Category: Law/Legal

Trump Sues WSJ for Libel Over Epstein Birthday Letters Report

Staff ReporterCover, Law/Legal, Politics 0

President Donald Trump has initiated a $20 billion libel lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over reports he allegedly gifted Jeffrey Epstein a note bearing his name and an image of a naked woman.

President Donald Trump has launched legal action against the Wall Street Journal and its reporters, seeking at least $20 billion in damages. The lawsuit, filed in a Miami federal court, accuses the publication of failing to adhere to journalistic standards in a story about a collection of letters allegedly gifted to Jeffrey Epstein, which included a note purportedly from Trump featuring an outline of a naked woman. Trump firmly denies authorship of the letter.

The 18-page lawsuit describes the Wall Street Journal’s alleged lapses, highlighting that the publication did not produce the drawing or the letter in their report, claiming their absence because “no authentic letter or drawing exists,” according to Trump’s attorney.

Trump expressed his intention to initiate legal proceedings promptly after the Journal’s article surfaced on Thursday, naming reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo as defendants. Trump also singled out Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp, during a Truth Social post, suggesting Murdoch had assured Trump he would manage the situation.

In response, Dow Jones, the Journal’s parent company, released a statement expressing confidence in the report’s accuracy and pledging to defend against the lawsuit vigorously.

Scrutiny has intensified lately concerning Trump’s past association with Epstein, the deceased convicted sex offender who died in a Manhattan jail in 2019 awaiting trial for federal sex trafficking charges. Amid his 2024 campaign, Trump spoke about potentially releasing more files on Epstein, responding to right-wing voices demanding further transparency around Epstein’s controversial case.

A Justice Department memo published earlier this month dismissed the existence of any “client list” maintained by Epstein implicating influential men in illegal activities. However, the absence of such a list has disappointed many of Trump’s supporters, creating a rift within his MAGA base.

The president’s relationship with media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News, has been characterized by fluctuating dynamics over the years. Trump has repeatedly been a focal point in Murdoch’s media outlets, including Fox News, which prominently features Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump.

Facing ongoing legal battles with media entities, Trump seems undeterred, continuing to challenge stories he deems defamatory. Legal scholars note his presidency is one of the rare administrations seeing direct lawsuits from the president against media organizations.

First Amendment attorney Ted Boutrous mentioned that it is notably uncommon for a sitting president to sue a reporter or publication for defamation, emphasizing that the presidential “bully pulpit” often suffices in addressing grievances over alleged misrepresentations.

In 2024, Trump initiated legal actions against multiple media outlets during his reelection campaign. A notable instance involved ABC and claims from George Stephanopoulos regarding a jury’s findings in E. Jean Carroll’s case. ABC’s parent company, Disney, settled with Trump, setting a precedent for future settlements linked to Trump’s presidential library funding.

Trump recently withdrew a lawsuit against CBS News related to a “60 Minutes” segment, with Paramount agreeing to a payment as part of the settlement. Further settlements with Meta and X highlight Trump’s sustained focus on countering adversarial coverage.

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, points to Trump’s approach as a tactical maneuver designed to instill caution among media outlets in their coverage of Trump and government matters, citing ongoing litigation as efforts that challenge First Amendment freedoms.

Following the lawsuit’s filing, Trump noted on Truth Social his anticipation of Murdoch and his associates undergoing extensive depositions and testimonies as part of the proceedings.

Source: Original article

Human Rights Group Petitions Against Minority Harassment in Bangladesh

Staff ReporterConflict, Law/Legal 0

The Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities has filed a Public Interest Litigation with the High Court, claiming pervasive misuse of legal processes to target and disenfranchise religious minorities in Bangladesh.

The Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities (HRCBM) has initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court of Bangladesh, asserting that the legal system is being exploited to harass and dispossess Hindus and other religious minorities in the country.

In a statement issued on Monday, HRCBM described the PIL filed at the High Court Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court as not merely a legal maneuver but a profound appeal for justice. The group highlighted a backdrop where over 3.9 million criminal cases languish unresolved, with frequent misuse of prosecutorial powers.

A pointed example cited by HRCBM is the case of Chinmoy Krishna Brahmachari, a respected monk and social reformer. He remains detained on charges of sedition unlawfully initiated by a private individual—an action permissible only by the state under Section 196 of the Bangladeshi Code of Criminal Procedure.

Despite widespread agreement on the baselessness of these charges and rising public outcry, Brahmachari, also known as Chinmoy Prabhu, remains incarcerated. His bail application has been pending in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for several months while he has been implicated in additional alleged cases, including false murder accusations.

