District Attorney Mike Hestrin said the agency wants the case of People v. Jose Luis Tapia returned to the docket for trial. It involves a machete assault that occurred in the Blythe area.
Prosecutors filed an emergency writ at the end of last week, notifying the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Riverside that they are challenging the trial court's decision to boot the matter and are prepared to argue the merits of continuing proceedings, rather than permit the defendant to walk away without answering the charges.
Tapia's is one of an estimated 350 criminal cases dismissed since Oct. 10 by judges countywide, citing lack of available judicial resources -- or courtroom space -- to receive a speedy disposition by trial, as guaranteed under the state constitution.
The matter is one of roughly 2,800 cases that piled onto county courts' dockets going back to when the Office of the Chief Justice of California changed courts' operations statewide in 2020, permitting ongoing postponements, amid the lockdowns.
However, all of the chief justice's emergency orders expired on Oct. 7.
"Unless the courts stop these dismissals, the backlog of criminal cases will grow, and our justice system will be in danger of collapse,'' Hestrin said in a video message released last week.
The majority of cases dismissed to date have been domestic violence matters.
"When a judge dismisses a domestic violence case, they also terminate the victim's criminal protective order. This is nothing less than an injustice and a disservice to the victims and to public safety,'' Hestrin said.
"I share others' frustration when a case is not resolved on the merits, or due process is impaired, due to a lack of available judicial resources," Monterosso said. "The genesis of the current set of circumstances
is the chronic and generational lack of judges allocated to serve Riverside County."
He emphasized that the county has 90 authorized and funded judicial positions, but a 2020 Judicial Needs Assessment Study noted that 115 judicial officers are needed to ensure efficient operations throughout the local court system and prevent logjams.
"The dispensing of statutory timelines for criminal trials under the emergency orders delayed the `day in court' for numerous criminal defendants and those impacted by the alleged crimes," Monterosso said. "While the law allows a court to continue a case beyond the statutory deadline for `good cause,' the decision on whether `good cause' exists is an individualized decision made by the trial judge based on the law and the facts of the case."
Hestrin sympathized with the fact "we have far fewer ... judicial seats than we need based on population."
"But this has been the case as far back as anyone can remember,'' he said. "Before the pandemic, we had not had a criminal case dismissed for lack of a courtroom in over a decade."
He said defendants whose cases have been repeatedly delayed are watching the current drama unfold and "have no incentive to resolve any matter before trial'' as long as there's a possibility that holding out will ultimately lead to a dismissal.
"This situation is unsustainable and constitutes a danger to the public,'' Hestrin said. "We're not asking for a specific outcome. We're asking judges to engage with the facts of the cases and backlog."
Monterosso countered that judges are redoubling efforts to accommodate trial requests, often times summoning prospective jurors for screening late on weekdays to courtrooms where juries in other matters are still deliberating.
However, Hestrin said earlier this month, 500 prospective jurors slated to be assigned courtrooms were sent home, with judges refusing to entertain requests for "brief" postponements until courtrooms became available.
"(This) seems like mismanagement of resources," the D.A. said. "If we have an emergency in our courts that justifies a dismissal of a felony, then it should be an emergency in every courtroom across the county and should justify an all-hands-on-deck approach to trying cases."
He recommended longer hours each weekday, the start-up of night courts and even weekend court hours to plow through the backlog. It was unknown what costs in overtime and other budget pressures those actions might precipitate.
The current backlog is reminiscent of the cumulative impact of a buildup of unresolved criminal cases in 2007 that prompted the state to dispatch a judicial strike team to the county to help sort through criminal cases clogging the court system.
At the time, the Superior Court virtually halted civil jury trials for months while judges focused on reducing the strain on resources. An empty elementary school was even converted into a makeshift courthouse.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will take up the issue of affirmative action again Monday — the second time in six years — but with the conservative majority now generally expected to end the use of race in higher education admissions.
That would be a major shift for the court, which first ruled in favor of affirmative action policies in admissions in 1978. The earlier cases on affirmation action are each known by a single name: Bakke, Grutter, Gratz and Fisher.
During arguments Monday in cases involving North Carolina and Harvard, those names may be used as shorthand for the cases they represent. But real people are behind them.
A look at what they have done since the Supreme Court made their names synonymous with the issue of race in higher education:
Allan Bakke was in his 30s when he applied to the medical school at the University of California, Davis. Rejected twice, Bakke sued. He said the school’s decision to set aside 16 seats for minority students in a class of 100 discriminated against him as a white man. The Supreme Court agreed and ordered him admitted. But the court allowed the use of race as a factor in admission if it was part of an overall evaluation of an applicant. Bakke graduated in 1982 and worked for years as an anesthesiologist in Minnesota. He has kept out of the spotlight since his case.
Barbara Grutter was Michigan resident who applied to the University of Michigan Law School in 1996. Grutter, who is white, had a 3.8 grade point average but was rejected. She sued for discrimination, claiming the school’s policies gave certain minority students a significantly greater chance of admission. The Supreme Court said in a 5-4 decision that the law school’s admissions policy, which considered race as one factor in admissions, was not illegal. The decision allowed the continued use of race in admissions.
The Bollinger in the case was Lee Bollinger, who was sued in his capacity as the university’s then-president. Bollinger, now Columbia University’s president, told reporters recently that he is “worried about the outcome” of the current cases.
The companion case to Grutter’s involved Jennifer Gratz, a white woman denied undergraduate admission to Michigan. Unlike Grutter, Gratz won her case. The Supreme Court agreed that the school’s undergraduate admissions system was flawed because it relied too heavily on race.
Frustrated that affirmative action survived anyway, Gratz was instrumental in Michigan’s passage of Proposal 2, which ended race-based preferences in state university admissions. The ban survived its own trip to the Supreme Court. Gratz went on to open a microbrewery in Florida with her husband.
Abigail Fisher is Supreme Court famous twice over. Fisher, who is white, sued after being rejected in 2008 from the University of Texas at Austin. A cello player who also participated in math competitions and did volunteer work, she graduated just shy of the top 10% of her class. She argued the university’s policy discriminated against her because of race, in violation of the Constitution.
Her first Supreme Court case was inconclusive. Three years later, when her case returned to the court, the justices in a narrow ruling upheld the school’s use of affirmative action. Only seven justices ruled in the case, however, because Justice Antonin Scalia had died and Justice Elena Kagan was recused.
Fisher, who has called herself an “introverted person,” graduated from Louisiana State University in 2012 and worked in finance, but she hasn’t given up on the affirmative action issue. Now in her 30s she’s one of the leaders of Students for Fair Admissions, the group that brought the UNC and Harvard cases to the high court. The group’s head is Edward Blum, a former stockbroker who also financially backed Fisher’s original case and other race-based Supreme Court cases.
A jury found that the man, Michael A. Riley, 51, had deleted Facebook messages in which he offered advice to a Jan. 6 rioter about how to avoid getting caught, prosecutors said.
