Legal Archives - Page 2 of 2 - Proof with Jill Stanley

Trump Lawsuit | Celebrity News | PROOF with Jill Stanley

Trump Got Sued on His First Monday on the Job!

Celebrity Lawsuits, Donald Trump, Legal, Politicians

Donald Trump is no stranger to the justice system. He has filed lawsuits and has been sued many, many times. In fact, a USA Today analysis found 3,500 legal actions by and against Trump. 3,500!!! It’s almost unbelievable, isn’t it? Well, we can add one more to the list because on the first Monday of his new job, President Trump was slapped with a lawsuit (He was also sued last week by a former Apprentice contestant).

On January 23, 2017, leading ethics experts filed a massive lawsuit against Trump alleging that his business relationships with foreign powers and foreign players violates the Constitution, specifically they allege that his actions violate the little known emoluments clause. As with any constitutional claim the legal issues are complex but, simply stated, the emoluments clause prohibits federal officials from receiving financial benefits from foreign governments. President Trump’s companies have multimillion-dollar real estate deals with foreign powers and it is those dealings, among others, the suit claims, that violate the emoluments clause. Two easy to understand examples are that The Bank of China, one of the five biggest state owned commercial banks in China, is a tenant of Trump Tower and is also as a lender in another building in New York City in which Trump has a significant partnership interest.

Trump has been fighting the conflicts issue for months as it was continually raised during the campaign. In response to such complaints, Trump said that although he would not sell his ownership in his company, The Trump Organization, he would hand over control of it to his two adult sons, Donald Trump Jr and Eric. He also promised that his company would not make any more deals abroad and would donate profits from foreign governments that stay in his hotels to the U.S. Treasury (Hmmm. Let’s see if that happens!). Naturally, Trump’s camp has praised his actions to limit his conflicts. In fact one of his lawyers, called his efforts to do so, “extraordinary.” But that’s what his side is saying. Esteemed and widely regarded government ethics lawyers and experts say Trump’s steps to remove conflicts of interest are not enough and that is why this lawsuit was filed today.

The truth is that no other president has had such wide and deep foreign business dealings. The Trump Organization, has stakes in real estate holdings in 20 countries, including Turkey and South Korea. And, Trump has not lived a life of public service, his life, to date, has been about him, about how to amass wealth and how to serve his own interests. With this history in conjunction with the breadth of his foreign business dealings in a company he still owns, it’s hardly surprising that people are worried that Trump will put his personal financial interests above those of the people of the United States.

The pedigrees of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are impressive and include attorney Norman Eisen, an ethics adviser to Barack Obama, Richard Painter, a former George W. Bush adviser, and Constitutional law scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Laurence H. Tribe, among others. But despite the background and experience of these scholars and attorneys, this is no open and shut case—at any level. In fact, whether the plaintiffs even have standing (the right to sue) and whether or not the emoluments clause even applies to the office of the president, and more specifically, to Trump’s actions, has already been raised.

Two things we do know for sure? This case is going be heavily litigated by both sides and that list of 3500 Trump lawsuits is going to continue to grow to over the next four years.

If you want more details about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v Donald J. Trump, click here for a copy of the complaint filed on January 23, 2017 in federal court in New York.

Are Aaron Hernandez Tattoos Evidence? | Celeb News | Proof with Jill Stanley

Aaron Hernandez Tattoos Admissable in Double Murder Trial

Athletes, Criminal Law, Legal

Aaron Hernandez had it all—a $41M contract with the New England Patriots, a beautiful fiancée, a new baby girl, and a large home in Massachusetts. All that came to a crashing end when in June 2013 he was charged with first degree murder of Odin Lloyd, the boyfriend of his fiancée’s sister. Things got worse from there. In 2014 he was indicted for the 2012 murders of Daniel Jorge Correia de Abreu and Safiro Teixeira Furtado. In 2015, he was convicted of the murder of Lloyd and sentenced to life in prison; he was indicted that same year for witness intimidation of Alexander Bradley, Hernandez’ “friend” who was with him the night of the double murder of Abreu and Furtado and allegedly saw what occurred. (This wasn’t just any ole’ witness intimidation. Hernandez is accused of shooting Bradley in an effort to silence him about what he saw that night). The witness intimidation matter is on hold but Hernandez is set to stand trial in 2017 for the double murders. Talk about a fall from grace. Stores today can hardly give away a #81 Patriot jersey.

Along with being known as a great tight end, Hernandez was also well known for his body ink. He was frequently photographed showing it off so it’s somewhat of a just dessert that his tattoos would one day come back to haunt him in a very real way. And that is exactly what is happening now.

