Hlavní strana > Hledání

Vyhledávání slova "Court".

RSS Přidej na Seznam.cz Add to Google
Prohledáno za: 10.507sec.

Čtete nejnovější články / Starší napřed / Zobrazit relevantní napřed

Strana: 1/ 34929 Celkem nalezeno 349289 záznamů.

No More Social Media for You, Irked Judge Tells Roger Stone

Náhled

No More Social Media for You, Irked Judge Tells Roger Stone (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge who has warned Roger Stone to stop criticizing the criminal case against him on social media finally banned him from the platforms outright.Prosecutors had complained to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson that the longtime Republican party operative and former adviser to President Donald Trump has been using social media to assail the government’s case, in violation of her February directive that he limit his comments to professing his innocence.Jackson read her new ruling from the bench, following a 45-minute recess from a contentious two-hour hearing.“I’ve twice given you the benefit of the doubt,” she told Stone, alluding to prior infractions, then added that he’d now forced his lawyers into contortions to contend he was in compliance with her prior order.Reprising a theme she raised in the case of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Jackson said Stone’s behavior “had more to do with middle school than with a court of law” and banned him from posting on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram, and even from reposting or liking other people’s content on the platforms.Read More: Who Framed Roger Stone? His Instagram Account Demands an AnswerStone is accused of lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks over its publication of material damaging to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. He is also charged with obstruction and witness tampering.Stone’s was the last indictment brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The case is now being prosecuted by the office of Washington U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu and is set for trial in November.Before issuing her final order, Jackson engaged in a prolonged sparring session with Stone counsel Bruce Rogow, who denied that his client had run afoul of the judge’s prior ruling, even as she peppered him with Instagram posts and other examples of Stone’s behavior she found questionable.“I don’t think any of these things pose a threat to a fair trial,” Rogow told her.Stopping short of asking the court to send the political provocateur to jail, prosecutor Jonathan Kravis raised the idea of Jackson barring him from using social media. “What we are most concerned about is protecting the integrity of the jury pool,” he said.Ultimately the judge did just that, scolding the defense for its effort to “ignore the exponential power” of social media and particularly what it means for Stone to take an item published by someone else and spread it “with his imprimatur.”‘Asking You Now’During an earlier portion of the Tuesday court hearing, Stone’s lawyers argued that the government can’t prove Russian agents hacked Democratic Party computers during the election, rendering 18 FBI search warrants based on that premise invalid and the evidence collected under them subject to exclusion.Defense attorney Robert Buschel told the judge the warrants weren’t obtained in good faith. He said they were based only on reports by a private cybersecurity firm and the U.S. intelligence community’s “high confidence” that the Russians were behind the theft of materials later published by WikiLeaks, not on factual certainty.Buschel called it “government doublespeak,” suggesting the theft was just as likely to have been carried out by agents of China or the U.K.That line of argument drew a pointed response from Jackson, who repeatedly asked Buschel to identify a single statement in any of the filings that he saw as knowingly false or reckless -- and what that had to do with the charges against Stone.“I’m asking you now,” Jackson said after a series of exchanges with the attorney. “I want you to read me a false sentence.”Russia ConnectionStone’s lawyers have sought to discredit the Russia connection by suggesting that metadata on the WikiLeaks documents came from a portable memory device connected to a computer from which they were downloaded and not through a trans-Atlantic computer connection.Even accepting that premise, Jackson asked, how would that invalidate the warrants?Buschel replied that lack of conclusive proof of Russian hacking rendered Stone’s allegedly false statements to the congressional committee probing the incursion “irrelevant.”Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky defended the warrants, telling Jackson that Stone’s lawyers were “trying to backdoor a debunked conspiracy theory” about other potential hackers, relieving the Russians of culpability.“There is voluminous evidence that the Russians were responsible for hacking” the Democratic Party computers, Zelinsky told the judge. In any event Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