A former U.S. Capitol Police officer was found guilty on Friday of obstruction of justice for trying to cover up the fact that he had sent Facebook messages to a Jan. 6 rioter offering advice on how to avoid getting caught, the authorities said.
The man, Michael A. Riley, 51, could face up to 20 years in prison, following a trial in U.S. District Court in Washington, federal prosecutors said. A jury was unable to reach a verdict on another obstruction of justice charge related to Mr. Riley’s communication with the rioter, federal prosecutors said. It was not immediately clear whether prosecutors intend to retry him on that count.
Mr. Riley, a member of the agency’s K-9 unit with more than 25 years on the force, was the only Capitol Police officer charged with a crime in connection with the attack on the Capitol, when many of his fellow officers were beaten by a mob of Trump followers spurred on by the lie of widespread election fraud.
Christopher Macchiaroli, a lawyer for Mr. Riley, said Friday night that his client had not obstructed a grand jury proceeding and would appeal the guilty verdict if it stands. He said that the federal judge on the case, Amy Berman Jackson, had yet to rule on a motion for judgment of acquittal.
On Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Riley was not working at the Capitol building during the attack, but he was aware it was taking place and responded after reports of an explosive device near the Capitol complex, according to a statement Friday from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
The day after the attack, a Facebook friend of Mr. Riley’s with whom he had never exchanged messages posted images on the social media site of himself inside the Capitol during the attack, according to a federal indictment from October 2021. The indictment said that Mr. Riley did not know the man personally but had become acquainted through their mutual interest in fishing.
Rather than forwarding the information to the authorities, prosecutors said, Mr. Riley sent the rioter — who was not named in the indictment — a private message with advice about how to avoid being caught.
“I’m a Capitol Police officer who agrees with your political stance,” the officer wrote to the man, according to the indictment. “Take down the part about being in the building they are currently investigating and everyone who was in the building” is going to be charged, he wrote. “Just looking out!”
Mr. Riley and the man exchanged dozens of messages that day and hundreds in the following days, prosecutors said.
“I’m glad you got out of there unscathed,” Mr. Riley wrote at one point. “We had over 50 officers hurt, some pretty bad.”
On Jan. 20, 2021, the unidentified man turned himself in to the police and told them he had been talking with Mr. Riley, then warned the officer that federal law enforcement officials were aware they had been communicating.
“The F.B.I. was very curious that I had been speaking to you if they haven’t already asked you about me they are gonna,” the man wrote to Mr. Riley, according to the indictment. “They took my phone and downloaded everything.”
After receiving that message, Mr. Riley deleted all his Facebook messages with the man, and the next day, sent him a final Facebook message, according to the indictment. Prosecutors said the last message was Mr. Riley’s attempt at a cover story, in which he pretended to scold the rioter for his conduct.
“Another mutual friend was talking about you last night,” he wrote. “I tried to defend you but then he showed me a video of you in the Capitol smoking weed and acting like a moron. I have to say, I was shocked and dumbfounded, since your story of getting pushed in the building with no other choice now seems not only false but is a complete lie. I feel like a moron for believing you.”
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case to decide whether race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina can continue. The court has for more than four decades upheld policies like those at Harvard, which consider race as one factor among many in admissions, and recognized that schools have a compelling interest in achieving the benefits associated with a diverse student body. This is a closely watched case that could affect colleges and universities nationwide. Here are some commonly asked questions and answers.
What is the case about?
The lawsuit was brought by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA), an Arlington, Virginia, nonprofit founded by Edward Blum, who has mounted several legal challenges to race-conscious admissions policies and voting rights laws in recent decades. In 2008, Blum was part of a lawsuit against the University of Texas at Austin over its use of race in admissions. The Supreme Court upheld UT’s admissions policies in 2016, the last time the Court ruled on the issue. SFFA claims that Harvard College deliberately discriminated against Asian American applicants because of their race and considers race in ways that violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
How did we get here?
On Oct. 1, 2019, after a three-week trial, the U.S. District Court in Boston ruled that Harvard does not discriminate and that its consideration of race complied with longstanding Supreme Court precedent. SFFA appealed the decision. On Nov. 12, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court decision, rejecting SFFA’s arguments and affirming judgment for Harvard on all counts. SFFA again appealed the decision, this time to the U.S. Supreme Court. In January, the Court said it would consider the case, along with another case SFFA filed against the University of North Carolina, during its 2022-2023 term.
What’s at stake?
Harvard and the University of North Carolina are the named defendants, but should SFFA prevail, the Court’s decision would affect all colleges and universities nationwide that consider race as one factor among many in their admissions process. SFFA has asked the Court to reverse long-established precedent and prohibit any consideration of race in admissions.
In past cases, both the Supreme Court and lower courts have consistently ruled that colleges and universities may retain the ability to consider race as one of many factors for admission to create the diverse communities critical to their educational missions. Higher education leaders argue that such communities are necessary to prepare students to live and work in a world that is becoming increasingly pluralistic and global.
How does Harvard consider race during admission?
Admissions at Harvard are highly competitive. This year, 61,000 applicants vied for fewer than 2,000 spots in the Class of 2026. The process involves a comprehensive, whole-person review of each applicant requiring months to complete. Admissions officers examine and consider a range of information, including academic achievements and extracurricular activities. Personal essays, recommendations from teachers and guidance counselors, and applicant interviews are also considered by a diverse, 40-person committee. Race is one factor in determining what makes an applicant unique and what they might bring to the Harvard community. Testimony at trial established that race only ever functions as a plus factor and is never used to deny qualified applicants’ admission.
How wide is the support for Harvard?
Current and former Harvard students, represented by the Asian American Justice Center, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund testified during the trial in support of Harvard and the importance of a diverse student body. Not a single student testified on behalf of SFFA.
In the First Circuit, 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations representing thousands of Asian American, Black, Latinx, Native American, and white Harvard community members filed an amicus brief in support of the University. Nearly 700 social scientists, leading economists, higher-education experts, attorneys general from 15 states, and 37 colleges and universities also wrote in support. Other backers include the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, American Council on Education, Anti-Defamation League, and several multinational corporations, including Apple, General Electric, Intel, Microsoft, and Verizon.
A broad coalition of major corporations, higher education organizations, and legal, religious, military, and civil rights groups voiced their strong support for Harvard in briefs submitted with the Supreme Court this summer.
How has the Supreme Court viewed Harvard’s process in the past?
Twice, the Court has cited Harvard as a model for other colleges and universities. The College’s qualified, limited use of race is entirely consistent with Supreme Court precedent in the issue, established in Bakke (1978), affirmed in Grutter (2003), and reaffirmed in Fisher I (2013) and Fisher II (2016).
What might future Harvard classes look like in a race-blind system?
The proportion of the class that identifies as African American and Hispanic would decline significantly if Harvard eliminated race as a factor in admissions, evidence presented at trial showed. Additionally, when experts simulated the racial makeup of the class, replacing the consideration of race with “race-neutral alternatives,” they found that Harvard would not be able to reach the same levels of diversity it achieved through the limited consideration of race as one factor among many.