The organization questioned whether his sole offense was speaking truth to power and advocating for the marginalized communities in Bangladesh. According to HRCBM, his ongoing legal troubles exemplify the broader state inaction and adoption of a legal system that fails in its mission to deliver justice.

The HRCBM’s thorough investigation covered 15 criminal cases filed between October 31 and December 19, 2024. These cases reportedly implicated 5,701 individuals, many charged without specific allegations, listed under vague First Information Reports (FIRs). The organization stated that such broad accusations, especially against unnamed suspects, are often used by police and local actors to unjustly target minority community members, with this tendency notably prevalent in Chittagong and other urban centers.

The group argued that these actions not only contravene constitutional rights but further isolate already marginalized populations. The HRCBM stressed that religious minorities in Bangladesh have historically endured cycles of violence, displacement, and legal persecution. The current misuse of criminal charges, they contend, represents a novel form of systemic oppression—silent yet extensive in its impact.

Through its PIL, the HRCBM is urging the judiciary to cease arbitrary applications of FIRs, enforce initial inquiries in susceptible cases, take disciplinary measures against officers engaged in malicious prosecutions, and establish a judicial inquiry or commission to scrutinize and document the misuse of criminal charges against minorities, according to IANS.

Source: Original article

Ex-White House Doctor Refuses to Testify in Biden Investigation

Staff ReporterLaw/Legal, Politics 0

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, former President Joe Biden’s longtime physician, has declined to testify in a Republican-led investigation into Biden’s health, citing physician-patient confidentiality and his Fifth Amendment rights.

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who was former President Joe Biden’s physician throughout his presidency, has refused to testify in a Republican-led congressional inquiry regarding Biden’s health while in office. The deposition was scheduled before the House Committee on Oversight and Government to investigate what some Republicans label as “the cover-up of President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline.”

O’Connor declined to take the stand at the deposition scheduled for Wednesday, invoking physician-patient privilege and his Fifth Amendment rights. His legal team asserted that the decision was essential given “the unique circumstances of this deposition.”

Speculation about Biden’s health, particularly his cognitive state, persisted during his presidency. New reports following his departure from office claim that his staff may have concealed his health issues, a situation further complicated by Biden’s recent announcement of a cancer diagnosis. These developments have intensified calls for clarity from GOP lawmakers.

In a statement to the committee, O’Connor emphasized that participating in the investigation would contravene his professional duty to maintain confidentiality and could lead to the revocation of his medical license. “Dr. O’Connor will not violate his oath of confidentiality to any of his patients, including President Biden,” the statement read.

Chair of the committee, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., criticized O’Connor for resorting to the Fifth Amendment, insisting that “the American people demand transparency.” He expressed intentions to gather further testimony from former Biden officials, such as ex-White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and former senior advisers Anita Dunn and Michael Donilon. Interviews with Ronald Klain and Jeff Zients, who both served as Biden’s chief of staff at different times, have also been requested.

Despite criticism, O’Connor’s attorneys highlighted that President Trump had previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right in a 2022 deposition during a New York State Attorney General investigation. Trump had noted, “anyone in my position not taking the Fifth Amendment would be a fool, an absolute fool.”

Biden publicly addressed and refuted the claims of cognitive decline in the last year of his presidency during a May appearance on ABC’s The View.

Original article

Trump Faces Prospect of Rikers Island Imprisonment Amid Trial: Experts Weigh In

Staff ReporterPolitics, Law/Legal 0

In the event that Donald Trump continues to test the patience of the judge overseeing his hush money trial, there’s a possibility he might find himself back in his native New York City borough of Queens – more precisely, within the confines of the prison on Rikers Island, as indicated by experts on Monday.

Judge Juan Merchan, in response to Trump’s repeated breaches of a gag order prohibiting him from disparaging witnesses or the jury, cautioned the former president about the potential for imprisonment “if necessary” for further infractions.

While Merchan did not specify the exact facility, inquiries regarding Trump’s possible detention at Rikers prompted Frank Dwyer, the jail’s chief spokesperson, to assert that suitable accommodations would be arranged by the department.

Trump has persistently argued that he is a victim of a skewed justice system, claiming unfair treatment compared to others. Conversely, critics argue the opposite, suggesting that Trump’s public statements would have led any other defendant to incarceration by now.