In 2013, Hernandez went to a California tattoo parlor and added three tattoos to his collection. All three of the tattoos are on Hernandez’ arm. Each of the three, the prosecution argued in its’ motion, had meaning and served to commemorate the double murder and the witness shooting. The first one is of a revolver with five bullets in the chamber—one bullet is missing. The night of the double murder, five shots were fired into the car in which the decedents were seated. The second tattoo says “God Forgives.” The words are written backwards so they can only properly be read in a mirror. The third tattoo is of semi-automatic gun with smoke coming out of it along with one spent shell casing. This is the type of gun ballistics showed was used in the Bradley shooting. Further, allegedly, one spent shell casing was found on the ground next to Bradley. Assistant District Attorney, Patrick Haggan, the prosecutor handling the Hernandez case argued that these tattoos link him to the crimes and should therefore be admissible.

It should be noted that after Hernandez’ conviction for the murder of Lloyd he hired new attorneys. Currently he has a five member defense team. The most famous? Jose Baez, who is best known as being the lead attorney in the Casey Anthony trial. You remember her—mother of the year, in 2011 was acquitted of murdering her two year old daughter, Caylee. Naturally Baez and the rest of the team is fighting the government at every turn and with no holds barred. They argued that the prosecution’s theory was speculative, called for inference and that the tattoos were not relevant to the case. They further contended that allowing jurors to hear about these tattoos would violate Hernandez’ constitutional right to a fair trial. No win for Baez on this round. The court ruled that all three tattoos are admissible as evidence at trial for the purpose of connecting Hernandez to the killings. Good ruling, your honor but with the current state of the law regarding tattoos as evidence, you may just have created an appealable issue should Hernandez be found guilty. And though it would be interesting to see how a higher court rules on the matter, it won’t make make much difference for Hernandez as he is already serving a life sentence for the Lloyd murder and still has to face those witness intimidation charges.

Last, Hernadez is facing several civil lawsuits stemming from his actions. After paying all of his lawyer fees though, I’m not sure how much of those NFL millions will be left to satisfy any civil judgments. For a better sense of what Hernandez’ lawyers are costing him, check out my video on how much criminal lawyers charge.

*Photo by Jeffrey Beall

Nick Cannon Sued Over App | Celebrity News | Proof with Jill Stanley

Nick Cannon Sued for Stealing Unsuccessful App Idea

America's Got Talent, California, Celeb News, Celebrities, Celebrity Lawsuits, Celebrity News, Celebs, Legal, Los Angeles, Nick Cannon

Nick Cannon may have just quit “America’s Got Talent” because he felt he was mistreated by the show (he said he felt silenced, controlled, and treated like a piece of property) – but he has even more drama ahead of him: he’s facing a lawsuit on an entirely unrelated matter.

Enrico Taylor is suing Cannon for allegedly stealing his idea for a talent discovery app. Taylor is seeking $1.75 million in damages.

In court documents, Taylor claims he met Nick in early 2015 and hoped to get Mariah Carey’s ex interested in his new app. The disgruntled app-maker says he told Cannon that he was working with rapper Birdman, who is the co-founder of Cash Money Records, to create a digital talent search app called “I Discover Stars.” Taylor claims that Cannon said he liked the idea but then Taylor never heard back from him about it. Five months later Cannon launched his own digital talent search app, N’credible.

Allegedly, Cannon’s app was intended to be an extension of his management and music company, N’credible Artists, and was for comedians, singers and rappers to audition for the former “America’s Got Talent Host” without him actually having to physically be at the audition. Sounds like a good idea, right? Apparently though wannabe superstars didn’t flock to it. Taylor is claiming that not only did Cannon steal his idea, but also says that because Cannon’s app was a total bust, Taylor can’t get his own app off the ground – and now he wants $1.75 million as a compensation. That is quite a circuitous legal argument and not sure how persuasive it is going to be in a court of law. Think about: Taylor is seeking big bucks for an unsuccessful idea?!

We at PROOF are looking forward to seeing the evidence that comes out in this matter but if we were advising Cannon (which we are not–and here comes the PROOF legal disclaimer: nothing on PROOF should be construed as giving legal advice or the creation of an attorney client relationship) we would not recommend settling at this point.

Discussing celebrity news is what we enjoy most at PROOF. Please visit the rest of our site for more of our one of a kind take on celebrity news.

NFL and Marijuana | Celebrity Legal News

NFL and Marijuana: Does the League Care about the Players?

