POPULARITY
4 episodes with judge lewis kaplan
3 episodes with judge lewis kaplan
2 episodes with judge lewis kaplan
2 episodes with judge lewis kaplan
5 episodes with judge lewis kaplan
2 episodes with judge lewis kaplan
2 episodes with judge lewis kaplan
2 episodes with judge lewis kaplan
2 episodes with judge lewis kaplan
Despite winning the electoral college, and popular vote, President Donald Trump continues to face numerous legal roadblocks as he tries to fulfill his campaign promises, such as reigning in mass illegal immigration and protecting Jewish students on college campuses. Well-funded liberal organizations and left-wing activist judges have launched a full-court-press to seemingly block everything Trump is doing, which is eerily similar to the 2022-24 lawfare period, argues Victor Davis Hanson on today's “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words:” “This is very analogous—cherry-picking left-wing judges is very analogous to what we watched all during the 2022-24 lawfare period. You remember Judge [Arthur] Engoron, Judge [Juan] Merchan, and Judge [Lewis] Kaplan—he was the judge in the E. Jean Carroll [case]. And we had the Alvin Bragg judge and the Letitia James. They were all—like these judges, they had two things in common: They were left-wing activist judges, appointed by either Biden, Obama, or Bill Clinton. And they had minor to major conflicts of interest where people in their family were big, either had worked for a prior Democratic administration or themselves were activists. “And what did they do? They tried to put Donald Trump in jail. “That same lawfare has now been transmogrified and put into a more concerted effort to stop everything that Donald Trump is trying to do. And what he's trying to do, remember, is not radical. It's just simply to enforce immigration law. It's just simply to bring back the country to the middle.” Don't miss out on Victor's latest videos by subscribing to The Daily Signal today. You'll be notified every time a new piece of content drops: https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of FTX, has been at the center of a high-profile financial scandal that has captivated the world of cryptocurrency and beyond. In November 2022, FTX filed for bankruptcy, sending shockwaves through the industry and leaving millions of investors wondering how such a collapse could occur.Bankman-Fried, known as SBF, was arrested in December 2022 and charged with multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering. The charges alleged that he orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate $8 billion from FTX customers, using the funds for personal expenses, real estate, investments, celebrity endorsements, and lavish lifestyles.The trial, which took place in New York, was marked by intense scrutiny and a rush to judgment. Bankman-Fried's defense team argued that he was presumed guilty from the outset, not only by the media and the public but also by the judge and federal prosecutors. They claimed that the trial was tainted by errors and that Bankman-Fried was denied a fair trial.In March 2024, Judge Lewis Kaplan sentenced Bankman-Fried to 25 years in prison, a sentence his defense team described as "draconian". The conviction was met with widespread criticism from Bankman-Fried's supporters, who argue that the evidence presented did not fully reflect the complexities of FTX's financial situation.Bankman-Fried's appeal, filed in September 2024, seeks to overturn his conviction and secure a new trial. His attorneys argue that the trial judge imposed undue restrictions on their ability to present evidence and that the jury was hurried into reaching a verdict. The appeal highlights a narrative shift in public perception, with some now questioning the initial portrayal of Bankman-Fried as a thief who bankrupted FTX.As the legal battle continues, it remains to be seen whether Bankman-Fried will succeed in his appeal. One thing is certain: the case has exposed deep flaws in the cryptocurrency industry and raised critical questions about accountability and transparency in financial dealings.
**Sam Bankman-Fried: The Rise and Fall of a Crypto Kingpin**Sam Bankman-Fried, once hailed as the poster boy of the cryptocurrency world, has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for orchestrating one of the largest financial frauds in history. The collapse of his cryptocurrency exchange, FTX, in November 2022, exposed a web of deceit and mismanagement that left thousands of investors reeling.Bankman-Fried, known as SBF, co-founded FTX in 2019 and quickly rose to prominence with his charismatic leadership and innovative approach to cryptocurrency trading. FTX became the second-largest crypto exchange globally, with a valuation of over $30 billion and Bankman-Fried's personal net worth estimated at more than $20 billion. However, beneath the surface, FTX was struggling with a massive cash shortfall.Prosecutors alleged that Bankman-Fried used FTX customer deposits to fund his own lavish lifestyle, including luxury properties in the Caribbean and donations to various causes. He also used these funds to prop up his struggling hedge fund, Alameda Research, which had made billions of dollars in crypto investments that later plummeted in value.The trial, which began in October 2023, revealed a complex scheme where Bankman-Fried misled investors and customers. Caroline Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda Research, testified that Bankman-Fried directed her to commit crimes and conceal the taking of customer funds. Ellison pleaded guilty to seven counts of fraud and conspiracy as part of a cooperation deal with prosecutors.Bankman-Fried's defense argued that he was merely borrowing funds to run Alameda Research, but the prosecution painted him as a greedy con man who stole billions from thousands of people. The jury ultimately convicted him on seven counts of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering.Judge Lewis Kaplan's 25-year sentence reflected the severity of the crime and the risk that Bankman-Fried posed to future financial crimes. The sentence sends a strong message to others in the financial industry: justice will be swift, and the consequences will be severe.Despite his conviction, Bankman-Fried plans to appeal, claiming that the judge restricted his defense strategy. However, legal experts believe that his appeal is unlikely to succeed, given the overwhelming evidence against him.The downfall of Sam Bankman-Fried serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked power and greed in the financial world. His story highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in the rapidly evolving
**Sam Bankman-Fried: The Rise and Fall of FTX's Founder**Sam Bankman-Fried, commonly known as SBF, was once the darling of the cryptocurrency world. As the founder of FTX, he was hailed as a pioneer in the emerging industry, with a Super Bowl advertisement and endorsements from celebrities like Tom Brady and Larry David. However, his meteoric rise was followed by a catastrophic fall, culminating in a 25-year prison sentence for fraud and conspiracy.**The Rise of FTX**FTX, launched in 2019, quickly gained traction as a reliable and innovative cryptocurrency exchange. Bankman-Fried's charismatic leadership and strategic investments made FTX a household name. He was known for his philanthropic efforts and his advocacy for effective altruism, which aimed to maximize the positive impact of charitable donations.**The Downfall**In December 2022, just weeks after his company filed for bankruptcy, Bankman-Fried was arrested in the Bahamas and extradited to the United States. The collapse of FTX was swift and devastating, with investors rushing to withdraw funds. The subsequent investigation revealed that Bankman-Fried had improperly spent customer funds on real estate, investments, celebrity endorsements, political contributions, and lavish lifestyles.**The Trial**Bankman-Fried's trial began on October 3, 2023, in Manhattan, New York. The prosecution portrayed him as a greedy con man who misled investors and stole billions from FTX customers. Caroline Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda Research, a crypto hedge fund affiliated with FTX, testified against Bankman-Fried. She described how he directed her to commit crimes and how Alameda took billions from FTX customers for its own investments.**The Appeal**In September 2024, Bankman-Fried's lawyers filed an appeal, arguing that he was presumed guilty before the trial even started. They claimed that the media, FTX debtor estate, and federal prosecutors all assumed his guilt, which prejudiced the trial. The defense also argued that Judge Lewis Kaplan made significant errors by restricting Bankman-Fried's ability to present evidence about FTX's solvency and its assets worth billions to repay customers.The appeal highlights a narrative shift: nearly two years after FTX's collapse, evidence suggests that FTX was never insolvent and had assets to repay its customers. However, this new information was not presented to the jury during the trial.**Conclusion**Sam Bankman
25th Sep: Blockchain DXB Podcast https://shorturl.at/lTDqm
Sam Bankman-Fried has been sentenced. And at his sentencing, we saw a not-too-uncommon pattern for sentencings in major white-collar cases: Judge Lewis Kaplan read him the riot act, ruled against him on all the key issues driving the sentence guideline calculation; accused him of lying on the stand; and then sentenced him to far less than the guideline sentence.Speaking of BS of interest to investors, Trump Media & Technology Group is worth billions of dollars, at least for now. Donald Trump has to wait six months for his share lockup to expire before he can start passing his shares off to new bagholders. So in the meantime, he's suing his co-founders, saying they were bad at their jobs and therefore shouldn't get to keep their shares. Is that how it works? Plus, Trump faces an expanded gag order in his Manhattan trial — one whose limits he appears intent to continue to push. And in Florida, after we recorded, Judge Aileen Cannon ruled (sort of) about issues related to the Presidential Records Act. Plus: updates on Hunter Biden and John EastmanVist serioustrouble.show for a transcript and to sign up for our newsletter This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe
Last Thursday, Judge Lewis Kaplan sentenced Sam Bankman-Fried to 25 years in prison. Some think that's an appropriate result. Some think it should have been more. But this sentence far more than necessary to meet the goals of sentencing. The bigger problem is, there were likely missed opportunities to convince the Judge that justice demanded a lower sentence for Sam. Therefore, here is the straight scoop on SBF's sentencing (we have the full transcript) and the larger problems it reveals about federal sentencing and beyond. IN THIS EPISODE: Judge Kaplan's “tip of the cap” to the insurrectionists; The missed opportunity to present powerful sentencing statistics, including average federal sentences for murder, kidnaping, sexual abuse, and child pornography; Judge Kaplan's explicit comments regarding broken guidelines; Autism Spectrum Disorder – the (largely ignored) elephant in the room; SBF's sentence compared to (spoiler alert, his sentence is HIGHER than all of ‘em); The missed opportunity of highlighting a LIFE EXPECTANCY analysis at sentencing; The missed opportunity to tell the story of BOP classification issues; LINKS: Ep. 73: Sam Bankman-Fried: Is Autism the Missing Piece of Mitigation? https://youtu.be/jkh6eEkvBRg?si=qXJxNu4SBKCqTWEq