No More Social Media for You, Irked Judge Tells Roger Stone

Náhled

No More Social Media for You, Irked Judge Tells Roger Stone (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge who has warned Roger Stone to stop criticizing the criminal case against him on social media finally banned him from the platforms outright.Prosecutors had complained to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson that the longtime Republican party operative and former adviser to President Donald Trump has been using social media to assail the government’s case, in violation of her February directive that he limit his comments to professing his innocence.Jackson read her new ruling from the bench, following a 45-minute recess from a contentious two-hour hearing.“I’ve twice given you the benefit of the doubt,” she told Stone, alluding to prior infractions, then added that he’d now forced his lawyers into contortions to contend he was in compliance with her prior order.Reprising a theme she raised in the case of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Jackson said Stone’s behavior “had more to do with middle school than with a court of law” and banned him from posting on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram, and even from reposting or liking other people’s content on the platforms.Read More: Who Framed Roger Stone? His Instagram Account Demands an AnswerStone is accused of lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks over its publication of material damaging to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. He is also charged with obstruction and witness tampering.Stone’s was the last indictment brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The case is now being prosecuted by the office of Washington U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu and is set for trial in November.Before issuing her final order, Jackson engaged in a prolonged sparring session with Stone counsel Bruce Rogow, who denied that his client had run afoul of the judge’s prior ruling, even as she peppered him with Instagram posts and other examples of Stone’s behavior she found questionable.“I don’t think any of these things pose a threat to a fair trial,” Rogow told her.Stopping short of asking the court to send the political provocateur to jail, prosecutor Jonathan Kravis raised the idea of Jackson barring him from using social media. “What we are most concerned about is protecting the integrity of the jury pool,” he said.Ultimately the judge did just that, scolding the defense for its effort to “ignore the exponential power” of social media and particularly what it means for Stone to take an item published by someone else and spread it “with his imprimatur.”‘Asking You Now’During an earlier portion of the Tuesday court hearing, Stone’s lawyers argued that the government can’t prove Russian agents hacked Democratic Party computers during the election, rendering 18 FBI search warrants based on that premise invalid and the evidence collected under them subject to exclusion.Defense attorney Robert Buschel told the judge the warrants weren’t obtained in good faith. He said they were based only on reports by a private cybersecurity firm and the U.S. intelligence community’s “high confidence” that the Russians were behind the theft of materials later published by WikiLeaks, not on factual certainty.Buschel called it “government doublespeak,” suggesting the theft was just as likely to have been carried out by agents of China or the U.K.That line of argument drew a pointed response from Jackson, who repeatedly asked Buschel to identify a single statement in any of the filings that he saw as knowingly false or reckless -- and what that had to do with the charges against Stone.“I’m asking you now,” Jackson said after a series of exchanges with the attorney. “I want you to read me a false sentence.”Russia ConnectionStone’s lawyers have sought to discredit the Russia connection by suggesting that metadata on the WikiLeaks documents came from a portable memory device connected to a computer from which they were downloaded and not through a trans-Atlantic computer connection.Even accepting that premise, Jackson asked, how would that invalidate the warrants?Buschel replied that lack of conclusive proof of Russian hacking rendered Stone’s allegedly false statements to the congressional committee probing the incursion “irrelevant.”Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky defended the warrants, telling Jackson that Stone’s lawyers were “trying to backdoor a debunked conspiracy theory” about other potential hackers, relieving the Russians of culpability.“There is voluminous evidence that the Russians were responsible for hacking” the Democratic Party computers, Zelinsky told the judge. In any event Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

