17 Burst results for "June Grosjean"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Voted now. Really a speaker has been upheld. Zephyrus suing, alleging a violation of her First Amendment rights, as well as the rights of her 11,000 constituents to representation, and she's asking a court to allow her to return to the floor. Given the fact that the Republicans used sort of an unequal and undemocratic application of decorum to silence me and the constituents who elected me in the legislature, I'm not surprised that they doubled down on that effort. When my constituents showed up and demanded that their representatives voice be heard, joining me is Robert peck, the president of the center for constitutional litigation. Robert give us the background of why she was ousted. The Montana House of Representatives claimed that she had violated their rules of decorum by protesting against a bill under consideration. That would have banned gender affirming care and she pointed out that this would lead to an increase in suicides in that she accused them of basically a state pass as they would have blood on their hands. And that language apparently so upset them that they thought that this was terrible and in addition, the following day because they stopped calling on her so that she couldn't speak. They had the galleries crowded with Zoe's efforts supporters and they were chanting let her speak with her speak and she held a microphone that was actually turned on over her head as if she was going to enhance the sound of those protests and they thought that amounted to insurrection. They required a two thirds majority to pass it was on partisan lines because Republicans control two thirds of the House and Senate in Montana. What was the censure? What is she not able to do What is she able to do? So she is banished from being in the House chambers during any legislative debate or during any action of the house takes. And she is also silenced so that she is not allowed to speak or participate in that debate. But thinking that this would keep them on the right side of the constitutional line, they allow her to vote remotely and so she is set up herself with a laptop just outside of the chambers where she follows it on her laptop and she votes when it's appropriate to vote. So she's suing and part of the suit includes First Amendment retaliation. It may be indicative of our times that it's the same claim at the center of Disney's new lawsuit against governor Ron DeSantis for retaliating against it for criticizing the don't say gay legislation. So tell us about that cause of action. So a case of First Amendment retaliation is essentially when you are punished for exercising your free speech rights. So in this instance, because she basically voiced her opposition to the then pending legislation that subsequently passed and was signed by the governor, they vanished her. And the excuse of decorum doesn't apply because, of course, she was participating in the legislative debate. They simply did not like the way she phrased it or what she said. Even democratic minority leader Kim Abbott appeared to concede that the removal of Zoe zephyr was within the house's authority. She said on the House floor, you absolutely can do this by rule by the constitution, but just because you can do it does not make it the right choice. So doesn't seem like she has that much support within the house even from her own members. That may be the case, but the statement that her democratic leader made was wrong as a matter of constitutional law. And we have seen this repeatedly throughout time. So in the 1960s, Julian Bond was newly elected to the Georgia legislature. But just before he was subject to being sworn in, key criticized the Vietnam War and basically said that the United States didn't belong in it. He responded in a way that supported those that the Georgia legislature did not like. And so they considered him unpatriotic for that statement and refused to let him take his office. He sued it went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which in 1966 said he had to be restored to his state that indeed one of the greatest purposes of the First Amendment is to make sure that those who want to criticize and discuss government even in harsh terms get the opportunity to do so. Do you think that this Supreme Court would come to a similar ruling? If it happened to me. I think even the Supreme Court, which is not exactly friendly to transgender rights, would find this to be a violation of the constitution now. She sued in state court, but this court has been very, very solicitous of First Amendment rights. And here we have an addition to those pre speech rights that she exercised and provision in the Montana constitution that protects legislators during legislative debate that they can't be sent for what they say in the course of legislative debate. The spokesperson for Montana attorney general, Austin newson, who will defend the case, said the lawsuit was performance litigation, political activism masquerading as a lawsuit and she added that a court decision blocking the legislature center of zephyr would violate the separation of powers between branches of government. And, you know, that's simply rhetoric that holds no weight as a matter of law. The fact is, as I indicated, the Montana constitution protects legislative debate. And if a overwhelming majority of the legislature, even everyone but one person, once the silence somebody, they don't have the right under the Montana constitution or the federal constitution to do so. And when they violate the constitution, it is the courts that you have to turn to to correct that. And the legislature is subject to the constitution. It's not above it. She's asking for emergency relief because Montana's legislature is part time. It only works for 90 days in odd numbered years and the current session is scheduled to end this Friday, so this could become moot. Would this become mood if the court doesn't act before Friday. It's has the potential to be moved, but then it also has the potential to reoccur. And so that might give the courts in Montana authority to still hear the case. But she's asked for a temporary restraining order. So those can be issued very quickly. And it's possible for her to continue to participate in the one debate that they still have before Friday session ends. And that's over the budget. She represents 11,000 constituents. And some residents of the Missoula area, which she represents, said in declarations, filed as part of the lawsuit that they wanted zeff for heard in the legislature. How do their rights play into this? Well, when you vote for a representative, you're voting for someone who's going to do more than just vote. Take, for example, the budget issue that they're still facing. Often what happens during budget debates is not only pointing out how this is going to help or adversely affect parts of the state, but there's often horse trading that goes on. You can't basically say, look, all of those for your provision, if you vote for my provision, if you're not on the floor. I mentioned the Disney case, and this situation also echoes the ouster this year of two lawmakers in Tennessee for a protest over gun policy, is this a growing trend in state legislatures, just kicking out the people whose opinion you don't like. Yes, this unfortunately does seem to be a very troubling and growing trend. And what it seems to be is that when you have an overwhelming majority, you basically take the position that might makes right and whatever we can vote on is all that counts and we don't need to hear from people who disagree with us. Coming up next on the Bloomberg law show I'll continue this conversation with Robert peck. Can zephyr prove First Amendment retaliation in her lawsuit. Remember, you can always get the latest legal news by listening to our Bloomberg law podcast wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I'm June Grosjean you're listening to Bloomberg. Bloomberg television
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Let the administrative process play out security clearance gets her Vogue person gets fired. It's something along those lines. Those aren't options, obviously, with someone like a Donald Trump or Joe Biden because in their role as constitutional officers, they're exempt from it. Donald Trump is now no longer even working for the federal government as president. He's a private citizen. So there's no administrative step to take. It's either criminal or nothing. But by and large, with very rare exception, the Justice Department does not prosecute accidental mis handling of classified information. They prosecute if you're looking to sell it. If you're looking to actually use it as more forms of espionage, if you deliberately took documents in your storing them for whatever purpose you want at home, those are reasons they would pursue a criminal prosecution as well as if you obstructed any effort to recover them. Thanks so much, Brad. That's national security expert Brad moss of Mark zaid. Coming up next on the Bloomberg land show, the Supreme Court leaves New York's handgun restrictions in place for now. And later in the show, the FTC is proposing a ban on non compete clauses in employment contracts. I'm June Grosjean you're listening to Bloomberg. Bloomberg radio on demand and in your podcast team. On the latest edition of the balance of power podcast, New Jersey governor Phil Murphy on his plan for tax incentives for remote workers. We have to recognize that not every job is going to be in a physical office. As long as the job is in New Jersey, we want that job. Whether it's I mentioned in my speech, whether it's at an office tower in Newark, where I am now, or in a kitchen table and cherry hill, we want those jobs in Jersey. We want to embrace and recognize the new reality. What kind of tax dollars come with those jobs being in New Jersey versus New York, because I've seen numbers that New York get something like 3.73 $.8 billion a year from New Jersey residents commuting in. What does that mean net to New Jersey in success on your plan? Yeah, I don't know that I've got a specific number for you, but we're not thrilled with that tax dislocation if you will, and that takes it out of the state's coffers. And that's something we're fighting for. But I think more importantly, David, it's embracing the fact that not everybody's going to be in the office 5 days a week, like the old days. It's just not going to be the case. It might be if you're in an industry or a business that requires it like hospitality clearly, but if you're in one of the big companies in our state, let's recognize it's a new reality. Governor Murphy, just about the time that you were giving your state at a state address, your friend, Kathy hochul was giving hers in New York, and she said, no new taxes. We're not going to increase any taxes. Can you make that pledge to New Jersey? Yeah, 100%. In fact, you're going to see significant tax cuts. Get more of this and other