Get the scoops on all the details of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried's 25-year prison sentence, plus the other conditions of punishment. Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Fountain, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Pandora, Castbox, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform.Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), FTX's co-founder, was sentenced to 25 years in prison and $11 billion in forfeiture for massive fraud, marking a historic moment in the crypto industry. Judge Lewis Kaplan emphasized the sentence's necessity due to Bankman-Fried's risk-oriented decision-making philosophy known as “expected value” and lack of remorse. Sam Enzer joined Unchained to unpack the sentencing, discussing the fairness of the length, explaining how the $11 billion forfeiture would work and how it's different from the bankruptcy proceedings. Additionally, Enzer provided insights into the kind of prison SBF would end up in and into the three-year supervised release SBF will face after his prison term. The conversation further delved into the broader impact of the sentencing on the crypto industry, suggesting it could signify the end of a dark chapter. Show highlights: Whether the 25-year sentence is fair, according to SamWhat the $11 billion in forfeiture means for SBFWhether the assets of SBF actually belong to the FTX estateWhere SBF will likely go to prison and why Sam believes that SBF will not go to a maximum security prisonWhen the clock starts ticking for the 25-year sentenceWhy SBF will not be eligible for parole and whether he could get "good time credit"What the defense will attempt in appealing the convictionWhat types of behavior could get SBF enough credit to appeal for a reduced sentenceWhy SBF will have to be supervised for three years after his releaseHow SBF's philosophy about “expected value,” was the theme of the crime, according to Judge KaplanWhether the co-conspirators, such as Caroline Ellison, will be sentenced and serve in prisonWhy Sam says that the sentencing represented "the closing of a dark chapter" in cryptoThank you to our sponsors! iTrustCapital | PolkadotGuestSam Enzer, Partner at Cahill Gordon & ReindelPrevious appearances on Unchained:Why the SEC's Case Against Coinbase Is So Significant for CryptoWhy SBF's Testimony So Far Has Likely Already Doomed HimAnother Bad Week for Sam Bankman-Fried in His Criminal TrialWhy These Lawyers Say It's Over for SBF-But His Only Hail Mary Is to TestifySBF Trial: How Sam Bankman-Fried's Lawyers Might Try and Win His CaseSBF's Lawyers Could Be Annoying the Judge How Might That Impact the Trial?LinksUnchained: FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Sentenced to 25 Years for Historic FraudSBF's Prison Sentencing Is Coming Up. How Many Years Will He Get?Is Prison Crypto's New Glow-Up? Post-Incarceration Do Kwon and SBF Are AdmiredWhat to Expect from Sam Bankman-Fried's Sentencing – and the Lessons We Should LearnHow Sam Bankman-Fried's Sentencing Went Down: A Timeline of Events -Unchained Podcast is Produced by Laura Shin Media, LLC. Distributed by CoinDesk. Senior Producer is Michele Musso and Executive Producer is Jared Schwartz. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Caitlin Ostroff and Rachel Humphreys attend Sam Bankman-Fried's sentencing hearing and parse through the reasoning behind Judge Lewis Kaplan's ruling and what a 25 year sentence could mean for the former CEO of FTX. Further Listening: - The Trail of Crypto's Golden Boy Further Reading: - Sam Bankman-Fried Faces Lengthy Sentence-And Long Odds On Appeal Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Fountain, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Pandora, Castbox, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), FTX's co-founder, was sentenced to 25 years in prison and $11 billion in forfeiture for massive fraud, marking a historic moment in the crypto industry. Judge Lewis Kaplan emphasized the sentence's necessity due to Bankman-Fried's risk-oriented decision-making philosophy known as “expected value” and lack of remorse. Sam Enzer joined Unchained to unpack the sentencing, discussing the fairness of the length, explaining how the $11 billion forfeiture would work and how it's different from the bankruptcy proceedings. Additionally, Enzer provided insights into the kind of prison SBF would end up in and into the three-year supervised release SBF will face after his prison term. The conversation further delved into the broader impact of the sentencing on the crypto industry, suggesting it could signify the end of a dark chapter. Show highlights: Whether the 25-year sentence is fair, according to Sam What the $11 billion in forfeiture means for SBF Whether the assets of SBF actually belong to the FTX estate Where SBF will likely go to prison and why Sam believes that SBF will not go to a maximum security prison When the clock starts ticking for the 25-year sentence Why SBF will not be eligible for parole and whether he could get "good time credit" What the defense will attempt in appealing the conviction What types of behavior could get SBF enough credit to appeal for a reduced sentence Why SBF will have to be supervised for three years after his release How SBF's philosophy about “expected value,” was the theme of the crime, according to Judge Kaplan Whether the co-conspirators, such as Caroline Ellison, will be sentenced and serve in prison Why Sam says that the sentencing represented "the closing of a dark chapter" in crypto Thank you to our sponsors! iTrustCapital Polkadot Guest Sam Enzer, Partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel Previous appearances on Unchained: Why the SEC's Case Against Coinbase Is So Significant for Crypto Why SBF's Testimony So Far Has Likely Already Doomed Him Another Bad Week for Sam Bankman-Fried in His Criminal Trial Why These Lawyers Say It's Over for SBF-But His Only Hail Mary Is to Testify SBF Trial: How Sam Bankman-Fried's Lawyers Might Try and Win His Case SBF's Lawyers Could Be Annoying the Judge How Might That Impact the Trial? Links Unchained: FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Sentenced to 25 Years for Historic Fraud SBF's Prison Sentencing Is Coming Up. How Many Years Will He Get? Is Prison Crypto's New Glow-Up? Post-Incarceration Do Kwon and SBF Are Admired What to Expect from Sam Bankman-Fried's Sentencing – and the Lessons We Should Learn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Fountain, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Pandora, Castbox, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), FTX's co-founder, was sentenced to 25 years in prison and $11 billion in forfeiture for massive fraud, marking a historic moment in the crypto industry. Judge Lewis Kaplan emphasized the sentence's necessity due to Bankman-Fried's risk-oriented decision-making philosophy known as “expected value” and lack of remorse. Sam Enzer joined Unchained to unpack the sentencing, discussing the fairness of the length, explaining how the $11 billion forfeiture would work and how it's different from the bankruptcy proceedings. Additionally, Enzer provided insights into the kind of prison SBF would end up in and into the three-year supervised release SBF will face after his prison term. The conversation further delved into the broader impact of the sentencing on the crypto industry, suggesting it could signify the end of a dark chapter. Show highlights: Whether the 25-year sentence is fair, according to Sam What the $11 billion in forfeiture means for SBF Whether the assets of SBF actually belong to the FTX estate Where SBF will likely go to prison and why Sam believes that SBF will not go to a maximum security prison When the clock starts ticking for the 25-year sentence Why SBF will not be eligible for parole and whether he could get "good time credit" What the defense will attempt in appealing the conviction What types of behavior could get SBF enough credit to appeal for a reduced sentence Why SBF will have to be supervised for three years after his release How SBF's philosophy about “expected value,” was the theme of the crime, according to Judge Kaplan Whether the co-conspirators, such as Caroline Ellison, will be sentenced and serve in prison Why Sam says that the sentencing represented "the closing of a dark chapter" in crypto Thank you to our sponsors! iTrustCapital Polkadot Guest Sam Enzer, Partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel Previous appearances on Unchained: Why the SEC's Case Against Coinbase Is So Significant for Crypto Why SBF's Testimony So Far Has Likely Already Doomed Him Another Bad Week for Sam Bankman-Fried in His Criminal Trial Why These Lawyers Say It's Over for SBF-But His Only Hail Mary Is to Testify SBF Trial: How Sam Bankman-Fried's Lawyers Might Try and Win His Case SBF's Lawyers Could Be Annoying the Judge How Might That Impact the Trial? Links Unchained: FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Sentenced to 25 Years for Historic Fraud SBF's Prison Sentencing Is Coming Up. How Many Years Will He Get? Is Prison Crypto's New Glow-Up? Post-Incarceration Do Kwon and SBF Are Admired What to Expect from Sam Bankman-Fried's Sentencing – and the Lessons We Should Learn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Liz discusses all the Trump civil and criminal trials with New York litigator Mitchell Epner. Will Trump be able to pay that $454 million bond with the proceeds from taking Truth Social public? We'll break it down. Links: Carroll v. Trump (I) [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/carroll-v-trump/ Carroll v. Trump (I) — Denial of Rule 59 Motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0_1.pdf US v. Trump [SDFL Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/carroll-v-trump/ SDFL — Order re Jury Instructions https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.407.0.pdf Trump v. ABC [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68351681/trump-v-american-broadcasting-companies-inc/ Trump SPAC Disclosure to SEC https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849635/000119312524036093/d408563ds4a.htm Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod
This week on Ring of Fire! The United States Supreme Court handed down their predictable ruling on Monday that allows Donald Trump to stay on the ballot this year. This is what was widely expected, but it certainly flies in the face of the language of the Constitution. However, their unanimous ruling did leave the door open for potential challenges in the future. The latest polling out of the state of Texas has some horrific news for Ted Cruz. The poll shows that Cruz is in a dead heat with his Democratic opponent Colin Allred, with both men recording 41% of the vote right now. While these numbers are bad for Cruz, they do leave a LOT of room for undecided voters to give one candidate an edge to win in a landslide, and there's a good chance many of these voters break for Cruz by election day. According to reports, Lauren Boebert had to skip a recent campaign event - instead sending her campaign manager to speak - as she was busy dealing with more family drama. The reports say that Boebert's ex husband had been threatening to throw all of her belongings into a pond, so Boebert had to skip the event to make sure this didn't happen. Is this really what the people in Colorado want to have to deal with with their elected officials? And Donald Trump's lawyers begged Judge Lewis Kaplan for a third time to postpone the due date of the $83 million judgement against Trump for another 30 days, but Kaplan doesn't appear to be ready to give Trump any kind of extension. The former President is freaking out, and his panicked motions to the judge are all the proof that we need of that fact. If the judge doesn't grant the delay, E. Jean Carroll's lawyers might move to start seizing his properties next week. All that, and much more, on this week's Ring of Fire Podcast!
Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) has decided to move forward with Marc Mukasey as his defense counsel in his criminal case related to the collapse of his crypto exchange FTX. This is despite prosecutors raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest given Mukasey's previous representation of Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky.Mukasey, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan, is currently representing Mashinsky on charges that he allegedly inflated the price of Celsius' crypto token and earned $42 million selling his personal tokens. Given that SBF's trading firm Alameda Research has past dealings with Celsius, prosecutors questioned whether Mukasey could fairly represent both men.However, when appearing in court on Wednesday for the first time since being indicted, SBF told Judge Lewis Kaplan he was comfortable retaining Mukasey and his associate Torrey Young for his defense team. SBF stated he had consulted with his previous lawyers, Mark Cohen and Christian Everdell, about the possible conflict. Cohen and Everdell will now seek to withdraw from SBF's case, clearing the way for Mukasey and Young to take over.For his part, Mukasey argued to the court on Tuesday that his firm believes they can "fairly represent" both Bankman-Fried and Mashinsky in their respective cases. SBF remains detained at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center since his arrest in December 2022.The high-profile case against SBF continues to develop. The 30-year old founder of the now-bankrupt FTX faces charges of fraud and money laundering that could see him imprisoned for the rest of his life. His willingness to overlook Mukasey's potential conflict of interest signals SBF's desperation to begin crafting a defense strategy alongside the experienced trial lawyer.
SBF Sticks With Mashinsky's Lawyer Despite Possible ConflictSam Bankman-Fried (SBF) has decided to move forward with Marc Mukasey as his defense counsel in his criminal case related to the collapse of his crypto exchange FTX. This is despite prosecutors raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest given Mukasey's previous representation of Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky.Mukasey, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan, is currently representing Mashinsky on charges that he allegedly inflated the price of Celsius' crypto token and earned $42 million selling his personal tokens. Given that SBF's trading firm Alameda Research has past dealings with Celsius, prosecutors questioned whether Mukasey could fairly represent both men.However, when appearing in court on Wednesday for the first time since being indicted, SBF told Judge Lewis Kaplan he was comfortable retaining Mukasey and his associate Torrey Young for his defense team. SBF stated he had consulted with his previous lawyers, Mark Cohen and Christian Everdell, about the possible conflict. Cohen and Everdell will now seek to withdraw from SBF's case, clearing the way for Mukasey and Young to take over.For his part, Mukasey argued to the court on Tuesday that his firm believes they can "fairly represent" both Bankman-Fried and Mashinsky in their respective cases. SBF remains detained at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center since his arrest in December 2022.The high-profile case against SBF continues to develop. The 30-year old founder of the now-bankrupt FTX faces charges of fraud and money laundering that could see him imprisoned for the rest of his life. His willingness to overlook Mukasey's potential conflict of interest signals SBF's desperation to begin crafting a defense strategy alongside the experienced trial lawyer.
Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) has decided to move forward with Marc Mukasey as his defense counsel in his criminal case related to the collapse of his crypto exchange FTX. This is despite prosecutors raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest given Mukasey's previous representation of Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky.Mukasey, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan, is currently representing Mashinsky on charges that he allegedly inflated the price of Celsius' crypto token and earned $42 million selling his personal tokens. Given that SBF's trading firm Alameda Research has past dealings with Celsius, prosecutors questioned whether Mukasey could fairly represent both men.However, when appearing in court on Wednesday for the first time since being indicted, SBF told Judge Lewis Kaplan he was comfortable retaining Mukasey and his associate Torrey Young for his defense team. SBF stated he had consulted with his previous lawyers, Mark Cohen and Christian Everdell, about the possible conflict. Cohen and Everdell will now seek to withdraw from SBF's case, clearing the way for Mukasey and Young to take over.For his part, Mukasey argued to the court on Tuesday that his firm believes they can "fairly represent" both Bankman-Fried and Mashinsky in their respective cases. SBF remains detained at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center since his arrest in December 2022.The high-profile case against SBF continues to develop. The 30-year old founder of the now-bankrupt FTX faces charges of fraud and money laundering that could see him imprisoned for the rest of his life. His willingness to overlook Mukasey's potential conflict of interest signals SBF's desperation to begin crafting a defense strategy alongside the experienced trial lawyer.
Before dismissing the jury at the conclusion of the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial and just after they awarded Ms. Carroll $83.3 million for Trump's incessant defamation - Judge Lewis Kaplan told the jurors that he recommends they tell NO ONE that they served on the Trump jury. Although Judge Kaplan's motivation was undoubtedly to protect the jurors against the danger posed by Trump and his supporters, it's institutional insanity to make everyone else alter their lives and their behavior rather than address the source of the danger - Donald Trump.Trump endangers everyone who is involved in holding him accountable for his crimes and his civil wrongs. This includes witnesses; judges and their staff; prosecutors and their family members; and jurors. Trump is on pretrial release in four felony cases, both state and federal. The law provides that if someone is on release in a felony case, and there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a danger to even one person in the community, that person should be detained pending trial. Yet instead of doing what the law provides, the institutions of government have decided that every single person involved in the endeavor of holding Trump accountable should alter their lives rather than neutralize the threat by detaining Trump pending trial. Glenn says let's hope the institutions of government - change course rather than continue to allow Trump to endanger jurors, witnesses, judges, and prosecutors.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Before dismissing the jury at the conclusion of the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial and just after they awarded Ms. Carroll $83.3 million for Trump's incessant defamation - Judge Lewis Kaplan told the jurors that he recommends they tell NO ONE that they served on the Trump jury. Although Judge Kaplan's motivation was undoubtedly to protect the jurors against the danger posed by Trump and his supporters, it's institutional insanity to make everyone else alter their lives and their behavior rather than address the source of the danger - Donald Trump.Trump endangers everyone who is involved in holding him accountable for his crimes and his civil wrongs. This includes witnesses; judges and their staff; prosecutors and their family members; and jurors. Trump is on pretrial release in four felony cases, both state and federal. The law provides that if someone is on release in a felony case, and there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a danger to even one person in the community, that person should be detained pending trial. Yet instead of doing what the law provides, the institutions of government have decided that every single person involved in the endeavor of holding Trump accountable should alter their lives rather than neutralize the threat by detaining Trump pending trial. Glenn says let's hope the institutions of government - change course rather than continue to allow Trump to endanger jurors, witnesses, judges, and prosecutors.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The defamation trial against Donald Trump went completely off the rails on Friday after the judge had to threaten Alina Habba with jail time if she didn't start following the rules of the court. Judge Lewis Kaplan told Habba that she was close to "spending some time in the lock up" if she continued to violate the rules of introducing evidence during closing arguments - a move that even legal experts say could get her sued for malpractice.Also, Republican candidates across the country aren't thrilled about being on the same ballot as Donald Trump this coming November. They remember how poorly that worked out for Republicans in the 2020 election, not to mention how Trump impacted races in both the 2018 and 2022 midterm elections. Trump is electoral poison for other Republicans, and his presence on the ballot alone is causing, as one Republican Congressman put it, "chaos" with candidates already. And Lauren Boebert endured her first primary debate in her new district late last week, and the entire event was described as a "clown car crash" by one prominent media outlet. Boebert was called out by her opponents both for being a "carpetbagger" and for being painfully stupid, in general. But none of the candidates really shined, and at one point two-thirds of the candidates on stage had to raise their hands when asked by the moderator who on stage had been arrested before. Colorado is in bad shape, no matter what happens in that race.Finally, Donald Trump loves to dish it out when it comes to mocking his opponents, but according to those closest to him, he certainly can't take it when it comes back around. Recently, President Biden started referring to Donald Trump as a "loser", copying one of Trump's favorite insults. Insiders say that these insults are really starting to get under Trump's skin because he's terrified of anyone thinking of him as a loser. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to stay up to date on all of Farron's content: https://www.youtube.com/FarronBalancedFollow Farron on social media!Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FarronBalanced/Twitter: https://twitter.com/farronbalancedInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/farronbalancedTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farronbalanced?lang=en
How corrupt can America become? “Judge” Lewis Kaplan plumbs a new low today, Jan. 26, 2024, as he issues new Stalinist rulings in the Kangaroo Kourt in New York to
Judge Lewis Kaplan, the judge presiding over the second defamation case that E. Jean Carroll brought against Donald Trump, said something during jury selection that provides important facts and context about who and what Trump really is. Judge Kaplan's words should become a campaign mantra, reminding the American voters exactly who Trump is and why he is entirely unqualified to return to presidential power. Glenn discusses the jury selection process (called voir dire), and reviews the single most important and revealing instruction Judge Kaplan gave to the folks who were assembled in a New York court room for jury selection in Ms. Carroll's defamation case.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Judge Lewis Kaplan, the judge presiding over the second defamation case that E. Jean Carroll brought against Donald Trump, said something during jury selection that provides important facts and context about who and what Trump really is. Judge Kaplan's words should become a campaign mantra, reminding the American voters exactly who Trump is and why he is entirely unqualified to return to presidential power. Glenn discusses the jury selection process (called voir dire), and reviews the single most important and revealing instruction Judge Kaplan gave to the folks who were assembled in a New York court room for jury selection in Ms. Carroll's defamation case.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the brilliant strategic decision that E Jean Carroll's lawyers made in the Donald Trump defamation trial which they informed Judge Lewis Kaplan about over the weekend. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to TryMiracle.com/MEIDAS and use the code MEIDAS to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Former President Trump clashed with the judge overseeing his civil defamation case after his comments could be heard by the jury while his accuser was testifying. Judge Lewis Kaplan threatened to remove Trump from courtroom and the former president responded, “I would love it.” Trump is on trial for his 2019 defamatory statements about E. Jean Carroll's sexual assault allegations. The former columnist testified to decide how much money in damages the former president must pay her. CNN Correspondent Kara Scannell joins AC360 to discuss what she saw and heard while in the courtroom. Plus, Kensington Palace announced that the Princess of Wales will spend up to two weeks recovering in the hospital after having a successful, planned abdominal surgery. Buckingham Palace also revealed that King Charles is also going to the hospital next week for treatment for an enlarged prostate. CNN Royal Correspondent Max Foster joins AC360 with the details and when the Princess of Wales can start working again. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The downfall of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried from king of the crypto world to crypto scammer is complete. A Manhattan jury of nine women and three men took less than five hours Thursday afternoon, day 18 of the high-profile trial, to convict Bankman-Fried on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy for stealing billions of dollars of his customers' assets. “Sam Bankman-Fried perpetrated one of the biggest financial frauds in American history, a multi-million scheme designed to make him the king of crypto,” said Damian Williams, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York in remarks following the verdict. The guilty verdict came a year to the day after crypto publication CoinDesk published a story showing balance sheet irregularities at Bankman-Fried's investment company, Alameda Research, that suggested the ties between Alameda and FTX were unusually close. Bankman-Fried now faces potentially decades in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for March 28. After listening to Judge Lewis Kaplan read through 60 pages of instructions, jurors quickly concluded that Bankman-Fried was responsible for decisions that led to an $8 billion hole in its balance sheet, including the use of customer assets for political donations, investments and his own personal use. Prosecutors had reiterated this theme in a stinging, Thursday morning rebuttal. And jurors rejected whole-hog Bankman-Fried's defense team's narrative that Bankman-Fried was being villainized for being a poor manager who didn't create sufficient risk management systems. They also did not buy into Bankman-Fried's claim that he was unaware of the severity of his company's financial problems and that his inner circle, three of whom testified earlier in the trial as part of plea agreements, were to blame. “We respect the jury's decision,” said Bankman-Fried's lead attorney, Mark Cohen. But we are very disappointed with the result. Mr. Bankman-Fried maintains his innocence and will continue to fight the charges against him.” U.S. attorney Wiliams called Bankman-Fried's crimes “ fraud” as “old as time,” and said his office had “no patience for it.” He added: “This case moved at lightning speed, that was a choice, not a coincidence.” Catch up on Unchained's previous coverage: SBF Trial, Day 1: Possible Witnesses Include FTX Insiders, Big Names in Crypto, and SBF's Family SBF Trial, Day 2: DOJ Says Sam Bankman-Fried ‘Lied' While Defense Claims His Actions Were ‘Reasonable' SBF Trial, Day 3: Why a True Believer in FTX Flipped Once He Learned One Fact SBF Trial, Day 4: SBF's Lawyers Annoy Judge Kaplan, While Wang Reveals Alameda's Special Privileges SBF Trial, Day 5: SBF's Defense Finally Found Its Legs, But Can It Counter Caroline Ellison? SBF Trial, Day 6: Caroline Ellison Recalls 'The Worst Week of My Life' SBF Trial, Day 7: In SBF Trial, Did the Defense Lose Its Opportunity With the Star Witness? SBF Trial, Day 8: Former BlockFi CEO Adds Credibility to Fraud Charges SBF Trial, Day 9: Nishad Singh Describes Former FTX CEO as a Bully and Big Spender SBF Trial, Day 10: Defense Struggles to Discredit Nishad Singh's Testimony SBF Trial, Day 11: How Alameda Got FTX Into a $9 Billion Hole SBF Trial, Day 12: Former FTX General Counsel Speaks Out Against SBF Did Sam Bankman-Fried Have Intent to Defraud FTX Investors? Why These Lawyers Say It's Over for SBF-But His Only Hail Mary Is to Testify Here's How Sam Bankman-Fried's High-Stakes Trial Could Play Out SBF Trial: How Sam Bankman-Fried's Lawyers Might Try and Win His Case The High-Stakes Trial of Sam Bankman-Fried Begins: What to Expect Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of a massive fraud that led to the collapse of his FTX exchange, following a month-long trial that pitted the testimony of the former crypto king against that of some of his closest friends. Bankman-Fried was found guilty of seven counts of fraud and conspiracy after jurors in Manhattan deliberated for less than five hours Thursday. He faces as much as 20 years in prison on each of the most serious charges. Judge Lewis Kaplan set a sentencing date in March.