[Non-party Jane] Roe's earlier reports of sexual assault by Plaintiff John Doe prompted Defendant TCU's institution of Title IX disciplinary proceedings against him and, in turn, gave rise to this suit…. [Doe subpoenaed Roe] to appear for deposition.
Roe argues that requiring her to appear for an in-person deposition would produce only irrelevant, duplicative testimony, given that she has already testified exhaustively on the record produced in the Title IX disciplinary proceedings. She argues that any information she possesses has no bearing on any of Doe's claims—erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, or gender bias—and that the Court's consideration should be confined to the disciplinary record. Second, Roe claims that compelling her testimony would impose an undue burden in the form of "significant emotional harm and trauma" by forcing her to relive the experiences giving rise to her sexual assault allegations.
Doe argues that it is essential to depose Roe—who is designated as a key witness by both parties to the suit—because she has personal knowledge and information "relevant to the fairness and thoroughness of the process from its inception to its end," including information about the myriad interviews, meetings, and investigation that TCU conducted prior to and during the proceedings to which she was a party or witness; and information shedding light on her own credibility, including her motives for and manner of reporting. Doe also claims that Roe's evidence that compelling her testimony would impose an undue burden is insufficient and that she must therefore be deposed….
The Court finds that Doe's need to discover information about interviews, meetings with TCU officials, the investigation, the panel hearing, and the appeal in which she participated directly or as a witness are relevant to Doe's claims as it may shed light on both the accuracy of the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding (erroneous outcome) and TCU's potentially disparate treatment of Roe (a female) and Doe (a male) throughout the investigation and proceedings (gender bias; selective enforcement). Information reflecting on Roe's credibility—including potential motives to lie or to report, contradictory statements, and conversations with others throughout the process—is similarly relevant to Doe's claim of erroneous outcome.
Having considered her evidence, the Court recognizes that Roe's deposition will necessarily impose some hardship on her given the sensitive nature of the case. However, with the following limitations, the Court finds that allowing the deposition would not impose an undue burden and that it is justified in light of Doe's need to obtain the information.
In the intervening two weeks between the Court's first Order and her motion to reconsider, Roe obtained a second opinion from a treating professional that indicates requiring Roe to sit for a deposition "could be a trauma trigger," could cause Roe "distress," could "negatively impact her mental health," and "may cause her progress [made in counseling] to stall and fall behind." Primarily based on this treating professional's opinion, Roe asks the Court to reconsider its previous decision and to quash the deposition in its entirety….
[But w]hen considering Roe's initial motion to quash, the Court weighed Doe's need for Roe's testimony with the significant burden obtaining it would likely impose on her (according to her first treating professional, Kim Garrett). There the Court found that crafting parameters for the deposition, rather than completely quashing it, was an appropriate remedy in light of Doe's considerable need for information highly relevant to his dispute with TCU. The Court made this determination despite Ms. Garrett's unequivocal opinion that a deposition would, "to a reasonable degree of professional certainty," cause Roe "significant emotional harm and trauma." The declaration of Roe's second treating professional, which provides a more modest assessment that a deposition "may" or "could" be detrimental to Roe's well-being, does not alter the Court's undue burden analysis….
Again, the Court recognizes that permitting Roe's deposition to proceed will impose some degree of hardship on her given the sensitive nature of the instant dispute. The burden that necessarily comes with being deposed about one's allegations of sexual assault is not lost on the Court.
Still, the Court finds that the burden imposed is not so unreasonable and oppressive that it outweighs Doe's substantial need to obtain relevant information from Roe regarding the underlying allegations that gave rise to this lawsuit. And with the conditions previously imposed on the deposition—in addition to Doe's subsequent agreement not to appear in-person at the deposition—the Court finds that modifying the subpoena, rather than quashing it outright, is the appropriate remedy. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Roe's deposition be subject to the following conditions [which are similar to the ones in the original order -EV]:
The single deposition shall occur at a neutral site (as agreed by the parties);
The deposition shall be limited to 4 hours total;
No more than two attorneys may be present for either party (as agreed by the parties);
Roe shall be entitled to have one party present aside from counsel;
Doe may not seek any information from Roe regarding her prior sexual history with anyone other than Doe and is ORDERED to refrain from seeking information for the purpose of embarrassment, harassment, or other improper means.
Article From & Read More ( Plaintiff in Title IX Wrongful Discipline Case Against University May Depose His Accuser - Reason )
https://ift.tt/GBHjLve
Case
Here's a Best Buy Early Black Friday deal that'd make a great stocking stuff for any Pokemon fan. Best Buy is offering an officially licensed Pokemon: The Card Game Pencil Case, which also includes two Pokemon TCG Booster Packs, for only $6.99. A Pokemon TCG booster pack costs $3.99. That basically means you're saving $1 off the two booster packs and getting the pencil case for free. If you were planning to bolster your Pokemon battle deck anyways, then you might as well get the discount and the freebie.
Pokemon TCG Pencil Case + 2 Booster Packs for $6.99
Pokemon TCG Pencil Case (Includes 2 Booster Packs)
30% off $9.99
You can get free shipping on orders over $35. If you can't get your order total that high, we'd suggest choosing in-store pickup at a Best Buy location to avoid the shipping fee.
On Tuesday, a Moscow court rejected Brittney Griner's appeal of her nine-year sentence on drug charges, a completely anticipated result in a trial that U.S. and international officials have called an illegitimate proceeding -- as reported by ESPN's T.J. Quinn.
U.S. officials have said they believe Russia will eventually send the WNBA star home in a prisoner swap but have expressed frustration over what they say is Russia's failure to respond to the "significant" offer the United States made in June.
Griner's absence has continued to weigh on all those in the basketball community who know and care about her as each milestone date has passed in 2022.
So much time has passed. Griner has missed the start of the WNBA season, the All-Star Game, the beginning of the playoffs and the FIBA World Championship. She was expected to be part of all of it, just as she had been for the past decade as a star center for the Phoenix Mercury and the U.S. women's national team.
Instead, the 2013 No. 1 draft pick and NCAA, WNBA and Olympic champion has been detained in Russia since being arrested in February on charges that she brought vape cartridges carrying a small amount of cannabis oil into the country. Griner was sentenced to nine years in prison in August, and her appeal was denied Oct. 25, 250 days since she was arrested.
The United States continues to try to negotiate for her freedom, along with that of fellow American prisoner Paul Whelan. Griner's fellow professional basketball players, in both the WNBA and NBA, keep saying her name. NBA Finals MVP Stephen Curry gave public support to Griner on Oct. 18, her 32nd birthday and the night of the Golden State Warriors' ring ceremony, telling the crowd, "We hope that she comes home soon, and that everybody's doing their part to get her home."
Griner's ordeal began as she was returning to Russia to finish her overseas season there. When it will end -- and how the lengthy detention will affect the rest of her life and career -- is unknown. Here is a look at the events of the past eight months while Griner has been imprisoned, and how the White House and those closest to her, have tried to do all they can to bring her home.
play
4:39
Sparks player and WNBPA president Nneka Ogwumike reacts to Brittney Griner's nine-year prison sentence being upheld.