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Popped when an upstart labor union pulled off a stunning upset at an Amazon facility on Staten Island last April. Unions are seeing a resurgence in this country with workers at big name companies like Amazon Starbucks and Apple voting to unionize, management often tries to curb union organizing with illegal tactics, despite a national labor relations board and an administration that's in labor's camp. The middle class, the middle class build America. Everybody knows that. But unions built the middle class. That's a fact. My guest is labor law expert Kate Andreas, a professor at Columbia law school. Kate some pro union employees seem to be trying something a little different. A group of Starbucks employees in South Carolina are suing the company for defamation over its response to a union protest. The employees accuse Starbucks of falsely and maliciously portraying them as criminals after they presented a letter of demands to their store manager and the store manager then filed a police report. A defamation claim in a union organizing effort is certainly unusual and got a lot of attention, including from senator Bernie Sanders. But is it effective legally? Yes, so the allegations in this case are really pretty stunning. The employer apparently accused workers of trying to kidnap and without any evidence, according to at least report. So the workers seem to be seeking to pursue a defamation claim because that gives them more ability to win remedies than perceiving under the national labor relations act because state law concludes greater penalties for violations of defamation law than labor law allows. And I think their argument is that the harm here is one that's more of sort of defamation rather than a labor violation. It's not entirely clear whether the suit will be able to go forward because federal preemption doctrine does require that conduct that is protected by the act or prohibited by the national labor relation act, must be resolved legal issues around that must be resolved in the first instance by the board. Starbucks is a huge company. The union has prevailed at around 250 of the company's 9000 stores. And the unions filed numerous legal complaints with the national labor relations board do those complaints ever bring any kind of resolution? I think what we're seeing with Starbucks is that there's overwhelming interest among workers and organizing unions. Hundreds of Starbucks stores and I think three dozen states have had union elections. And this is really pretty stunning given that a year ago, no Starbucks had a union. And most the vast majority of these have voted to unionize. Nonetheless, what these workers are confronting is the legal regime that really doesn't do a good job at protecting their rights. And so what we see is that the employer has engaged in a pattern of anti union activity and the penalties under the national labor relations act are really pretty minimal. And so I think workers are looking to other tools to try to make sure that their rights aren't violated. Is Starbucks the best example of the pro union movement have the workers there made the most progress? There's a lot of areas where workers are organizing in the last few years. I think we see increased organizing activity in the area of healthcare, university workers, journalists, Trader Joe's, Apple workers, REI, but Starbucks has certainly a pretty dark example of how much interest there is across the country among workers in organizing unions so that they can have a voice at the workplace so that they can address problems of low wages, of not having enough thick time of just the vast range of concerns that workers have. They want to have a voice and how the company addresses those problems. And Starbucks is a good example of the rising interest in unions, particularly among young people. Do you think the rising interest in unions is in part sparked by concerns about health and economic justice that arose during the pandemic or is it as you say more about young workers looking to protect their rights? I think it's a combination of factors. I think for the last few years, it's becoming increasingly clear that the country has a really significant problem with economic inequality. And people who are doing the work that makes things run are not receiving their share of the economic reward from that. And that became particularly clear in the context of the pandemic where we had the workers who were sort of essential and had to keep working. We're actually many of them very low wage workers. They think significant health and safety risk. So I think the pandemic did kind of highlight those problems that already existed in the economy, as well as increasing concerns around health and safety. But then at the same time, we have a generation of young people who are coming into the workforce and recognizing that in order to make their jobs better and to improve conditions that organizing collectively is the best route to do that. So studies show that 71% of Americans now approve of labor unions and the majority would like to have a union if they could, which is the highest since it's been since 1965. Coming up next on the Bloomberg law show I'll continue this conversation with Columbia law school professor Kate Andreas is the Amazon union effort losing steam. I'm June Grosjean you're listening to Bloomberg. Jaime's log progressive, the Harrington's backyard, day four, two 18 a.m.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Latest I'm Julie Ryan This is Bloomberg law with June Grosjean from Bloomberg radio A hundred point Do you know how much that cost us and sponsorship dollars Well with all due respect mister dad I had no idea you'd gotten experimental surgery to have him removed What if what did you say What was that Oh said it was all due respect Look at that That doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want to say to me No no it doesn't mean that You need a convention Look it up That's from the movie Talladega nights the ballad of Ricky Bobby And it's a line 5th circuit judge James Ho referenced in calling out the claims of a dissenting judge who said he was riding with all due respect but then used a quote from Macbeth about the sound and fury of idiots Both pretty mild put downs compared to a recent opinion of 9th circuit judge Lawrence Van Dyke who wrote a concurrence to his own majority opinion dripping in sarcasm about his liberal colleagues These are just the latest examples of the sniping and politics spilling into judicial opinions in the circuit courts Joining me is Ross guberman a legal writing coach who has taught classes for new federal judges for a decade So Ross judge Van Dyke wrote a majority opinion which found that a closure of gun shops due to COVID was a violation of the Second Amendment Then he wrote a concurrence to his own majority opinion in anticipation at the full circuit would reverse his decision How unusual is that So he did something I can't remember seeing before So this is as you said a Second Amendment case The high profile case So he was sort of assuming that the case was going to go on bonk And his concurrence to himself basically tried to write what he thinks the majority will come up with So he wrote an opinion going the opposite way from what he wanted But then what he did is he had all these footnotes and thought bubbles with a very kind of snarky sarcastic tone Essentially claiming that anybody who supports this particular California regulation was just completely making things up and had ulterior motives Almost like to put them on the defensive before they even had a chance to rehear the case Sort of show that you can have a lot of what he would probably say kind of gobbledygook standards and quotations from case law and then take the very strong suggestion that they were slimy for lack of a better word and where we're going to sort of make up the Law & Order to uphold the gun regulation It was dripping in sarcasm I'd say In the past he's accused his colleagues of engaging in mischief and jiu-jitsu compared them to a sullen kid who spits in the cookie jar after being caught red handed What's the point of this do you think to get attention One thing I'd say is he's absolutely not the only judge alive or passed please use any of that rhetoric It's all a question of the degree right And also contacts and substance and points in question As far as he's doing it I mean obviously I can't speak for somebody else but he's a very new judge on the 9th circuit His nomination was controversial I think he's by the ABS aunt and not qualified although many people argued with that conclusion He certainly very smart I mean it's got a great academic credentials but he's a new judge He's in that sort of federalist society for that most of president Trump's judges came from And he sort of signaling we are on to what the liberals see probably call them or Democrats are up to He's taken only bad But he was also you know here we are on discussion has been current in the case that people probably wouldn't be talking about at all He certainly wanting attention maybe the attention of people who might one day nominate him for the Supreme Court It might be that he wants the attention of other judges who are like minded and kind of tell them you know what And I was really purposely snide in sarcastic Maybe you should too So it's probably some combination of all the above I mean I guess we should also take them literally and seriously it may be that just in his mind appalled he thinks that judges are in a bad faith way upholding gun regulations that he would say violate the Second Amendment Maybe he is actually just genuinely really really upset or distraught about it Do you think it hurts the judge's credibility to have opinions that are sarcastic that hurl insults at their colleagues on the bench It's a great question I don't think that happened Really really easy obvious answer So one thing is there's two different ways our sarcastic and opinion The main way tends to be toward the council or the argument kind of implying that an argument was preposterous or ridiculous So I saw it at the lawyers themselves It certainly much rarer although justice Scalia was known to do this from time to time It's rare to take potshots that your colleagues So I would first say that might be different credibility issues depending on which of those universities we're in Is it really just about the lawyers of a cave or is it about judges So in this case we're certainly about judges and it was like a preemptive strike So at this point and I think American legal history a lot of judges are probably just hoping to have credibility with the like minded They're not maybe so much as in the past worried about general credibility I mean there's a lot of tribalism going on in our country as you know I don't think there are view So maybe for his purposes it makes them more credible with people who see the law the way he does and just as I know a lot of judges I'm turning them and I'm friendly with them A lot of people loved it I mean a lot of judges thought it was great Other judges thought it was appalling And they might not be the sarcasm the same way that I might They might say it is warranted and effective Sometimes I really want that ability with This circuit judge James Ho's opinions have also gotten a lot of attention In one opinion that I spoke about at the beginning of the segment he and judge Jacques Weiner were carping at each other Doesn't that affect their relationship on the bench And these judges have to work with each other for years There's no doubt that you're absolutely right I know you're right I hear these things in my work judge Ho is on the 5th circuit that's the circuit is notoriously ten with different factions of judges not being overly fond of other factions Their stories about the pre record justices have intentioned Traditionally.