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of a massive fraud that led to the collapse of his FTX exchange, following a month-long trial that pitted the testimony of the former crypto king against that of some of his closest friends. Bankman-Fried was found guilty of seven counts of fraud and conspiracy after jurors in Manhattan deliberated for less than five hours Thursday. He faces as much as 20 years in prison on each of the most serious charges. Judge Lewis Kaplan set a sentencing date in March.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The downfall of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried from king of the crypto world to crypto scammer is complete. A Manhattan jury of nine women and three men took less than five hours Thursday afternoon, day 18 of the high-profile trial, to convict Bankman-Fried on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy for stealing billions of dollars of his customers' assets. “Sam Bankman-Fried perpetrated one of the biggest financial frauds in American history, a multi-million scheme designed to make him the king of crypto,” said Damian Williams, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York in remarks following the verdict. The guilty verdict came a year to the day after crypto publication CoinDesk published a story showing balance sheet irregularities at Bankman-Fried's investment company, Alameda Research, that suggested the ties between Alameda and FTX were unusually close. Bankman-Fried now faces potentially decades in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for March 28. After listening to Judge Lewis Kaplan read through 60 pages of instructions, jurors quickly concluded that Bankman-Fried was responsible for decisions that led to an $8 billion hole in its balance sheet, including the use of customer assets for political donations, investments and his own personal use. Prosecutors had reiterated this theme in a stinging, Thursday morning rebuttal. And jurors rejected whole-hog Bankman-Fried's defense team's narrative that Bankman-Fried was being villainized for being a poor manager who didn't create sufficient risk management systems. They also did not buy into Bankman-Fried's claim that he was unaware of the severity of his company's financial problems and that his inner circle, three of whom testified earlier in the trial as part of plea agreements, were to blame. “We respect the jury's decision,” said Bankman-Fried's lead attorney, Mark Cohen. But we are very disappointed with the result. Mr. Bankman-Fried maintains his innocence and will continue to fight the charges against him.” U.S. attorney Wiliams called Bankman-Fried's crimes “ fraud” as “old as time,” and said his office had “no patience for it.” He added: “This case moved at lightning speed, that was a choice, not a coincidence.” Catch up on Unchained's previous coverage: SBF Trial, Day 1: Possible Witnesses Include FTX Insiders, Big Names in Crypto, and SBF's Family SBF Trial, Day 2: DOJ Says Sam Bankman-Fried ‘Lied' While Defense Claims His Actions Were ‘Reasonable' SBF Trial, Day 3: Why a True Believer in FTX Flipped Once He Learned One Fact SBF Trial, Day 4: SBF's Lawyers Annoy Judge Kaplan, While Wang Reveals Alameda's Special Privileges SBF Trial, Day 5: SBF's Defense Finally Found Its Legs, But Can It Counter Caroline Ellison? SBF Trial, Day 6: Caroline Ellison Recalls 'The Worst Week of My Life' SBF Trial, Day 7: In SBF Trial, Did the Defense Lose Its Opportunity With the Star Witness? SBF Trial, Day 8: Former BlockFi CEO Adds Credibility to Fraud Charges SBF Trial, Day 9: Nishad Singh Describes Former FTX CEO as a Bully and Big Spender SBF Trial, Day 10: Defense Struggles to Discredit Nishad Singh's Testimony SBF Trial, Day 11: How Alameda Got FTX Into a $9 Billion Hole SBF Trial, Day 12: Former FTX General Counsel Speaks Out Against SBF Did Sam Bankman-Fried Have Intent to Defraud FTX Investors? Why These Lawyers Say It's Over for SBF-But His Only Hail Mary Is to Testify Here's How Sam Bankman-Fried's High-Stakes Trial Could Play Out SBF Trial: How Sam Bankman-Fried's Lawyers Might Try and Win His Case The High-Stakes Trial of Sam Bankman-Fried Begins: What to Expect Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sam Enzer, a partner at the law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, told Laura that former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried did about as well as he could in his testimony Friday but that he was unlikely “to withstand the scrutiny” of what prosecutors have already said will be a robust cross-examination when he takes the stand Monday. Enzer noted that Bankman-Fried's attempts to explain why he thought his trading shop, Alameda Research, could borrow billions in dollars of FTX customer assets “defies common sense,” and that the company's own terms of agreement or any other communications offered no justification for this belief. A Thursday hearing without the jury present, in which the defense gave a preview of some arguments it wanted to make, ended up giving the government answers from SBF that it can now use against him. Enzer also said that Bankman-Fried's contention that his biggest mistake – a failure to implement proper risk management – did not constitute criminal fraud, did not address the core of the government's case; namely, that he lied about how FTX was handling customer deposits. Show highlights: why Enzer thinks Sam Bankman-Fried's testimony is unlikely to sway jury sentiment or withstand cross-examination why the evidentiary hearing in which SBF testified without a jury may hurt his cause the purpose of the evidentiary hearing how Judge Lewis Kaplan hinted at what he thought about SBF's testimony how Bankman-Fried is likely to fare against prosecutor Danielle Sassoon in what she has promised will be a robust cross-examination how the defense tried to recast SBF's image by humanizing him why the defense now has the strongest grounds for an appeal than it previously did what the jury is likely to make of SBF's contention that he was in the dark about core allegations why the prosecution said it will call rebuttal witnesses what a charge conference is and why that will take place after SBF testifies Thank you to our sponsors! Crypto.com Arbitrum Foundation LayerZero Popcorn Network Guest: Sam Enzer, partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel Links Previous coverage by Unchained on the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried: How Heated Sidebars During the SBF Trial Could Impact the Jury's Decision SBF Trial, Day 1: Possible Witnesses Include FTX Insiders, Big Names in Crypto, and SBF's Family SBF Trial, Day 2: DOJ Says Sam Bankman-Fried ‘Lied' While Defense Claims His Actions Were ‘Reasonable' SBF Trial, Day 3: Why a True Believer in FTX Flipped Once He Learned One Fact SBF Trial, Day 4: SBF's Lawyers Annoy Judge Kaplan, While Wang Reveals Alameda's Special Privileges Sam Bankman-Fried Trial: Here's Everything That Happened So Far SBF Trial, Day 5: SBF's Defense Finally Found Its Legs, But Can It Counter Caroline Ellison? SBF Trial, Day 6: Caroline Ellison Recalls 'The Worst Week of My Life' SBF Trial, Day 7: In SBF Trial, Did the Defense Lose Its Opportunity With the Star Witness? SBF Trial, Day 8: Former BlockFi CEO Adds Credibility to Fraud Charges SBF Trial, Day 9: Nishad Singh Describes Former FTX CEO as a Bully and Big Spender SBF Trial, Day 10: Defense Struggles to Discredit Nishad Singh's Testimony SBF Trial, Day 11: How Alameda Got FTX Into a $9 Billion Hole SBF Trial, Day 12: Former FTX General Counsel Speaks Out Against SBF SBF Trial, Day 13: Before Judge, Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried Gives Few Straight Answers SBF Trial, Day 14: Sam Bankman-Fried Casts Blame on Others for Key Decisions at FTX Did Sam Bankman-Fried Have Intent to Defraud FTX Investors? Good Morning America: FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried on crypto giant's collapse: 'A lot of people got hurt. And that's on me' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sam Enzer, a partner at the law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, told Laura that former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried did about as well as he could in his testimony Friday but that he was unlikely “to withstand the scrutiny” of what prosecutors have already said will be a robust cross-examination when he takes the stand Monday. Enzer noted that Bankman-Fried's attempts to explain why he thought his trading shop, Alameda Research, could borrow billions in dollars of FTX customer assets “defies common sense,” and that the company's own terms of agreement or any other communications offered no justification for this belief. A Thursday hearing without the jury present, in which the defense gave a preview of some arguments it wanted to make, ended up giving the government answers from SBF that it can now use against him. Enzer also said that Bankman-Fried's contention that his biggest mistake – a failure to implement proper risk management – did not constitute criminal fraud, did not address the core of the government's case; namely, that he lied about how FTX was handling customer deposits. Show highlights: why Enzer thinks Sam Bankman-Fried's testimony is unlikely to sway jury sentiment or withstand cross-examination why the evidentiary hearing in which SBF testified without a jury may hurt his cause the purpose of the evidentiary hearing how Judge Lewis Kaplan hinted at what he thought about SBF's testimony how Bankman-Fried is likely to fare against prosecutor Danielle Sassoon in what she has promised will be a robust cross-examination how the defense tried to recast SBF's image by humanizing him why the defense now has the strongest grounds for an appeal than it previously did what the jury is likely to make of SBF's contention that he was in the dark about core allegations why the prosecution said it will call rebuttal witnesses what a charge conference is and why that will take place after SBF testifies Thank you to our sponsors! Crypto.com Arbitrum Foundation LayerZero Popcorn Network Guest: Sam Enzer, partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel Links Previous coverage by Unchained on the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried: How Heated Sidebars During the SBF Trial Could Impact the Jury's Decision SBF Trial, Day 1: Possible Witnesses Include FTX Insiders, Big Names in Crypto, and SBF's Family SBF Trial, Day 2: DOJ Says Sam Bankman-Fried ‘Lied' While Defense Claims His Actions Were ‘Reasonable' SBF Trial, Day 3: Why a True Believer in FTX Flipped Once He Learned One Fact SBF Trial, Day 4: SBF's Lawyers Annoy Judge Kaplan, While Wang Reveals Alameda's Special Privileges Sam Bankman-Fried Trial: Here's Everything That Happened So Far SBF Trial, Day 5: SBF's Defense Finally Found Its Legs, But Can It Counter Caroline Ellison? SBF Trial, Day 6: Caroline Ellison Recalls 'The Worst Week of My Life' SBF Trial, Day 7: In SBF Trial, Did the Defense Lose Its Opportunity With the Star Witness? SBF Trial, Day 8: Former BlockFi CEO Adds Credibility to Fraud Charges SBF Trial, Day 9: Nishad Singh Describes Former FTX CEO as a Bully and Big Spender SBF Trial, Day 10: Defense Struggles to Discredit Nishad Singh's Testimony SBF Trial, Day 11: How Alameda Got FTX Into a $9 Billion Hole SBF Trial, Day 12: Former FTX General Counsel Speaks Out Against SBF SBF Trial, Day 13: Before Judge, Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried Gives Few Straight Answers SBF Trial, Day 14: Sam Bankman-Fried Casts Blame on Others for Key Decisions at FTX Did Sam Bankman-Fried Have Intent to Defraud FTX Investors? Good Morning America: FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried on crypto giant's collapse: 'A lot of people got hurt. And that's on me' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Former crypto boss Sam Bankman-Fried has been testifying to a judge at his trial after the jury was sent home. The former entrepreneur was asked to speak to Judge Lewis Kaplan to determine which parts of his testimony can be put to the jury. The 31-year-old is accused of lying to investors and lenders and stealing money from customers of his now-bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange, FTX. If he is found guilty he could face a life sentence in prison.
Former crypto boss Sam Bankman-Fried has been testifying to a judge at his trial after the jury was sent home. The former entrepreneur was asked to testify to Judge Lewis Kaplan to determine which parts of his testimony can be put to the jury. The PlayStation 5's manufacturer, Sony, has announced that the supply chain issues that beset the device for three years have been fixed. Leanna Byrne discusses this and more of the business news from around with Yoko Ishikura, Professor Emeritus at Hitotsubashi University and currently a member of the World Economic Forum's Expert Network based in Japan and in Colombia we have Sergio Guzmán, Director at Colombia Risk Analysis. (FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried leaves from Manhattan Federal Court after court appearance in New York, United States on June 15, 2023. Photo Credit: Fatih Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Former crypto boss Sam Bankman-Fried has been testifying to a judge at his trial after the jury was sent home. The former entrepreneur was asked to testify to Judge Lewis Kaplan to determine which parts of his testimony can be put to the jury. The EU and Namibia have forged a partnership to increase Namibia's export potential for green hydrogen and essential raw resources, the EU countries. The PlayStation 5's manufacturer, Sony, has announced that the supply chain issues that beset the device for three years have been fixed.
