Latest news with #CornellLawSchool
National Post
2 days ago
- Health
- National Post
Bath & Body Works refutes U.S. woman's lawsuit about exploding candle made at Canadian facility
Article content Francois's husband, McEvans Francois, is also named in the lawsuit as a plaintiff. He was there when Francois was lighting the candle and 'witnessed his wife's face catch fire, crackle, and blister as molten wax burned her skin, resulting in severe emotional distress, PTSD, and loss of consortium.' Loss of consortium is when the intangible benefits of a relationship — such as companionship, comfort, affection, and love — are lost or impaired, according to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute. It can be claimed by a spouse. Article content The lawsuit called the candle 'defective' and maintained that the explosion occurred 'within moments' after lighting. Article content A webpage dedicated to candle safety by Health Canada says most cases of candle fires are caused by 'human errors.' Article content It also says 'the obvious hazard when you burn candles is the risk of injury or death from fire.' Article content 'But the design of candles can also increase the risk of fire and fire-related injuries,' per the federal government, adding that candles with three wicks, depending on the kind, can produce high flames. This can lead to a 'very intense heat' that can cause materials such as curtains or clothing to catch fire. 'These candles can also melt rapidly, leaving a large pool of hot wax that can cause burns,' per Health Canada. Article content Francois's lawsuit says she is a mother, wife and leader in public safety, community advocacy, and strategic policy reform. Article content 'This is not just a physical injury — it is an emotional and psychological battle, an assault on her self-perception, and a daily reminder of a tragedy that could have been prevented,' says the lawsuit. Article content In 2017, a Texas woman said that a three-wick Bath & Body Works candle 'burst' in her face, news outlet NBC 5 reported. However, she said that she did not follow its warnings, which told consumers not to blow on the candle or to throw water on it in order to extinguish the flame. Article content There have not been any recalls for Bath & Body Works candles reported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission since 2004. That year in March, Bath & Body Works voluntarily recalled its 'Real Essence' votive candles — a different kind of candle than the three-wick Sweater Weather scented candle in the lawsuit. Article content In the recall announcement, it says the votive candles that were recalled could 'burn with a high flame or irregular flame, posing a fire hazard to consumers.' Votive candles are smaller candles, sometimes used for prayer. Article content Article content 'The safety of our customers is our top priority. With hundreds of millions of units sold, our candles have a longstanding, exceptional safety record. Our candles undergo extensive quality and safety testing under rigorous burn and use conditions to meet or exceed all applicable industry and government standards for safety and performance,' the emailed statement from Bath & Body Works said. Article content 'Many factors beyond the construction of the candle itself can affect any candle's performance, which is why we provide safe candle burning tips on our website and proper use guidelines on our products. For more information on safely enjoying room-filling fragrance, follow this important safety information when caring for your candle.' Article content
Fox News
3 days ago
- Business
- Fox News
How Trump's 'no shrinking violets' DOJ is digging in on Schiff's mortgage dealings as legal peril looms
The Department of Justice is likely digging into Sen. Adam Schiff's mortgage paperwork trail stretching back to a Maryland home purchase from the early 2000s as it weighs whether it has an airtight case to potentially prosecute the longtime political foe of President Donald Trump, according to a Cornell Law School professor. "The one thing they don't want to do is to bring a case that fails," William Jacobson told Fox Digital in a Zoom interview, referring to the DOJ potentially investigating Schiff's alleged mortgage fraud. Jacobson is a clinical professor and the Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell. "Either it fails legally, or it fails in court. They don't want to lose that case if you're going against a major political opponent. And that's part of the calculation that will take place." Jacobson talked about the ins and outs of the Democratic California senator's potential legal woes following the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency sending a letter to the DOJ this year claiming that Schiff falsified banking and property documents by listing two homes – on two separate coasts – as his primary residence out of an effort to allegedly get more favorable loans. The DOJ has not yet said whether it would take up the case, but is likely digging into Schiff's paper trail as it weighs whether to move forward, Jacobson explained. "I would expect that the first thing the Department of Justice is going to do is to gather documents. There will be a paper trail here. There will be many things that are documentable, and not 'he said, she said,' as to where Adam Schiff was actually living," he said. As investigators go through the documents, they will ask questions such as: What was his actual primary residence? What did he sign? Who was present when he signed? Did he have conversations with people about it? The law professor, who founded the popular conservative legal blog Legal Insurrection, said