The notion of Trump facing imprisonment while under trial is bound to evoke intense reactions from both his supporters and detractors. Trump’s repeated attempts to leverage the specter of imprisonment for fundraising underscore the potent emotional response it elicits from his base.

Mike Lawlor, an expert in criminal justice at the University of New Haven, outlined Rikers as the probable destination should Merchan pursue this course of action. Lawlor, a Democrat and former Connecticut House member, emphasized Merchan’s aim to curb contempt and prevent Trump from intimidating witnesses and jurors.

Lawlor elaborated on the objective of isolating Trump from his social media platform through incarceration, suggesting that imprisonment would achieve this end. He mentioned that Trump would be placed in protective custody, precluding interaction with other inmates, and limiting contact to corrections officers and his Secret Service detail.

Although Trump’s potential detention would mark an unprecedented occurrence at Rikers, Lawlor noted that the facility has experience housing high-profile individuals, including the elderly like Trump.

The former president’s former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, currently serves time at Rikers, having been sentenced last month for perjury during Trump’s civil fraud trial.

Moreover, Trump would undergo standard intake procedures, including physical measurements publicly recorded, Lawlor explained.

Regarding the Secret Service’s role, Lawlor emphasized their primary duty of protecting Trump from harm, suggesting that a prison setting might streamline their responsibilities.

Martin F. Horn, a professor emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, echoed Lawlor’s sentiments, envisioning Trump’s confinement in a facility separate from other inmates to accommodate his security detail.

Nonetheless, ensuring a former president’s safety behind bars presents an unprecedented challenge for the Secret Service, according to a spokesperson for the agency.

Merchan may hesitate to incarcerate Trump for another reason, suggested Dave Aronberg, a state attorney for Palm Beach County. Aronberg implied that imprisonment might align with Trump’s narrative of victimhood, potentially bolstering his support base.

An alternative to imprisonment, proposed by former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin, involves confining Trump to a cell near the New York City courtroom where his trial unfolds, serving as a symbolic reminder of the consequences of breaching court orders.

House arrest remains a feasible option, though Merchan retains considerable discretion in determining Trump’s confinement location, Horn remarked.

Lawlor dismissed the possibility of Trump being confined to his opulent Manhattan residence, citing concerns about continued access to electronics and aides, thus facilitating defiance of court orders.

Ultimately, Merchan faces a weighty decision regarding Trump’s punishment for his repeated violations, with potential implications for both the trial’s proceedings and the broader political landscape.

Supreme Court Emphasizes Life and Liberty in Kejriwal Arrest Case Amidst Election Timing Concerns

Staff ReporterLaw/Legal, Nation, News 0

The Supreme Court emphasized the paramount importance of life and liberty during a hearing regarding Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s challenge against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta directed the central agency to delve into the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, particularly concerning the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. The bench adjourned the matter till May 3.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued during the proceedings that the ED had not recovered any “proceeds of crime” and emphasized the high threshold for arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). He asserted that mere non-cooperation should not warrant Kejriwal’s incarceration.

In response, the ED contended in its affidavit before the Supreme Court that arresting politicians who are involved in criminal activities does not impede free and fair elections.

Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court stated on Monday that Kejriwal’s decision to continue as Chief Minister despite his arrest was his personal choice. However, the court emphasized that this should not obstruct the provision of free textbooks, writing material, and uniforms to underprivileged school children.

The Delhi High Court had previously ruled on April 9 that there was no illegality in Kejriwal’s arrest by the ED, citing sufficient evidence including statements from approvers, involvement of middlemen, and indications of cash exchanges for the 2022 Goa elections.

Currently, Kejriwal is in judicial custody at Tihar jail in New Delhi, with his detention extended until May 7 by a Delhi court on April 23.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court delved into various aspects of the case. Justice Khanna raised concerns about the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, particularly in the context of ongoing elections, highlighting the significance of life and liberty. Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, referred to safeguards outlined in the PMLA against vexatious arrests and the lack of proceeds of crime recovered by the ED.

Singhvi also highlighted discrepancies in the statements of approvers and witnesses, arguing that they were hearsay and lacked direct evidence against Kejriwal. He pointed out instances where bail was granted to co-accused after they made incriminating statements against Kejriwal, suggesting coercion.

Additionally, Singhvi emphasized the subjective evaluation criteria for arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA, asserting that it requires the probe officer to have a reason to believe in the accused’s guilt, not just suspicion.

The Supreme Court will resume hearing the matter on May 3, as the legal battle surrounding Kejriwal’s arrest continues amidst political and legal intricacies.

-+=