This is the FTX on Trial podcast, and this is your update for MOnday, October 23rd.Sam Bankman-freed, the co-founder and former CEO of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX, is on trial in federal court in Manhattan on charges of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He is accused of misappropriating billions of dollars in customer funds to prop up his own businesses and investments. Bankman-freed has pleaded not guilty to all charges.Caroline Ellison's testimony: Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda Research, a hedge fund that Bankman-freed founded, testified against him in early October. She admitted to knowingly misappropriating customer funds from FTX to prop up Alameda. She also said that she and Bankman-freed engaged in a "fraudulent scheme" to manipulate the price of cryptocurrency FTT.Defense's arguments: Bankman-freed's defense team has argued that he did not knowingly commit fraud. They have said that he was inexperienced and made mistakes, but that he always intended to do what was right for his customers. They have also argued that the government's case is based on "speculation" and "conjecture."Judge's warning: Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is presiding over the trial, has warned both sides to do better in their questioning of witnesses. He has said that he is "concerned" about the level of "disrespect" that has been shown in the courtroom.Recent DevelopmentsJury instructions: On October 20, the prosecution and defense submitted their proposed jury instructions to Judge Kaplan. The jury instructions are important because they tell the jury what the law is and how to apply it to the facts of the case.Trial schedule: The trial is scheduled to resume on October 26. Prosecutors are expected to rest their case on that day. The defense will then present its case. The trial is expected to last several weeks.The Sam Bankman-freed trial is closely watched by the cryptocurrency industry and by the public at large. The outcome of the trial could have a significant impact on the future of cryptocurrency regulation.Here are some additional details about the trial that have been reported in the news:On October 20, prosecutors compared one of the defense's arguments to a scene in the 1994 film "Dumb and Dumber." The defense had argued that IOUs are as good as money. Prosecutors said that this argument was "absurd" and that it showed that the defense was "desperate."On October 20, Judge Kaplan ripped into lawyers from both sides, telling them to do better and to communicate more with each other. He said that he was "concerned" about the level of "disrespect" that had been shown in the courtroom.On October 21, the trial was paused for a week due to a scheduling conflict. The trial will resume on October 26.The next major event in the trial will be the prosecution resting its case. This is expected to happen on October 26. The defense will then present its case. The trial is expected to last several weeks.Thank you for listening and make sure you check out the Google on Trial podcast which provides updates on the news and events surrounding the United States versus Google antitrust trial.Thank you for listening!
This is the SBF on Trial podcast, and this is your update for MOnday, October 23rd.Sam Bankman-freed, the co-founder and former CEO of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX, is on trial in federal court in Manhattan on charges of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He is accused of misappropriating billions of dollars in customer funds to prop up his own businesses and investments. Bankman-freed has pleaded not guilty to all charges.Caroline Ellison's testimony: Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda Research, a hedge fund that Bankman-freed founded, testified against him in early October. She admitted to knowingly misappropriating customer funds from FTX to prop up Alameda. She also said that she and Bankman-freed engaged in a "fraudulent scheme" to manipulate the price of cryptocurrency FTT.Defense's arguments: Bankman-freed's defense team has argued that he did not knowingly commit fraud. They have said that he was inexperienced and made mistakes, but that he always intended to do what was right for his customers. They have also argued that the government's case is based on "speculation" and "conjecture."Judge's warning: Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is presiding over the trial, has warned both sides to do better in their questioning of witnesses. He has said that he is "concerned" about the level of "disrespect" that has been shown in the courtroom.Recent DevelopmentsJury instructions: On October 20, the prosecution and defense submitted their proposed jury instructions to Judge Kaplan. The jury instructions are important because they tell the jury what the law is and how to apply it to the facts of the case.Trial schedule: The trial is scheduled to resume on October 26. Prosecutors are expected to rest their case on that day. The defense will then present its case. The trial is expected to last several weeks.The Sam Bankman-freed trial is closely watched by the cryptocurrency industry and by the public at large. The outcome of the trial could have a significant impact on the future of cryptocurrency regulation.Here are some additional details about the trial that have been reported in the news:On October 20, prosecutors compared one of the defense's arguments to a scene in the 1994 film "Dumb and Dumber." The defense had argued that IOUs are as good as money. Prosecutors said that this argument was "absurd" and that it showed that the defense was "desperate."On October 20, Judge Kaplan ripped into lawyers from both sides, telling them to do better and to communicate more with each other. He said that he was "concerned" about the level of "disrespect" that had been shown in the courtroom.On October 21, the trial was paused for a week due to a scheduling conflict. The trial will resume on October 26.The next major event in the trial will be the prosecution resting its case. This is expected to happen on October 26. The defense will then present its case. The trial is expected to last several weeks.Thank you for listening and make sure you check out the Google on Trial podcast which provides updates on the news and events surrounding the United States versus Google antitrust trial.Thank you for listening!This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5969335/advertisement
This is the Sam Bankman Freed podcast, and this is your update for MOnday, October 23rd.Sam Bankman-freed, the co-founder and former CEO of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX, is on trial in federal court in Manhattan on charges of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He is accused of misappropriating billions of dollars in customer funds to prop up his own businesses and investments. Bankman-freed has pleaded not guilty to all charges.Caroline Ellison's testimony: Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda Research, a hedge fund that Bankman-freed founded, testified against him in early October. She admitted to knowingly misappropriating customer funds from FTX to prop up Alameda. She also said that she and Bankman-freed engaged in a "fraudulent scheme" to manipulate the price of cryptocurrency FTT.Defense's arguments: Bankman-freed's defense team has argued that he did not knowingly commit fraud. They have said that he was inexperienced and made mistakes, but that he always intended to do what was right for his customers. They have also argued that the government's case is based on "speculation" and "conjecture."Judge's warning: Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is presiding over the trial, has warned both sides to do better in their questioning of witnesses. He has said that he is "concerned" about the level of "disrespect" that has been shown in the courtroom.Recent DevelopmentsJury instructions: On October 20, the prosecution and defense submitted their proposed jury instructions to Judge Kaplan. The jury instructions are important because they tell the jury what the law is and how to apply it to the facts of the case.Trial schedule: The trial is scheduled to resume on October 26. Prosecutors are expected to rest their case on that day. The defense will then present its case. The trial is expected to last several weeks.The Sam Bankman-freed trial is closely watched by the cryptocurrency industry and by the public at large. The outcome of the trial could have a significant impact on the future of cryptocurrency regulation.Here are some additional details about the trial that have been reported in the news:On October 20, prosecutors compared one of the defense's arguments to a scene in the 1994 film "Dumb and Dumber." The defense had argued that IOUs are as good as money. Prosecutors said that this argument was "absurd" and that it showed that the defense was "desperate."On October 20, Judge Kaplan ripped into lawyers from both sides, telling them to do better and to communicate more with each other. He said that he was "concerned" about the level of "disrespect" that had been shown in the courtroom.On October 21, the trial was paused for a week due to a scheduling conflict. The trial will resume on October 26.The next major event in the trial will be the prosecution resting its case. This is expected to happen on October 26. The defense will then present its case. The trial is expected to last several weeks.Thank you for listening and make sure you check out the Google on Trial podcast which provides updates on the news and events surrounding the United States versus Google antitrust trial.Thank you for listening!
The trial entered a painfully slow phase as the prosecution examined poorly prepared witnesses that delivered lackluster performances, eliciting frustration from Judge Lewis Kaplan.Link to story: ‘Oh, Yes': Accounting Prof Says Sam Bankman-Fried's FTX Definitely Mishandled Customers' MoneySign up for The SBF Trial NewsletterCredits: Danny Nelson, Nikhilesh De, Nick Baker and Wondercraft AI VoiceSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
TOP NEWS | On today's Daily Signal Top News, we break down:Republican Ohio Sen. JD Vance introduced the Freedom to Breathe Act on Tuesday.Our colleague Fred Lucas is reporting that the House Oversight and Accountability Committee is seeking to know what steps the Secret Service took to tip off Hunter Biden in the criminal investigation into his overseas business activities: https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/09/05/house-subpoenas-mayorkas-secret-service-officials-hunter-biden-probe-expands/ Fox News has reported that federal Judge Lewis Kaplan on Wednesday found that Former President Donald Trump “is liable for damages” in yet another lawsuit from journalist E. Jean Carroll. Republican Senators weigh in on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's health.Florida Sens. Rick Scott and Marco Rubio introduce the Federal Disaster Responsibility Act. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Former Tech hot shot, Sam Bankman Fried has been remanded to the custody of the federal government after the judge overseeing his case said that he engaged in a massive amount of witness tampering, including over 100 phone calls with reporters from the New York Times. SBF was out on a 250 million dollar bail package that included him wearing an ankle monitor and serving his pretrial detention in home arrest at his parents Palo Alto mansion. He will now spend his days in MDC as he prepares for his trial.(commercial at 8:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge sends Sam Bankman-Fried to jail over alleged witness tampering (nbcnews.com)This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5080327/advertisement
Former Tech hot shot, Sam Bankman Fried has been remanded to the custody of the federal government after the judge overseeing his case said that he engaged in a massive amount of witness tampering, including over 100 phone calls with reporters from the New York Times. SBF was out on a 250 million dollar bail package that included him wearing an ankle monitor and serving his pretrial detention in home arrest at his parents Palo Alto mansion. He will now spend his days in MDC as he prepares for his trial.(commercial at 8:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge sends Sam Bankman-Fried to jail over alleged witness tampering (nbcnews.com)This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5003294/advertisement
This time Glenn analyzes Joe Tacopina - Donald Trump's lawyer in the E. Jean Carroll rape trial. He asked for a mistrial but was denied by Judge Lewis Kaplan. He complained the judge was being unfair by limiting the scope of questions he could ask. Then Glenn talks about the fate of 5 Proud Boys who are charged with various crimes in connection with the January 6th riots. They jurors who are still deliberating sent a note to the judge asking about the seditious conspiracy charge. Glenn explains even if the jury is hung - they will get another trial and another chance to flip on other insurrectionists. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
This time Glenn analyzes Joe Tacopina - Donald Trump's lawyer in the E. Jean Carroll rape trial. He asked for a mistrial but was denied by Judge Lewis Kaplan. He complained the judge was being unfair by limiting the scope of questions he could ask. Then Glenn talks about the fate of 5 Proud Boys who are charged with various crimes in connection with the January 6th riots. They jurors who are still deliberating sent a note to the judge asking about the seditious conspiracy charge. Glenn explains even if the jury is hung - they will get another trial and another chance to flip on other insurrectionists. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
It appears that E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump might actually go to trial pretty soon — the court is behaving like it does when a trial is about to begin. This week, we talked about evidence of Trump's prior behavior — two other accusations from women who say he committed sexual crimes against them, decades apart — that Judge Lewis Kaplan has decided may be admitted in court. Usually, testimony about prior bad acts isn't allowed in evidence because it's prejudicial, but there's a special, legislated exception for evidence about sexual assaults. Even the Access Hollywood tape will be admitted under this exception.We also talked about moves by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, who may be preparing to indict Donald Trump for falsifying business records related to his hush-money payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels. And we talked about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the former FBI staffers who were involved in both an extramarital affair and the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign's links to Russia. He's suing for wrongful termination and she's suing over the release of her embarrassing text messages; long-suffering federal judge Amy Berman Jackson is presiding over their case, and she's decided they may depose both Trump and FBI Director Christopher Wray, but only about specific topics and only for two hours each. We discussed what you have to show in order to get the right to depose a president (or former president) himself when you sue the US government.Visit serioustrouble.show to find a transcript of this episode and to support our show. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe
