Times Top News

Times Top News

Lawyer arrested at state bar meeting for carrying petitions reaches settlement

by | Jan 22, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Lawyer arrested at state bar meeting for…

First Amendment

Lawyer arrested at state bar meeting for carrying petitions reaches settlement

By Debra Cassens Weiss

An Arkansas lawyer who was arrested for carrying ballot petitions at a state bar meeting in June 2024 has reached an out-of-court settlement that calls for payment of $200,000 to her lawyers. (Image from Shutterstock)

An Arkansas lawyer who was arrested for carrying ballot petitions at a state bar meeting in June 2024 has reached an out-of-court settlement that calls for payment of $200,000 to her lawyers.

Lawyer Jennifer Standerfer of Bentonville, Arkansas, settled with the Arkansas Bar Association; the city of Hot Springs, Arkansas; its police department and a city commission that owns the convention center where Standerfer was arrested for solicitation, the Arkansas Times reports. The settlement followed a mediation.

A joint statement by the parties said they “regret the fact of Ms. Standerfer’s arrest,” and they acknowledge that the lawyer had a constitutional right to carry the petitions.

Standerfer had argued that the First Amendment protected her. She had carried the petitions into the Hot Springs Convention Center, at first in a small wagon with a sign and on a second day by clipboards. She didn’t seek signatures but made the petitions available to anyone who wanted to sign them, she told KARK.com and the Arkansas Advocate after the meeting.

One proposed ballot measure would broaden the reach of the state’s Freedom of Information Act and stiffen penalties for violations, according to the Arkansas Advocate. The other would amend the Arkansas Constitution to create a government obligation to share information.

Standerfer was a committee member of the group sponsoring the petition drive, Arkansas Citizens for Transparency. After Standerfer’s arrest, the group obtained materials about the arrest through the state’s Freedom of Information Act, KARK.com reported.

Video obtained by the group showed officers telling Standerfer that she was being asked to leave. When she refused, officers handcuffed the lawyer and removed her from the event. She was not formally charged.

A state bar representative had texted the convention center asking staff members to ask Standerfer to leave because of the petitions, documents indicated. The bar had said after Standerfer’s arrest, no one authorized to speak for the association had sought Standerfer’s removal.

Standerfer had explained why she backed greater transparency in an April 2024 opinion column for theNorthwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

“The FOIA is how we know what our government is doing,” she wrote. “It is how we hold politicians accountable, and we should do a whole lot more than question any politician who says that we should sacrifice our rights under the FOIA in the name of ‘efficiency.’”





Source link

Justice Jackson wore cowrie shell collar to inauguration; was it ‘a sartorial expression of her dissent’?

by | Jan 22, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Justice Jackson wore cowrie shell collar…

Judiciary

Justice Jackson wore cowrie shell collar to inauguration; was it ‘a sartorial expression of her dissent’?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson attends inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20 in Washington, D.C. Jackson wore a large, distinctive collar made of rows of cowrie shells. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Was there a deeper meaning behind U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s neckwear choice at the inauguration for President Donald Trump?

Atop her judicial robe, Jackson wore a large, distinctive collar made of rows of cowrie shells—which come from sea snails and have long been part of African culture, according to HuffPost and Ebony.

As a fashion statement, there was some disagreement. Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, initially called the cowrie shells a “fashion faux pas,” while fashion historian Shelby Ivey Christie said the piece had undeniable visual impact.

The shell collar “brilliantly reinterprets the traditional judicial jabot through an African American cultural lens,” Christie told HuffPost. The shell pattern suggests “ceremony and significance” along with “importance and intentionality,” she said.

But there may have been a deeper meaning, according to HuffPost, Vogue, Ebony, the Root, Parade, Above the Law and a Volokh Conspiracy post by Blackman.

The shells once served as currency in Africa, Asia and the Pacific Islands, and they convey prosperity, Christie said. They are sometimes thought to have protective properties, including protection from enslavement, and to be conduits of ancestral wisdom. They are also associated with womanhood and fertility.

Those multiple meanings led Vogue to see the collar as possibly “a sartorial expression of her dissent,” with a nod to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The late justice was known for her dissent collars, worn when she dissented and when she arrived at the court the day after Trump’s first election in 2016.

Blackman is troubled by the possibility of a talisman meaning. Even if Jackson didn’t intend to convey a message that she was protecting herself from evil, “there is clearly the (literal) appearance of impropriety,” he wrote at the Volokh Conspiracy.





Source link

Prosecutor ‘poisoned the morale’ of DA’s office with fake harassment texts, disbarment order says

by | Jan 10, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Prosecutor ‘poisoned the morale’ of DA’s…

Ethics

Prosecutor ‘poisoned the morale’ of DA’s office with fake harassment texts, disbarment order says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

A former prosecutor in Colorado should be disbarred for faking four texts that she attributed to a co-worker, including one referring to her as a “sex doll,” according to a Dec. 31 hearing board opinion. (Image from Shutterstock)

A former prosecutor in Colorado should be disbarred for faking four texts that she attributed to a co-worker, including one referring to her as a “sex doll,” according to a Dec. 31 hearing board opinion.

