Kentucky. The arrest rattled her, she said.

"That set me up for a lot of anxiety, with having to deal with these mask exemptions, non-exemption policies, with private businesses everywhere, including airlines," she said. "If you have an invisible disability, people look at you. They think because you're not on an oxygen tank, or something they can't tell what your problem might be."

Cila found Wall through his GoFundMe campaign, she said.

Uriel ben-Mordechai and his wife, Adi, planned to join the lawsuit, he said on Friday. He moved to Israel about four decades ago, but regularly flies back to the Bay Area and Southern California to visit family.

A Torah scholar and lecturer, ben-Mordechai said his decision to join Wall's lawsuit was in part driven by his faith. He said he looked to Deuteronomy 16:20, part of which translates to "justice, pursue justice."

"It tells you, you have to make justice happen and it's not going to happen unless you do the part that God is giving you to do," ben-Mordechai said in a phone interview from Israel.

Leonardo McDonnell, another traveller seeking to join Wall's lawsuit, was more forceful in his language. "I will sue these sick tyrants' granddaughters if the legal system lets me," McDonnell, of Florida, said in an email when Insider reached out to him.

The airlines in late August filed their initial responses to Wall's lawsuit. Each one sought to dismiss the case on technical grounds, saying in part that Wall didn't have the standing to sue them in federal court under the Air Carrier Access Act.

Some legal experts and academics said they have doubts about whether the wave of lawsuits over federal mask requirements will put an end to Biden's mandate, although they weren't asked specifically about Wall's case.

Others said there were flaws in the Biden administration's argument that the mask mandates were not unconstitutional.

Paul Engel, founder of The Constitution Study, an online guide to the constitution, said the federal mandates were unconstitutional for a few reasons. The Fifth Amendment, for example, requires "due process of law," he said.

"[G]overnments at all levels are prohibited from enforcing mask mandates until they have shown probable cause that the individual is a danger to others," Engel said via email.

Monday is Wall's deadline for filing an amended complaint.

Go here to see the original:
Man suing airlines over mask rule plans to accuse them of a conspiracy - Business Insider

Bill Cosby celebrated his release in June but he fears that he can be prosecuted again for Los Angeles civil lawsuit.

Judy Huth alleged the disgraced comedian sexually assaulted her when she was 15-years-old at the Playboy Mansion in 1974.

Huth filed the lawsuit in 2014 and Cosby declined to answer the questions for the disposition. Plus, the criminal case filed by Andrea Constand took over and ultimately led to his conviction.

Bill Cosby has the opportunity to testify in Huths case but his attorney Michael Freedman informed the judge that his client will not speak on the alleged assaults and exercise his fifth amendment right.

Defendant does not agree that merely because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated Defendants criminal conviction for a single offense, allegedly arising from an incident that occurred in 2004, Defendant no longer enjoys a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

The document states that Cosby is remaining silent in an attempt to avoid prosecution. This is particularly so where numerous states have no criminal statutes of limitations for sex crimes. It is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment protects both the innocent and the guilty. Having already been forced to face a malicious criminal prosecution that resulted in an unlawful three-year incarceration, Defendant is not confident that such a risk does not still exist in this jurisdiction and others.

Freedman explained, Indeed, prior to a stay being entered in this case, LAPD claimed that the Huth matter is an open criminal investigation. Thus, Defendant anticipates that if he is forced to sit for a deposition, he will exercise his Fifth Amendment guarantees absent a court order ruling that he has no Fifth Amendment right in this jurisdiction or any others.

Read more from the original source:
ICYMI: Bill Cosby to Plead Fifth Amendment in Civil Lawsuit - The Source Magazine

Bill Cosby is out of prison but not clear of trouble. For the first time since June, when he was released from a Pennsylvania jail, his lawyers have addressed a judge. Specifically, a judge serving the Los Angeles Superior Court, where Cosby currently faces a civil suit brought by Judy Huth, who alleges being sexually assaulted by him at the Playboy Mansion in 1974.

The Huth case, originally filed in 2014, has been on hold for years. At one point, Cosby was ordered to sit for a deposition, and he did, but refused to answer questions. The litigation then took a back seat to Cosbys criminal problems. Now that Cosbys conviction for assaulting Andrea Constand has been overturned by the Pennsylvanias highest court because of an old non-prosecution agreement in that jurisdiction, Cosby is free, at least in theory, to testify in civil cases. (Recall, for example, how O.J. Simpson had to take the witness stand in a wrongful death suit he eventually lost after he beat a criminal case for the murders of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.)

But although he may be contemplating going back on tour, Cosby, through his attorney Michael Freedman, tells a Los Angeles judge that he will continue to resist speaking about his alleged assaults.

Defendant does not agree that merely because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated Defendants criminal conviction for a single offense, allegedly arising from an incident that occurred in 2004, Defendant no longer enjoys a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, states a status conference report made public Wednesday. This is particularly so where numerous states have no criminal statutes of limitations for sex crimes. It is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment protects both the innocent and the guilty. Having already been forced to face a malicious criminal prosecution that resulted in an unlawful three-year incarceration, Defendant is not confident that such a risk does not still exist in this jurisdiction and others.

Cosbys lawyer even points to the potential for prosecution in Los Angeles.

Indeed, prior to a stay being entered in this case, LAPD claimed that the Huth matter is an open criminal investigation, continues Freedman. Thus, Defendant anticipates that if he is forced to sit for a deposition, he will exercise his Fifth Amendment guarantees absent a court order ruling that he has no Fifth Amendment right in this jurisdiction or any others.

(A Cosby spokesperson did later note to The Hollywood Reporter that theres documentation how that LAPD investigation had concluded.)

The status report also highlights another coming development in this case involving Huth, who is represented by Gloria Allred.

At the beginning of 2020, California civil law was amended to allow victims of childhood sex abuse to sue over very old events. Specifically, the amended law allows such a plaintiff to sue upon becoming an adult within five years of discovering a psychological injury caused by the sexual assault.

Huth says she was 15 years old at the time of the alleged assault (Cosby is disputing her age) so this amended law opens the door to a potentially viable case. Cosbys attorney appears to agree that the look-back provision, which largely abolished the statute of limitations, applies in cases like the Huth suit, not litigated to finality.

But in the face of this change in law (plus others, as in New York, which has similarly gotten rid of the statute of limitations for childhood sexual assaults), Cosby wishes to make a constitutional challenge. A judge is told that neither the California Supreme Court nor the United States Supreme Court has addressed the constitutionality of such an amended law presumably whether it violates due process. With respect to a nearly five-decade-old occurrence, Cosbys attorney anticipates making the argument its legally out of bounds.

Read more from the original source:
Bill Cosby to Invoke Fifth Amendment Due to Fear of New Prosecution - Hollywood Reporter