Latest news with #legalcontroversy
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pam Bondi ‘could have tried Epstein' while Florida AG, law professor says
Pam Bondi 'could have tried' Jeffrey Epstein while she was Florida Attorney General between 2011 and 2019, according to a law professor. President Donald Trump's embattled Attorney General has been mired in controversy over the release of the Epstein files, which she claimed were sitting on her desk in February. The Department of Justice announced on July 6 that no more evidence in the case would be released and that the disgraced financier did not have a 'client list.' Following widespread outrage from MAGA, Trump ordered Bondi to release certain Epstein files and relevant grand jury testimony 'subject to court approval.' Before joining the Trump administration, Bondi, who represented Trump during his first impeachment proceedings in 2019, served as Florida's first female attorney general. The Palm Beach Post asked the question: 'Should Bondi have looked into Epstein's crimes between the time of his jail release in 2009 and the filing of the criminal charges in 2019, when many have alleged that he sexually assaulted hundreds more?' Before joining the Trump administration Bondi, who represented Trump during his first impeachment proceedings in 2019, served as Florida's first female attorney general. (AP) Theoretically, she could have, said Nova Southeastern University law professor Robert Jarvis. 'The federal government and the state government, of course, are two different political entities, and both have the power to try the same person for the same crime, using their respective laws,' Jarvis told the Post. 'Thus, Pam Bondi could have tried Epstein.' The Independent has contacted Bondi's office for comment. Jarvis, however, added that Bondi would not necessarily have had cause to initiate a new investigation unless someone had specifically brought a case to her attention. 'I would not criticize her for not doing anything for what seem[s] to be a case that had already been adjudicated and dealt with and punishment handed out,' Jarvis told the outlet. Authorities in Palm Beach started investigating Epstein in Florida in 2005 (Florida Department of Law Enforc) Authorities in Palm Beach started investigating Epstein in Florida in 2005. A grand jury charged him with one count of solicitation of prostitution in 2006 as accounts of sexual abuse from his island mansion began to come to light. In 2008, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence, Epstein was given the 'deal of the century' that saw him serve 13 months out of an 18-month sentence for only two prostitution-related felonies. He was released in July 2009. Federal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein a decade later. Bondi said a motion to release grand jury testimony in the Epstein case was filed on Friday in a post on X. Solve the daily Crossword
The Independent
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Pam Bondi ‘could have tried Epstein' while Florida AG, law professor says
Pam Bondi 'could have tried' Jeffrey Epstein while she was Florida Attorney General between 2011 and 2019, according to a law professor. President Donald Trump's embattled Attorney General has been mired in controversy over the release of the Epstein files, which she claimed were sitting on her desk in February. The Department of Justice announced on July 6 that no more evidence in the case would be released and that the disgraced financier did not have a 'client list.' Following widespread outrage from MAGA, Trump ordered Bondi to release certain Epstein files and relevant grand jury testimony 'subject to court approval.' Before joining the Trump administration, Bondi, who represented Trump during his first impeachment proceedings in 2019, served as Florida's first female attorney general. The Palm Beach Post asked the question: 'Should Bondi have looked into Epstein's crimes between the time of his jail release in 2009 and the filing of the criminal charges in 2019, when many have alleged that he sexually assaulted hundreds more?' Theoretically, she could have, said Nova Southeastern University law professor Robert Jarvis. 'The federal government and the state government, of course, are two different political entities, and both have the power to try the same person for the same crime, using their respective laws,' Jarvis told the Post. 'Thus, Pam Bondi could have tried Epstein.' The Independent has contacted Bondi's office for comment. Jarvis, however, added that Bondi would not necessarily have had cause to initiate a new investigation unless someone had specifically brought a case to her attention. 'I would not criticize her for not doing anything for what seem[s] to be a case that had already been adjudicated and dealt with and punishment handed out,' Jarvis told the outlet. Authorities in Palm Beach started investigating Epstein in Florida in 2005. A grand jury charged him with one count of solicitation of prostitution in 2006 as accounts of sexual abuse from his island mansion began to come to light. In 2008, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence, Epstein was given the 'deal of the century' that saw him serve 13 months out of an 18-month sentence for only two prostitution-related felonies. He was released in July 2009. Federal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein a decade later. Bondi said a motion to release grand jury testimony in the Epstein case was filed on Friday in a post on X.
The Guardian
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
What are superinjunctions and why was one imposed in Afghan case?
