Latest news with #publicrecords
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas AG claimed three homes as primary residence. Democrats are being probed for similar issue
WASHINGTON (AP) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife, Angela, are longtime owners of a $1.5 million house in a gated community outside Dallas. In 2015, they snapped up a second home in Austin. Then another. The problem: Mortgages signed by the Paxtons contained inaccurate statements declaring that each of those three houses was their primary residence, enabling the now-estranged couple to improperly lock in low interest rates, according to an Associated Press review of public records. The lower rates will save the Paxtons tens of thousands of dollars in payments over the life of the loan, legal experts say. The records also revealed that the Paxtons collected an improper homestead tax break on two of those homes at the same time. It is a federal and state crime to knowingly make false statements on mortgage documents. It's also against the law in Texas to collect a homestead tax break on two separate properties. Mortgages have become political fodder The mortgage revelations are sure to become fodder in the Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat in which Paxton is seeking to topple the incumbent, John Cornyn. The situation is further complicated by the Trump administration's pursuit of Democrats over similar issues. President Donald Trump has accused two of his political foes — Sen. Adam Schiff of California and New York Attorney General Letitia James — of committing mortgage fraud in similar, though far less serious, circumstances. The Democrats have long been targets of Trump's ire for having led various investigations into his conduct as president and as a business executive. The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation of James. It received a criminal referral for Schiff last week from the Federal Housing Finance Agency. James' attorney, Abbe Lowell, urged the Trump administration to investigate Paxton instead. 'If this administration was genuinely interested in rooting out fraud, it appears they should stop wasting their time on the baseless and discredited allegations against the New York Attorney General James and turn their attention to Texas,' said Lowell, a prominent Washington attorney whose past clients include Hunter Biden and Ivanka Trump. In a statement, Marisol Samayoa, a Schiff spokeswoman, blasted the criminal referral as 'a transparent attempt' by Trump 'to punish a perceived political foe who is committed to holding him to account.' It's unlikely that Paxton, a staunch Trump ally, will face the same federal scrutiny as James and Schiff. It's equally doubtful that Paxton will face much legal trouble in Texas: His office is one of the primary agencies tasked with investigating allegations of mortgage fraud. Ken Paxton and his spokesman did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Angela Paxton, who is a state senator in Texas, did not respond to requests made through her office. Three of the Paxtons' homes are each listed as a primary residence Documents reviewed by the AP show the Paxtons hold mortgages on three homes — one in suburban Dallas, two in Austin — that are each listed as their primary residence. The designation comes with a considerable financial upside. Interest rates on primary homes are significantly lower than those for mortgages on secondary homes or investment properties, saving buyers tens of thousands of dollars — if not more — over the life of a loan. Legal experts say it's possible that the Paxtons' lenders prepared the documents and that the couple did not carefully review them before signing. Even if that were the case, some legal experts say that Paxton, as an attorney and Texas' top law enforcement officer, ought to have known better. 'If he filled out lender documents knowing that they were false, then that is a false statement to obtain a mortgage on favorable terms. That would be actionable,' said Arif Lawji, a veteran Texas real estate attorney. Low interest rates are not the only perk the Paxtons secured, records show. In 2018, they simultaneously collected homestead property tax breaks on their family's home in suburban Dallas, as well as on a $1.1 million home in Austin, property records and tax statements show. A homestead tax break is a property tax reduction that a homeowner is only eligible to collect on one property that is also their primary home. The suburban Dallas home is where the Paxtons' family has long resided. It's where Ken and Angela Paxton are registered to vote. It is located in the state Senate district that Angela Paxton represents in the Legislature, which Ken Paxton held before his election in 2014 to be attorney general. Lawji said the Paxtons' simultaneous collection of two homestead tax breaks appears to be a more clearcut violation. That's because one must obtain a form and submit it to taxing authorities to receive such a tax break, making it an 'intentional act,' he said. The tax break was worth several thousand dollars, a fact that confounded real estate lawyers. 'Why would you try to do all of this,' Lawji said, 'when you are the attorney general? That's a bigger question to me than the money, when you are AG and have to enforce this law.' Schiff and James come under fire from GOP Paxton's real estate dealings are in many ways distinct from those of James and Schiff, the Democrats targeted by the Trump administration. The investigation of James centers on forms she signed in 2023 while helping a niece buy a home. One form stated that James intended to occupy the home as her 'principal residence.' But in other documents, the New York attorney general made clear she had no intention of living there. An email to the mortgage loan broker two weeks before she signed the documents stated the property 'WILL NOT be my primary residence.' For over a decade, Schiff owned homes in Maryland and California, the state he represents, that were both designated as a primary residence. Schiff corrected the issue in 2020 — a step Paxton has not taken. Paxton's real estate dealings are not the first time he has drawn scrutiny for his conduct while in office. He spent roughly 10 years under state indictment on securities charges while serving as the state's top law enforcement official. The charges were eventually dropped in 2024. Other alleged misdeeds led to his impeachment by Texas' GOP-controlled House in 2023. He was acquitted in a trial by the Senate. What ultimately unleashed the impeachment push was Paxton's relationship with Austin real estate developer Nate Paul, who pleaded guilty this year to one count of making a false statement to a financial institution. In 2020, eight top aides in Paxton's office told the FBI they were concerned the state's top law enforcement official was misusing his office to help Paul. Brian Slodysko, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Times