Yujin Choi of Denver fabricated the texts in October 2022 to make it appear that the co-worker was harassing her and then “doubled down on that deceit” by intentionally altering evidence, according to the hearing board, which is part of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge.

Choi allegedly doctored cellphone records and repeatedly deleted the texts. She claimed that her cellphone stopped working when she accidentally dropped it in the bathtub and asserted that her laptop also broke when she accidentally spilled water on it.

“In our view, this narrative is not plausible,” the opinion said.

Choi “pursued a personal vendetta” against the co-worker, criminal investigator Dan Hines, “by launching an informal smear campaign” for reasons “that remain opaque to us,” the hearing board said.

The New York Times, Law360, the Denver Post and Ars Technica (via the Legal Profession Blog) have coverage.

Choi, who was admitted to practice in May 2019, can appeal the decision. She was a deputy district attorney in the Denver district attorney’s family violence unit before she was fired for the alleged misconduct.

Choi sent the four texts to herself, changing the name in her cellphone to make it appear the co-worker was the sender, the hearing board concluded. It was the second time that she had accused Hines.

The first time, in 2021, Choi claimed that Hines had made an inappropriate remark in June 2021, and that he later sent a text that she considered to be harassing. An investigation was closed as unsubstantiated. Hines was nonetheless transferred within the office and told to avoid contact with Choi.

The texts at issue in the ethics opinion surfaced in October 2022. Choi was at a bar with friends when she showed them a text. It read: “Yujin, please stop talking about what I didn’t do to our colleagues. You are using your looks against innocent people. If you want to act like a sex doll to get a sugar daddy … fine, but that will not be me.”

Choi claimed that there were three more texts, all from Hines. They read, “Don’t be stupid,” “Let’s talk,” and “I’m sorry, hope you have a nice weekend.”

By disseminating the texts to co-workers and supervisors, Choi “perpetrated a false and harmful narrative that Hines had sexually harassed her by sending her these messages,” the opinion said.

Choi said she didn’t want the matter investigated, but her supervisors felt a duty to do so and required cooperation. When Hines was confronted with the texts, he logged in to his Verizon account to provide cellphone records and offered his iPhone for investigation. There was no indication that Hines sent the texts, the hearing board said.

Official records obtained directly from Verizon indicated that Choi sent and received the fourth text message in the Hines text thread at the time that she claimed to have received it, leading the hearing board to conclude that she also sent the first three messages. The first text displayed a time stamp indicating that it was sent more than 40 minutes after Choi texted a supervisor about it.

The damage included harm to Hines’ reputation and betrayal of co-workers who advocated for her during the investigation, the decision said.

Choi “poisoned the morale of the DA’s office, contributing to an environment in which victims feared they might be disbelieved and others feared they might be wrongly accused,” the hearing board said. “Further, her actions called into question whether the evidence in the criminal cases she prosecuted was genuine,” tarnished the reputation of prosecutors, and potentially undermined the credibility of sexual harassment victims.

A counselor had diagnosed Choi with post-traumatic stress disorder and vicarious trauma caused by Choi’s emotionally taxing work in the family violence unit. Her lawyers did not immediately respond to ABA Journal emails seeking comment.

Hines told the Denver Post that he “wouldn’t wish this upon anybody,” and he was “living in hell” after Choi’s first accusation. He has sued the Denver district attorney over the handling of the investigation.

The district attorney’s office later determined that Choi’s casework was in “excellent order” with no evidence of fabrication, a spokesperson told the New York Times. The office also thinks that the investigation was properly handled, the spokesperson said.





Source link

Arizona judge who championed domestic violence survivors dies at 77

by | Jan 9, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Arizona judge who championed domestic violence…

Obituaries

Arizona judge who championed domestic violence survivors dies at 77

By Lee Rawles

Judge Elizabeth “Ellie” Finn served as a judge for more than 42 years before her retirement in 2021. (Photo from the City of Glendale)

Judge Elizabeth “Ellie” Finn, a champion of specialized courts who served as a judge in Arizona for more than 42 years, died Dec. 27 at age 77.

The ABA Journal featured Finn in its Members Who Inspire series in September, highlighting her work establishing the Glendale Mental Health Court in Glendale, Arizona, and crafting domestic violence legislation in the state.

Finn served as the presiding judge of the Glendale City Court in Glendale, Arizona, for the last 18 years of her career and wrote about her role for the Journal’s Defending Justice series.

“When I was appointed, the mayor and council indicated they did not really know what occurs at the court,” Finn wrote. “I realized an important aspect of my position would be that of a communicator, ensuring transparency and that there are no surprises.”

In addition, Finn had been active in the ABA since joining the association in 2005. She was a member of the House of Delegates and of the Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence. Finn was also a former chair of the National Conference of Specialized Court Judges and served on its executive committee. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer shortly after attending the ABA Annual Meeting in 2022.