No More Social Media for You, Irked Judge Tells Roger Stone

Náhled

No More Social Media for You, Irked Judge Tells Roger Stone (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge who has warned Roger Stone to stop criticizing the criminal case against him on social media finally banned him from the platforms outright.Prosecutors had complained to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson that the longtime Republican party operative and former adviser to President Donald Trump has been using social media to assail the government’s case, in violation of her February directive that he limit his comments to professing his innocence.Jackson read her new ruling from the bench, following a 45-minute recess from a contentious two-hour hearing.“I’ve twice given you the benefit of the doubt,” she told Stone, alluding to prior infractions, then added that he’d now forced his lawyers into contortions to contend he was in compliance with her prior order.Reprising a theme she raised in the case of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Jackson said Stone’s behavior “had more to do with middle school than with a court of law” and banned him from posting on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram, and even from reposting or liking other people’s content on the platforms.Read More: Who Framed Roger Stone? His Instagram Account Demands an AnswerStone is accused of lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks over its publication of material damaging to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. He is also charged with obstruction and witness tampering.Stone’s was the last indictment brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The case is now being prosecuted by the office of Washington U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu and is set for trial in November.Before issuing her final order, Jackson engaged in a prolonged sparring session with Stone counsel Bruce Rogow, who denied that his client had run afoul of the judge’s prior ruling, even as she peppered him with Instagram posts and other examples of Stone’s behavior she found questionable.“I don’t think any of these things pose a threat to a fair trial,” Rogow told her.Stopping short of asking the court to send the political provocateur to jail, prosecutor Jonathan Kravis raised the idea of Jackson barring him from using social media. “What we are most concerned about is protecting the integrity of the jury pool,” he said.Ultimately the judge did just that, scolding the defense for its effort to “ignore the exponential power” of social media and particularly what it means for Stone to take an item published by someone else and spread it “with his imprimatur.”‘Asking You Now’During an earlier portion of the Tuesday court hearing, Stone’s lawyers argued that the government can’t prove Russian agents hacked Democratic Party computers during the election, rendering 18 FBI search warrants based on that premise invalid and the evidence collected under them subject to exclusion.Defense attorney Robert Buschel told the judge the warrants weren’t obtained in good faith. He said they were based only on reports by a private cybersecurity firm and the U.S. intelligence community’s “high confidence” that the Russians were behind the theft of materials later published by WikiLeaks, not on factual certainty.Buschel called it “government doublespeak,” suggesting the theft was just as likely to have been carried out by agents of China or the U.K.That line of argument drew a pointed response from Jackson, who repeatedly asked Buschel to identify a single statement in any of the filings that he saw as knowingly false or reckless -- and what that had to do with the charges against Stone.“I’m asking you now,” Jackson said after a series of exchanges with the attorney. “I want you to read me a false sentence.”Russia ConnectionStone’s lawyers have sought to discredit the Russia connection by suggesting that metadata on the WikiLeaks documents came from a portable memory device connected to a computer from which they were downloaded and not through a trans-Atlantic computer connection.Even accepting that premise, Jackson asked, how would that invalidate the warrants?Buschel replied that lack of conclusive proof of Russian hacking rendered Stone’s allegedly false statements to the congressional committee probing the incursion “irrelevant.”Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky defended the warrants, telling Jackson that Stone’s lawyers were “trying to backdoor a debunked conspiracy theory” about other potential hackers, relieving the Russians of culpability.“There is voluminous evidence that the Russians were responsible for hacking” the Democratic Party computers, Zelinsky told the judge. In any event Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

One Billion Dollar Worth Sino-British Deal Canceled Amid Tensions

Náhled

A $1.24 billion-valued agreement between a British city and a Chinese manufacturing firm has been canceled after three years of inaction. The broken deal occurs amid chilly diplomatic relations between London and Beijing. In recent weeks, London officials have expressed support for Hongkongers who have flooded the streets in protest of a controversial extradition bill […] Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

R. Kelly will remain in jail without bond on federal sex crimes charges, judge rules

Náhled

media thumbnail (CNN) — R. Kelly will remain in custody without bond as he awaits trial on child pornography charges, a judge ruled Tuesday. Kelly is also accused of paying thousands of dollars to recover videotapes of himself having sex with teenage girls. The singer appeared in a Chicago federal courtroom and pleaded not guilty to 13 federal charges from an indictment released in Illinois last week. Kelly, 52, is facing one count of conspiracy to receive child pornography, two counts of […] Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

House Speaker Casada tells judge he can’t afford alimony payments

Náhled

media thumbnail Weeks before he's expected to resign, Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada has asked a judge to relieve him of paying alimony because he says he can no longer afford the approximately $4,000 monthly payments. Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Woman accused of killing Memphis pastor in Collierville indicted

Náhled

media thumbnail SHELBY COUNTY, Tenn. — The woman accused of shooting a Memphis pastor to death at a Collierville apartment complex was indicted by a grand jury Tuesday. Latoshia Daniels is facing charges of first-degree murder, criminal attempted first-degree murder and employing a firearm during a felony after she allegedly fatally shot Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church pastor Brodes Perry in early April, according to Shelby County District Attorney Amy Weirich. Daniels pleaded not guilty in April to killing Perry and injuring his […] Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Landlords Sue NYC Over New Rent Caps on a Million Apartments