I've fought the secret state for decades. Afghan scandal is no surprise
One of the things that struck me most noticeably when moving to the UK from the US in 1997 was the secrecy of the state toward its citizens. Having worked as a crime reporter in America, I discovered that most of the public records and information I used to do my job were actually illegal to access in the UK. I found the secrecy wasn't unique to law enforcement but rather a default attitude among officials. It didn't matter if I were asking for details of food hygiene inspections, parliamentary expenses or police reports, the attitude was the same. A kind of disbelief and then a patronising disdain, by which I was meant to understand that it was not my 'place' as a mere citizen — or subject as I learnt was the UK term — to ask for a full accounting from agents of the state. Instead, I should silently let officials get on with the important business of making decisions in my name and with my money. 'Put up, shut up' seemed to be the norm. This didn't strike me as particularly democratic. I remember battling in 2004 with the Highways Agency, now known as Highways England, just to get contact information for its new freedom of information officer. I was putting together a book, Your Right to Know, about people's new rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) 2000 that was coming into force in 2005. I thought it would be a game-changer for British democracy and I wanted to include contact details for the new FOI units in public agencies. I was used to naming public officials. In America it was no big deal; anonymity was only used if there was a valid reason. But you would have thought I'd asked for nuclear codes such was the shock and pushback I received to this simple request. The idea of providing actual names was anathema and I began to wonder who was the master here, and who the servant. The more I researched my book, the angrier I became. With all the idealism and arrogance of youth, I set out on behalf of the beleaguered British citizen to bring transparency to this secretive and feudal country, training hundreds of journalists to use the FOI Act and making requests myself. The result is probably one you know, when a five-year legal battle culminated in a High Court victory in 2008. I'm talking, of course, about MPs' expenses. Yet even after the court ruling, MPs still refused to publish their full expenses, arguing the public couldn't be trusted with the raw data and so it had to be 'redacted' at great expense and time. • MPs demand to know why they were kept in the dark over Afghan leak The months dragged on while MPs tried to find ways to exempt themselves from their own FOI law. It wasn't until a year later that full details were finally revealed, after an insider who worked in the room where the data was being redacted leaked the full list to the highest bidder on Fleet Street. The civilian employee said he leaked details of the claims because he was angry that, at the same time MPs were secretively claiming for plasma televisions and duck houses, Britain's armed forces in Afghanistan were having to work two jobs just to buy body armour and other vital equipment. A lot has changed since then but not, it seems, the British state's penchant for secrecy. Or the military's supercilious way of dealing with people in Afghanistan. Last week it was revealed that for two years the government used wide-ranging powers to prevent UK media reporting on a data leak of the names of 19,000 Afghans who had applied to move to the UK after the Taliban seized power in 2021. These included interpreters and military assistants who trusted the Ministry of Defence with their personal details and those of their families. Instead of those people being notified they were on a 'kill list', the MoD opted instead to try to lock down all knowledge of the leak. This is how authoritarian states are used to controlling information, but it's become much harder in the digital age. And indeed, while the MoD was successful in gagging the press, the information continued to flow online. As one of the Afghans, a woman known as Person A, told The Times: 'Lives could have been saved if everyone had been told about the leak back in August 2023. It would have enabled them to flee into Iran or Pakistan, which would have bought them some time. These families trusted the MoD and sat waiting for evacuation.' • Larisa Brown: I investigated the Afghan data leak. Ministers were gambling with death The MoD did eventually relocate 7,000 Afghan nationals to the UK, which cost about £850 million of taxpayer money. These were not always the Afghans most in danger, however, but rather those most likely to spread awareness of the leak. The privacy injunction, initially granted for only four months on September 1, 2023, meant there could be no public scrutiny or parliamentary oversight of this decision. The MoD claimed it needed this unprecedented secrecy to get those most in danger out of Afghanistan. But this did not happen, and instead it sought longer and longer extensions. In fact, it was only later, after media court action, that the MoD began relocating Afghans in large numbers. The superinjunction was lifted only on July 15 this year. Secrecy, in the hands of the powerful, is too easy a tool to abuse. The distance from protection to cover-up is short, and a tool initially intended to help can quickly morph into causing harm. That's why it should never be a default for anyone in power, but rather an exception. When I was appointed