“She was a dedicated passionate advocate and strong believer in the good work of the ABA and CDSV in advancing education of judges and lawyers on domestic violence, as well as advancing protective policies for survivors,” says Vivian Huelgo, a former chief counsel for the commission.

When asked why she became so involved with domestic violence policy, Finn told the Journal that it did not stem from personal experience with the issue or with a survivor.

“It was just something where I saw a need and felt like I could do something to help,” she said.

Finn is survived by her husband, Edward Turner, and her children, Sarah Turner and Jesse Turner. According to her obituary, Finn “enjoyed traveling with her husband, particularly to Southern California for the boating life. Her recreational passions included reading mystery and romance novels, dancing and officiating weddings for friends and family.”

Finn’s memorial service will be at the Glendale Civic Center on Jan. 12 at 1 p.m., followed by a reception. The family asks that in lieu of flowers, donations be made to A New Leaf, an Arizona nonprofit supporting the homeless and survivors of domestic violence.





Source link

Oregon law barring secret audio recordings does not violate First Amendment, en banc appeals court says

by | Jan 9, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Oregon law barring secret audio recordings…

First Amendment

Oregon law barring secret audio recordings does not violate First Amendment, en banc appeals court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

A federal appeals court has tossed a challenge to an Oregon law that generally bans secret audio recordings. (Image from Shutterstock)

A federal appeals court has tossed a challenge to an Oregon law that generally bans secret audio recordings.

The en banc 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled Tuesday that the conversational privacy law does not violate the First Amendment.

Law360, Reuters, the Volokh Conspiracy and the Legal Profession Blog have coverage.

The Oregon law generally requires people making an audio recording to notify the target. It was challenged by the activist group Project Veritas, which uses undercover journalism in support of its conservative message.

The law’s “relatively modest notice requirement” is narrowly tailored to a significant government interest in letting Oregon residents know when their conversations are being recorded, the appeals court said in the 9-2 decision.

Judge Morgan Christen, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote the majority opinion.

“Because Oregon’s statute does not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint or restrict discussion of an entire topic, we conclude it is content neutral, and that it survives intermediate scrutiny,” Christen wrote.

The Oregon law has several exceptions to the ban on unannounced audio recordings.

One exception allows oral recordings of conversations during a felony that endangers a human life. Another allows audio recordings of conversations by a law enforcement officer performing official duties in plain view, when the person making the recording has a lawful right to be there. Yet another allows open audio recordings at public gatherings and in private meetings in which participants can reasonably expect that they are recorded.

The 9th Circuit said the law is content neutral because it does not draw distinctions based on a speaker’s viewpoint and was not enacted because of disagreement with a speaker’s message. It also allows other alternatives that allow a would-be recorder to disseminate a message.

“Project Veritas retains numerous alternative channels to engage in its journalistic speech activities,” the 9th Circuit said. “It may employ all the traditional tools of investigative reporting, including talking with sources, reviewing records, taking photographs, recording videos openly during public and semi-public meetings and events, recording videos that do not capture oral conversations, recording conversations after announcing it is doing so, and making use of Oregon’s freedom-of-information laws.

“Project Veritas may have its reporters go undercover and report on what they have seen and heard—without secretly recording its targets—as journalists have done for centuries.”

Project Veritas lawyer Benjamin Barr said his client will seek review with the U.S. Supreme Court. He told Law360 that the decision upholds the “broadest recording law in the nation” and “suffocates a reporter’s ability to investigate corruption and work with whistleblowers.”

The case is Project Veritas v. Schmidt.





Source link

Alito says his phone call with Trump concerned former clerk

by | Jan 9, 2025 | Law


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Alito says his phone call with Trump concerned…

U.S. Supreme Court

Alito says his phone call with Trump concerned former clerk

By Debra Cassens Weiss

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said he spoke with President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday to provide a job reference for one of his former law clerks. (Photo by J. Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press)

Updated: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said he spoke with President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday to provide a job reference for one of his former law clerks.

Alito said in a statement the ex-clerk, William Levi, had asked him to take the phone call, according to ABC News, which broke the story.

Stories followed in publications that include the New York Times, Reuters, CNN and Fox News.

Levi formerly work as chief of staff to then-U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr during Trump’s first presidency. He is now being considered for a government position in the new administration.

A day after the phone call, lawyers for Trump asked the Supreme Court to stay his Friday sentencing for allegedly falsifying business records to conceal a hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors said the payment violated a New York law barring use of unlawful means to promote a candidacy—in this case, Trump’s presidential bid in 2016.

Alito said Wednesday, however, that the case was not discussed.

“We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” Alito said in the statement. “We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”

On Thursday evening, the Supreme Court denied Trump’s emergency application in a 5-4 vote. Alito, who did not recuse himself, voted with Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in favor of granting Trump’s request to delay his Friday sentencing. They did not indicate their reasoning in the unsigned order.

Updated on Jan. 9 at 9:05 p.m. to note Justice Samuel Alito’s vote on Donald Trump’s emergency application.





Source link