February 17: Mercury star is detained
While traveling to Russia to play overseas in the offseason, Griner is detained at Sheremetyevo Airport outside of Moscow after customs officials allege they found vape cartridges that contained oil derived from cannabis in her luggage. Griner was returning to play for club team UMMC Ekaterinburg in Russia, where she has competed in the WNBA offseason since 2014. There is no public announcement of her arrest.
February 24: Russia invades Ukraine
Russian military forces, on the orders of Vladimir Putin, invade Ukraine, triggering a series of harsh economic sanctions from the United States and other western nations that complicate efforts by U.S. officials to bring Griner home.
March 5: News breaks of Griner's detainment
The Russian Federal Customs Service, as first reported by the New York Times, announces it has Griner in custody on drug charges. The WNBA and Griner's agent say they are working to get her home. Griner faces a maximum sentence of 10 years; Russia has harsh drug laws with no exceptions for cannabis under any circumstances.
March 6: U.S. Secretary of State discusses Griner's detainment
Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the United States will "provide every possible assistance" to citizens who are being held in foreign countries. "We have an embassy team that's working on the cases of other Americans who are detained in Russia," he adds. "We're doing everything we can to see to it that their rights are upheld and respected."
March 17: Griner's detention extended
Russian media reports that Griner's detention has been extended until May 19, which means she will be held at least three months before her case is resolved. The prosecutor requested the detention to continue investigating Griner's case.
March 17: U.S. State Dept. tells ESPN it has not had access to Griner
Although she has been detained a month, U.S. officials say they still haven't spoken to Griner since she was arrested. A State Department official issues a statement to ESPN, saying, "We insist the Russian government provide consular access to all U.S. citizen detainees in Russia, including those in pre-trial detention, as Brittney Griner is."
The source close to Griner said they have gotten frequent updates on her from her team of Russian attorneys. "I wouldn't say she's 'good,' but she's OK," the source said.
The statement marks a slight but significant change in the government's tone when it comes to Griner. Until now the government has deliberately kept a low profile with her case, hoping not to increase her profile to the point where she might become a valuable political asset to the Russian government. It generally has avoided commenting at all, and when Blinken was asked about Griner at a news conference last week he gave a tepid statement that did not mention her by name.
Based on State Department guidance, Griner's representatives have asked the WNBA, NBA, the media and Griner's supporters generally to keep any attention to her case "on a low simmer," as one source said.
March 23: U.S. officials meet with Griner
U.S. consular officials visit with Griner in Russia for the first time, reporting she is doing "well." The U.S. State Department had said Russian officials were denying them access to Griner and two American men who are in custody, contrary to international law requirements.
March 30: WNBA players break silence on Griner
Hesitant to talk about Griner's detention and potentially hurt her case, WNBA players have said little since her arrest, but Breanna Stewart and Angel McCoughtry discuss WNBA salaries and why a handful of players head to Russia every offseason.
"The big thing is the fact that we have to go over there. It was BG, but it could have been anybody," Breanna Stewart, who earns over $1 million to play in Russia, told The Associated Press. "WNBA players need to be valued in their country and they won't have to play overseas."
Per the WNBA's collective bargaining agreement, which runs through 2027, players are paid an average of $130,000, with top players able to earn more than $500,000 through salary, marketing agreements, an in-season tournament and bonuses.
April 11: WNBA commissioner assures league working toward Griner's return
"This is an unimaginable situation for BG to be in," the WNBA commissioner said. "She continues to have our full support. Certainly, we're trying everything we can, every angle, working with her legal representation, her agent, elected leaders, the administration. Just everybody in our ecosystem to try and find ways to get her home safely and as quickly as we can."
Engelbert also announces that Griner's "BG's Heart and Sole" shoe drive, which has collected new and gently used shoes for homeless people in Phoenix, will be held in all 12 WNBA cities throughout the upcoming season.
April 27: Former U.S. Marine released from Russian custody in prisoner exchange
Trevor Reed, a former U.S. Marine who has been held in Russia since August 2019, is unexpectedly released from Russian custody in exchange for Russian national Konstantin Yaroshenko, who was serving a 20-year sentence in the United States for smuggling drugs. The exchange is the first hopeful sign for Griner's family that a diplomatic channel remains open between the two countries despite the war in Ukraine.
May 3: U.S. Department of State declares Griner a wrongful detainee
The U.S. government now considers Griner to be "wrongfully detained" by the Russian government, signaling a significant shift in how officials will try to get her home. The United States will seek to negotiate her release rather than wait for the Russian case against her to come to a conclusion.
Additionally, Griner's supporters have kept a low profile up to this point in the event she might be released before facing trial. But after the announcement, they actively press the White House to bring her home. Sources say Bill Richardson, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (and former governor, cabinet member and congressman), is working with his organization to secure Griner's release.
May 3: WNBA announces it will honor Griner with season-long tribute
At the same time, the Russian state news agency TASS publishes a story saying there were negotiations between the United States and Russia to exchange Griner for Viktor Bout, a Russian man serving a 25-year sentence in the United States for financing terrorism. American government officials, speaking to ESPN, express skepticism about the reporting, saying it was likely a tactic to pressure the U.S. government.
play
1:18
NBA commissioner Adam Silver details the league's efforts to try and grant Brittney Griner's release from Russia.
May 17: NBA commissioner says league working to bring Griner home
NBA commissioner Adam Silver tells ESPN's Malika Andrews that the league is working "side by side" with WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert to bring Griner home, adding that the NBA was following the advice of experts when it did not take an aggressive approach during the early stages of Griner's detention in Russia.
"We've been in touch with the White House, the State Department, hostage negotiators, every level of government and also through the private sector as well," Silver said. "Our No. 1 priority is her health and safety and making sure that she gets out of Russia."
May 20: State Department continues to push for regular contact with Griner
For the second time in a week, a consular officer gains access to Griner, but the State Department maintains that sporadic visits with the WNBA star are not sufficient.
"Our message is a clear and simple one: We continue to insist that Russia allow consistent and timely consular access to all U.S. citizen detainees," State Department representative Ned Price said. "One-off visits are not sufficient, and we will continue to call on Moscow to uphold its commitments under the Vienna Convention for consistent and timely access as well."
May 25: Cherelle Griner calls on President Biden to help bring Griner home
In her first televised interviews since Griner was detained, Cherelle Griner says she hasn't spoken to wife Brittney Griner since Feb. 17, the day the WNBA star was arrested in Russia.
"There is one person that can go get her, and that's our president," Griner told Angela Rye in an interview on ESPN. "He has that power. You know, I'm just like, 'Why are we not using it? Like, urgently, use it.' We're expecting him to use his power to get it done."