to the Independent Surveillance Review panel, a group convened in 2014 by the deputy prime minister at the time, Nick Clegg, to look at the legality, effectiveness and privacy implications of mass government surveillance, I saw how the former heads of the intelligence agencies were often blind to the dangers of secrecy. They had a faith in officialdom that I didn't share. Where they saw officials using secrecy only for the good of the people, I saw a tool easily abused to hide mistakes, cover up embarrassments and accrue power that corrodes democracy. Such an abuse of secrecy is clear from the Afghan data leak. Instead of owning the mistake and fixing it, the MoD wasted considerable public money to hide the breach for two years, putting many Afghans in harm's way. Secrecy used in this way is not for the protection of the people, but the protection of the powerful. It's about preserving the reputations of officials at all costs. The MoD's use of a worldwide gagging order to cover up its mistake makes it clear that such injunctions have no place in a democracy. The press has a hard enough time getting basic information out of the British state, it shouldn't have to fight battles in secret courts as well. Heather Brooke is an investigative journalist and the author of The Revolution Will Be Digitised
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ohio's Geauga County continues its fight to keep ICE contract secret
Immigration officials, their backs turned to hide their identities, pose with an Australian citizen who faces possible deportation back to his home country. (Photo by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) As masked federal officers raise fears by raiding workplaces and courthouses and detaining elected officials who object, Ohio's Geauga County is fighting to keep secret its contract to jail immigrants those officers arrest. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio last month sued Geauga County when the county failed to provide a copy of its contract to jail people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The ACLU is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to issue a writ mandating that Geauga County, which is just east of Cleveland, turn over the contract. The ACLU contends that such a contract between two public entities is a public document. For its part, the county is arguing that only ICE can release it. In a court filing Tuesday, Geauga County lawyers said 'they have not denied that they possess these records at the time of this filing, and that they have asserted that the requested records are prohibited by disclosure under federal law, and therefore exempted from disclosure under the Ohio Public Records Act, specifically, RC 149.43(A)(1)(v).' The provision cited under the Ohio public records law says that state officials can't release 'records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.' However, Geauga County didn't cite any part of state or federal law saying that ICE detention contracts are exempt from release. As a general matter, government documents can usually only be withheld or redacted if they contain sensitive personal information, business secrets, would compromise a law-enforcement investigation or if their disclosure would endanger public safety or national security. None of the nine exemptions the Department of Homeland Security says it has from federal open records law appears to apply to the ICE contracts. Geauga County can't simply hide behind federal immigration officials to avoid its obligations under Ohio open-records law, said Amy Gilbert, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU. 'Tellingly, Geauga doesn't dispute that it is withholding public records from disclosure,' she said in an email. 'The county's supposed reliance on ICE to tell it what to do does not relieve the county of this statutory duty. As a clear legal matter, their duty is governed by Ohio law.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Meanwhile, the lawfulness of ICE's conduct has been called into question elsewhere in Ohio — and across the country. ICE officers — some of them masked — on Tuesday handcuffed New York City Comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander when he asked to see the warrant they had to arrest a migrant who had appeared for a hearing at immigration court. The tactic in those and other courthouses has deprived migrants of a traditional safe space to engage with the legal system, critics say. Federal agents last week took U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla to the ground and handcuffed him as he tried to question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a press conference. Noem, who has struggled to explain fundamental legal protections for individuals, oversees ICE. In Butler County in Southwestern Ohio, supporters of Emerson Colindres had been demonstrating outside the jail against his ICE detention. Born in Honduras, Colindres, 19, had been living on Cincinnati's West Side since he was eight. On June 4, the recent high school graduate and soccer standout was arrested during a routine ICE check-in. CityBeat on Tuesday reported that ICE had moved Colindres to a private jail in Louisiana — even though his attorneys a day earlier had filed a motion to stop the deportation. In a written statement, Ohio Immigrant Alliance founder Lynn Tramonte said that if the goal of President Donald Trump's mass-deportation program was to make people feel safer, it's not working. 'No one benefits when masked ICE agents arrest immigrants at their immigration court hearings, while they are following the process,' she said. 'When ICE tricks a high school soccer star into showing up for an appointment, and arrests him on the spot. That doesn't help anyone at all.' Tramonte added, 'Emerson Colindres has a U visa waiting for him. One branch of the federal government is processing it, while another branch of the same government is trying to deport him.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Won't Hand Over His Emails With Elon Musk
