Tag Archives: NRLPA:OCIV

Prince Andrew ‘unequivocally’ denies Giuffre’s sexual abuse claims, seeks to end lawsuit

NEW YORK, Oct 29 (Reuters) – Britain’s Prince Andrew on Friday rejected Virginia Giuffre’s accusations that he sexually abused her more than two decades ago when she was 17, and urged a U.S. judge to dismiss her civil lawsuit.

In filings with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the Duke of York called Giuffre’s “baseless” lawsuit an effort to “achieve another payday” from her accusations against the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and his associates.

Andrew, 61, who is Queen Elizabeth’s second son, also said he was released from liability under a 2009 settlement agreement between Giuffre and Epstein, a registered sex offender.

He said that agreement covered “royalty,” among others, and that Epstein had insisted it cover “any and all persons” who Giuffre might sue.

“Virginia Giuffre may well be a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, and nothing can excuse, nor fully capture, the abhorrence and gravity of Epstein’s monstrous behavior against Giuffre, if so,” Andrew’s lawyers wrote.

“However, and without diminishing the harm suffered as a result of Epstein’s alleged misconduct, Prince Andrew never sexually abused or assaulted Giuffre,” they added. “He unequivocally denies Giuffre’s false allegations against him.”

David Boies, a lawyer for Giuffre, said in a statement that Andrew’s bid to dismiss the lawsuit “fails to confront the serious allegations” it contained.

He also said the settlement agreement “on its face” applies “at most” to people involved in underlying litigation in Florida, thereby excluding the prince.

“Prince Andrew’s attempt now to use the 2009 release as a get out of jail free card shows how desperate he is to dodge and duck the facts of what he did,” Boies said.

Epstein killed himself at age 66 in a Manhattan jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

Giuffre, 38, sued Andrew for unspecified damages in August, accusing him of forcing her to have sex at the London home of Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime Epstein associate.

She also accused Andrew of abusing her at Epstein’s mansion in Manhattan, and on one of Epstein’s private islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

In Friday’s filings, Andrew’s lawyers said Giuffre had already “purportedly received millions of dollars” from settling a 2015 defamation lawsuit against Maxwell, where according to court papers she had sought $50 million.

The lawyers said they would also challenge a 2019 New York law that gave survivors of childhood sexual abuse a now-closed two-year window to sue their alleged abusers over conduct occurring many years or decades earlier.

That law allowed Giuffre to pursue her case, but according to the lawyers deprived the prince of his due process rights under New York’s state constitution.

The office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, the state’s top law enforcer, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Andrew has not been charged with crimes.

He gave up many royal duties and lost support from charities and organizations after a disastrous November 2019 BBC interview in which he did not appear sympathetic toward Epstein’s victims.

The next hearing in Giuffre’s lawsuit is set for Nov. 3.

Giuffre was sued separately for $20 million on Thursday for allegedly defaming on Twitter an artist who has said she brought women to Epstein but denied being a recruiter.

The artist, Rina Oh Amen, sued over tweets including that she “procured & partook in the abuse of minors.” Amen called the tweets “maliciously false,” and said Epstein also abused her.

Maxwell, 59, has pleaded not guilty to sex trafficking and other charges for allegedly helping recruit and groom underage girls for Epstein to abuse between 1994 and 2004. Her trial in Manhattan begins on Nov. 29.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler and Daniel Wallis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

U.S. House holds Trump ally Steve Bannon in criminal contempt

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon exits the Manhattan Federal Court, following his arraignment hearing for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S. August 20, 2020. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

WASHINGTON, Oct 21 (Reuters) – Longtime Donald Trump ally Steve Bannon could face criminal prosecution for refusing to cooperate with a probe into the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol after the House of Representatives voted Thursday to hold him in contempt of Congress.

The Democratic-led chamber voted 229 to 202 with nine Republicans joining Democrats to recommend the charges against Bannon, who served as an aide to the former Republican president.

The matter will now be referred to the U.S. Justice Department, where Attorney General Merrick Garland will make the final decision on whether to prosecute.

Bannon has refused to comply with subpoenas from the Jan. 6 Select Committee seeking documents and his testimony, citing Trump’s insistence – disputed by some legal scholars – that his communications are protected by the legal doctrine of executive privilege.

“What sort of precedent would it set for the House of Representatives if we allow a witness to ignore us?” Democrat Bennie Thompson, chairman of the Select Committee, said in debate before the vote.