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Former vice president Mike Pence says former president Trump was wrong to try and overturn the 2020 election During an event in Florida on Friday Pence said Trump should have never criticized his decision not to try to overturn the election results More protests are expected across Minneapolis today in response to the police killing of a 22 year old black man Miguel Al mega reports During the chaos it's unclear if 22 year old Amir Locke who was not named on the search warrant and appears to have no criminal history was ever aware it was police who were storming into the apartment before 7 a.m. Wednesday Locke was apparently asleep and was holding a firearm which his family's lawyer says was legally owned when he was shot and killed The coronavirus death toll in the U.S. stands at about 900,000 That's according to Johns Hopkins University The CDC says 212 million Americans are fully vaccinated Meantime 89 million have gotten their booster dose That's the latest I'm Julie Ryan And I'm Susanna Palmer in the Bloomberg news room They are Eric Adams apologized Friday after a 2019 video surfaced showing him using a racial slur for white people when talking about the New York police department The video first reported by the New York Daily News shows Adams whose black speaking at a private event in December 2019 during the early stages of his mayoral run Adams was asked about the video at a news conference Friday and said that he wanted to definitely apologize for his remarks and called them inappropriate Delta Air Lines wants the U.S. government to use a no fly list similar to the secretive database designed to prevent terrorists from boarding airline flights to block unruly passengers from flying We get more about that from Bloomberg's Charlie pellet Delta CEO Ed Bastian requested the measure in a letter to attorney general Merrick Garland to stem a dramatic rise in air rage incidents over the past year Delta and other carriers have individually barred hundreds of people from flying as a result of misbehavior including assaults on flight attendants and others Charlie pellet Bloomberg radio To up weeks in a row for stocks and investors are wondering if the trend can continue after big drops to start the year This even as a blowout U.S. jobs report raises investors expectations that the Federal Reserve may soon start raising interest rates sharply Emily Roland chief investment officer at JH investments says markets may be doing some of the work for the Federal Reserve and chairman J Powell You think about the language that Jay Powell has used the jawbone that's gone on We're almost getting those tighter financial conditions that the fed wants to see in the form of some of the froth being let out of the equity market For the week the S&P 500 rose 1.5% The Dow gained 1% the NASDAQ up 2.4% this week Global news 24 hours a day on air and on Bloomberg quicktake powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries I'm Susanna Palmer This is Bloomberg This is Bloomberg law with June Grosjean from Bloomberg radio Battle tested Leaders One united community Everything we need is in this room We are The commander The Washington football team announced its new name this week It took 18.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June Grosjean from Bloomberg radio I've been talking to Ross guberman a legal writing coach About some recent circuit court opinions that are getting attention because of their sarcasm Judge James Ho has also been it's been noted a lot of his opinions have been talked about In one he was concurring and there was a dissent And it seemed like they were both carping at each other Does that affect their relationships on the bench I mean these judges have to work together for a long time perhaps they have to negotiate to get them on their side I mean there's no doubt about it you're absolutely right I mean I know I know you're right I hear these things In my work you know judge Ho is on the 5th circuit that this circuit is notoriously ten right What's different factions and judges not being overly fond of other factions Their stories I think you can Bloomberg and elsewhere about even the Supreme Court Justices having tension Not all about it right I mean the traditionally there's been a line They won't cross You know I think justice Scalia kind of famously made a crack about justice Kennedy something that burger fell about putting a bag over my head I think since then not that I'm saying it's just as fully as fault in any way shape or form I mean it's just a lot of people try to copy him Since then it's been I think judge has probably a good example of any It's been pretty common to have kind of name calling and a little bit of playground kind of kept fighting on the playground rhetoric one judge and the other I think what you're describing from judge how I mean the 5th circuit that allows splintered attentions where you have one of these I'm concurring in part two B but not the word and now three a so the one thing I know from getting to know a lot of judges is they're just They really are just like the rest of us right They also like you know they will keep that work and I don't like people shots of them Yeah of course it causes pensions I mean I suppose if you ask them they would say that's not the most important thing to me Having everybody get along for the Christmas party it's not as important to me as whatever my vision of the constitution is You mentioned justice Scalia who was known for his brilliant writing style fiery descents do you see the kind of flair that justice Scalia had Well I think the problem is the general problem in life when you try to copy somebody whether you're a sculptor or a circuit court opinion writer So what I think people have forgotten is that 99% of what justice fully erode including in the Susan Was not in the potshot category It wasn't in the narcissa the snarky pure applesauce quote unquote category So what I think what some of these newer judges are doing without realizing it is they're sort of copying those barbs that justice play would use But they don't really come across as well or is effectively because the rest of the rest of the opinion are concurrent sort of dissent Isn't quite as strong where it's not as justice Scalia was founded genuine but do you like it or not It was like his voice And do you seem a little bit more like capacity or like I want to like have everybody talk about me the way people talked about justice Scalia saying pure applesauce in an opinion So yeah he also of course had the stature right So justice Scalia even among his foes what's just going to get more different when he was injustice for what he would do in writing that some of the judges certainly been on the bench for years And sometimes it's like anytime there's somebody new the new kid on the block Sometimes they sound I know just from what I hear also other judges who have been on the bench for a while They sound a little spoiled or cocky right Like okay I've been doing this for two years and I now know I know everything And I'm going to just show the rest of the circuit where they've gone wrong So you call it performance art in the circuits How so explain that Well if you again if you sort of watch what happened exactly what I was trying to say in the article I mean can you just gotten a lot of attention for that concurrence with insurance People keep talking about it bringing it up Reporters are on the story They're in multiple articles So I actually mean performance started in a pretty straightforward letter away They're not really in the moment operating as a normal federal judge They're playing to an audience And by the way there's nothing wrong with that And people tend to dislike it mainly when it's what the judge they don't agree with ideologically I mean a lot of justices and judges engage in rhetoric or they have examples or metaphors or in terms of phrases that are clever whether they think they are But in this case but it's not like a little bit of it's not like a brief moment of performance art That's quite an entire concurrence to a concurrence Performance art So again it changed They're now thinking about audiences right Maybe it's somebody in The White House maybe it's somebody on Twitter They're thinking about audiences besides the official audience for a federal judge which is supposed to be the parties the council the other.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"June Grosjean from Bloomberg radio I've been talking to Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardman about the historic settlement Drugmaker Johnson & Johnson and the three largest U.S. drug distributors have agreed to pay $590 million to 400 Native American tribes to settle lawsuits over opioids You really need a map to figure out the opioid litigation There are so many pieces to it So the tribe still have an opioid lawsuit pending against pharmacy operators including Walmart CVS Health and Walgreens boots alliance So you know pharmacies are in a somewhat related position to distributors in the sense that they aren't the ones who made marketing claims they were yet another link in the chain of how the drugs got out there and so many by the way many many small pharmacies were omitted just because they're either not in business anymore or the plaintiff lawyers didn't view them as having the kind of resource that would be necessary to settle So in many ways Walgreens and CVS are sort of bearing the brunt of the anger and the claim against pharmacies But so the pharmacies have been fighting hard pharmacies were a late insurance into this case late much years later than the claims against drug manufacturers and distributors And I think it's very complicated The reality is if you went back in time 15 20 years ago nobody believed that pharmacy has had an obligation to police doctors right The claim against distributors is that they didn't adequately police pharmacy the claim against pharmacies is that they didn't adequately pull your doctors and I think it speaks to a broken system when everybody is supposed to be suspicious of the behavior of the next level down but everyone's got to be looking over their shoulder It just speaks to a much bigger problem around pain prescribing and dispensation Lawyers for the Cherokee nation are preparing for the first trial of Native American claims against the retailers in 2023 and that's going to be heard by a jury in federal court in Oklahoma if it gets that far The Cherokee nation the last settlement came on the eve of trial so this also could be settled Right It's a very high stake kind of negotiation going on There are definitely our voices within the pharmacy retailers to fight and to show that they really didn't do anything terrible here that there wasn't the kind of guilt that existed for example with Purdue pharma And yet there is a massive liability right We did see the Oklahoma Johnson & Johnson decision where a decision based on a kind of public nuisance theory just basically saying we don't know exactly what wrong was done but there was just a lot of harm here and we're going to hold you responsible We thought that the court was not receptive to that My suspicion is that Walgreens CVS are hanging tough because they feel like they have good defenses here but I still think settlement is always the safe of course It gives everybody a guarantee about what the outcome is and make sure that it's one that they can live with So I still expect that settlement but I think it's going to be a little bit of a wave off yet So speaking about settlement let's talk about the global settlement of the same four companies worth $26 billion with state and local governments across the country Where does that stand A lot of building out right now on Purdue pharma on the individual liability of the Sackler family So I think we're going to be waiting to see a federal appellate decision to see whether the Sackler family is going to be required to participate