Latest news with #Richmond-based
Axios
6 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Richmond-area immigrants face ICE arrests at routine check-ins
ICE agents are increasingly showing up at Richmond-area courthouses and arresting immigrants at routine check-ins once considered safe, local immigration lawyers tell Axios. The big picture: ICE arrests at the Chesterfield courthouse have put a spotlight on the county in the past month, sparking concerns from some county leaders and conservative Sheriff Karl Leonard, who told WTVR it's straining efforts to build trust with immigrant communities. But it's not happening only in Chesterfield. Henrico's Commonwealth's Attorney Shannon Taylor told Axios there have been three instances since June where federal agents showed up at Henrico's courthouse. While Richmond's Commonwealth's Attorney Colette McEachin told Axios that ICE hasn't been spotted at city courthouses yet, "victims have expressed concerns about coming to court." McEachin also says defense attorneys have begun calling her office asking if there are any ICE agents "in or near Richmond's three courthouses." Zoom in: Then there are the arrests happening at routine check-ins in ICE's Midlothian field office — something Richmond-based immigration attorney Miriam Airington-Fisher says she hadn't seen before in her 16 years of practice. These required check-ins are scheduled appointments for people with pending immigration cases where officers confirm their address and that they haven't had any criminal charges. Airington-Fisher says even people with no criminal history who have "done everything right" are getting detained. She's now advising clients to not attend these check-ins without an attorney. ICE did not respond to Axios ' requests for comment. Threat level: Airington-Fisher says she's seeing people withdraw their immigration cases even though many are still getting approved. And a longtime free legal clinic in Richmond that her firm hosts monthly has seen a decline in attendance. Victims of crime could also be impacted if undocumented witnesses are too scared to testify in court, says Jessica Wright, a Richmond-based immigration attorney. Wright says fear of these arrests have also created a ripple effect where clients have questioned whether to pull their kids from school, quit their jobs or call local police when needed. What they're saying: "I have grown men shaking in their boots, asking me to escort them from their car, straight into the courtroom and stand by their side all the way back to their car," Wright says. "It's so demoralizing."
Global News
7 days ago
- Business
- Global News
2 more B.C. animal charities targeted by scammer claiming to be 90-year-old ‘donor'
Two more British Columbia animal sanctuaries are coming forward after being targeted by a scammer posing as a big money donor. It comes after a Richmond-based charity was targeted in the same scam — spending thousands of dollars of the supposed donation before they realized it was a fraud. Diane Marsh, co-founder of the Happy Herd farm sanctuary in Langley, said she was overjoyed last month when a woman calling herself 'Pamela Pear' reached out, offering a big donation from her recently deceased partner's estate. 'She said I'm 90 years old, so I am not good at this, but she wanted to leave us $25,000 — which is huge for us — and she was leaving $70,000 for the care of her dog,' Marsh said. 1:58 Richmond-based animal charity warns about scam It's a sum Marsh said would have covered a year's worth of bills for the little sanctuary which provides refuge for aging and unwanted farm animals. Story continues below advertisement '$25,000 for a sanctuary like ours is huge,' she said. 'It was exciting to think somebody would care that much.' Marsh gave the woman her mailing information, and several weeks later the cheque showed up in the mail. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy But instead of being for $25,000, the sum was $95,000. Marsh took the cheque to the bank, where an alert teller quickly flagged the deposit as suspicious. The teller pointed out how the attached lawyer's letter wasn't on proper letterhead, the email address was a Hotmail address, not a business address, and the cheque had just one signature. 'All of these things were setting off bells. I've got my phone out, I'm Googling the lawyer — he doesn't exist. I'm Googling his company, it doesn't exist,' Marsh said. 'It was just the worst feeling in the world. You know, you're so excited, and then you realize somebody is out there doing the worst thing possible.' After calling the RCMP, Marsh began calling other sanctuaries to warn them about the scam. Her first call was to SAINTS Recue, a sanctuary for senior and special needs animals in Mission. They, too, had received the same cheque that very day. Story continues below advertisement 3:40 Consumer Matters: CFL vendor scam targeting businesses 'I have a suspicious mindset anyway, and we had in the last six weeks … a couple of other scams that … at first you might have thought they were legit, but they had made a few errors that caught our attention and that I caught, and they didn't go through, so I think I was already had the mindset that something was a scam,' said SAINTS board director Sheila Kullar. Kullar said she started to get alarm bells early in her correspondence with the scammer, but thought some of the communication issues could have been due to dealing with a 90-year-old donor. But when the improperly configured cheque showed up with the same lawyer's letter Marsh received, she quickly concluded it was fake. 'It was a really good scam because it is very plausible when you're 90 years old you do get confused easy, you don't understand the process anymore and it was a plausible story,' she said. Story continues below advertisement 'If it had been $95,000, woo-hoo! We would have been ecstatic. We would've been able to use it, obviously, for our shelter. We could've used it for the new shelter that we're putting renovations into; it's expensive.' Marsh said police later explained that if she had been able to cash the cheque, the scammer would then have reached out and claimed they'd only meant to send the original $25,000, and try and get the charity to send them back $70,000. When the bogus cheque bounced, the charity would have been on the hook for the money it sent back to the scammer. It's the same technique used against Richmond's Regional Animal Protection Society, and though they didn't end up spending the $70,000 they did spend the $25,000 they thought they had received. All three charities are now hoping to get the word out and ensure none of their colleagues become victims of fraud. 'I would just wonder what kind of mentality they have, you know, if that's their life that they have to cheat a charity who's trying to do good work and who lives off donations,' Marsh said. 'They're cruel. They're cruel. They should be in jail.'
