Latest news with #PaulEngelmayer
CTV News
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- CTV News
Rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine pleads guilty to a drug possession charge
Rapper Daniel Hernandez, known as Tekashi 6ix9ine, is escorted by police as he arrives for a court hearing at the Palace of Justice, in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, on Jan. 25, 2024. (AP Photo/Ricardo Hernandez, File) NEW YORK — Rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine pleaded guilty Wednesday to drug possession in violation of his supervised release, marking his latest run-in with the law since he completed a federal prison sentence on racketeering and conspiracy charges. The 29-year-old performer, whose real name is Daniel Hernandez, told a Manhattan federal judge that his home in Miami was raided on March 12 and that 'residual' cocaine and MDMA — the party drug known as Molly or ecstasy — were found in his bedroom cabinet. In exchange for his guilty plea, prosecutors agreed to drop two other counts he faced stemming from the incident. The Brooklyn rapper, who shot to fame with the 2017 release of his song 'Gummo,' will be sentenced Sept. 25. He doesn't face any state charges related to the raid, but U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer warned him that the 'consequences will be severe' if he violates any of the conditions of his release before he is sentenced. Federal sentencing guidelines call for between three and nine months in prison for each count, but Hernandez could face up to five years in prison and a lifetime of supervised release, the judge added. The rapper, who was dressed in a black hoodie and who wasn't sporting his trademark colorful hairstyle, declined to comment as he left the courthouse. Hernandez pleaded guilty in 2018 to his involvement with a violent New York-based gang, the Nine Trey Gangsta Bloods. He was handed a lenient sentence of two years in prison in 2019 followed by five years of supervised release for his cooperation in the prosecution of other gang members. He was even released from federal prison several months early during the height of COVID-19 pandemic. But last November, Hernandez was found in violation of his probation for failing to show up for drug tests, traveling to Las Vegas from his Florida home without permission and lying to his probation officer. At the time, Engelmayer sentenced him to another 45 days in federal custody, saying the infractions showed a lack of respect for the law. Philip Marcelo, The Associated Press
Arab News
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Judge who drew calls for impeachment over DOGE ruling assigned to Maxwell transcript case
NEW YORK A federal judge who faced Republican demands for impeachment after blocking Elon Musk's government review team from accessing sensitive Treasury Department records will consider whether to release grand jury testimony from the criminal case of Jeffrey Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell. US District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan was assigned to the case on Monday. Maxwell's trial judge, Alison Nathan, is now a federal appellate judge. The assignment came three days after the US government sought to unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein, the disgraced financier and sex offender who died by suicide in 2019 in jail after being charged with sex trafficking. In a Friday court filing, the Department of Justice said the criminal cases against Epstein and Maxwell are a matter of public interest, justifying the release of associated grand jury transcripts. Backers of conspiracy theories about Epstein have urged President Donald Trump to release a broad array of investigative files related to Epstein, not just grand jury transcripts. Separately, US District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami was assigned on Monday to preside over Trump's $10-billion lawsuit accusing The Wall Street Journal of defaming him by claiming he created a lewd birthday greeting for Epstein in 2003. Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal and is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, said it will defend against the lawsuit, and had 'full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting.' News Corp. and Murdoch are also defendants. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Journal had been removed from the press pool covering Trump's July 25-29 trip to Scotland because of its 'fake and defamatory conduct.' 'As the appeals court confirmed, the Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces,' Leavitt said in a statement. A spokesperson for Dow Jones declined to comment on Leavitt's statement. Earlier this year, the White House removed The Associated Press from pool coverage because it had continued to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by that name instead of Trump's preferred 'Gulf of America.' Many Trump supporters view the judiciary as an impediment to the Republican president's policy and personal goals. Each case could take several months or longer to resolve, followed by possible appeals. Engelmayer and Gayles were appointed to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama. US District Judge Richard Berman, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, will oversee the government's request for transcripts in Epstein's criminal case. Engelmayer, 64, came under fire and drew Musk's scorn in February after temporarily blocking Musk's Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury systems. Congressman Derrick Van Orden, a Wisconsin Republican, said impeachment was justified because the judge played politics in his decision, 'demonstrating clear bias and prejudice against the president and the 74,000,000 Americans who voted for him.' Judicial impeachments are rare and normally reserved for serious misconduct, not disapproval of individual rulings. Any unsealed transcripts are likely to be redacted, reflecting privacy or security concerns. Gayles, 58, has been on the federal bench since 2014, after the US Senate approved his nomination by a 98-0 vote. The Wall Street Journal case is at least the second Trump lawsuit he has overseen. Gayles presided in 2023 over Trump's $500-million lawsuit accusing former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen of breaching fiduciary duties by revealing confidences and spreading falsehoods in books, podcasts, and media appearances. Trump voluntarily dismissed that case after six months. The lawyer who filed that case also filed the Journal lawsuit.