The select committee voted unanimously on Tuesday in favor of the charges.

THREAT OF JAIL TIME

The Democratic-led panel hopes the threat of jail time – contempt of Congress carries a penalty of up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine – encourages cooperation from the 18 other Trump aides and rally organizers who also have been subpoenaed.

Garland has yet to indicate how the department will respond. He told a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday the department would “apply the facts” and make decisions “consistent with the principles of prosecution.”

Most of Trump’s fellow Republicans in Congress opposed even creating either an independent commission or a select committee to investigate the events surrounding Jan. 6. That day thousands of Trump supporters descended on the Capitol after he urged them in a fiery speech to protest his defeat by Democrat Joe Biden in a November 2020 election that Trump falsely claims was stolen.

Only two Republicans – Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – are on the nine-member select committee.

The contempt of Congress statute, passed in 1857, states that the Justice Department has a duty to bring a House contempt citation before a grand jury.

But the Justice Department historically has said it makes the ultimate decision about whether to prosecute individuals who defy congressional subpoenas. The last successful prosecution for contempt of Congress was in 1974 when a judge found Watergate conspirator G. Gordon Liddy guilty.

Asked about the vote at his weekly news conference on Thursday, Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, said the subpoena for Bannon to testify was “invalid,” making the same executive privilege argument Bannon did.

Four people died on the day of the assault, and one Capitol police officer died the next day of injuries sustained in defense of the seat of government. Hundreds of police officers were injured and four have since taken their own lives.

PREDICTED ‘EXTREME EVENTS’

The select committee argued that Bannon had made statements suggesting he knew ahead of time about “extreme events” that would take place on Jan. 6, when Congress was scheduled to certify Biden as the winner of the presidential election.

Bannon said on a Jan. 5 podcast that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.” The next day, mobs of Trump supporters, many chanting “Stop the Steal” and “Hang Mike Pence,” attacked the Capitol as Vice President Pence and lawmakers met to certify the election.

The assault forced the lawmakers, congressional staff and journalists to flee as crowds rampaged through the building, raiding offices, smashing windows and stealing computers and other equipment.

The vote certification was delayed for several hours, but went ahead – despite votes against it by nearly 147 Republican members of Congress.

Trump has continued to insist falsely that his defeat was the result of fraud. Multiple courts, state election officials and members of Trump’s own administration have rejected that claim.

Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Jan Wolfe; Editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Apple worker says she was fired after leading movement against harassment

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 15 (Reuters) – An Apple employee who led fellow workers in publicly sharing instances of what they called harassment and discrimination at the company said on Thursday that she had been fired.

Janneke Parrish, an Apple program manager, said the iPhone maker informed her on Thursday that she had been terminated for deleting material on company equipment while she was under investigation over the leaking of a company town hall to media. She told Reuters she denies leaking.

Parrish said she deleted apps that contained details of her finances and other personal information before handing her devices in to Apple as part of the probe.

Parrish said she believes she was fired for her activism in the workplace.

“To me, this seems clearly retaliatory for the fact that I was speaking out about abuses that have happened at my employer, pay equity and, generally, about our workplace conditions,” she said.

Apple said Friday it does not discuss specific employee matters.

Apple has recently experienced other examples of employee unrest. Last month, two Apple employees told Reuters they had filed charges against the company with the National Labor Relations Board. The workers accused Apple of retaliation and halting discussion of pay among employees, among other allegations.

Apple has said that it is “deeply committed to creating and maintaining a positive and inclusive workplace” and that it takes “all concerns” from employees seriously.

U.S. law protects the right of employees to openly discuss certain topics, including working conditions, discrimination and equal pay.

Over the summer, current and former Apple employees began detailing on social media what they said were experiences of harassment and discrimination. Parrish and some colleagues began publishing the stories on social media and a publishing platform in a weekly digest titled ‘#AppleToo.’

Parrish said she was careful to respect company rules and never shared information that she believed to be confidential. She said she continued to publish the ‘#AppleToo’ digest after coming under investigation at the end of September.

“If anything, it’s made the importance of that work clearer than ever, when Apple’s response to criticism is to start internal investigations into those that it wants to see gone,” she said. “It’s easier for them to terminate people than it is for them to actually listen.”

Reporting by Julia Love; editing by Peter Henderson and Rosalba O’Brien

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here