whether they're going to be given immunity And I think that that decision is slowing things down in terms of the ability to negotiate and get a global resolution here The global resolution isn't perdue is it No no it's with everybody but since the Sackler family funds are a significant part potentially billions and billions of more money that was taken out of the country The my understanding is that that a number of parties are waiting to see what happens before the $2 billion settlement goes forward And just remind us about what happened with perdue and the family and the bankruptcy Yeah the family between something like 2000 and 9 2008 or 2002 1017 the family took between ten and $11 billion out of the country put it into offshore accounts and other financial vehicles where they believed it would be protected because they were already at that point gearing up They were anticipating litigation Purdue had already reached the settlement for its behavior even though it was continuing So there's a lot of money that the sacklers were able to essentially take off and protect and make them one of the wealthiest families in America And we still have serious effort underway to fly that back In the bankruptcy proceeding the family basically took an all or nothing position and said they would not settle which would mean there would be no really no money coming from Purdue because they have not left any money in the company unless the entire family was given immunity And so that was what the bankruptcy judge does drain negotiated Not unhappily the judge is very outspoken that he didn't think it was fair but it was basically what was possible So the family hadn't ever successfully negotiated immunity and then on appeal it was reversed as being an excessive decision outside of the power of the bankruptcy court and that the families should still face immunity that they couldn't be protected in the way that the settlement had tried to do So it's a very very interesting question I think in some ways maybe the most interesting question about the whole opioid litigation is how much this family can protect itself when it makes so much money and really was in many ways the catalyst for this terrible crisis Would you compare the opioid litigation to the tobacco litigation or is it different You know I think there is a lot of similarity in the sense that these were products that had significant social harm associated with them I mean the different opioids I think are more complicated right Tobacco there's nobody who claims that tobacco has health benefits or that it's a necessary thing The reality is that it's a vice that's popular with millions of millions of Americans and it was I think it was much easier to just put tough restrictions on tobacco Opioids are more complicated because there are millions of people out there who are suffering in pain who need these And so I think it's a much murkier picture of where doctors went wrong or where pharmacies and distributors went wrong It's easy to point fingers that companies like Purdue because they were so grossly their behavior was so troubling in terms of how they dismissed rising death poll But I think opioids are more complicated than the settlement side of the tobacco settlements are widely viewed as a disaster in the sense that almost none of the money actually went into anti tobacco programs and said state government used it to fill their budget holes I think with something like 3% of the total tobacco settlements actually went into anti tobacco or tobacco health related programs my hope is that the opioid settlement will actually go toward improving public health and dealing with a much much more complicated issue of how we balance.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Behind the wheel give your phone to a passenger put it in the glove box Just don't text and drive Visit stop texts stop Rex dot org a public service announcement brought to you by the national highway traffic safety administration and the ad council Business is evolved The legal fallout over the supply chain crisis Society evil The justices haven't second guessed vaccine requirements Law evil We were talking about appeals of these lower court decisions Follow the evolution here Asking the 6th circuit to send it to another circuit it seems to me like a fool's errand Bloomberg law with June Grosjean On Bloomberg radio the Bloomberg business app and Bloomberg radio dot com Okay man This is your time Maybe you didn't choose this but you're here now You're gonna go out there and be an all star caregiver Click clean Be there emotionally and physically You gotta dig deeper dry them in the physical therapy doctor's appointments because that's what caregivers do Don't give up Show the world that you're tougher than tough Caregiving is tougher than tough Find the care gods you need at AARP dot org slash caregiving brought to you by AARP and the ad council I'm Barry results you're listening to masters and business on Bloomberg radio My extra special guest this week is in mckelvey He is the cofounder of square and author of a new book the.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Bloomberg quick take This is a Bloomberg business flash But we look at the Asian equities a lower we saw the NASDAQ golden dragon China index of falling around about 4.7% in the U.S. and there's a rough time out there for takeover with the NASDAQ composite and S&P 500 both tumbling It was again just to mention tech shares responsible and of course others which had which have sensitivity to interest rates as a consequence seeing the S&P 500 1.4% of the downside the NASDAQ two and a half percent lower by the end of the session We've heard on this program fed official was Chris Waller joining calls from leil baynard or should I say he's just comments saying the divisions could move as early as March to combat inflation and other center bankers such as Chris or lending support to that idea of the fact it will be hiking rates for how much we don't know Meanwhile fed funds seem to be headed higher the year ten year yields are just really excited to the downside with a dollar continuing its push also lower here as well Essentially we've got the moment of futures of a Japan and Hong Kong on the way down and we do have of course here to chip makers also feeling it too We had them over the region of the games that were driven by Taiwan Semiconductor TSMC and that that was really the moment that something which had originally been invented by that But their growth projections that they had earlier Well certainly that those gains are being erased but let's have a look at what we can expect out of the data docket as it were A bank of Korea expected to raise interest rates and the data will be highlighting how the economy is doing really We've got China's trade numbers What's going to get Japan PPI and Australian home loans as well That is a look at markets Let's get to San Francisco now we've got it back to the heavy look at some of those little headlights All right thank you very much rich Going to spend some time here on the U.S. Supreme Court blocking the Biden administration's attempt to get more people vaccinated by using osha which regulates workplace rules in the United States Now we're joined here by the host of Bloomberg law June grosso Hi June and thank you so much for your help here Now the issue of osha's ability to mandate vaccinations has been at the forefront of this if my memory is correct from the beginning going back to the questions from the justices What did they rule here in that held correct You're right because osha issued this rule as a so called emergency temporary standard And the Biden administration knew from the get go that this was a little bit risky that the court might not approve it So what the court ruled and this is just the 6 conservatives on the court it was a split decision They ruled that osha didn't have the authority under the statute that the COVID threat they said is not connected specifically to the workplace It's not the kind of occupational hazard that's in osha's power And so that this was going beyond the powers that osha has by statute and Congress would need to step in if you wanted to have osha doing things like this And you mentioned too and this becomes a wider spread issue gets into politics a split court 6 to three the centers where a brier and Kagan and Sotomayor right Yes And you could tell from the oral arguments that this wasn't just any kind of case that it was like really important There was a lot of dissension on the court A lot of sniping And in the descent by the three liberals they were very snarky at one point They said that the court the majority was lacking any knowledge of how to safeguard workplaces and with insulated from responsibility for any damage it causes So I mean it was it was something that you don't normally see in a Supreme Court opinion and I think it showed the sharp divide between what the liberal think and what the conservative thing Yeah this was really a kind of a Pinnacle moment for the Supreme Court if anybody wonders where it stands I mean you had the parties involved 26 business groups and 27 Republican led states Exactly And also it was I think it's significant in that the conservatives are always trying to limit federal agency authority They're anti agency power And this was an attempt to really cut back on agency power And I think it shows in the future where this court may be going because in the second case they couldn't even get unanimity there And it was a much more narrow case and there was much more authority for the second the second vaccine mandate which applies to healthcare facilities and healthcare workers and even in that case they managed to get the liberals managed to get the chief justice and justice Brett Kavanaugh but not the four others descended Yeah June we have a 30 seconds Here this is the U.S. Supreme Court So this this ends this avenue does it I think it does end it I mean they could come back in osha can do a try to do a rule that's more specific for certain kinds of workplaces Let's say assembly lines workplaces with assembly lines but I think this ends it for now at least And I would assume that you'll be doing it on Bloomberg law tonight a segment on this anyway Yes I'll be talking to a person who knows about both healthcare and the law All right that's a 10 o'clock Wall Street time Bloomberg law with the June Grosjean thanks so much All right guys back to you Brian All right thanks very much 8 minutes here before the top of the hour This is Bloomberg daybreak Asia Well bank stocks are coming into earnings season and you have to say the expectations are very very high Let's get to Alison Williams Bloomberg intelligence senior finance analyst So we have some tidbits of what's going on We heard from Jefferies and they had a shocking drop in fixed income trading Goldman Sachs isn't until next week but we have learned that the commodities unit will be grabbing the spotlight with over $2 billion in revenue for 2021 What do you think will summit will be some of the standouts from this earnings season Allison So I think you talked about some of the extremes in fixed income trading which for the overall global investment banks we expect to be normalized from the prior year quarter We think equity trading is going to be better And the standout is going to be M and a fees with IPOs also very strong although overall equity capital markets revenue may be hampered by sort of less secondary offerings in the quarter But fees are really going to be the strength across the global investment bank That's sort of the highlight of revenue Net interest income is the area that investors are going to focus on for the future So the hopes are that this capital markets momentum continues with fees and I think we will get some evidence of that at least for the first quarter But the story for 2022 and next year is going to really be net interest income And so we expect that banks are going to give us some guidance around that The guidance is likely to incorporate the improved interest rate outlook but what investors are really going to be focusing on is the loan growth aspect and especially the commercial loan aspect for U.S. banks where there is some improvement expected Allison it's interesting here because you do see that you know as a brand mentioned in the beginning the commodities unit likely to be in the spotlight It's a legendary division of the bank but it's had fallen out of favor I remember in 1999 just how this mystique about it when there was a total solar eclipse in London There was the Goldman commodities that had cornered the gold market while everybody else had been looking at the eclipse itself that gives a sense of how this has come back So it's interesting with these units because there's always a secular aspect and a cyclical aspect And for many years there were some secular pressures to the business just in terms of some of the sort.