Náhled

Landlords Sue NYC Over New Rent Caps on a Million Apartments (Bloomberg) -- New York City’s rent-stabilization law is under attack after a group of real-estate trade groups and landlords sued to overturn regulations that cover more than 1 million apartments.The decades-old law that limits rent increases violates the U.S. Constitution by placing an unfair burden on property owners, particularly those who own pre-1974 buildings with six or more units, according to the suit, filed Monday in federal court in Brooklyn.The state legislature, now under full Democratic control, adopted sweeping tenant protections in June that further cap rent increases and restrict landlords’ ability to evict residents. The massive rewrite of the rent rules, which cover about 2.4 million residents, aimed to preserve affordable housing by eliminating tools landlords used to remove units from regulation. The package also abolished a “vacancy bonus” that allowed property owners to raise rents 20% when a tenant left.The plaintiffs say the update further eroded their rights and that the law’s “irrationality and arbitrariness” and “web of restrictions override core rights of property owners.”Read More: NYC Tenants Get a Rent-Law Blessing That Landlords See as CurseThe landlords claim the rules have morphed over the years so that they benefit too many higher earners, while renters who make less than $35,000 a year account for just 38% of rent-stabilized renters. The breakdown is about the same for unregulated apartments, the groups claim, suggesting the law isn’t much different from the unregulated market.The trade groups claim that 22% of rent-stabilized tenants make more than $100,000 a year and that married couples without children are over-represented in rent-stabilized apartments despite being less likely to suffer rental hardship than couples with children.The city said the suit threatens ordinary New Yorkers.“Dismantling rent stabilization would be a devastating blow to everyday New Yorkers who are working hard to call this great city home,” Jane Meyer, the mayor’s deputy press secretary, said in a statement. She said the city would review the suit and continue to “fight to protect affordability, prevent harassment and keep this a city for everyone.”Supreme Court SnubTenants-rights groups argued the changes were needed to counter decades of abuse by some landlords and a shrinking supply of affordable housing. Tens of thousands of apartments have been removed from rent-stabilized status, sending rents higher as neighborhoods are gentrified. The effort won support from Governor Andrew Cuomo, a third-term Democrat, as well as New York City mayor and 2020 presidential candidate Bill de Blasio.The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the city’s rent-stabilization system in 2012, turning away an appeal from landlords who said the city had violated their constitutional rights by limiting rents on three one-bedroom apartments in their Upper West Side brownstone. The state of New York defended the statute, citing previous Supreme Court decisions that judges “should not sit as super-legislatures reviewing matters of economic policy, but should ask only whether a legislature’s policy judgments are rational.”Among the plaintiffs is the Rent Stabilization Association, which represents 25,000 landlords. When the law was amended, the landlords said it would cause buildings to fall into disrepair because owners wouldn’t be able to afford to maintain them.The case is Community Housing Improvement Program v. City of New York, 19-cv-4087, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).(Updates with second paragraph under Supreme Court Snub)--With assistance from Gerald Porter Jr..To contact the reporters on this story: Erik Larson in New York at elarson4@bloomberg.net;Henry Goldman in New York at hgoldman@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at dglovin@bloomberg.net, Peter JeffreyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P. Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Landlords Sue NYC Over New Rent Caps on a Million Apartments