Reuters
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Judge who drew calls for impeachment over DOGE ruling assigned to Maxwell transcript case
NEW YORK, July 21 (Reuters) - A federal judge who faced Republican demands for impeachment after blocking Elon Musk's government review team from accessing sensitive Treasury Department records will consider whether to release grand jury testimony from the criminal case of Jeffrey Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan was assigned to the case on Monday. Maxwell's trial judge, Alison Nathan, is now a federal appellate judge. The assignment came three days after the U.S. government sought to unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein, the disgraced financier and sex offender who died by suicide in 2019 in jail after being charged with sex trafficking. In a Friday court filing, the Department of Justice said the criminal cases against Epstein and Maxwell are a matter of public interest, justifying the release of associated grand jury transcripts. Backers of conspiracy theories about Epstein have urged President Donald Trump to release a broad array of investigative files related to Epstein, not just grand jury transcripts. Separately, U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami was assigned on Monday to preside over Trump's $10-billion lawsuit accusing The Wall Street Journal of defaming him by claiming he created a lewd birthday greeting for Epstein in 2003. Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal and is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp (NWSA.O), opens new tab, said it will defend against the lawsuit, and had "full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting." News Corp and Murdoch are also defendants. Engelmayer and Gayles were appointed to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama. U.S. District Judge Richard Berman, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, will oversee the government's request for transcripts in Epstein's criminal case. Many Trump supporters view the judiciary as an impediment to the Republican president's policy and personal goals. Each case could take several months or longer to resolve, followed by possible appeals. Engelmayer, 64, came under fire and drew Musk's scorn in February after temporarily blocking Musk's Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury systems. Congressman Derrick Van Orden, a Wisconsin Republican, said impeachment was justified because the judge played politics in his decision, "demonstrating clear bias and prejudice against the president and the 74,000,000 Americans who voted for him." Judicial impeachments are rare and normally reserved for serious misconduct, not disapproval of individual rulings. Any unsealed transcripts are likely to be redacted, reflecting privacy or security concerns. Gayles, 58, has been on the federal bench since 2014, after the U.S. Senate approved his nomination by a 98-0 vote. The Wall Street Journal case is at least the second Trump lawsuit he has overseen. Gayles presided in 2023 over Trump's $500-million lawsuit accusing former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen of breaching fiduciary duties by revealing confidences and spreading falsehoods in books, podcasts, and media appearances. Trump voluntarily dismissed that case after six months. The lawyer who filed that case also filed the Journal lawsuit.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's DOGE is executing a historically dangerous data breach
Federal judge Paul Engelmayer issued an emergency order Saturday that barred the Trump administration from providing access to sensitive and private financial information about hundreds of millions of Americans. The judge also ordered Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to destroy any data it had already accessed. We don't yet know how much, if any, damage has already been done to American taxpayers and businesses. But perhaps, at a minimum, this judicial order will prevent further harm. The parties were ordered to return to court Friday for a full hearing on a preliminary injunction to prevent this information from being accessed again. In other words, Americans will have their day in court before this information is shared again, and it's possible the American people will receive the same legal protections that President Donald Trump was afforded when his own financial records were subject to review by law enforcement and elected officials. He strenuously resisted these efforts and received full due process rights in cases that dragged out for years before those officials gained access to such records. During his first term, Trump was the subject of several investigations with his personal financial records at their center. Both then-Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and several committees in Congress issued subpoenas to him and several financial institutions for such records. Trump sued to stop those efforts, taking the cases to the U.S. Supreme Court. After several years of litigation, the courts concluded that the subpoenas were lawful and legitimate and that Trump and his business associates had to comply with them. Congressional committees ultimately released redacted versions of some of Trump's financial filings, making sure to protect sensitive data like his social security number or bank account information. In other words, Trump had many days in court before his right to privacy was infringed, and such infringement occurred only to the extent permitted by law, under close review by the courts. Contrast that with what's happening now, when unvetted individuals working for a 'department' that doesn't officially exist have gained