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"The supply chain crisis The justices haven't second guessed vaccine requirements Law evil We were talking about appeals of these lower court decisions Follow the evolution here Asking a 6th circuit to send it to another circuit it seems to me like a full errand Bloomberg law with June Grosjean On Bloomberg radio the Bloomberg business app and Bloomberg radio dot com President Biden says fires are the most frightening of all dilemmas while promising his full support to the people of Colorado His remarks came Friday as he toured the devastating impacts of the Marshall fire in boulder county Former president Obama will deliver the eulogy at the memorial service for late Senate majority leader Harry Reid later today Lisa Taylor has more The service is being held in Las Vegas President Biden and House speaker Nancy Pelosi will also deliver remarks along with Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer Singer songwriter Carol king will perform at reads memorial read rely on state at the U.S. capitol on Wednesday the veteran Nevada lawmaker died recently after a long battle against cancer Reid was 82 I'm Lisa Taylor Travelers just can't seem to catch a break as the number of flights to later canceled Friday surpass the 5000 mark airports along the east coast were bearing the brunt of the problems as a snowstorm moved through the area They include Laguardia and JFK in New York along with Boston and Newark I'm Brad seeking Now this Bloomberg sports update at the Barclays center the world champion Milwaukee Bucks defeated the birkeland nets one 21 to one O 9 Jana Santa cumbo led the box for 31 points Kevin Durant led Brooklyn with 29 the bucks maintained to lead for the entire game The walking now 26 and 15 while the earth dropped a 24 and 13 Brooklyn will be back in action on Sunday hosting the San Antonio spurs Golden State warrior sharpshooters Steph Curry the top vote get her ahead of next month's NBA All-Star Game in Cleveland league officials say as a Thursday curry is more than two and a half million fan votes to lead all Western Conference guards LeBron James leads all Western Conference front court players with about 2 million votes Kevin Durant leads all Eastern Conference players with nearly 2.4 million votes Both last place New York football teams looking to end their rough seasons on a high note the Giants hence their season finale against the Washington football team on Sunday New York Anders week 18 last in the NFC Easton four and 12 on a 5 game losing streak The jets are also entering week 18 last in the AFC east at four and 12 ahead of Sunday's visit to buffalo The jerks have a chance to keep the builds from winning a second straight division title A public memorial service for legendary football coach John Madden will be held next month the NFL says it will take place February 15th in Oakland California the league says more details will come out at a later date Madden died late last month after a long career in football he coached the Oakland Raiders and won the Super Bowl with them He then went on to a career in broadcasting that made him even more of a household name The college football playoff adding some sites for future national championship games the action network reports Las Vegas will host the 2025 title game Miami will host in 2026 That will mark 11 different cities to host a national championship game While the Bloomberg sports update I'm Tom Rogers.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Now a global news update is just super football I mean I love these kinds of games The football world is mourning The passing of Hall of Famer John Madden NFL commissioner Roger Goodell released a statement saying he passed away at the age of 85 unexpectedly on Tuesday morning Madden was a Super Bowl winning coach for the Oakland Raiders and then went on to become one of the most well-known broadcasters in all of sports One of the U.S. Senate's longest serving majority leaders has died Former Nevada Democrat Harry Reid died Tuesday at the age of 82 Reed served as the majority leader in the Senate from 2006 to 2014 capping off a long political career in 2017 Current Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer called Reid one of his dearest friends and described him as one of the most amazing individuals I've ever met The White House coronavirus response team is going to speak on Wednesday after a big update to isolation and quarantine guidelines the briefing is scheduled for 11 a.m. Eastern Time I'm Brian schuch This is Bloomberg law with June Grosjean from Bloomberg radio You're listening to Bloomberg law Bloomberg radio I'm Joe short sleeve When pushing for change at an organization one can push for a takeover and pursue a costly path to making management changes Or one can become an activist investor using equity in a corporation to push the organization at a particular direction but there are legal implications that come with that type of action And that's what's happening at the company GoDaddy A headline on the Bloomberg terminal activist starboard discloses go daddy stick pushes for changes story written by Bloomberg reporter Scott duva activist investor starboard value disclosed a stake in a website services company GoDaddy Inc and said it may push for changes to improve the stock's performance The New York based hedge fund said in a regulatory filing that it held a 6.5% stake in a technology company which it believes is undervalued Now starboard said in the filing that it may meet with management and the board as part of the investment to discuss ways to improve shareholder value including potential board and operational changes as well as business combinations A representative for GoDaddy didn't immediately respond to or quest for comment Now shares and GoDaddy had fallen 8.2% a year to date given the company's market valuation of roughly 12.7 billion It shares rose 7% to $81 a share on Monday Starboard has a history of pushing for changes at companies in the technology sector to explore this a little bit further We want to bring in an expert in the field This is Kai Li cafe He is a partner in the law firm sidley Austin and he co chairs Sydney's shareholder activism practice Thank you Kai for joining us Let's start a little bit with what happened Starboard's a 13 D filing which means they're basically buying more than 5% of the equity here Is noteworthy because the activist $800 million is one of the largest stakes it's ever taken Are there any regulatory hurdles for an activist to clear when they take such a large position That's a great question Thanks for having me on your program Joe Yes there are a number of regulatory hurdles for an activist to address when they take such a big stake One filing regime is with the SEC and they already cleared it by finding a so called schedule 13 D with your required to file and you have a 5% or larger stake in a public company But they are also antitrust considerations when an activist acquired a stake that is worth more than $92 million and a public company They also need to make a filing with the FTC and the DoJ from antitrust perspective to get cleared Talking with Kai leaf that he is a partner with simply Austin law firm in New York a 5th largest in the country All right now one of the interesting things is that starboard apparently gave the scoop to the media before filing that 13 D form Are there any legal issues with that maneuver It's just a little bit of a gray area of the law but that is something that activists do frequently that they get a scoop to one media outlet very often actually you're very own Scott devoe from Bloomberg and only afterwards and hour later 30 minutes later sometimes even 5 minutes later they issued their press release or make their as we see filing The SEC has not taken any action against this kind of maneuver in the past and I doubt that the SEC is focused on the but it is interesting that activists like to do that Now the stock traded up significantly following the news What is the significance of this stock price increase legally or otherwise Well it shows me that the activist probably did not give a heads up to other apps and hedge funds investors Because if you have such a large ride in the stock price following following the news it means that no one else or few outside the activist knew beforehand that this would happen So from a legal perspective it probably clears the activist from any wrongdoing It is also interesting though that a lot of outside advisers read more into the stock price increase when an activist go public A lot of outside observers feel that if the stock price increases significantly that is a core DIA validation of the accuracy I'm a little bit skeptical of that argument To me it just means that there are a lot of apps and hedge funds pouring into the stock And they oftentimes just follow the name without any larger investigation as to whether or not the activist thesis which is not even publicly disclosed in our case as any validity or not And what are the typical next legal steps for the activists after filing this schedule of 13 D Well typically activists start engaging with the public with the company privately not in public after they file a schedule 13 But at some point or another they have to make a decision whether they put up or shut up that is meaning whether or not they run approximately contest to replace all or portion of the board of the target company And at most companies there are certain deadlines to observe when making a step of running a proxy context It's called the nomination deadline The nomination demanded most companies is somewhere between February and March So that would be the next legal step in this kind of situation for an activist Leca Fett is our guest He's a partner at sidley Austin in New York He also courtiers a Sydney's shareholder activism practice Are there any illegal defenses a company can use against an activist after the filing of a schedule 13 day That's a question I always get from clients and many of my clients would like to take the activists to call to send them to jail get some beaten up but the unfortunate truth is that they have few legal defenses that have an immediate effect against an activist One of the defenses that a lot of companies explore is whether or not to adopt a so called poison pill a poison pill is a legal instrument that allows a company to limit the maximum amount of shares investor can buy typically that is a ten or 15% threshold of the outstanding shares So that's something a company can do However the poison pill just as many other sales has certain side effects and decide the fact of a poison pill is via the board can do that without shareholder approval a lot of shareholders view positive relatively negatively and tend to vote against the incumbent bought unless the board can demonstrate a very good justification for the adoption of the poison So it does legal maneuver that at some times used sometimes it makes sense to use it but there are a lot of cases the disadvantages at very outweigh the advantages of the positive Final question for me So how do you size up this activist investor starboard value and the actions they took as it relates to go daddy Well I can not speak to God daddy But generally speaking starboard is one of the most well-known activist investors either the number one of the number two act investor in the world they have a lot of credibility in the market They have a lot of capital as a disposal They have very sophisticated advisers So when they decide to go public against the company it's typically it's typically a sign of confidence on their end that they got it right That they are right He is.