that there will likely be a "significant paper trail" to go through due to the case stretching back more than 20 years and due to companies keeping tight records following the 2008 financial crash. "Mortgage companies preserve all of these things because of the financial crisis and other things. They have to maintain these records. . . . And I would expect that that would be the first thing the Department of Justice would look at is the paper trail and the circumstantial evidence as to where Adam Schiff was, in fact, living," he continued, remarking that there are "no shrinking violets" at the Trump DOJ. Schiff first fell under scrutiny this year in May, when the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) sent a letter to the Department of Justice sounding the alarm that, in "multiple instances," Schiff allegedly "falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, impacting payments from 2003-2019 for a Potomac, Maryland-based property." At the heart of the issue are two properties purchased by Schiff: a home purchased in 2003 in Potomac, Maryland, for $870,000 under a Fannie Mae-backed mortgage agreement for $610,000 at a rate of 5.625% over a term of 30 years, and a 2009 Burbank, Calif., condo. Schiff reaffirmed the Potomac property as his principal residence in mortgage refinancing paperwork in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013, according to the FHFA letter to the DOJ. Over the same time frame, Schiff took a homeowner's tax exemption on the Burbank condo while also claiming that home as his primary residence for a $7,000 reduction off of the 1% property tax, FHFA Director William Pulte wrote in the letter to the DOJ, citing media reports. In 2023, the letter continued, a spokesperson for Schiff asserted that "Adam's primary residence is Burbank, California, and will remain so when he wins the Senate seat." FHFA is an independent federal agency that oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System. In 2020, Schiff refinanced his mortgage, listing his Maryland home as his secondary residence. Trump publicly slammed Schiff over his mortgages in July on Truth Social, accusing him of fraud and putting the issue back on the public's radar following 2023 news reports on Schiff's homes in Maryland and California. "I have always suspected Shifty Adam Schiff was a scam artist," Trump posted to Truth Social Tuesday. "And now I learn that Fannie Mae's Financial Crimes Division have concluded that Adam Schiff has engaged in a sustained pattern of possible Mortgage Fraud." "Adam Schiff said that his primary residence was in MARYLAND to get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America, when he must LIVE in CALIFORNIA because he was a Congressman from CALIFORNIA. I always knew Adam Schiff was a Crook. The FRAUD began with the refinance of his Maryland property on February 6, 2009, and continued through multiple transactions until the Maryland property was correctly designated as a second home on October 13, 2020." Schiff has repeatedly denied and brushed off the accusations, including refusing to answer questions from Fox News Digital about his alleged mortgage fraud when confronted in the nation's capital on July 16. "Since I led his first impeachment, Trump has repeatedly called for me to be arrested for treason. So in a way, I guess this is a bit of a letdown. And this baseless attempt at political retribution won't stop me from holding him accountable. Not by a long shot," he posted to X in July following Trump's initial Truth Social attack on Schiff's mortgages. "This is just Donald Trump's latest attempt at political retaliation against his perceived enemies. So it is not a surprise, only how weak this false allegation turns out to be. And much as Trump may hope, this smear will not distract from his Epstein files problem," he added. Schiff's primary residence discrepancies first hit the public's radar in 2023, when Schiff launched an ultimately successful campaign to serve in the Senate after decades in the U.S. House. CNN published the first news article detailing that Schiff had claimed the Maryland home as a primary residence while also taking a homeowner's tax exemption on the Burbank condo. The campaign said at the time that Schiff's two properties were listed as primary residences "for loan purposes because they are both occupied throughout the year and to distinguish them from a vacation property." Trump and Schiff have long been political foes, which was underscored during Trump's first administration when Schiff served as the lead House manager during the first impeachment trial against Trump in 2020, and when Schiff repeatedly promoted claims that Trump's 2016 campaign colluded with Russia. Days after Trump first posted about Schiff's mortgages in Maryland and California, the president's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, declassified documents that reportedly show "overwhelming evidence" that then-President Barack Obama and his national security team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump–Russia collusion probe after Trump's election win against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016. Schiff was an incredibly vocal lawmaker amid the Russian collusion claims, most notably when the House censured him in 2023 over his promotion that Trump's 2016 campaign colluded with Russia. Schiff served in the House representing California from 2001 to 2024, when he was sworn-in as a senator after his successful 2024 campaign to serve in the nation's upper chamber. Schiff served as the ranking member of the House intelligence committee from 2015 to 2019, before becoming the committee's chair