Athletes, Legal

Pot is now legal for recreational or medicinal use in more than half the country. Some states have only decriminalized it meaning that if you’re found with it in your car or in your pocket it will be treated no more seriously than a traffic infraction. Despite all these changes and changing attitudes in general toward pot, it remains banned by the National Football League—for any type of use. What this means is that if a running back on the LA Rams wants to smoke with friends in the privacy of his Calabasas, California home but then tests positive for marijuana, the League will sanction him. Same result if that player smokes pot to help ease his chronic pain brought on by years of blocking and tackling. The League test all players for marijuana use and suspends a player after four violations. In the NFL, the penalty for pot smoking is pretty hefty.

So, why does the NFL not let players smoke in states where it’s legal, like Colorado and California? The NFL stands behind its ban based on the fact that pot is still against federal law and is classified as a Schedule 1 drug. When something is a Schedule 1 drug it means that the DEA (US Drug Enforcement Agency) considers the drug or substance to have a high potential for abuse and that the drug or substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S. (I know it’s almost hard to take this second part seriously as it relates to cannabis). So, for both the federal government and the NFL, their position is that until there is more research they’re not changing their minds. Whether sufficient funds are put towards research that they will deem convincing will have to be the subject of another post.

Moreover, players believe there is a hypocrisy to the NFL’s position where team doctors are alleged to hand out opioids and other addictive prescription drugs like candy. These players say that the League, the doctors, the owners have one goal in mind—and it’s not the health of the player. Rather, it’s simply to get the player back on the field, winning games, and earning money. The fact that many of the drugs team doctors prescribed are highly addictive does not seem to be much of a concern to the League. Some compare the League’s attitude toward this risk of addiction to their handling of CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encelopathy)—they are keeping their head in the sand. Fact is, players are worried and would prefer to use pot to treat pain. According to a recent ESPN poll of 226 of them from the AFC and NFC (they were guaranteed anonymity), 59% of those questioned said they are worried about the long term effects of pain killers and 61% said that if marijuana were an allowed substance fewer players would take pain killers.

It should be noted that in November 2016, a group of physicians and experts as well as current and former players signed “An Open Letter to the National Football League.” Among other things, this letter addressed the benefits cannabis has on treating pain and pointed out that the National Hockey League does not test all of its players for marijuana and that a Major League Baseball player would have to fail multiple tests before being sanctioned for its use, and then the sanctions are almost always fines. This letter is chock full of eye-opening information about the NFL and marijuana, click here if you’d like to read it in its entirety.

We can’t discuss marijuana use in the NFL and not talk about Buffalo Bills offensive lineman, Seantrel Henderson. The 24 year old Henderson has Crohn’s Disease. If you know anyone who has this disease then you know it is life altering. According to the Mayo Clinic, there is no known cure for Crohn’s, a disease that causes abdominal pain, severe diarrhea, fatigue, weight loss and malnutrition, and is painful, debilitating and can lead to life threatening complications. Henderson, however, has found something that eases his pain—marijuana. And, he’s not the only one. A study performed by the National Center for Biological Information, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services!!!) found that cannabis produced significant clinical benefits to patients with active Crohn’s disease. But Henderson is finding himself between rock and a hard place as it relates to treating his disease. In the 2016-2017 season, he has been suspended twice by the NFL for violating the League’s substance abuse policy due to his marijuana use. The punishment for his second violation was a 10-game suspension without pay; he endured a four-game suspension earlier in the season. But just like the disease from which he suffers, there’s truly a life altering part of this story: if Henderson fails another drug test he will be banned from football for life.

What is Henderson supposed to do? He’s had multiple surgeries since being diagnosed with Crohn’s, his doctors are telling him cannabis is the best treatment, but the League refuses to carve out an exception. He did try to appeal his suspension, which would have lessened the risk of a lifetime ban, but he was unsuccessful. So Henderson is left in a very difficult situation. If he stops smoking, his health suffers and he risks his life; if he continues to smoke and tests positive, he risks his livelihood. Not an easy choice for a sick 24 year old member of the NFL.

Celebrities and Pet Custody | Celebrity News | PROOF With Jill Stanley

When Celebs Split, Who Gets Custody of the Family Pet?

Amber Heard, Britney Spears, Celebrities, Celebrity News, Celebs, Celebs and Child Custody, Custody, Legal

Divorce is nasty business especially when it comes to division of assets, spousal support and child custody. Another area rife with fighting? Custody of the family pet. The number of divorce cases in which pet custody is an issue is on the rise as is the intensity of the fighting over it. Just as celebs are not immune from bitter child custody battles so too do they face fierce fights over family pets. And because celebrities have the money to hire tough lawyers and can afford protracted litigation often their pet custody battles are among the nastiest.