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Businesses with 100 or more workers Governor Reynolds released a statement this morning condemning Friday's decision by the 6th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals that reinstated the rule The defense is resting in the case of a Minnesota police officer accused of killing a black man during a traffic stop Kim Potter claims she meant to use her taser on Dante Wright when he resisted arrest earlier this year but accidentally grabbed her gun and shot him instead On the stand Potter told defense lawyers things went chaotic during the traffic stop Potter is facing manslaughter charges which carry a maximum sentence of 15 years That's the latest I'm Julie Ryan And I'm Susanna Palmer in the Bloomberg newsroom New York State reported 21,908 cases of the coronavirus today breaking a record for the entire pandemic for a second consecutive day That according to governor Cathy hogel in a statement Daily infections in New York City where the surge is shutting down Broadway shows and keeping workers from offices rose further to 5263 according to mayor Bill de Blasio on Twitter Statewide hospitalizations which generally aren't increasing as quickly as infections rose by 70 today to 3909 of the 290,930 people tested 7 and a half percent were positive for the virus a slight decline in a number that has otherwise soared in recent weeks With COVID-19 raging in New Jersey governor Phil Murphy said this latest surge could bring about the return of some restrictions New Jersey reported back to back days of over 6000 new confirmed cases Thursday and Friday as infections have dramatically spiked in recent weeks This time last month the state was reporting under 2000 daily new cases Queens councilwoman Adrian Adams on Friday announced she has secured enough votes from her colleagues to become the New York City council's next speaker According to a press release from the city council's 37th district 33 of the 51 member city council committed their support for atoms of firming a majority of council members will vote for her in the internal speaker election in 2022 Nearly a century after prohibition ended New York City is updating rules to JumpStart and legitimize its growing distillery industry The post reports the city council on Wednesday approved a measure updating hundreds of regulations within the city fire code including what officials say are outdated rules that currently apply to booze making businesses Global news 24 hours a day on air and on Bloomberg quicktake powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries I'm Susanna Palmer This is Bloomberg This is Bloomberg law with June Grosjean from Bloomberg radio Hedge funds beware The United States Department of Justice is digging into your symbiotic relationship with research firms Hunting for signs you tried to engineer stunning stock drops or engaged an insider trading It's an investigation that's thrilled legions of small investors as trading in at least several dozen stocks as being examined according to Bloomberg sources Joining me is an expert in the area professor John Coffey of Columbia law school Jack tell us about this investigation and when it started Well this is something they've been planning for at least 6 months or more They've consulted with some of the leading financial economists in the country They are doing a very careful review of a large number of cases But I think what has most bothered them is the exploitation of a short interval between when a group of short sellers published negative research often on an anonymous basis or a pseudo anonymous basis And then trade heavily in the period between when they release it on one day and the next day when the company is able to respond And the company responds it may be able to come back with a convincing explanation or rebuttal and the market equilibrates and there's not much of a decline But for that first day there may be a 20% drop or something in the stock in the short sellers make out like bandits That doesn't look like it's fair to the small shareholders who tend to panic when they first hear the news and then get reassured when the company responds but then it's too late that they've already sold Hedge funds and researchers do have a relationship that's legal It is certainly the legal but here is the question You can certainly hire researchers but it is arguably deceptive to publish a report as independent research which gives it greater credibility in the public mind When in fact you have already commissioned it and paid for an advance and you ask them to research a particular target that you're interested in So our prosecutors looking for internal documents then of a relationship will be I.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"A 120 countries This is Bloomberg radio Now a global news update President Biden is promising full federal support to the state's impacted by a deadly tornado outbreak We're going to provide whatever is needed I think we demonstrated since we've been elected that every major national disaster we have been there early often and stayed till we got it finished And that's what we're going to do here Biden says he's asked the fema director to provide whatever help states need He noted this is a time where we aren't Democrats or Republicans but American people Nearly 80 people died as tornadoes hit 6 states Friday night the death toll is still expected to rise New cases of COVID remain on an upward trajectory in the U.S. along with hospitalizations and deaths The current 7 day daily average of cases is about 118,500 cases per day which represents an increase of about 37% over the previous week That's how CDC director Rochelle Walensky opened a briefing She noted the delta variant is still posing the greatest threat That's the latest I'm Julie Ryan This is Bloomberg law with June Grosjean from Bloomberg radio You can still listen to Ghislaine Maxwell's TED Talk from 2014 She's engaging as she expresses her concerns for the ocean I went down into the deep and I went down to over 1500 feet And at 1500 feet I switched on the lights hoping to see a new mythical sea creature but in fact what I saw was a plastic hanger I was so absolutely devastated but it was at that moment that I realized that I was really going to dedicate the rest of my life to taking an involvement with and bringing an education around the ocean But apparently Maxwell was not so devastated to see underage girls being sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein according to the testimony of alleged victims at Maxwell's sex trafficking trial For two weeks jurors have been immersed in the luxurious and lascivious world of Epstein and Maxwell As prosecutors try to show them how young girls were drawn in by the pair and then trapped in a cycle of sexual abuse My guest is former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth a professor at cardozo law school Is the broad question for the jury's sort of whether they were partners in crime or whether she's being used as a scapegoat for his crime So the defense seems to be pursuing a defense strategy or theory of the case that she is there is a scapegoat for Jeffrey Epstein because he killed himself and did not go to trial And so therefore she is essentially a proxy through which the victims can have their day in court But I don't think that the prosecution sees it through that lens The prosecution is presenting the case that regardless of what may have happened to Jeffrey Epstein that Maxwell is independently guilty and culpable and is deserving of prosecution and conviction How are the prosecutors building their case against Maxwell Well the most important evidence is the testimony of the victims who have testified in detail about their abuse and the involvement of Maxwell in that abuse including the role she played in communicating with them to initially establish a relationship and in some cases to set up the massages that were sexual in nature that they performed on Epstein So their testability is really critical And that's why you see the defense attorneys going after them on cross examination And after their credibility so aggressively But the prosecution is also relying on testimony from people who worked for Epstein like his pilot like his household staff to establish the relationship between Epstein and Maxwell and how close it was how integrally intertwined She was with Epstein's affairs to corroborate the account of the victims insofar as it makes it more likely that Maxwell was in fact present at times when Epstein would have been meeting the victims and abusing the victims I just sort of shoring up the narrative that she was a critical player in Epstein's life in many different ways but particularly in his residential life managing his homes and being involved in the running of the households were so much of the abuse allegedly occurred The alleged victims have really painted a picture of Maxwell befriending them and luring them in Kate said after her first sexual encounter with Epstein Maxwell said did you have fun You're such a good girl and I'm so happy you are able to come The word she chose seemed to fit the prosecution's case precisely There has been an extraordinary level of detail in the victim's testimony And so much of it is consistent between the victim witnesses in terms of describing the role that backed well played So the jury is going to be left to decide whether they believe the witnesses about not only the abuse that they suffered but Maxwell's role in it And the level of detail I think is something that is going to weigh heavily in the jury's evaluation of the testimony Has the defense made some inroads by showing inconsistencies in some of the alleged victims statements where a trial they were including Maxwell being present during sexual encounters with Epstein but she was not included in their statements to the FBI So it does seem that there were some inroads made in impeaching the credibility of some of the witnesses by pointing to a parent inconsistencies between their testimony on the stand and their previous statement We don't know precisely what they told the FBI agents for example in those prior statements I believe some of the witnesses pushed back a bit and did not acknowledge that they necessarily had made a different statement for with the witnesses suggesting perhaps the FBI agent got the details wrong in the agents report And that certainly possible But even if it is true that doesn't necessarily destroy the witnesses credibility It is often the case that witnesses give accounts that are different Sometimes in fairly significant details when they tell the story multiple times My the jury prejudiced against Maxwell because of the descriptions of this opulent lifestyle The yachts the private jets the sumptuous.