A data breach that led the UK government to offer relocation to 15,000 Afghans in a secret scheme with a potential cost of more than £2bn escaped parliamentary and media scrutiny until Tuesday when a superinjunction was lifted more than 600 days after it had taken effect. Here, the Guardian explains the legal background to the controversy. A regular injunction is a court order that prevents certain details of a case from being made public. A superinjunction prohibits disclosure not only of the underlying information but also of the existence of the order itself. One of the earliest known superinjunctions was obtained by the oil-trading company Trafigura in 2009 to prevent the Guardian from reporting details of toxic waste dumping in Ivory Coast. They have also been used by celebrities such as the footballers John Terry and Ryan Giggs to try to stop reporting about their private lives. The Daily Mail said that after its reporter approached the Ministry of Defence (MoD) about the breach, the D-notice committee (formally the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee) was activated, which advises the press on threats to national security. Compliance with the committee is not obligatory but the Mail said it agreed not to publish the story. It said the government applied for a binding court order after others became aware of the breach. Ben Wallace, who was defence secretary at the time, told the BBC's Today programme that when ministers went to the high court 'we applied for a four-month injunction, a normal injunction,' and that he did not know why it was converted into a superinjunction in September 2023. He said his priority 'was to protect those people who could have been or were exposed by this data leak'. Mr Justice Robin Knowles said in his 2023 judgment that he had gone further than what the MoD had requested. 'Although it was proposed that the order (not the hearing) should be in public and published on the court website, I have decided it should be in private and not published on the website, at least at this stage,' he said. After Paul Rimmer, a former civil servant, carried out a review for the MoD, Mr Justice Chamberlain ordered on 26 June that the injunction be lifted from noon on Tuesday 16 July because Rimmer's conclusions 'fundamentally undermine the evidential basis on which [the courts previously] relied in deciding that the superinjunction should be continued'. This time there was no appeal. In his review, Rimmer said: 'It appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting. It is therefore also unlikely that family members – immediate or more distant – will be targeted simply because the 'principal' appears in the dataset. Should the Taliban wish to target individuals, the wealth of data inherited from the former government would already enable them to do so.' The aim was ostensibly to prevent risk to life, but in a judgment in May last year ordering that the superinjunction be lifted – which was subsequently overturned by the court of appeal – Chamberlain said: 'It is fundamentally objectionable for decisions that affect the lives and safety of thousands of human beings, and involve the commitment of billions of pounds of public money, to be taken in circumstances where they are completely insulated from public debate.' He said the superinjunction was likely to have an adverse effect on those not being relocated as they would not be able to react to any threat or benefit from public pressure on the government to do more for them. In last month's final judgment, Chamberlain said: 'The assessments in Mr Rimmer's report are very different from those on which the superinjunction was sought and granted. The change is in part due to the passage of time … It will be for others to consider whether lessons can be learned from the way the initial assessments in this case were prepared and whether the courts were, or are generally, right to accord such weight to assessments of this kind. Mark Stephens, a partner at Howard Kennedy and a trustee of Index on Censorship, said it might have been justified by the exceptional circumstances but added: 'The difficulty here is, I think you're only entitled to the superinjunction for as long as it is necessary, essentially to preserve life, and it's not clear that this didn't run on a bit longer.'
Daily Mail
11-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE The Salt Path house that controversial author claimed to have lost through no fault of her own is now an Airbnb where you can stay for £178 a night
The house at the centre of the Salt Path controversy has become an Airbnb where guests can stay for £178-a-night, MailOnline has learned. Raynor Winn, who wrote the best selling book, claims she lost the 17th century farmhouse in Pwllheli, Wales, when she and her husband Moth invested in a friend's company that failed. The couple were taken to court where a judge ruled their business associate - a man named only as Cooper - should get the house in lieu of the money they owed. In the book Winn said: 'We lost. Lost the case. Lost the house.' The Salt Path tells the story of how they became homeless after the house was repossessed which was closely followed by the discovery that Moth had the terminal condition corticobasal degeneration (CBD). Winn and Moth - real names Sally and Timothy Walker - set off on a year-long trek along the South West Coastal Path, sleeping in a tent and facing numerous ordeals along the way. But their story, made into a film starring Gillian Anderson and Jason Isaacs, has been thrown into doubt after locals in Pwllheli have a very different version of events. They claim Winn embezzled up to £64,000 from the local estate agency where she worked as a bookkeeper. They also allegedly owed the local car repair garage £800 and the new owner of the farmhouse has claimed she received unpaid bills and letters from debt collection agencies addressed to the couple. The home is now owned by Maxine Farrimond, 57, who bought the 17th century Penymaes farmhouse, five miles north of Pwllheli in 2016. The Airbnb has been profitable for Ms Farrimond who is described as a 'Superhost' on the company's website She has turned it into a profitable Airbnb and is described as a 'Superhost' on the company's website. It is booked out for most of the summer but the six-bedroom property can be rented for £1,246 for a week in September. Until now guests staying at the farmhouse had no idea of its connection to the Salt Path book which has sold over two million copies. But now fans of the book and film can book the house which was going to be Winn and Moth's 'forever home'.