Legally speaking, most states consider pets property which means courts consider them as they would any asset and not at all akin to a child. Thankfully though this is not always the case and recently we’ve seen judges in various jurisdictions looking at other factors. In fact a New York case moved away from the chattel (legal jargon for property) view of pets and took a more holistic approach, asking what was the best interest of all—not of the pet, per se, but of all involved in the dispute. This is good news for the more than 80 million(yup!) American families that own a pet.

Let’s take a look at some well known celebrity breakups in which custody of the pets was a pivotal issue.

Melanie Griffith and Antonio Banderas. When these two decided to end their almost twenty year marriage, Stella, their youngest child, was already eighteen years old so custody was no longer an issue (child custody is not legally relevant once a child is over eighteen). However, the couple had three dogs (two were adopted together from an animal rescue group) and Melanie wanted to keep all of them. Word on the street was that their $50 million divorce case was contentious in large part over custody of these pups. Melanie made it clear that she wanted to keep them and many believed she was the better pup parent. There is no official word about how things ended up but my guess is that Melanie got what she wanted. These two seem to still be pretty good friends and are often seen out and about supporting their children at various events. Had Antonio not relented on the dog issue, this would not likely be the case.

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. Most of us are probably glad this very messy Hollywood divorce is finally over. I know I am. But what was worked out early and fairly amicably between these two was who got custody of Pistol and Boo, the dogs the couple adopted during their brief marriage (Amber also got custody of their horse, Arrow, but I’m not sure there was much of a fight over that). You might remember hearing about these dogs—they’ve been in the news before. They are the same dogs that Amber and Johnny brought into Australia without declaring them at customs or obtaining the proper paperwork for them. Though Amber pleaded guilty to providing a false immigration document to immigration officials, the pair got away easy. As punishment, Amber and Johnny were allowed to make a public service announcement. Amber apologized for her conduct and praised Australia’s biosecurity laws; Johnny encouraged others to declare everything when they come into Australia. Lucky for them that they got away easy on this one as the dissolution of their marriage was anything but that.

Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart. First let me say I am a big fan of both of these actors but I’m still very pissed that Kristen cheated on Robert (Team Edward!). He just did not deserve that! And with a married guy? I feel as if Kristen is better than that and if she wanted to end things with Robert she could have done so much less painfully and publically. But, she was young and everyone makes mistakes. Maybe that’s why when she and Robert could not initially agree on who should get custody of their newly adopted dogs, Bernie and Bear, she ultimately relented. I’d like to think it was an act of remorse and contrition. And, I bet it was. She certainly didn’t want to cause more pain to her one time love.

Mandy Moore and Ryan Adams. It’s great seeing Mandy Moore happy and starring in the hit television show, This Is Us because we know this young actress has been through a lot. She and Ryan two were working through their divorce settlement after ending their six year marriage when talks apparently stalled over a number of issues, one very big one being who would get custody of their eight pets—six cats and two dogs. Mandy got to keep all of her fur babies but she did seek pet support payments from Ryan. With the success of her new show, doubt she needs it anymore.

Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. Britney is back on top and has been for years now but for a while many of us were worried that she’d never be the Britney Spears whom we first met. We all know well about her emotional breakdown, the shaved head, the breaking of car windows, the run-ins with the law (Click here for more about Britney’s legal battles). When Kevin sought and won custody of their two children there was also an issue of who got the family pets. What’s interesting in this case is that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) got involved and wrote an open letter to Kevin, begging him to take the animals. Whether or not Britney got custody of the pets has never been publicly revealed but it was a very sad, difficult time for her and assuming she was capable of taking care of her dogs, there is no doubt they would have brought her comfort. On the other hand though, the pets would provide the same to the kids with the added benefit of stability. Judging by Britney’s commitment to her children (and her pets) over the past several years, it seems as if all has worked out. But, as a vegan and animal lover myself, I’m not sure PETA really needed to get involved in this one.

Drew Barrymore and Tom Green. Drew Barrymore and comedian Tom Green were married for a short five months. In Tom’s words, the marriage was “a crazy, whirlwind of a time.” Certainly he didn’t make life any calmer when he decided to fight Drew for custody of their yellow lab, Flossie. You might remember it was Flossie’s barking that saved the couple’s lives when their home caught fire in 1998.