access to the private financial information of hundreds of millions of American taxpayers and businesses. Veterans, retirees, taxpayers, you name it, had such rights swept away by DOGE mercenaries in an instant, with no court review, with no justification, without any consideration for due process rights. And we don't know the full extent of the release of this information, who has access to it, what their designs on it are and whether they intend to sell it to other companies or even foreign countries, even when it appears some of this information may have been fed into a computer program, driven by artificial intelligence, to help DOGE identify potential cuts. Every American individual and business should be concerned by this breach, which was carried out by private actors operating under the direction of the world's wealthiest man, who just happens to have designs on creating a payments platform within a social media platform he owns. Just as concerning, given Musk's billions of dollars in government contracts, such information could be used to gain an advantage over business competitors, to stop payments going to political rivals of the president or just to make people's lives miserable. Even if no one on the DOGE team has already exploited this extracted information in any way, there is a harm to Americans knowing that someone, somewhere, most likely operating outside the law knows their private financial information — like Social Security numbers and private banking information like routing and account numbers — and maybe a lot more. We also do not know if they have the ability to halt payments to individuals and businesses who rely on government support for things like their federal pensions, Social Security payments and disability assistance, as well as the contracts to provide important services to the government and the American people. What we do know, however, is that many of those making the decisions will be unqualified teenagers and early twentysomethings deployed by Musk to oversee spending affecting every American. And all of this seems to be taking place in an environment where a select number of individuals and favored entities can not only extract this information but also exploit it. This should worry every individual American taxpayer, who might wake up one day to find bank accounts frozen or drained or the lifeline of retirement or veterans' benefits halted, perhaps just because of a computer glitch caused by individuals with little experience with government processes or systems. By allowing this staggering and unprecedented breach of financial privacy, the Trump administration has already set itself on a course where individuals and businesses aren't free to organize their lives under principles of fair competition and equality; instead, there is a grave risk that these extractive practices will harm not just economic rights, but political rights, as well. The right to privacy Americans have come to expect started in English common law, through the British case of Wilkes v. Wood in the mid-18th century. There, the courts in England found that it was illegal for royal functionaries to raid the offices and homes of members of Parliament who, it was feared, might oppose the policies of the crown. The colonists were well aware of the outcome of this case, and it helped to inform the arguments that would emerge against the Stamp Act and served as inspiration for the Declaration of Independence and would ultimately find its way into the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unlawful searches and seizures, so that Americans would be secure in their 'person, houses, papers and effects.' Today, a relatively strong body of laws has emerged to protect our private information from intrusion, extraction and abuse, even when the government has access to it in the first place. Despite those protections, still untold millions of Americans were denied those same privacy and due process rights President (and then citizen) Trump enjoyed when he challenged — albeit unsuccessfully — the sharing of his own personal financial information pursuant to what were ultimately determined to have been lawful congressional and state law enforcement investigations. Still, during the course of that litigation, the information wasn't shared with government officials until Trump's unsuccessful lawsuits worked their way through the courts. In the DOGE incursion into the Treasury's records, no Americans were afforded such rights. But perhaps now they will have their day in court. All Americans deserve answers about the scope of the release of this information: who had access to it, what their designs on it might be, whether they have exploited it for private gain in any way and whether they have passed it along to other entities, individuals or governments. In mid-January, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had a legitimate government interest in being concerned about the Chinese company that owns TikTok's gathering data on American users of that platform. Now, such intrusion into our most sensitive data is happening by individuals purporting to act for the president. At least one court appears to have halted this practice, for now, and has sought to put the genie back in the bottle by ordering any copies of such information destroyed. Congress, too, must step in immediately to investigate the scope of the harm and demand answers and do so with the same subpoena power it wielded before in investigating Trump's own financial dealings. This is necessary to protect the American people and businesses from this seemingly lawless abuse of privacy and due process and to understand the damage already done. This article was originally published on