Martin Shkreli, entrepreneur, investor and convicted white-collar criminal, talks about the new judge assigned to the case against Sam Bankman-Fried, whether Sam's going to plead guilty or not, and the potential involvement of his family in the lawsuit. Show highlights: whether Sam Bankman-Fried truly did not have money to post bail why the government did not restrict Sam's usage of the internet and social media why Martin thinks the new judge assigned to the case, Judge Lewis Kaplan, is good for SBF how many years Judge Kaplan could sentence SBF to, given his unusual work experience whether there's still a chance that Sam could paint this case as a business failure how defense attorneys will likely try to exploit the romantic relationship between Ellison and SBF in their favor why it is unlikely that SBF will plead guilty on the January 3rd arraignment date what a telemarketing fraudster case has to do with FTX how the prosecutors could indict SBF's family if he doesn't plead guilty how a jury would be selected whether Sam has enough funds to pay for a decent lawyer and how that's going to affect the case how Martin learned about crypto while he was in prison how prisoners engage with crypto while incarcerated whether Sam could run a business from prison Thank you to our sponsors! Crypto.com Guest Martin: Socials Previous appearances of Martin on Unchained: Martin Shkreli Explains Why Sam Bankman-Fried Got Lucky With His Judge - Ep. 435 Videos on SBF: Which Gang Will Sam Bankman Join In Prison? | Martin Shkreli Gives Prison Advice to FTX CEO My Boy Sam Bankman Is Facing Life in Jail for Sure | Martin Shkreli Predicts the FTX Court Hearing Episode Links Reuters: Sam Bankman-Fried to enter plea in FTX fraud case Unchained: SBF Released on $250M Bond Secured by Parents Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang Plead Guilty and Are Cooperating in FTX Investigation SBF Signs Extradition Papers After 8 Nights in Bahamas Jail With AC and Cable TV CFTC and SEC File Damning Complaints Against Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried Arrested Amid US Indictment Bloomberg: Bankman-Fried Judge Recused Because Husband's Firm Advised FTX FTX Bankruptcy Standoff Heats Up as Bahamas Challenges US Case Fortune: Sam Bankman-Fried indicted on multiple conspiracy and fraud charges by U.S. officials Previous coverage of Unchained on Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX: The Chopping Block: Was FTX a Scam From the Very Beginning? How Much Prison Time Is FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried Facing? Why the Legal Process for FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried Could Take Years The Chopping Block: SBF Wants to Win in the Court of Public Opinion. Will He? Jesse Powell and Kevin Zhou on How FTX and Alameda Lost $10 Billion Is the Collapse of Crypto Lending Over, or Is It Just Starting? Did the Bahamian Government Direct SBF and Gary Wang to Hack FTX? The Chopping Block: Why Lenders Didn't Liquidate Alameda When It Was Underwater Erik Voorhees and Cobie on Why FTX Loaned Out Customers' Assets The Chopping Block: FTX: The Biggest Collapse in the History of Crypto? Sam Bankman-Fried on How to Prevent the Next Terra and 3AC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Martin Shkreli, entrepreneur, investor and convicted white-collar criminal, talks about the new judge assigned to the case against Sam Bankman-Fried, whether Sam's going to plead guilty or not, and the potential involvement of his family in the lawsuit. Show highlights: whether Sam Bankman-Fried truly did not have money to post bail why the government did not restrict Sam's usage of the internet and social media why Martin thinks the new judge assigned to the case, Judge Lewis Kaplan, is good for SBF how many years Judge Kaplan could sentence SBF to, given his unusual work experience whether there's still a chance that Sam could paint this case as a business failure how defense attorneys will likely try to exploit the romantic relationship between Ellison and SBF in their favor why it is unlikely that SBF will plead guilty on the January 3rd arraignment date what a telemarketing fraudster case has to do with FTX how the prosecutors could indict SBF's family if he doesn't plead guilty how a jury would be selected whether Sam has enough funds to pay for a decent lawyer and how that's going to affect the case how Martin learned about crypto while he was in prison how prisoners engage with crypto while incarcerated whether Sam could run a business from prison Thank you to our sponsors! Crypto.com Guest Martin: Socials Previous appearances of Martin on Unchained: Martin Shkreli Explains Why Sam Bankman-Fried Got Lucky With His Judge - Ep. 435 Videos on SBF: Which Gang Will Sam Bankman Join In Prison? | Martin Shkreli Gives Prison Advice to FTX CEO My Boy Sam Bankman Is Facing Life in Jail for Sure | Martin Shkreli Predicts the FTX Court Hearing Episode Links Reuters: Sam Bankman-Fried to enter plea in FTX fraud case Unchained: SBF Released on $250M Bond Secured by Parents Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang Plead Guilty and Are Cooperating in FTX Investigation SBF Signs Extradition Papers After 8 Nights in Bahamas Jail With AC and Cable TV CFTC and SEC File Damning Complaints Against Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried Arrested Amid US Indictment Bloomberg: Bankman-Fried Judge Recused Because Husband's Firm Advised FTX FTX Bankruptcy Standoff Heats Up as Bahamas Challenges US Case Fortune: Sam Bankman-Fried indicted on multiple conspiracy and fraud charges by U.S. officials Previous coverage of Unchained on Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX: The Chopping Block: Was FTX a Scam From the Very Beginning? How Much Prison Time Is FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried Facing? Why the Legal Process for FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried Could Take Years The Chopping Block: SBF Wants to Win in the Court of Public Opinion. Will He? Jesse Powell and Kevin Zhou on How FTX and Alameda Lost $10 Billion Is the Collapse of Crypto Lending Over, or Is It Just Starting? Did the Bahamian Government Direct SBF and Gary Wang to Hack FTX? The Chopping Block: Why Lenders Didn't Liquidate Alameda When It Was Underwater Erik Voorhees and Cobie on Why FTX Loaned Out Customers' Assets The Chopping Block: FTX: The Biggest Collapse in the History of Crypto? Sam Bankman-Fried on How to Prevent the Next Terra and 3AC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Depositions are a crucial part of discovery—and they can also be, in the hands of a talented litigator, torture for the witness. So I suspect that many lawyers on the left—and beyond—might be jealous right now of Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan, the iconic lawyer and founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink (“KHF”). Last month, Robbie had the pleasure of deposing former president Donald Trump—not once, but twice.I'm guessing it wasn't a fun experience for the Donald. His niece Mary Trump, who hired Kaplan Hecker to sue her uncle for fraud, described Robbie to Bloomberg as follows: “She's brilliant, she's unrelenting, she can't be intimidated, and she's not going to back down. She eats bullies… for lunch.”Deposing the president twice in the same month is only the latest distinction for Robbie, known for handling some of the most high-profile and high-stakes cases in the country. She's most well-known for representing the late Edie Windsor in United States v. Windsor, the landmark gay-rights case in which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. But Robbie is also the lawyer of choice for major corporations like Goldman Sachs and Uber, who hire her and KHF to handle their most complex legal problems.On Monday, I was delighted to speak with Robbie for the fourth episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast. She wasn't able to say much about the Trump depositions, but she did talk about her multiple cases against Trump in broader terms. We also spoke about what makes her unique as a litigator; her epic victory last year in Sines v. Kessler, in which she won damages of more than $25 million from the white supremacists behind the violent “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017; her vision for Kaplan Hecker & Fink, the thriving litigation boutique she founded after more than two decades at Paul, Weiss; free-speech and cancel-culture controversies in the legal world; and whether she's a tough boss.Please check it out by clicking on the embed at the top of this post. Thanks!Show Notes:* Roberta A. Kaplan bio, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP* Then Comes Marriage: How Two Women Fought for and Won Equal Dignity for All, Amazon* A History-Making Litigator Leaves Biglaw To Launch A Boutique, by David Lat for Above the Law* Roberta Kaplan Builds Progressive Firm Suing Trump, Defending Wall Street, by Erik Larson for Bloomberg* 2020 Attorney of the Year: Roberta Kaplan, by Jane Wester for the New York Law Journal* Lady Justice and Charlottesville Nazis, by Dahlia Lithwick for Amicus/SlatePrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below.Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning.* Because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email. To view the entire post, simply click on "View entire message" in your email app.David Lat: Hello, and welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to by going to davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the fourth episode of this podcast, which airs every other Wednesday. Today I'm honored to be joined by one of the nation's most celebrated, successful, and significant litigators: Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan, founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink. She is most famous for winning United States v. Windsor, the landmark case in which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, paving the way for nationwide marriage equality a few years later. But she has worked on many other fascinating cases over the course of her career, including two pending cases against Donald Trump in which she deposed the former president—twice in the past month.Robbie was born in Cleveland and grew up in Ohio. After graduating from Harvard College, magna cum laude, and Columbia Law School, Robbie clerked for Judge Mark Wolf of the District of Massachusetts and the late Chief Judge Judith Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. Robbie then practiced for more than two decades at the major law firm of Paul, Weiss, where she built a thriving commercial and pro bono practice, including her big win in Windsor.In 2017, Robbie left Paul Weiss to launch Kaplan Hecker & Fink (“KHF”), one of the nation's top trial boutiques, known for handling both complex commercial and white-collar cases and landmark public-interest matters. One of the first such cases filed by KHF was Sines v. Kessler, a high-profile lawsuit under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 against twenty-four neo-Nazi and white supremacist leaders responsible for organizing the racial- and religious-based violence in Charlottesville in August 2017. That case went to trial, and a year ago this month, the jury awarded a total of more than $25 million to Robbie's clients.In our conversation, Robbie and I talked about her various Trump cases, how she knew she was destined for a legal career from a very young age, two qualities that have made her so successful as a lawyer, how KHF has managed to be so financially successful while also doing so much public-interest work, and her vision for the firm's future. Without further ado, here's my interview of Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan.DL: Thanks so much for joining me, Robbie—it's an honor to have you!Roberta Kaplan: It's a pleasure to be here.DL: To start with what's in the news—and I feel like you're always in the news—what can you tell us about your latest high-profile case, namely, E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against former president Donald Trump? I know that you recently deposed him. Is there anything you can say either about the deposition specifically or about the litigation more generally?RK: Sure. We actually have two litigations that are very active against Donald Trump, and I actually deposed him in both, on two successive weeks. So it was a relatively exhausting period for me. I literally went to Mar-a-Lago two weeks in a row to depose him. That's about all I can say about it, in terms of the depositions themselves.But in terms of the cases, it's very interesting. The E. Jean case, which you asked about, is on the fastest track. Right now, trial is scheduled to happen on February 6th. Right now we have one case against Donald Trump for the defamatory statements he made in June 2019. That case is currently certified to the D.C. Court of Appeals as to the question of whether when he made those statements, he was acting within the scope of his employment as president—sounds like kind of a crazy question, but that's the question. And the D.C. Court of Appeals, I believe, recognizing the need for speed here, has scheduled that case on a very, very expedited schedule, with oral arguments to be on January 10. So I think it's entirely possible that we have a ruling from the D.C. Court of Appeals before the trial before Judge [Lewis] Kaplan starts.Even if that's not true, however, we have a second case that we've told everyone in the world, including Judge Kaplan and Trump's lawyers, that we intend to file on November 24, which is the first day we can file it. That is a case directly for battery, the common-law cause of action by E. Jean against Donald Trump, based on a new law that was passed in New York called the Adult Survivors Act. It's patterned on the Child Victims Act, and it gives people who were survivors of rape that happened a long time ago basically a free one-year period to bring claims, notwithstanding statutes of limitations. That case we're definitely bringing out November 24th, and