from 2019 to 2023. In that role, he was kept up to date on classified materials surrounding the Russian collusion claims. Trump also recently invoked Gabbard's alleged revelations while attacking Schiff over his mortgages in another Truth Social post. Trump went on to ominously warn during a White House event last week that Schiff has "a lot of other things far worse than" his mortgage inquiry. "He defrauded banks and insurance companies and the federal government, but it's, very simple. It's mortgage loan fraud ... But he has a lot of other things far worse than that. So no Adam Schiff, they have him 100% on mortgage fraud," Trump said last Tuesday from the White House while hosting a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Jacobson said that Democrats have boxed themselves out of attempting to claim that Trump is targeting a political foe over the mortgage criminal referral because the party had spent the last decade launching "lawfare" at Trump. "One of the ironies here that I think everybody understands, is that Democrats launched a lawfare campaign against Donald Trump. And it didn't just start once he took office this year. It's been going on for a decade," he said. "They have used every tool available to try to destroy him, including through criminal prosecutions, including through federal investigations. . . . They've really tried to get him. And for them now to say, 'oh, just because we did that to you for 10 years doesn't give you the right to do it to us.' Legally, that's sound. I mean, you have to prove your case in court. But politically, I don't think that's going to fly. Democrats screaming that Donald Trump is weaponizing prosecutors against them is not going to really impress a lot of people." Jacobson speculated that there will likely be more woes for Schiff in the coming days, but that potential legal cases hinge on prosecutors. "We don't know where this is going ahead, of course, but it does appear that Adam Schiff is in the sights of Donald Trump. No surprise about that, because Donald Trump has been in the sights of Adam Schiff for a decade. So, I fully expect that there will be more here. The question is going to be really though, once it moves into the realm of prosecution, what are the prosecutors going to do?" The Department of Justice declined comment when approached about potentially investigating and taking up the Schiff case. Schiff's office did not respond to Fox Digital's request for comment.
Fox News
5 days ago
- Business
- Fox News
Cornell Law professor discusses Sen. Adam Schiff's mortgage fraud investigation
Cornell Law School Professor William Jacobson spoke to Fox News Digital to provide his legal insight on the investigation into California Sen. Adam Schiff's mortgages stretching back to the early 2000s.
Indian Express
03-07-2025
- Indian Express
What is the Mann Act, the 114-year-old law used to convict Sean ‘Diddy' Combs?
Sean 'Diddy' Combs, the iconic music mogul and entrepreneur, was convicted Wednesday under the federal Mann Act, a 114-year-old anti-sex trafficking law originally intended to curb 'immoral' behaviour and prostitution across state lines. Though Combs was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering charges, he was found guilty of transporting people across state lines for paid sexual encounters, including former romantic partners and male sex workers. The case marks one of the most high-profile modern convictions under the Mann Act that has previously ensnared figures like R. Kelly, Ghislaine Maxwell, Chuck Berry, and more than a century ago, Jack Johnson, the first Black heavyweight boxing champion. The Mann Act was passed by the US Congress in 1910 and named after Republican Representative James Robert Mann of Illinois. It was originally known as the 'White-Slave Traffic Act', intended to crack down on forced prostitution and sex trafficking. It criminalised the transport of 'any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.' Initially aimed at addressing what was perceived as the forced trafficking of women (often sensationalised as 'white slavery'), the law's vague wording led to numerous controversial prosecutions. According to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute, the statute was later used to criminalise interracial relationships, consensual sex, and other forms of behaviour labelled as 'immoral' by early 20th-century standards. Combs was convicted of transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution, specifically involving two women: R&B singer Cassie and another woman who testified under the pseudonym Jane. Cassie said Combs pressured her into degrading sex marathons with strangers and beat her when she tried to leave one such event. Jane described a similar incident, saying Combs assaulted her when she refused to participate. Both women testified that some of the individuals involved were paid for sexual performances. Though the court did not convict Combs on the more severe counts of sex trafficking, the Mann Act conviction still carries serious penalties and reputational damage. The Mann Act was originally aimed at stopping the transport of women and girls for prostitution or 'immoral purposes.' It gained notoriety for its use in controversial cases, most notably that of Jack Johnson, the first Black world heavyweight boxing champion. Johnson was convicted in 1913 for traveling with a white girlfriend who was a sex worker. President Donald Trump posthumously pardoned Johnson in 2018, calling the conviction a 'racially motivated injustice.' A 1917 Supreme Court ruling expanded the act's interpretation, allowing prosecutions for consensual sexual activity under the