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Things are a lot better And the wages have gone up faster than inflation And we have generated real economic growth He said inflation has been fueled by global supply chain issues linked to the COVID pandemic I'm Brian shook This is Bloomberg law with June Grosjean from Bloomberg radio I've been talking to professor Stephen Wright at the university of Wisconsin law school about the Kyle rittenhouse trial which started today in Kenosha What about the fact that the first victims he shot four times In any self defense case the jury's going to consider the reasonableness of the defendant response And so in this case you know the jury will consider whether firing that many times from a semi automatic weapon was necessary But you know as a general rule juries tend to be barely forgiving once they've determined that a defendant's life was in danger In my experience they don't make a lot of differentiation between firing one time versus fire four times when somebody really feels that their life is in danger There is a lot of video of that night and some video of him is that going to be a large part of the either prosecution or defense case I think it's going to be an essential part of the defense Today the parties gave opening statements The defense wanted to show several pictures and videos of what was going on that night In particular they selected some pictures and videos that they say suggest the mister rittenhouse was in danger that he was being chased by people I know among the more provocative photos or some of the photos of individuals with skateboards winging or trying to hit mister ridden house The state very much objected to those being included in the opening but the defense was very out of him So as rittenhouse ran away from the scene a criminal complaint states that he told someone on the phone I just killed somebody Does that have any impact It could you know once again it could be evidence of what his state of mind was around the time of the shooting You're absolutely right I believe after the shooting of the first deceit mister ridden got on the phone and called and told somebody that he had shot somebody You know that will be evidence to what his state of mind was at that time around when he pulled the trigger But it won't necessarily be dispositive of one issue Also I saw video someone asked him what he was doing there and there was some video of him saying I'm here my job is to defend Was kind of odd Will that come in So it will probably come in but you know it may actually come in for the defense When you watch the full video mister rittenhouse says a couple things but he's basically says I'm here to defend property and to defend human lives But he also makes clear that he brought a med kit with him And so that's been part of the defense narrative the entire time But he was actually there to help to do good in the video mister rittenhouse suggests that he brought the man kit specifically to help anyone who had been hurt And he sort of said that the end I've also have a gun in case I need to defend myself while I'm helping So you know I think for many people that videos actually evidence that he came here to do good and to help others The biggest question in a defense is whether or not the defendant is going to testify Do you think in this case in order to show that he really feared for his life that he should take the stand In the United States the defendant almost always is the person who testifies laugh They're the closing act And so generally defensive attorneys don't make up their mind about whether defendant will testify until relatively late into the trial You know there's always tremendous risk of putting your client on the stand I suspect if the defense feels fairly confident based upon their witnesses and based upon the pictures and videos that they've shown that they've got a sympathetic jury he probably will not testify But you can imagine there's tremendous risk about putting a 17 year old on the stand in this type of cave You know the prosecutor I'm sure would be chomping at the bit for the opportunity to cross examine.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"And Johnson & Johnson pharmacies at Walmart and Walgreens started to midstream the shots yesterday as well as the Pfizer vaccine booster The CDC recommended the Moderna and J&J boosters on Thursday and said it was safe for Americans to choose a different shot from their original vaccine Actor Alec Baldwin says there are no words to convey his shock and sadness following the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on his movie set Baldwin was making a movie in New Mexico when the shooting occurred on Thursday director of photography helene Hutchins was killed when Baldwin discharged a prop gun all reports indicate Baldwin was told the gun was safe before firing it A senior Al-Qaeda leader is dead after a U.S. drone strike U.S. central command says the precision strike in Syria took out Abdul hameed Al matar according to a command spokesman the removal of the senior leader will disrupt the terrorist group's ability to carry out a tax threatening Americans U.S. allies and innocent civilians I'm Chris courage And I am Susanna Palmer and Bloomberg newsroom President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said the ambassadors of ten nations including the U.S. Germany and France were no longer welcome in Turkey This after they demanded the release of a prominent businessman and philanthropist The battle that's tearing apart Rogers Communications has escalated former chairman Edward Rogers claims he has regained control of the board and his sister is warning that family members will quote spend every penny to stop his power play Edward Rogers said late Friday that he had delivered a shareholder resolution to replace 5 existing directors immediately with 5 of his own allies His sisters and their mother wife of Ted Rogers who started the company say he won't get what he wants Citigroup has agreed to conduct an audit of how its business impacts non white communities We get more about that from Bloomberg's Charlie pellet Citigroup becomes the first major Wall Street bank to agree to such a move this audit will be conducted by attorneys at Covington and burling and Citigroup says it will focus on its 2020 commitment to dedicate a $1 billion toward initiatives It hopes will close the persistent racial wealth gap in the United States where the average net worth of a white family is nearly ten times higher than that of a black family Charlie pellet Bloomberg radio Broadway is truly back with the return of the phantom of the opera The curtain rose again on the longest running show in Broadway history making its triumphant return following the 19 month pandemic pause The Andrew Lloyd Webber musical returned Friday night at the majestic theater The sellout crowd roared in response to the legendary chandelier rising once again and the sound of the organ The phantom of the opera debuted on the great white way all the way back in January of 1988 Global news 24 hours a day on air and on Bloomberg quicktake powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries I'm Susanna Palmer this is Bloomberg This is Bloomberg law with June Grosjean from Bloomberg radio The demands for justice and police accountability during the demonstrations following George Floyd's murder revived questions about the controversial doctrine of qualified immunity but this week the Supreme Court sided with police in a pair of cases alleging excessive force by officers in California and Oklahoma The justices ruled unanimously that the officers were protected by qualified immunity and could not be sued because previous case law hadn't given them clear guidance that their conduct violated the constitution Joining me is an expert on qualified immunity Joanna Schwartz a professor at UCLA law school German explained what qualified immunity is So qualified immunity is a legal defense in civil cases And the defense means that a police officer or other government official who has violated the constitution is protected from being sued unless there's clearly established law showing that what they did was unconstitutional And the Supreme Court in recent years has offered more and more restrictive descriptions of what it means to clearly establish the law so that they've now really sent the message that you need a prior court case where the almost exact same thing happened before and was ruled unconstitutional in order to clearly establish the law The court said it's not enough that a rule be suggested by then existing precedent The rules contours must be so well defined that it's clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in this situation he confronted Our officers really aware of what these court cases say or is this standard sort of a ruse on the courts part It's a terrific question I think the shortest answer is it is a bit of a ruse When the Supreme Court explains why there needs to be a prior court decision with nearly identical facts They talk about notice that the officer needs to be on notice that the contours of the constitution are hazy and we need a clear articulation of what is in constitutional for an officer to be unnoticed But you are absolutely right Officers are not educated about the fact and holdings of the court decisions that the Supreme Court says are necessary to clearly establish the law And I actually in an article that was published earlier this year studied hundreds of policies and trainings for California law enforcement agencies about the use of force which is the issue that is the basis for these two decisions And what I found was officers are trained about the sort of high level framework that the Supreme Court articulated in a case called Graham versus Connor about the reasonableness of force depending on the totality of circumstances given the perspective of the officer at the time But they are not trained about the fact of holdings of the court decisions that the Supreme Court says are necessary to clearly establish the law Instead their taught those broad principles and taught how to apply them with various hypotheticals that are not drawn from court cases And if you think for a moment about what it would mean for officers actually to rely upon these prior decisions it's fantastical There are hundreds or thousands of opinions that could.