I don't think anyone will be surprised to learn that we probably will add to that case some new defamatory statements that Donald Trump made on Truth Social against our client—again, none of which are subject to any Westfall Act issue at all, because he wasn't president when he made them.So big picture, it's highly likely, particularly given the judge we have—Judge Kaplan, no relation—that we will go to trial on all or at least some of those claims in February.DL: Wow.RK: And the new case shouldn't really delay anything because it's basically the exact same facts. As we told the court, the only thing that's different about the new case is the damages theory, so we will have different experts. You obviously have different damages for being raped than you do for defamation. But that's really it. Everything else has already been done in discovery. Fact discovery is closed, and I see very little reason for any additional fact discovery, again, because the facts are totally overlapping.DL: So what are the two depositions? What was the difference between the two depos?RK: The first deposition, which happened the week before, was in our fraud case. Before Judge [Lorna] Schofield in the S.D.N.Y., we have a nationwide class action, on behalf of people who invested—I'm using the word “invested” in quotes—in a business opportunity—I'm using “business opportunity” in quotes too—that Donald Trump endorsed and heavily promoted before he was president, known as “ACN” or “American Communications Network.”It's a multilevel marketing scheme—I don't think even they deny that—in which people pay $500 or $1,000 to become part of this opportunity. Then the goal is to sell video phones. The idea of selling video phones when Skype and other software was already heavily in use—not really the smartest idea in the world—and when I say video phones, I mean big, standard-looking video phones, like I haven't seen since I was a young associate, probably.The only way to make money as part of this multilevel marketing scheme is to recruit other people in it. You don't make money from selling the phones, you make money from bringing other people in, which is the classic hallmark of a multilevel marketing scheme. Trump was paid a lot of money, at least $11 million or so, from this entity over a period of years. He went to conventions where these people were recruited, and he had huge crowds going nuts for him that kind of looked like his conventions now, honestly. And he said it was the greatest investment he's ever heard of, he did tons of due diligence, he knew it was a great company, a great business opportunity, “people think I do this for the money, but I just like being here.”I gave you a sense of the kind of the statements he made, and we allege those were all fraudulent, in that they were untrue and he knew them to be untrue. In that case too, fact discovery is closed—there are a couple of exceptions that the magistrate judge ordered, but it's essentially closed. But in that case, given how much bigger the scope is, we are about to go into expert discovery and then class certification. So that case is behind the E. Jean Carroll case for those reasons, although we're very eager to try it before the next presidential campaign for sure.DL: Oh, interesting.RK: Because we don't want to lose our defendant.DL: Indeed. Totally, totally.So to rewind a little bit… as I know from having read your wonderful memoir, Then Comes Marriage, you knew from an early age that you wanted to be a lawyer. What can you tell us about your childhood or your upbringing that might have shed light on your future career or that shaped your career choice as a lawyer?RK: When I was a kid, I liked to talk a lot. I still do. I spent a lot of time with my maternal grandmother, who was a very wise, very smart person. And there's a famous story in my family that when my uncle was in the Peace Corps in India at the time, and there is a series of letters between my mom, my grandmother, and my uncle from India, and in those letters—we still have copies—my grandmother is talking about how I just keep talking all time, and how at one point she said to me, ‘Robbie, you know I love you, but can you just be quiet for like three minutes? Can you stop for three minutes?' And I said something like, ‘No grandma, I can't. I just can't help myself. I love to talk.'DL: Ha!RK: And at a certain point, at a pretty young age, because I liked to read, I realized that if you're a lawyer, you got paid to talk. And I was like, “Okay, that's the job for me!”Then Sandra Day O'Connor—this is going to show my age, but she was made a Supreme Court justice, I believe when I was in high school. And that had a big impact on me at the time, because prior to that I don't think a lot of women thought they really had—not that I wanted to be a Supreme Court justice, but after that [women] thought they really had a future in the law. I remember that to this day, when that happened, what a big thing that was.And I just told everyone that I'm 85 years old….DL: Did judicial office ever cross your mind? Was that something you might have been interested in, in the past?RK: I certainly have a lot of friends who are judges and I admire what they do, and I think it's a great job. But I like to be a fighter. I like to be an advocate, and obviously I can't do that as judge. I think I would find it too quiet probably for my taste, even at the district-court or trial-court level. But there's no question that more and more we need great judges, and it's probably the single—at least in my job, in my world—the single most important job anyone can have. The only legal philosophy that ultimately works for me is legal realism, which means that often how a case goes—the pace of the case, how it flows, and ultimately what the result will be—is going to be based not only the philosophy but also the life experiences and understanding of the judge. That's just crucial. So the more people who are people of high character and great experience become judges, all the better.DL: I totally agree with you, totally agree. Looking at your remarkable career as a lawyer, what would you say is your superpower that is unique to Robbie Kaplan? Obviously, we know about how hard you work and how much you prepare, and of course your tactical brilliance, but is there something you would regard as a little different [about yourself]?RK: So I have a son who's now 16, but when he was little, one of his favorite books that I used to read, hundreds if not thousands of times, was called Dog with a Bone. And I think the reason I liked that book so much probably said something about me, which is that, as a lawyer, I really am like a dog with a bone. I do not give up as a lawyer. Our firm doesn't give up. And if I don't succeed on something the first time for a client, I succeed the second or third time, and it's that stubbornness maybe—stubbornness isn't usually considered a good quality, but it's that ability to keep on fighting, our resilience, that is our number-one quality.Then I'd say, second, creativity. I'm the least creative human being on the planet. I can't draw. My son goes crazy if I try to sing in the car because I'm so off key. I could never do creative writing. My pottery teacher basically kicked me out of class in high school because he asked me why every single pot I made look like a bong. And I wasn't even trying to make a bong! I was like, “I don't know what you mean!” So I have no artistic talent. But to the extent I have any creativity at all, I apply it to cases and the law, and how to achieve what we want to achieve for our clients in a creative and often unusual way.DL: That makes me think of the Charlottesville case, and your case against the individuals who caused such violence there and how you used a very old statute that was designed to be deployed against the Klan to go after these white supremacists, which was quite brilliant and creative. How did that theory come to you?RK: We saw what happened in Charlottesville, and we knew something had to be done about it. We were very concerned—and my firm had four people at the time, four lawyers—we were very concerned that the Department of Justice, then headed by Jeff Sessions, was not going do anything. Which we turned out to be right about.Pretty quickly after Charlottesville happened, someone got into the Discord servers that the organizers used and leaked a whole bunch of messages. This made it very clear that this was a conspiracy. So okay, great, we have the facts, we have clients, we went down there—but what law do we use? And there's not a lot, frankly, of current law to deal with this, in part because no one—I hope we're not going back to those times—but at least in my lifetime up to now, no one ever thought this was a huge problem. No one ever thought that we would have private conspiracies that were racially motivated, that planned, promoted, and engaged in violence. That may be changing, and that's one of the most disturbing things about our country right now, but that's generally been true for decades and decades.We had to go back and look for a statute called the KKK Act of 1871, which was passed to do exactly what it says it was passed to do, which was to try to curb the growth of the then-new Ku Klux Klan in the Deep South. Arguably it didn't have great success in that regard, but there were cases in the 1870s when it was passed trying to curtail or slow or stop the growth of the Klan.When you think about what happened in Charlottesville, though, it really is the modern-day version of what that Reconstruction Congress was trying to deal with. Back in the 1870s in Alabama, mostly men would don white robes and white hoods, and they would meet in the forest, and they would plan, tragically and horribly, a lynching or whatever they were going do.Today it's much easier. All you need is a hashtag on Parler or Discord or one of these dark websites, and it's like whack-a-mole—the minute one of the sites stops hosting these people, another one will take over. So all you need is a hashtag—that keeps your anonymity for the most part, unless you self-identify in your hashtag—and you don't have to go into the woods. Literally the guys who organized Charlottesville are from all over the country, and they all were able to plan nationwide and even internationally.When we filed the Charlottesville case—this is going to show how naive I was—I thought it was a terrible one-off, but it was a one-off, and we needed to bring the case so that it would never happen again. How wrong, in humility, I have to say I was, because not only was it not a one-off, it was really a harbinger, a kind of a road map to a lot of what has happened since then. Even this guy who attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband, while there weren't 20 guys who went to the house, everything that he believed and everything that he was motivated to do was based on these same kind of dark-web, white-supremacist, violent channels, which again, if you're interested or if you're a lonely guy who's looking for a community, it's pretty easy for you to get online and get indoctrinated in their thinking.DL: Absolutely. And I know this is perhaps a little far afield from your work as a lawyer, but maybe just even as a concerned citizen, how do we deal with this problem? How do we get ourselves out of this? It seems that it's just getting worse and worse.RK: I wish I knew. It's something I think and worry about all the time. We obviously—and I'm as committed as anyone to the First Amendment—we obviously have a right to free speech in our country, and we should have a right. But it may be both with the [Communications] Decency Act and with the case law, the developed case law in the First Amendment context, maybe [it] does not make sense in the modern day. For example, under Brandenburg, when you're doing something that wreaks havoc in a crowded theater, that may be translatable to things that people do online today in the dark web almost every single day. And whether our standards need to change to deal with that is a very, very serious question. Of course, whether or not this Supreme Court as currently constituted is open to hearing any of those arguments, I don't know.DL: That's very interesting. I wonder—because there are definitely some conservatives out there who want to revisit First Amendment doctrine as well—I wonder if this might be some weird area where maybe you agree with some of them?RK: We obviously have separation of church and state, though I'm a religious Jew, and Judaism going all the way back to the destruction of the Second Temple, in 62 AD or 66 AD, has been obsessed with speech. It's obsessed with speech because it understands that a lot of the damage that people can do to other people is through speaking. If you look at history, there's no question. Now, I'm not saying that we give up our right to free speech. It's embedded in our Constitution for good reason, and it came out of a world where people were severely restricted in what they could think and what they could say. But the link between certain kinds of speech and violence at this point is uncontroversial, and how we deal with speech that may not be committing violence, but is no question prompting and encouraging and invoking other people to commit violence, is a very serious issue.DL: Let me ask you this then, and again, perhaps I'm going a little bit out of what you usually focus on as a civil-rights, public-interest, and commercial litigator, but what is your take on what's happening to free speech in U.S. law schools right now? Because there have been speakers who have been shouted down, conservative speakers mainly, but of course, obviously conservatives have no problem going after free speech in other areas.What are your thoughts on that? Do you share the concern that certain speakers might come to law schools and inflict what activists call “harm” on students?RK: What I know about this, David, I mostly know from following your column, so that's basically the limit of my knowledge because I've been super-busy lately, but I have the general gist because you're a good journalist and I follow what you write. People have a right to protest. They should. But they don't have a right to protest in a way that stops other people from speaking.And there's no question that on both sides in our country right now—in fact, both the radical left and the radical right are looking more and more similar every day, which is petrifying because that's what it looked like in Germany in the thirties. So it's petrifying, but people both on the radical right and in the radical left who want to deprive other people of the ability to speak is not acceptable. It's not what the Founders meant. Speech and debate and discourse—even going back to Jewish law—is something to be highly encouraged. And we all make the situation