Náhled

Landlords Sue NYC Over New Rent Caps on a Million Apartments (Bloomberg) -- New York City’s rent-stabilization law is under attack after a group of real-estate trade groups and landlords sued to overturn regulations that cover more than 1 million apartments.The decades-old law that limits rent increases violates the U.S. Constitution by placing an unfair burden on property owners, particularly those who own pre-1974 buildings with six or more units, according to the suit, filed Monday in federal court in Brooklyn.The state legislature, now under full Democratic control, adopted sweeping tenant protections in June that further cap rent increases and restrict landlords’ ability to evict residents. The massive rewrite of the rent rules, which cover about 2.4 million residents, aimed to preserve affordable housing by eliminating tools landlords used to remove units from regulation. The package also abolished a “vacancy bonus” that allowed property owners to raise rents 20% when a tenant left.The plaintiffs say the update further eroded their rights and that the law’s “irrationality and arbitrariness” and “web of restrictions override core rights of property owners.”Read More: NYC Tenants Get a Rent-Law Blessing That Landlords See as CurseThe landlords claim the rules have morphed over the years so that they benefit too many higher earners, while renters who make less than $35,000 a year account for just 38% of rent-stabilized renters. The breakdown is about the same for unregulated apartments, the groups claim, suggesting the law isn’t much different from the unregulated market.The trade groups claim that 22% of rent-stabilized tenants make more than $100,000 a year and that married couples without children are over-represented in rent-stabilized apartments despite being less likely to suffer rental hardship than couples with children.The city said the suit threatens ordinary New Yorkers.“Dismantling rent stabilization would be a devastating blow to everyday New Yorkers who are working hard to call this great city home,” Jane Meyer, the mayor’s deputy press secretary, said in a statement. She said the city would review the suit and continue to “fight to protect affordability, prevent harassment and keep this a city for everyone.”Supreme Court SnubTenants-rights groups argued the changes were needed to counter decades of abuse by some landlords and a shrinking supply of affordable housing. Tens of thousands of apartments have been removed from rent-stabilized status, sending rents higher as neighborhoods are gentrified. The effort won support from Governor Andrew Cuomo, a third-term Democrat, as well as New York City mayor and 2020 presidential candidate Bill de Blasio.The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the city’s rent-stabilization system in 2012, turning away an appeal from landlords who said the city had violated their constitutional rights by limiting rents on three one-bedroom apartments in their Upper West Side brownstone. The state of New York defended the statute, citing previous Supreme Court decisions that judges “should not sit as super-legislatures reviewing matters of economic policy, but should ask only whether a legislature’s policy judgments are rational.”Among the plaintiffs is the Rent Stabilization Association, which represents 25,000 landlords. When the law was amended, the landlords said it would cause buildings to fall into disrepair because owners wouldn’t be able to afford to maintain them.The case is Community Housing Improvement Program v. City of New York, 19-cv-4087, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).(Updates with second paragraph under Supreme Court Snub)--With assistance from Gerald Porter Jr..To contact the reporters on this story: Erik Larson in New York at elarson4@bloomberg.net;Henry Goldman in New York at hgoldman@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at dglovin@bloomberg.net, Peter JeffreyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P. Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

U.S. Justice Department asks appeals court to pause antitrust ruling against Qualcomm

Náhled

U.S. Justice Department asks appeals court to pause antitrust ruling against Qualcomm "For DoD, Qualcomm is a key player both in terms of its trusted supply chain and as a leader in innovation, and it would be impossible to replace Qualcomm's critical role in 5G technology in the short term," Ellen M. Lord, Under Secretary for Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, wrote in a filing made in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Qualcomm, the largest supplier of modem chips that connect smartphones to wireless data networks, on May 21 lost in an antitrust lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year. Číst dále >>> Přeložit do en

Strana: 1/ 34929 Celkem nalezeno 349289 záznamů.

Líbí se Vám tato stránka? Sdílejte ji s ostatními.

Přidat.eu záložku

uživatelské kanályVlastní zdroje: - -

Přidejte svůj vlastní RSS zdroj, který budete vitět pouze Vy na stránkách jednotlivých kategorií. Maximální počet na každé stránce je 8.

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

pozor Promiňte, nebylo možno nacíst informace z http://www.nwoo.org/feed/.
Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

pozor Promiňte, nebylo možno nacíst informace z https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=UCfMSJb8D-90O5CV0rYwWAig.
Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

pozor Promiňte, nebylo možno nacíst informace z https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=UCJjGNjN97BAk85Xb_c7shOQ.
Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

pozor Promiňte, nebylo možno nacíst informace z https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?user=CeskaTelevize.
Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

pozor Promiňte, nebylo možno nacíst informace z http://www.parlamentnilisty.cz/export/rss.aspx.
Nastavit

Pro změny se prosím přihlašte ke svému účtu.

pozor Promiňte, nebylo možno nacíst informace z http://www.zvedavec.org/zvedavec_rdf_100.xml.
 

+ Přidej RSS kanál | Copyright (c) 2009 Seznam.name. All rights reserved. Created by Kukej | Kontakt | Výměna odkazů

11.79619