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Is Bloomberg law with June Grosjean from Bloomberg radio I've been talking to Mark lytle of Nixon Peabody about the Boeing pilot charged with deceiving U.S. aviation regulators in the first prosecution related to two fatal 7 37 max accidents in 2018 What are the other elements that prosecutors have to prove For example is materiality an element It is Materiality is an element in every broad case and they're going to have to show that but for these false statements things would have been different The FAA would have been different It's really hard to say because all of the statements allegations in the indictment that alleged fortner committed fraud there really about omissions and they're not clear they describe a couple of different interactions that forkner had had with the FAA after he learned about the mcas problems where he didn't disclose it And there's going to be like what is on his mind What is the context of those conversations but it's really rare to charge a case just based on omissions Usually you're looking for affirmative false statements And that makes it omissions make it difficult to prove that somebody had a material fall statement too It makes it more difficult I want to talk about Boeing settlement with the Justice Department which didn't cite for nearby name How will that play or will it play into his case No I haven't been able to review the settlement that much But it's certainly going to play a role I think generally for a defense of an individual to have a company for if you're certainly likely to blame Boeing and the pressures he received internally as he noted in some of his emails that he had pressure to not cost the company money And the defense attorney is going to maybe not legally have a basis to bring Boeing into the matter but it's certainly going to be something that's going to be in the background of the trial about how did someone how did this large company just have one person end up being charged criminally And how did what were the terms of Boeing's admissions that Boeing make any admissions in that settlement there's certainly their payment of money is it fair the defense attorney might raise Is it fair that Boeing doesn't receive criminal charges when a mid level employee does Or what is what looks like it appears to be an institution institutional breakdown So will the jury have to believe that he was a rogue employee who was carrying this out by himself or can they believe others were at fault as well and still find him guilty The jury can believe that others were at fault as well and still find him guilty It just goes to the sense of I think the arguments that the defense attorneys are likely to make are that the jury will appeal to the jury's sense of fairness And a jury can jury can nullify a verdict for any reason Now they get instructions from the court to follow the instructions and apply the elements of each charge to the facts proven at the trial But if the jury gets the sense that there's not fairness here it could really go the wrong way for the government You are a former federal prosecutor Would you rather be the prosecution or the defense Which side do you think has a stronger case Well this would be a tough one because in this case the crashes were so tragic the loss of life unnecessarily occurred and clearly Foraker had knowledge of this problem that could have prevented those crashes But it's clear that many other people knew or should have known about this and the defense are going to make a real big part of this case about the FAA and those FAA agents are going to have to testify a trial and they're going to be scorched on cross examination And it's likely I would think forkner could be convicted even if others weren't charged were involved when I charged in the case But I think that the jury it's going to be tough for the jury to go forward If the defense is able to get into their arguments the fact that foreigners kind of escape go Is there a possible There's always a possibility of a play do you think that the prosecutors might be looking to flip him They might This was a but this was a pretty extensive investigation and when the company entered into the settlement And again I haven't read the terms going settlement It would appear that Boeing did a pretty extensive internal investigation and cooperated with the government Extensively So I would think that I would think that they have all the information that this is probably going to be the only charge coming out of it Really because even Peter di fazio the Democrat from Oregon said senior leaders throughout Boeing are responsible for the culture of concealment that ultimately led to the 7 37 max crashes He's saying this shouldn't be the only indictment I think he's right I think it shouldn't be the only indictment but from reading the fact that Boeing that Boeing was allowed to settle and that Boeing's I would expect Boeing would have done a really thorough internal investigation into their compliance and that they would have done extent to be allowed to settle like this they would have extensively cooperated with the government So my expectation based on my experience the charges that came out now would have been inclusive of all of the people they felt they could make a charge and had a reasonable likelihood of conviction at trial Things could change of course and maybe could provide conversations that weren't recorded in email or something that the government doesn't have So of course that could always happen But I'm surprised it's only four here but I would also be surprised if other people were charged in this case What kind of sentence is he looking at Sentencing guidelines are with fraud cases are triggered and tied to what the loss amount was to the victim of the crime If he gets convicted and there have sentencing the defense and the prosecution are going to have a lot of sparring over weather forkner is accountable for the loss that these airlines suffered as a result of the crashes Their liability to passengers also that Boeing settlement 2.5 billion clearly Boeing is providing that amount and fortunate would argue after convicted that sentencing that he wasn't responsible for these losses He would argue for a much lower sentence than maybe the guidelines Otherwise if it's the whole amount he's going to have very high guidelines probably up to life in prison I don't expect a judge to give him that amount of time I think the judge would probably look at this and find he was a mid level employee But there certainly was a lot of loss of life The number of people who died in these crashes is really horrific So I would expect significant sentence maybe between 5 and ten years Thanks Mark That's Mark lidl of Nixon Peabody.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"june grosjean" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Siegel This is Bloomberg law with June Grosjean from Bloomberg radio Can the government shield information under the state secrets privilege even when the information is not a secret at all This week the Supreme Court considered the case of Abu zubaydah The first war on terror detainee subjected to extensive torture by the CIA at a black site in Poland His torture has been widely reported and even confirmed in a 2014 U.S. Senate report The justices pointed this out again and again during the oral arguments Here are chief justice John Roberts and justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan Everybody may know about this You know as you put it it's no secret at all But you don't have the United States government acknowledging that Because it's not a state secret that he was tortured The date he was tortured is not a safe secret The place may be I mean if everybody knows what your asserting privilege on like what exactly does this privilege I mean maybe we should rename it or something It's not a state secrets privilege anymore Zubeda is trying to get testimony from two CIA psychologists for a Polish investigation into the torture but the federal government has blocked the subpoenas on the grounds of national security Joining me is former federal prosecutor Jimmy Gary a professor at Notre-Dame law school Jimmy tell us about Abu zubaydah who's been held at Guantanamo Bay for almost 20 years Others have beta was believed by the U.S. government the CIA in particular to be a high level Al-Qaeda official And he was abducted in Pakistan back in March of 2002 and then he was taken to a black site and Poland and in black site refers to a location where he was held outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts for the purpose of interrogation The interrogation involved something called enhanced interrogation techniques which included waterboarding and other techniques stress positions being kept up sleep deprivation for literally days at a time They don't affect amounted to torture So what is the issue in this case before the Supreme Court Well the issue involves an attempt to buy albus lawyers to subpoena two CIA contractors by the name of James Mitchell and Bruce jessen Their psychologists and they were retained by the CIA to develop these enhanced interrogation techniques that were used against suspected members of Al-Qaeda after the 9 11 terror attacks in an effort to obtain from them information regarding future terrorist attacks the dates and locations of those attacks And these witnesses are being subpoenaed to assist in a Polish criminal investigation involving again the use of these black sites being located in Poland and used to detain I was a beta and used to torture him pursuant to these enhanced interrogation techniques So the government is claiming that this involves state secrets and national security It's called the state secrets privilege And it's a privilege that extends to the government and the government to bar that disclosure of information If there is a reasonable danger that such disclosure would expose a military matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged Why is this torture even being considered a state secret There have been countless news stories books a Senate report even a movie about it So that's the issue So that's one of the important issues before the Supreme Court And so it's no longer a secret I think it's well known In fact the Polish government has admitted that its territory was used by the CIA for the purpose of detaining abusive beta and others So the fact that it's public knowledge and it's not a state secret does the state secrets privilege apply And the government maintains that it does even though again this information is well known because if it was disclosed or if these individuals were permitted to testify and this Polish criminal investigation it would confirm it would actually confirm what is known It would confirm that Poland was being used or permitted to be used by the United States government for establishing or using these black sites So what was the main concern that you heard during oral arguments from the justice Was there one in particular that stood out Well I think there were concerns expressed by several of the justices on exactly the point that this is no longer a state secret This is a matter of public knowledge This is well known So the state secrets privilege not apply And so the justice is really pressed the government lawyers on that point And again the government's response as well if these individuals are permitted to testify it's going to confirm what is believed So right now it's kind of understood but now this will make it a fact It will confirm that Poland was used by the CIA for these purposes And the claim is further that this is going to undermine our relationship The U.S. relationship with foreign allies because again it was understood that when this black site was established in Poland that it would not be disclosed by the United States And so this would undermine that agreement and then therefore foreign governments would be less willing to cooperate with the United States on national security matters in the future Justice breyer Sotomayor and Gorsuch suggested that Abu zube testify himself about the torture and there was a really tense exchange when the assistant solicitor general refused to give them an answer about whether the government would allow that And I think some of the other.