Early June: United States secretly offers Russia a trade for Griner's release
The United States secretly offers to trade Bout for Griner and Paul Wheln -- another American considered to be wrongfully detained and who has been in Russian custody on espionage charges since December 2018. The offer is not reported until late July.
play
1:01
Wife of WNBA star Brittney Griner claims no one was there to pick up Griner's calls because the phones at the U.S. Embassy were unstaffed.
June 20: Cherelle Griner: 'Zero trust in our government' after Griner's calls go unanswered due to logistical errors
More than four months since they last spoke on the phone, Griner was expected to call wife Cherelle Griner on the couple's fourth wedding anniversary on June 18. But more than a dozen calls from Griner went unanswered through the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, which the couple had been told would patch the call through to Cherelle Griner in Phoenix. Instead, the calls went unanswered because the desk at the embassy where the phone rang was apparently unstaffed Saturday, Cherelle Griner said.
"We deeply regret that Brittney Griner was unable to speak with her wife because of a logistical error," the State Department said Monday.
"I find it unacceptable and I have zero trust in our government right now," Cherelle Griner told The Associated Press. "If I can't trust you to catch a Saturday call outside of business hours, how can I trust you to actually be negotiating on my wife's behalf to come home?"
The following day, Biden administration officials said the call was rescheduled.
July 1: Griner's trial begins
The trial opens in Khimki, a Moscow suburb, on charges that Griner tried to smuggle drugs into Russia. The trial is adjourned until July 7.
play
2:10
White House officials have confirmed that President Joe Biden has read the handwritten letter from Brittney Griner appealing for her freedom.
"I'm terrified I might be here forever," Griner writes in an excerpt released by her representatives. "I realize you are dealing with so much, but please don't forget about me and the other detainees."
Citing her father's military service, Griner writes the Fourth of July has new meaning to her. "It hurts thinking about how I usually celebrate this day because freedom means something completely different to me this year."
July 6: Biden, Harris call Cherelle Griner
President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris speak with Cherelle Griner to reassure her that they are working to win Griner's freedom as soon as possible, the White House said.
Cherelle Griner, who also speaks at a rally in Phoenix later that day, says, "I am hopeful in knowing that the President read my wife's letter and took the time to respond. I know BG will be able to find comfort in knowing she has not been forgotten."
play
0:45
Cherelle Griner speaks at a rally about her wife, Brittney, and how much she wants her to return home.
July 7: Griner pleads guilty to drug charges
Griner pleads guilty but says she accidentally brought hashish oil into Russia and did not intend to break the law. Under Russian law, admitting guilt doesn't automatically end a trial, which will continue until the entire prosecutor's case is read into the record. Witnesses also are called. The guilty plea is viewed by experts as a strategic move since the overwhelming majority of cases end in convictions.
July 10: WNBA honors Griner at 2022 WNBA All-Star Game
The WNBA All-Stars each wear Griner's No. 42 jersey in the second half of the midseason showcase. Griner was named an honorary All-Star when rosters were released June 22.
Prior to the All-Star Game, Nneka Ogwumike, the president of the WNBA players' association, joined Cherelle Griner, the Rev. Al Sharpton, Seattle Storm star Sue Bird and union leader Terri Jackson for a news conference calling for mercy in Brittney Griner's sentencing and focusing on her humanity.
July 14: Russian teammate, GM support Griner in court
Griner has been an exemplary player and citizen during her six seasons in Russia, two members of Griner's Russian club team tell the judge as they appear as character witnesses in her trial.
UMMC Ekaterinburg teammate Evgeniya Belyakova and Maxim Ryabkov, the team's general manager, appear during a brief afternoon court session while Griner sat in the defendants' cage not far away. Their appearance is believed to be the first in-person contact Griner has had with anyone she knows -- other than the Russian attorneys hired for her case -- since she was arrested Feb. 17.
July 15: Lawyer argues Griner allowed to use marijuana for pain
The White House announces that President Biden is signing an executive order to hold anyone involved in the wrongful detainment of an American citizen accountable. It is meant to create a deterrence for foreign governments.
play
2:33
Nneka Ogwumike, Stephen Curry and Skylar Diggins-Smith all deliver a powerful message advocating for the freedom of Brittney Griner.
July 20: Curry, Diggins-Smith, Ogwumike advocate for Griner's release at ESPYS
While honoring the WNBA for being recognized as the sports humanitarian league of the year, Nneka Ogwumike, Steph Curry and Skylar Diggins-Smith paused to encourage the sports community to continue to work to free Griner.
"BG is a WNBA champion. She's an eight-time WNBA All-Star. A national champion in college. An Olympic gold medalist," Ogwumike said. "(She's an) Athlete who has fans all over the world. A human being whose predicament demands our attention."
Added Curry: "We urge the entire global sports community to continue to stay energized on her behalf, because Brittney isn't just on the Phoenix Mercury. She isn't just on her team in Russia. She isn't just an Olympian. She's one of us."
July 27: U.S. makes 'significant' offer for prisoner swap
T.J. Quinn outlines the Biden administration's offer to Russia to bring home WNBA star Brittney Griner and another jailed American, Paul Whelan.
July 28: Russia responds: Negotiations should be kept quiet
Russian officials say that any possible prisoner swap with the United States involving Griner should be conducted without fanfare, and only after the completion of Griner's trial.
"Normally, the public learns about it when the agreements are already implemented," Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.
Aug. 2: WNBA players will skip playing in Russia this offseason
Former UMMC Ekaterinburg players such as Jonquel Jones and Breanna Stewart will not play in Russia this WNBA offseason.
Aug. 4: Griner found guilty, sentenced to nine years
Griner is sentenced to nine years in prison. During sentencing, Judge Anna Sotnikova says she had found that Griner intentionally broke the law and also fined her 1 million rubles (about $16,700). The conclusion of the trial is expected to allow negotiations for a prisoner swap to accelerate.
The nine-year sentence was close to the maximum of 10 years that Griner had faced under the charges; prosecutors had asked for a 9½-year sentence.
Griner's defense attorneys say they will appeal.
That same night in the WNBA, members of the Phoenix Mercury and Connecticut Sun stand arm-in-arm in a circle at halfcourt prior to their game to observe "a 42-second moment of solidarity" for Griner.
Aug. 15: Griner's defense team appeals conviction
In an expected move, Griner's lawyers Maria Blagovolina and Alexander Boykov file an appeal of her nine-year Russian prison sentence for drugs possession. After Griner's conviction, Blagovolina and Boykov said the sentence was excessive and that in similar cases, defendants have received an average sentence of about five years, with about a third of them granted parole.
Sept. 16: President Biden meets with Cherelle Griner at White House
President Joe Biden meets with Cherelle Griner and Elizabeth Whelan -- sister of detained former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan -- in separate meetings in the Oval Office to reassure the families that the detainees "are at front of mind," White House officials say.
Oct. 6: Griner at 'weakest moment' in Russia, wife says
Appearing on "CBS Mornings," Cherelle Griner says Brittney Griner is at her "absolute weakest moment in life right now" ahead of her hearing to appeal her nine-year prison sentence.
"She's very afraid about being left and forgotten in Russia," Cherelle Griner said.