Time Business News
7 days ago
- Time Business News
How Law Firm Cantor Grana Buckner Bucci Supports Clients Through the Emotional Journey of Litigation
For most people, the decision to file a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit is not made lightly. It often comes in the aftermath of something sudden, tragic, and deeply personal. A phone call in the middle of the night. A devastating diagnosis. A life forever changed by someone else's negligence. What follows is not just a legal process but an emotional one. And for the attorneys at Cantor Grana Buckner Bucci, understanding that truth is at the core of how they practice law. This Richmond-based firm is known for winning high-stakes cases involving catastrophic injuries, medical malpractice, and wrongful deaths. But behind every courtroom win is something quieter and more powerful. A human connection. A space where clients feel supported, not just as plaintiffs, but as people trying to survive the most difficult chapter of their lives. When the Legal System Meets Real Life The legal process can feel overwhelming even in the best of times. For someone who has just experienced trauma, it can feel impossible. Grief, anger, confusion, and fear often show up before any legal paperwork is filed. People are trying to make sense of something that may never make sense. They are expected to make choices that will shape their future while still trying to understand what happened in the past. Cantor Grana Buckner Bucci does not treat these clients like files or timelines. From the first conversation, the firm recognizes that clients are entering this process already carrying a heavy emotional burden. That awareness shapes every interaction, every explanation, every decision. Meeting Clients Where They Are There is no standard emotional response to loss. Some clients are angry. Some are in shock. Others are still holding out hope for a different outcome. The attorneys at Cantor Grana Buckner Bucci understand that they cannot and should not rush someone through those emotions. What they can do is meet each person where they are, with patience and respect. They take the time to explain the process clearly and calmly. They check in when they sense someone is overwhelmed. They let silence sit when words are too hard to find. These moments may not appear on a billing sheet, but they shape the experience of the client in a lasting way. This is what it means to be a trauma-informed advocate. Not just knowing the law, but understanding the human condition. Preparing for More Than Court For many clients, the idea of testifying or facing the opposing side can be terrifying. It is not just the fear of saying something wrong. It is the fear of reliving the pain, of having their experience questioned, of being reduced to evidence. Cantor Grana Buckner Bucci prepares their clients for these moments with a mix of technical guidance and emotional support. They walk clients through what to expect, not just from a legal perspective but from a human one. They explain that it is okay to be nervous. That it is okay to cry. That strength does not mean being emotionless. This preparation helps clients feel grounded. It gives them the confidence to speak their truth in a space that can often feel cold and adversarial. And in doing so, it helps shift the courtroom into a space where dignity still has a place. Caring for the Whole Family When tragedy strikes, it rarely affects just one person. Spouses, parents, children, all feel the ripple effects. Medical bills pile up. Jobs are lost. Roles within the family shift. Sometimes the person who was the emotional anchor is the one who is now gone. Other times, they are present but no longer the same. Cantor Grana Buckner Bucci recognizes that they are not just representing a plaintiff. They are often representing a household trying to hold itself together. They listen to caregivers. They make time for extended family members who need to understand what is happening. They adjust meeting times around medical appointments or school pickups. This kind of flexibility is not a marketing point. It is a reflection of the firm's belief that legal work must adapt to the lives of the people it serves. After the Verdict: What Closure Really Looks Like Winning a case does not undo what has been lost. No settlement brings a loved one back. No verdict erases the pain of a life-altering injury. But what justice can do is provide clarity. It can offer financial support for the future. It can hold the responsible party accountable. And sometimes, it can give a family the sense that someone finally acknowledged the truth. Cantor Grana Buckner Bucci does not walk away after a case ends. They check in. They celebrate with clients when it feels right to do so. They remain a resource long after the court documents have been filed and archived. For many clients, this continued relationship means everything. It is a reminder that they were not just a transaction. They were someone the firm cared for and stood beside when it mattered most. A Different Kind of Lawyering There is a kind of lawyering that does not get taught in school. It is the kind that involves sitting quietly while a client cries. The kind that knows when to push forward and when to pause. The kind that sees the courtroom not just as a place for argument, but as a place for truth. This is the kind of lawyering that Cantor Grana Buckner Bucci practices every day. Their work is rooted in legal excellence, but it is guided by something deeper, a profound respect for what people go through when their world falls apart. Healing Alongside Justice The attorneys at Cantor Grana Buckner Bucci do not pretend that litigation can fix what has been broken. But they know that it can help people move forward. It can restore a sense of agency. It can provide the means to rebuild. And in some cases, it can start the healing process. Their clients are not just cases. They are survivors. They are families trying to make it through. And they are seen, heard, and honored every step of the way. That is what makes this firm different. That is what makes their work matter. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
CNBC
7 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
Supreme Court allows Trump to fire members of product safety agency