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) says he shouldn't have to turn over emails between himself and billionaire Elon Musk in response to a journalist's public records request, arguing they include 'information that is intimate and embarrassing and not of legitimate concern to the public.' The Texas Newsroom, as part of an initiative with ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, said it sought out the emails between Abbott and Musk to see what kind of influence Musk had in Texas. During this year's legislative session, Musk's lobbyists advocated for nearly a dozen bills that would benefit his companies, and along with that, Abbott also cited Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency as a reason for Texas to launch its own efficiency department. In April, The Texas Newsroom requested emails between Abbott and Musk and others who have emails associated with Musk's companies dating back to the fall. The governor's office said it would take 13 hours to review the emails with a cost of $244.64 to be paid before the work was done. The Texas Newsroom staff said it wrote the check, but after it was cashed, Abbott's office responded that the emails were actually confidential and asked Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to keep them private. Paxton has yet to make a decision, and his office didn't immediately respond to HuffPost's request for comment. Matthew Taylor, Abbott's public information coordinator, argued in a letter that the emails should not be released because they included discussion of what Texas offers businesses to encourage them to invest in the state, 'privileged attorney-client communications,' and policy-making processes. Taylor also cited common-law privacy, a legal standard that protects information that a typical person would find 'highly objectionable' to publish and is not of public concern. 'The [Office of the Governor] asserts the information ... is intimate and embarrassing and not of legitimate concern to the public, including financial decisions that do not relate to transactions between an individual and a government body,' he wrote. In a comment to HuffPost, Andrew Mahaleris, Abbott's press secretary, said The Texas Newsroom's focus on the 'intimate and embarrassing' language in the letter is 'purposefully misleading.' 'The reporter knows full well that the language used comes from a Supreme Court of Texas opinion half a century old — with over 10,000 Office of Attorney General opinions applying those same common law privacy protections,' Mahaleris said. 'Texans and Texas businesses who disclose confidential and privileged information to state government should feel confident that their information will be protected.' The Texas Public Information Act Handbook of 2024 lists some examples of other things to be kept confidential, including medical records or records in an investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect. Gov. Greg Abbott Rants About Football, 'Losers' When Asked Who To Blame For Texas Floods Texas News Anchor Rips Kristi Noem And Greg Abbott Over Flood Press Conference Texas Lt. Governor Blows Up At Gov. Greg Abbott Over THC Ban Veto
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Won't Hand Over His Emails With Elon Musk
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) says he shouldn't have to turn over emails between himself and billionaire Elon Musk in response to a journalist's public records request, arguing they include 'information that is intimate and embarrassing and not of legitimate concern to the public.' The Texas Newsroom, as part of an initiative with ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, said it sought out the emails between Abbott and Musk to see what kind of influence Musk had in Texas. During this year's legislative session, Musk's lobbyists advocated for nearly a dozen bills that would benefit his companies, and along with that, Abbott also cited Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency as a reason for Texas to launch its own efficiency department. In April, The Texas Newsroom requested emails between Abbott and Musk and others who have emails associated with Musk's companies dating back to the fall. The governor's office said it would take 13 hours to review the emails with a cost of $244.64 to be paid before the work was done. The Texas Newsroom staff said it wrote the check, but after it was cashed, Abbott's office responded that the emails were actually confidential and asked Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to keep them private. Paxton has yet to make a decision, and his office didn't immediately respond to HuffPost's request for comment. Matthew Taylor, Abbott's public information coordinator, argued in a letter that the emails should not be released because they included discussion of what Texas offers businesses to encourage them to invest in the state, 'privileged attorney-client communications,' and policy-making processes. Taylor also cited common-law privacy, a legal standard that protects information that a typical person would find 'highly objectionable' to publish and is not of public concern. 'The [Office of the Governor] asserts the information ... is intimate and embarrassing and not of legitimate concern to the public, including financial decisions that do not relate to transactions between an individual and a government body,' he wrote. In a comment to HuffPost, Andrew Mahaleris, Abbott's press secretary, said The Texas Newsroom's focus on the 'intimate and embarrassing' language in the letter is 'purposefully misleading.' 'The reporter knows full well that the language used comes from a Supreme Court of Texas opinion half a century old — with over 10,000 Office of Attorney General opinions applying those same common law privacy protections,' Mahaleris said. 'Texans and Texas businesses who disclose confidential and privileged information to state government should feel confident that their information will be protected.' The Texas Public Information Act Handbook of 2024 lists some examples of other things to be kept confidential, including medical records or records in an investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect. Gov. Greg Abbott Rants About Football, 'Losers' When Asked Who To Blame For Texas Floods Texas News Anchor Rips Kristi Noem And Greg Abbott Over Flood Press Conference Texas Lt. Governor Blows Up At Gov. Greg Abbott Over THC Ban Veto