Oct. 25: Russian court rejects Griner's appeal of nine-year sentence
With Griner appearing via videoconference, a Moscow court rejects her appeal of her nine-year sentence on drug charges, an anticipated result in a trial that U.S. and international officials have called an illegitimate proceeding.
Several officials have said in recent weeks that they believe Russia will not engage seriously in negotiations for a prisoner exchange until after the U.S. midterm elections Nov. 8, not wanting to give the Biden administration a political victory.
T.J. Quinn, M.A. Voepel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Nothing’s second attempt at wireless headphones come in a carry case that tries to combine a cosmetics packaging aesthetic with the glossy white, transparent style of its other devices so far. The Ear Stick, priced at $99, works best with the company’s phone (of course) but will happily work with any Android device or iPhone. The Nothing Ear 1 buds were eye-catching and surprisingly capable true wireless earbuds that offered tech like active noise cancellation (ANC) at a competitive price – although that’s since gone up.
While the Nothing Ear Stick is cheaper than its predecessor, these buds lack ANC. There are no silicone buds this time around, so you can expect more noise bleed-through, too, although some headphone wearers may find them a more comfortable fit. Nothing says it tested the new headphones with 100 pairs of ears. But I prefer silicone buds, so I’m looking forward to trying the Stick and forming my own opinion. The buds are still, thankfully, IP54 dust-, water- and sweat-resistant. One of the drawbacks of Nothing’s Ear 1 was occasionally patchy connectivity, both when pairing with your device and talking on calls. With the Ear Stick, the company has redesigned the antenna and shifted it further away from the face to reduce signal blockage.
Nothing
The company has also worked to improve sound quality, both listening and speaking. For the latter, there are now three high-definition mics (up from two mics on the Ear 1) that work with algorithms to filter out louder background noises and what it says is “wind-proof and crowd-proof.” Regarding audio quality, there’s a new 12.6mm custom dynamic driver inside each bud. A new feature called Bass Lock Technology will detect how much bass is lost during wear and adjust the equalizer automatically. You can also tweak the equalizer settings (with presets for different kinds of audio) from a new companion app. There are gesture controls on each headphone's tips, which can also be reassigned in the app.
Nothing says the Stick will offer up to seven hours of playback between charges, with 29 hours of total playback with the case. In a pinch, 10 minutes in the case should offer up to two hours of playback.
If you already own the see-thru Nothing Phone 1, many of these settings and features are already baked into the device, accessible by a widget in the Android phone’s drop-down menu. For other devices, a new Nothing X app will act as a settings hub for all of the company’s peripherals. The Ear stick will go on sale at 5:30 AM ET, on November 4th, directly from Nothing’s online store and other retailers, including Farfetch.
All products recommended by Engadget are selected by our editorial team, independent of our parent company. Some of our stories include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, we may earn an affiliate commission. All prices are correct at the time of publishing.
NEW YORK (AP) — A lawyer for a Colorado man accused of cheating donors to a $25 million fund to build a wall along the southern U.S. border told jurors on Tuesday that they should question why his client’s fraud trial is being held in New York, tapping into a theme that may have contributed to an earlier trial ending with a deadlocked jury.
During his opening statement, attorney John Meringolo, defending Timothy Shea, also spoke dismissively of Steve Bannon, the former top adviser to then-President Donald Trump who was charged in the case before Trump pardoned him as he left office last year.
“Is there a venue in this case?” Meringolo asked Manhattan federal court jurors as he told them to pay attention to where trial witnesses are from and where events described in the indictment occurred. He suggested that an adverse determination on venue might be enough to acquit his client.
Meringolo hit notes that were likely to appeal to any jurors who might think along the lines of a juror at Shea’s first trial in the spring who so upset his fellow jurors that they wrote a note to the judge saying he had branded them all as liberals and complained that the trial should have occurred in a southern state.
Days later, the hopelessly deadlocked jury caused a mistrial.
Last month, Judge Analisa Torres rejected Shea’s request to move the trial to Colorado because of “political polarization” in New York and pretrial publicity. The judge wrote that the Castle Rock, Colorado, man had failed to show why “political polarization” would be less in his home state or anywhere else.
Shea, who owns an energy drink company, Winning Energy, sat with his hands folded during opening statements. His company’s cans have featured a cartoon superhero image of Trump and claim to contain “12 oz. of liberal tears.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Derek Wikstrom said during his opening that hundreds of thousands of people nationwide made donations, many of them small, in response to the online “We Build The Wall” fundraiser that went viral.
The prosecutor pointed at the defendant as he said: “This man, Timothy Shea, used the money to line his own pockets.”
Wikstrom said Shea helped himself and others steal hundreds of thousands of dollars even though the fundraiser promised that “not one cent” of the money would go to salaries for the campaign’s organizers because all of it was going toward the wall. Only a few miles of wall were built.
“This case is not about whether you think there should be a wall,” he said. “Whether you are for or against a border wall, no one should be a victim of a fraud.”
Wikstrom’s stick-to-the-facts approach was followed by Meringolo, who portrayed the fundraising quest in patriotic terms, saying organizers wanted to give the money to Trump but the government said it could not accept privately raised money.
He described Shea’s onetime codefendant and business partner in the fundraiser, Brian Kolfage, as “a veteran and a hero.”
“The guy has no legs and no arm,” Meringolo said of the triple amputee.
Shea is the only one of the three people who were charged in the case to stand trial. Kolfage pleaded guilty to charges and Bannon was pardoned before he stood trial on federal charges.
Meringolo told jurors that any money Shea received was earned through his work to secure land, meet with homeowners along the border and engage with others through social media, along with expenses for security for the project.
He said there was “no evidence Bannon did security work.”
Bannon, 68, last month pleaded not guilty to New York state charges alleging that he cheated investors to the “We Build The Wall” campaign. Presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes.
Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
In three separate cases in the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Eastern District of New York and the District of New Jersey, the Justice Department has charged 13 individuals, including members of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) security and intelligence apparatus and their agents, for alleged efforts to unlawfully exert influence in the United States for the benefit of the government of the PRC.
In the Eastern District of New York, an eight-count indictment was unsealed on Oct. 20 charging seven PRC nationals – two of whom were arrested on Oct. 20 in New York – with participating in a scheme to cause the forced repatriation of a PRC national residing in the United States. The defendants are accused of conducting surveillance of and engaging in a campaign to harass and coerce a U.S. resident to return to the PRC as part of an international extralegal repatriation effort known as “Operation Fox Hunt.”
A criminal complaint was unsealed today in federal court in Brooklyn charging two People’s PRC intelligence officers with attempting to obstruct a criminal prosecution in the Eastern District of New York. The defendants remain at large.
In the District of New Jersey, an indictment was unsealed today charging four Chinese nationals, including three Ministry of State Security (MSS) intelligence officers, in connection with a long-running intelligence campaign targeting individuals in the United States to act as agents of the PRC.