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed President Donald Trump to fire members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a federal agency set up by Congress to be independent of political pressures. The justices, granting an emergency request filed by the Trump administration, blocked a Maryland-based federal judge's ruling that reinstated Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr., all of whom had been appointed by then-President Joe Biden. Without the three members in place, the five-member commission would for now lack the necessary quorum to fulfill its obligation to protect consumers from defective products. Under existing law, members can only be removed for "neglect of duty or malfeasance," but Trump went ahead and fired members anyway, as he has done at other agencies with similar restrictions as part of his aggressive efforts to reshape the federal government. The Supreme Court in May allowed him to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, casting aside precedent dating back to 1935 that upheld removal protections. The unsigned order on Wednesday said that the latest case was "squarely controlled" by what the high court decided then. As in the previous case, the three liberal justices on the conservative-majority court dissented. "Once again, this court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress," wrote Justice Elena Kagan. In ruling against Trump, lower court judges relied on the 1935 precedent, a case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which the Supreme Court has not overturned but has signaled it will in due course. The court has in recent rulings undermined the 1935 precedent by saying that similar restrictions on presidential power involving other agencies are unconstitutional because they infringe on the core constitutional powers of the president. In 2020, the court ruled on those grounds in a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director and followed that up with a similar ruling a year later concerning the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Trump in May moved to fire the three Consumer Product Safety Commission members. A month later, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Maddox ordered that they be reinstated and they returned to their jobs while litigation continued. The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put Maddox's ruling on hold. The commission, set up in 1972 by Congress, oversees a wide variety of consumer product issues, including safety standards and research into injury prevention. In order to insulate the commission from politics, Congress gave the members staggered seven-year terms, stipulated that only three could represent the same political party and said the president could not fire them at will. All five members are appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate and expected to have expertise on consumer product safety issues. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court papers that Maddox's ruling has "sown chaos and dysfunction" at the agency, with the reinstated members moving to undo actions that the commission took after they were initially fired. Lawyers for the commission members wrote in their own filing that the court would be adding to the disruption if it allowed their clients to be removed from office a second time. In some cases, the three commissioners have been "undoing actions that the CPSC unlawfully took" during the time they were prevented from working, the lawyers added.
NBC News
7 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court allows Trump to fire members of product safety agency
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed President Donald Trump to fire members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a federal agency set up by Congress to be independent of political pressures. The justices, granting an emergency request filed by the Trump administration, blocked a Maryland-based federal judge's ruling that reinstated Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr., all of whom had been appointed by then-President Joe Biden. Without the three members in place, the five-member commission would for now lack the necessary quorum to fulfill its obligation to protect consumers from defective products. Under existing law, members can only be removed for 'neglect of duty or malfeasance,' but Trump went ahead and fired members anyway, as he has done at other agencies with similar restrictions as part of his aggressive efforts to reshape the federal government. The Supreme Court in May allowed him to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, casting aside precedent dating back to 1935 that upheld removal protections. The unsigned order on Wednesday said that the latest case was "squarely controlled" by what the high court decided then. As in the previous case, the three liberal justices on the conservative-majority court dissented. "Once again, this court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress," wrote Justice Elena Kagan. In ruling against Trump, lower court judges relied on the 1935 precedent, a case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which the Supreme Court has not overturned but has signaled it will in due course. The court has in recent rulings undermined the 1935 precedent by saying that similar restrictions on presidential power involving other agencies are unconstitutional because they infringe on the core constitutional powers of the president. In 2020, the court ruled on those grounds in a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director and followed that up with a similar ruling a year later concerning the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Trump in May moved to fire the three Consumer Product Safety Commission members. A month later, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Maddox ordered that they be reinstated and they returned to their jobs while litigation continued. The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put Maddox's ruling on hold. The commission, set up in 1972 by Congress, oversees a wide variety of consumer product issues, including safety standards and research into injury prevention. In order to insulate the commission from politics, Congress gave the members staggered seven-year terms, stipulated that only three could represent the same political party and said the president could not fire them at will. All five members are appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate and expected to have expertise on consumer product safety issues. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court papers that Maddox's ruling has 'sown chaos and dysfunction' at the agency, with the reinstated members moving to undo actions that the commission took after they were initially fired. Lawyers for the commission members wrote in their own filing that the court would be adding to the disruption if it allowed their clients to be removed from office a second time. In some cases, the three commissioners have been "undoing actions that the CPSC unlawfully took" during the time they were prevented from working, the lawyers added.