definition of 'immoral purpose.' In 1986, the Mann Act was amended to become gender-neutral, removing outdated phrases like 'debauchery' and 'immoral purpose' and replacing them with more legally precise language: 'any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.' The Act was also updated in 1978 and 1994 to focus specifically on the sexual exploitation of minors and child trafficking. Today, the Mann Act is primarily used to prosecute interstate prostitution and child sex crimes, rather than consensual adult relationships. Still, its past continues to cast a shadow. Despite these reforms, Combs' lawyers sought to dismiss the charge, arguing that the Mann Act still carried racial baggage. Prosecutors pushed back, pointing out that most of Combs' accusers are people of color and that the current use of the law is based strictly on the nature of the criminal acts. (With Inputs from Associated Press)
Time Magazine
02-07-2025
- Time Magazine
What Is Racketeering? One of the Charges 'Diddy' Combs Faced
Though rapper and music mogul Sean 'Diddy' Combs has been found guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution, he was acquitted of more serious charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy. The racketeering charge proved the most difficult for the jury to agree on: By Tuesday afternoon, it had reportedly reached a verdict on all the other charges, but said jurors had 'unpersuadable opinions on both sides" regarding the racketeering conspiracy count. They only reached a decision the following morning, after the judge told them to continue deliberating. Combs, 55, faces up to 20 years in prison. But if convicted on the charge of racketeering and the two charges of sex trafficking, he could have confronted a much longer sentence—potentially life behind bars. Here is what you need to know about the charge that gave the jury in Combs's trial the most trouble. What is racketeering? Racketeering comprises various illegal activities that multiple people engage in to earn a commercial profit, possibly under the guise of conducting legitimate business, according to Cornell Law School. It does not refer to one specific crime, but several different crimes that fall under the same federal law: the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. RICO was passed in an effort to combat organized crime, at a time when the mafia's disconnected structure and disparate and seemingly uncorrelated crimes made conviction of high-ranking leaders difficult. For someone to be convicted of RICO charges, the Justice Department says, a pattern of crimes must be proven that includes at least two instances of racketeering committed within a ten-year period and as part of a long-term association with an 'enterprise' formed to carry out criminal activities. Prosecutors must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of the criminal enterprise and intended to participate. Racketeering conspiracy, which Combs was charged with, is a charge alleging that at least two people conspired to violate the RICO statute. According to David Shapiro, lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, racketeering charges require a lot of 'investigative and prosecutorial resources,' which is why they are not used very often. 'It's one of those things that requires a great deal of effort, expenses, experts, witnesses, to comb through transactions over 10 plus years, trying to link them together and demonstrate the existence of a corrupt organization controlling and directing these predicate crimes,' Shapiro tells TIME. Lorraine Gauli-Rufo, an attorney at LGR Law in New Jersey who has dealt with multiple racketeering charges, speculated on why the jury in Combs's trial may have come to the decision it did. 'We think that [the jury] probably found him as a sole individual, not an enterprise—not a group that existed with a common purpose. And if that was the case, that would explain why they didn't find [Combs] guilty on the RICO count,' Gauli-Rufi told TIME. What are some examples of racketeering? A number of different offenses can amount to racketeering if they're part of a pattern, including drug trafficking, sex trafficking, money laundering, and extortion. In the cases of high-profile mafia members like John Gotti, the head of the Gambino crime family, RICO charges have been used in their most classic form—to deal with the mob. Gotti was convicted of multiple counts of racketeering in 1992. RICO charges have similarly been levied in more recent organized crime prosecutions, including in a case involving members of the MS-13 Gang that resulted in three defendants pleading guilty earlier this year. Racketeering has also been used as a charge in several high-profile federal cases to prosecute men accused of sexual abuse. In addition to Combs, the R&B singer R. Kelly also faced the charge, in relation to 14 connected accusations including the sexual exploitation of children, sex trafficking, and forced labor. Kelly was found guilty of racketeering and sex trafficking and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Racketeering was also notably used in the indictments against nine Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) officials and several other corporate executives, which alleged systemic bribery spanning a 24-year period going back to 1991. In each of these cases, prosecutors worked to prove long-standing and premeditated criminal acts that were connected, yet disparate, as part of the RICO charges. How long can you be in prison for RICO charges? RICO charges carry a maximum criminal penalty of 20 years in prison for each count a defendant is convicted on, according to Cornell Law.