“As these cases demonstrate, the government of China sought to interfere with the rights and freedoms of individuals in the United States and to undermine our judicial system that protects those rights. They did not succeed,” said U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The Justice Department will not tolerate attempts by any foreign power to undermine the Rule of Law upon which our democracy is based. We will continue to fiercely protect the rights guaranteed to everyone in our country. And we will defend the integrity of our institutions.”
“The actions announced today take place against a backdrop of malign activity from the government of the People’s Republic of China that includes espionage, attempts to disrupt our justice system, harassment of individuals, and ongoing efforts to steal sensitive U.S. technology,” said Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco. “The men and women of the Department of Justice will continue to defend the United States, our institutions, and our people from foreign threats that violate the law — no matter what form they take.”
“These indictments of PRC intelligence officers and government officials – for trying to obstruct a U.S. trial of a Chinese company, masquerading as university professors to steal sensitive information, and trying to strong-arm a victim into returning to China – again expose the PRC’s outrageous behavior within our own borders,” said FBI Director Christopher Wray. “The FBI, working with our partners and allies, will continue to throw the full weight of our counterintelligence and law enforcement authorities into stopping the Chinese government’s crimes against our businesses, universities, and Chinese-American communities.”
“These cases highlight the threat the PRC government poses to our institutions and the rights of people in the United States,” said Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “We will not tolerate these brazen operations: the harassment and attempted repatriation by force of individuals living in the U.S.; the effort to corrupt our judicial system; and the attempt to recruit agents for the PRC under the cover of a front academic organization. Countering such threats is a cornerstone of the mission of the National Security Division.”
United States v. Quanzhong An, et al., Eastern District of New York
An eight-count indictment was unsealed on Oct. 20 in Brooklyn charging a total of seven nationals of the PRC – Quanzhong An, 55, of Roslyn, New York; Guangyang An, 34, of Roslyn, New York; Tian Peng, 38, of the PRC; Chenghua Chen of the PRC; Chunde Ming of the PRC; Xuexin Hou, 52, of the PRC; and Weidong Yuan, 55, of the PRC – with participating in a scheme to cause the forced repatriation of a PRC national residing in the United States. The lead defendant, Quanzhong An, allegedly acted at the direction and under the control of various officials with the PRC’s government’s Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection (Provincial Commission) – including Peng, Chen, Ming, and Hou – to conduct surveillance of and engage in a campaign to harass and coerce a U.S. resident to return to the PRC as part of an international extralegal repatriation effort known as “Operation Fox Hunt.”
Quanzhong An and Guangyang An were arrested on Thursday and were arraigned that afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. The remaining defendants remain at large.
“As alleged, the defendants engaged in a unilateral and uncoordinated law enforcement action on U.S. soil on behalf of the government of the People’s Republic of China, in an effort to cause the forced repatriation of a U.S. resident to China,” said U.S. Attorney Breon Peace for the Eastern District of New York. “The United States will firmly counter such outrageous violations of national sovereignty and prosecute individuals who act as illegal agents of foreign states.”
As alleged in the indictment, the defendants participated in an international campaign to threaten and intimidate John Doe-1, a resident of United States, and his family to force John Doe-1 to return to the PRC. These efforts were part of “Operation Fox Hunt,” an initiative by the PRC’s Ministry of Public Security to locate and repatriate alleged fugitives who flee to foreign countries, including the United States. The PRC government has targeted these alleged fugitives and their families to compel cooperation with the PRC government and self-repatriation to the PRC. The PRC government has taken such law enforcement actions on U.S. soil in a unilateral manner without approval, of or coordination with the U.S. government.
Quanzhong An, who is a businessman operating in Queens, New York, and the majority shareholder of a hotel in Flushing, acted as the primary U.S.-based liaison for the Provincial Commission’s targeting of John Doe-1 and his family members, including his son, John Doe-2, both in the United States and in the PRC. As part of the scheme, various PRC-based conspirators forced a relative in the PRC (John Doe-3) to travel from the PRC to the United States in September 2018 to meet with John Doe-2 and convey threats that were intended to coerce John Doe-1’s return to the PRC. Yuan – John Doe-3’s superior at the PRC’s State Administration of Taxation – escorted John Doe-3 from the PRC to the United States, under the guise of a visit with a tour group.
PRC-based defendants and coconspirators also engaged in a pattern of harassment targeting John Doe-1’s family members. In November 2017, Hou wrote John Doe-2 warning him that “coming back and turning yourself in is the only way out.” Hou further threatened that “avoidance and wishful thinking will only result in severe legal punishments.” The PRC government also harassed John Doe-1 and John Doe-2 through the filing of a lawsuit in New York State court, alleging that John Doe-1 had stolen funds from his former PRC based employer and that John Doe-2 had knowledge of and benefitted from his father’s scheme.
In a series of recorded meetings in 2020, 2021, and 2022, Quanzhong An repeatedly met with John Doe-2 and attempted to persuade John Doe-2 to cause the return of John Doe-1 to the PRC. In these meetings, Quanzhong An acknowledged that he is a member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), which enforces the rules and regulations of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) abroad. At various times, he attributed his instructions to Chen, Ming, and Peng and acknowledged that the Fox Hunt operation was motivated by the PRC government’s need to “save their faces” and repatriate as many fugitives as possible.
Quanzhong An admitted that he was acting as an agent of the Provincial Commission to increase his standing in the PRC. During his meetings with John Doe-2, Quanzhong An repeatedly transmitted threats on behalf of the PRC government. If John Doe-1 did not return, the PRC government would “keep pestering you, [and] make your daily life uncomfortable,” in addition to actions to “target and monitor” John Doe-1’s relatives in the PRC. On another occasion, he stated that “they will definitely find new ways to bother you” and “it is definitely true that all of your relatives will be involved.”
As set forth in the detention memorandum, Quanzhong An met with John Doe-2 again on Sept. 29, 2022. During this meeting, Quanzhong An pressed for John Doe-1 to execute an agreement to return to the PRC in advance of the CCP’s 20th National Congress, which began on Oct. 16, 2022. As part of such agreement, Quanzhong An sought a written confession from John Doe-1, which would be submitted directly to the PRC government.
The charges in the indictment are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. If convicted of acting as agents of the PRC, Quanzhong An faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The money laundering conspiracy charge against Quanzhong An and Guangyang An carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The remaining charges, including conspiring to act as agents of the PRC and conspiring to commit interstate and international stalking, carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alexander A. Solomon, Sara K. Winik, and Antoinette N. Rangel and Trial Attorney Scott A. Claffee of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Morris of the Office’s Asset Recovery Section is handling forfeiture matters.
United States v. Dong He, et al., Eastern District of New York
A criminal complaint was unsealed today in federal court in Brooklyn charging two People’s Republic of China (PRC) intelligence officers with attempting to obstruct a criminal prosecution in the Eastern District of New York. The defendants remain at large.
According to court documents, Dong He, aka Guochun He and aka Jacky He, and Zheng Wang, aka Zen Wang, allegedly orchestrated a scheme to steal files and other information from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York related to the ongoing federal criminal investigation and prosecution of a global telecommunications company (Company-1) based in the PRC, including by paying a $41,000 Bitcoin bribe to a U.S. government employee who the defendants believed had been recruited to work for the PRC, but who in fact was a double agent working on behalf of the FBI.
“Today’s complaint underscores the unrelenting efforts of the PRC government to undermine the rule of law,” said U.S. Attorney Breon Peace for the Eastern District of New York. “As alleged, the case involves an effort by PRC intelligence officers to obstruct an ongoing criminal prosecution by making bribes to obtain files from this Office and sharing them with a global telecommunications company that is a charged defendant in an ongoing prosecution. We will always act decisively to counteract criminal acts that target our system of justice.”
Dong He and Zheng Wang are charged with attempting to obstruct a criminal prosecution of Company-1 in federal district court in the Eastern District of New York. Defendant He also is charged with money laundering based upon a bribe payment of $41,000 in Bitcoin made in furtherance of the scheme.
According to the complaint, the defendants are PRC intelligence officers conducting foreign intelligence operations targeting the United States, on behalf of the PRC government and for the benefit of Company-1. Starting in 2019, they directed an employee at a U.S. government law enforcement agency (GE-1), whom they believed they had recruited as an asset, to steal confidential information about the criminal prosecution of Company-1 in order to interfere with that prosecution. In actuality, GE-1 was working as a double agent on behalf of the FBI.
In September 2021, the defendants tasked GE-1 with reporting about meetings that GE-1 was purportedly having with prosecutors in Brooklyn at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. In written communications, the defendants said they were particularly interested in knowing which Company-1 employees had been interviewed by the government and in obtaining a description of the prosecutors’ evidence, witness list and trial strategy.
In October 2021, GE-1 used an encrypted messaging program to send the defendants a single page from a purported internal strategy memorandum from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York regarding the Company-1 case. The document appeared to be classified as “SECRET” and to discuss a plan to charge and arrest two current Company-1 employees living in the PRC. Dong He responded that the document was “exactly what I am waiting for” and that he was “waiting for the feedback from some guys” about whether there were any questions about the document. Dong He then paid GE-1 approximately $41,000 in Bitcoin for stealing that document.
GE-1 also asked the defendants for any feedback about the “SECRET” document. In November 2021, Dong He stated that “[Company-1] didn’t give me specifically feedback now yet, but they are obviously interested in it, and my boss and they need further information.” Dong He further told GE-1 that “[Company-1] obviously will be interested” in GE-1 stealing another part of the strategy memorandum, and “maybe will offer more” for that information. In December 2021, in response to a further request by GE-1 for feedback or guidance from Company-1 about “what they want me to get,” Dong He explained that “they didn’t give me any positive feedback yet and demanded to communicate with you directly.” Dong He said that he refused Company-1’s request to speak directly to GE-1 because “it’s too dangerous.”
The charges in the complaint are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. If convicted, Dong He faces up to 40 years of imprisonment and Wang faces up to 20 years of imprisonment.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alexander A. Solomon and Meredith A. Arfa and Trial Attorney Scott A. Claffee of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.
United States v. Wang Lin et al., District of New Jersey
A federal indictment was unsealed today charging four Chinese nationals, including three Ministry of State Security (MSS) intelligence officers, in connection with a long-running intelligence campaign targeting individuals in the United States to act as agents of the PRC.
As alleged in the indictment, from at least 2008 to 2018, Wang Lin, 59; Bi Hongwei, age unknown; Dong Ting, aka Chelsea Dong, 40; Wang Qiang, 55, and others engaged in a wide-ranging and systematic effort to target and recruit individuals to act on behalf of the PRC in the United States with requests to provide information, materials, equipment, and assistance to the Chinese government in ways that would further China’s intelligence objectives. These recruitment efforts included targeting professors at universities, a former federal law enforcement and state homeland security official, and others to act on behalf of, and as agents of, the Chinese government.
As part of the conspiracy, MSS intelligence officers Wang Lin, Dong Ting, and others used a purported academic institute at Ocean University of China – referred to as the Institute for International Studies (IIS) – as cover for their clandestine intelligence activities. Acting under cover as the purported director of the IIS, Wang Lin, in coordination with other MSS operatives operating under the guise of academics at the IIS, targeted professors at American universities and others in the United States with access to sensitive information and equipment.
According to the indictment unsealed today, MSS intelligence officers Wang Lin, Bi, Dong, and others, acting for and on behalf of the MSS and the Chinese government, systematically targeted United States persons, including but not limited to a coconspirator who was a resident of the state of New Jersey and a second individual who was a former federal law enforcement officer and state homeland security official and a professor at an American university.
Among other things, the conspiracy targeted the second individual by inviting the individual in 2008 and 2018 on all-expenses-paid trips to China sponsored by the IIS. During those trips, Wang Lin, Dong, and others sought to recruit this individual as a human source, requesting that the individual provide sensitive fingerprint technology, information, and assistance with stopping planned protests along the 2008 Olympic Games torch route in the United States, which the conspirators expressed would be “embarrassing” to China. The individual also was requested to sign a contract for purported consulting services with a Chinese company whose “core value” was the “national interest and national security” of China, with an objective to “protect the national interest and Chinese enterprises’ overseas interest[s]” and to “build sources and channels to collect security information.” Recognizing Wang Lin, Dong, and others as Chinese intelligence officers, the individual refused these requests and reported them to law enforcement.
The conspiracy also targeted the coconspirator in New Jersey by tasking the coconspirator to take specific action in the United States in furtherance of the MSS’ intelligence objective. Wang Qiang coordinated a meeting in 2016 between the coconspirator, Wang Lin, and Bi Hongwei in the Bahamas, at which time MSS intelligence officers Wang Lin and Bi directed the coconspirator to obtain U.S. currency and provide it to a designated individual in New Jersey. The coconspirator returned to New Jersey and did as Wang Lin and BI instructed. Wang Qiang then visited the coconspirator in New Jersey, at which time Wang Qiang and the coconspirator discussed in detail their and others’ activities taken on behalf of the Chinese government in the United States.
Lin, Bi, Dong and Qiang, all are nationals and residents of the People’s Republic of China. They each are charged in the indictment with conspiracy to act in the United States as agents of a foreign government, namely, the People’s Republic of China, without prior notification to the Attorney General of the United States, as required by law, and to direct such unlawful action by others in the United States. The conspiracy charge carries a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of five years and a maximum fine of $250,000.
U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge James E. Dennehy in Newark, with the investigation leading to the charges.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys J. Brendan Day, Attorney in Charge of the Trenton Branch Office, and Joyce M. Malliet, Chief of the Office’s National Security Unit.
The charges in the indictment are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Article From & Read More ( Two Arrested and 13 Charged in Three Separate Cases for Alleged Participation in Malign Schemes in the United States on Behalf of the Government of the People's Republic of China - Department of Justice )
https://ift.tt/gZRMfIX
Case
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/ZPGO73L24VBPHJ3IYP5WDVDARM.jpg)