worse, honestly, when we—I hate to use this expression, but when we cancel other people from expressing their views.Just because you don't agree with someone—I'm sure you and I don't agree on everything—doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss and debate and argue with each other, and it's terribly distressing because it leads to the kind of breakdown in civil society I think that we're seeing today. And that's also incredibly scary.DL: Related to these cancel-culture controversies, what are your thoughts on the extent to which advocates can or should be held accountable for their clients? Even though you are most known or most famous for your civil-rights work, your public-interest work, you also represent Goldman Sachs, Airbnb, large companies, and there have been some on the left who have taken this sort of purist approach: “Oh, well, you represent all these progressive causes, but then you represent all these evil companies and defendants and what have you. “ So what are your thoughts on that, the extent to which lawyers should be held accountable for the sins of their clients?RK: I don't think lawyers should ever be held accountable for the sins of their clients. That's what lawyers do, and if lawyers were in any way held accountable for the sins of their clients, then we wouldn't really have a legal profession. The only exceptions to that would be when lawyers commit the sins of their clients as part of their representation, and that's where, for me, you can't cross the line. I think every lawyer I know weighs these things differently.Let me begin to say, I don't acknowledge for a second that Goldman Sachs or Airbnb or any of our other clients…DL: I'm playing devil's advocate—I have nothing against them personally….RK: … are evil or do anything evil or anything like that.You have to look at it differently in the criminal context than in the civil context. Criminally, I think my colleagues at Kaplan Hecker would say that everyone is entitled to a defense, and while there may be some criminal defendants that we wouldn't or that they wouldn't want to represent, the breadth of whom you represent criminally when someone's facing imprisonment is different than civil.Civilly, personally, it's a choice—and we, at Kaplan Hecker, think very seriously about these issues. We talk about them among the partners, and we won't take on a client who we feel somehow contravenes our values in some fundamental way. But that's a choice. I wouldn't judge another lawyer who did that because that's what lawyers do, if that makes sense.DL: That makes perfect sense, especially as you were saying in the civil context as well, because look, [clients] have a wide variety of lawyers they can choose from, and you have clients that you can choose from, you're very busy, and not everyone is entitled to Roberta Kaplan. I totally get that.RK: Other than E. Jean Carroll, who's entitled to me.DL: Indeed, indeed—and Edie Windsor, who was amazing, of course. This might be a dumb question, but is [Windsor] the win that you are most proud of in your long career? And if that is, then do you have a number two?RK: Charlottesville. Edie would be first, Charlottesville number two. Charlottesville, unfortunately—or fortunately, depending on how you look at it—was not covered that much. And the reason why is there were two highly racially motivated criminal trials going on at the same time. They were both in state court, so they were televised. So for the press, it was very easy to cover both those cases rather than cover Charlottesville, which had no cameras in the courtroom because we were in federal court, with very severe restrictions for Covid, and other things about access to the courtroom too. And I guess sadly in certain ways, the record we made wasn't really the focus of people's attention the way it should have been.But because of that, I don't think people realize how incredibly difficult it was. We were on trial for about four weeks. We had about a week of jury selection, so about five weeks total. Two of the defendants were pro se, Richard Spencer and Chris Cantwell. Chris Cantwell was then serving a sentence in federal prison for making violent threats against another white supremacist—I think he threatened to rape and kill his wife—but a week either before or after that, he made similar violent threats against me, saying something like, “When this case is over, we're gonna….”Can I swear on this?DL: Yeah, go for it.RK: “When this case is over, we're gonna have a lot of f**king fun with Robbie Kaplan.” And so we were in trial in this closed courtroom—the whole courthouse was closed, there was no other case going on for four weeks—with these two, with a bunch of defendants, but two of them who were pro se. I think Judge Moon rightly probably let them get away with almost anything they wanted to do because he was very concerned about an appellate record. And in retrospect, he was probably right.But living through it every day was extremely hard. They would just make incredibly outrageous arguments. Chris Cantwell in his closing started screaming, and I thought threatening the jury. The marshals would say to me, “Okay, you know, if Cantwell gets closer to you, we're gonna stay closer by you in case he tries anything.” It was crazy. And so just as a sheer endurance contest, and for being able to keep our dignity in the face of a trial where literally every day these guys were talking about how much they loved Mein Kampf—the rhetoric was unbelievable—is something I'm very proud of. And it's not just me, it's our entire team. I don't know how we did it so long, but we somehow managed to do it, and getting the verdict we did was incredible.DL: Absolutely. Congratulations. And Karen Dunn [of Paul, Weiss], Alan Levine [of Cooley]—you had a lot of other amazing lawyers involved as well, and other law firms. Did you have personal security at some point in addition to the marshals?RK: Yeah, I can't get into it, but yeah, so that made it hard too. We were really kind of trapped in the hotel in a lot of ways for security reasons. So imagine going from this closed-in courtroom to being trapped within the hotel for four weeks and thinking about how you're going to cross-examine someone about Mein Kampf or put on Deborah Lipstadt to talk about why these guys are obsessed with the Holocaust. It was something, for sure.DL: Yeah. But a great victory, a huge verdict, and a real blow against white supremacists and others who would harm the country.On a happier note, Kaplan Hecker & Fink celebrated its fifth anniversary, I guess this was over the summer?RK: Yeah, July 1.DL: Congratulations. What are you most proud of about the firm so far?RK: When we set out to create this firm, we had certain specific core values. One, doing work in the public interest together with commercial work and white-collar work. Two, having a paramount respect for maintaining our culture and making sure that we all liked each other and were friends and had the same values. And three, being as non-hierarchical as you can possibly be, in the sense that we hire, I think we now have 10 percent of our lawyers are Supreme Court clerks. That's kind of insane—like, I couldn't get a job with me anymore. But because we bring in such brilliant people, we make sure that we listen to their ideas, from day one.What I'm most proud of is that we kept to that. We really have to this day kept to that. Our greatest challenge, frankly, is not getting so large that we lose it. That's frankly the thing that we worry about the most right now. There are a number of partnerships where the partners don't know each other well enough to keep that sense of camaraderie and culture, and that's what we face every day. We're not there yet for sure, but that's what we think about a lot.DL: Right now the firm I think has around 60 lawyers, maybe 10 partners or so?RK: I think we're about—well, maybe about 13 or 14 partners.DL: Oh, okay.RK: And I think the limit for me, based on my experience, is about 25. Once you get to more than 25, it's hard for everyone to be friends the same way we are now. So we have some room to grow.DL: And what about total lawyers? Right now you're around 60-ish?RK: Yeah. Again, we don't know, but I think everyone agrees that at 125 we'd pretty much be at our limits. Again, we're nowhere near that now, but that's kind of what people have in mind, and I'm not sure all of us want to get even that big. We also, I think speaking unanimously for the partners, are not into this idea of having a lot of satellite offices.DL: That was my next question.RK: We have New York, which is kind of the main office, and then we have D.C., and I don't anticipate us expanding anywhere else. Before Covid, we might have thought about an office in California. One of the few good things about Covid, of very few good things, is that you see that you can practice across state lines in a much easier way than I ever anticipated. So I can't imagine [opening more offices] anytime in the near future.DL: Yeah, I totally agree with you. I don't think it's quite as imperative, and in this day and age of remote work, it is much easier.Let me ask you this question because people have asked me about it, and I'm genuinely curious for the answer. At Kaplan Hecker & Fink, you do tons of public interest work, you do tons of pro bono work, and then, on the other hand, you still pay above the Biglaw salary scale for associates.Something here is not computing. How do you do it? Maybe I'm being too nosy, but… are you content to just make, you know, a couple million rather than many millions, like you did at Paul, Weiss? What's the secret here?RK: I'm not going to get into any numbers—obviously, my partners would kill me—but let me put it this way: other than in our first year probably, I have not had to sacrifice anything financially at Kaplan Hecker & Fink.DL: Wow.RK: And I think for me and almost all the partners, we are doing appreciably better than we would have at big firms.What's our secret sauce? For one thing, we are very, very efficient. Even though our fees aren't significantly lower than big firms, our bills tend to be, because we don't have to have four levels of people working on something. The work product that we get from our associates is usually excellent and doesn't take as much work than it might at a big firm.Two, we're very creative about fee arrangements, which is also not a big-firm thing, at least in the past—it may be more so now. My managing partner, Julie Fink, was a client at Pfizer for years before she came here, and so she really understood this. We're very creative about success fees or contingency fees or flat fees in a way that I think is hard at big firms.DL: Hmm-mmm.RK: But suffice it to say that we're doing—knock wood, I'm knocking wood right now—we're doing okay, and we're pleased to be able to pay our associates and our staff the way we do. And money is not the paramount thing. No one comes to Kaplan Hecker thinking, “I want to earn as much as a hedge-fund person or an investment banker or a tech guy.” We do very well, and no one is in any financial distress. But maximizing dollar amounts per share, per partner, is not our number-one goal.DL: That makes perfect sense. I'm curious, since you mentioned contingency-fee arrangements—do you do a significant amount of plaintiff-side that work that helps generate unusually high revenue per lawyer, perhaps?RK: We've done some, we're certainly interested in doing more. We probably get, I don't know, I'd have to look at the numbers,.we get between six and a dozen people calling a week [with such cases]. We've probably turned down, I think the numbers have got to be 90, upwards of 95 percent of those. But the ones we take on tend to be profitable, so yes, that certainly helps the bottom line.DL: And then another thing I've heard about the firm is some of your public-interest work is also paid work, right? That it's not just entirely pro bono?RK: Yeah, some of it is funded. It's funded at a lower rate, so we have a public-interest rate we use that's about half our regular rate. We do a number of cases like that—a lot of the election work, cases that Joshua Matz does, are funded in that way.DL: Okay. So one last question before we go to my little lightning round of final questions. And again, maybe this is a delicate subject, but some people in the law firm world say you're a tough boss. Do you consider yourself a tough boss?RK: So let me tell you a story. Paul, Weiss had upward reviews. I don't remember when they started, but at some point when I was a partner, they started upward reviews. And my upward reviews—I'm not proud of this—but I would always have maybe one or two associates at a time that I didn't work so well with, and it always turned out that of the people who did the reviews, those would be the people who would turn in reviews. And so my upward reviews were not great. Then I did the Windsor case, and all of a sudden my upward reviews were stellar! I remember my wife saying to me, “Well, look, I don't understand.” Because I don't think I changed as a boss. I think what changed is the way people perceived me as a boss.DL: Hmm-mmm.RK: So, I don't know. Those were a long time ago, and I know I was under a lot of stress as a young partner at Paul, Weiss. But I don't think anyone today—you can ask them yourselves—has a problem with me as a boss. I certainly, and we all do, have high standards. We operate in very demanding situations, and our clients justifiably expect a lot from us. But I don't think anyone in the Charlottesville case or in E. Jean or in any of the paying matters for Airbnb or Uber would say I'm tough. If by tough you mean I have high standards, yes. But I'm also mentoring people and giving people opportunities to take depositions and to examine people at trial. We were the only firm in Charlottesville that had associates examining witnesses.DL: Wow. That's remarkable.RK: And that speaks for itself.DL: Totally, totally.So here are my standard final questions, which are standard for all my lawyer guests.My first is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as that abstract system that rules over us all.RK: I think what I like the least is the tendency of lawyers and judges at times to fail to see that behind all this case law and precedent and statutory language are real people, and that each case affects a real live person. And it's hard to keep those things balanced in your head, but good lawyers and good judges need to. And I sometimes find it very frustrating when people take things to such a level of abstraction that they fail to see the common humanity in what we do.DL: And I think that is one of your talents as a lawyer, just bringing out the humanity of your clients, whether it's Edie Windsor or Heather Heyer or E. Jean Carroll. I think your storytelling about these very real, flesh-and-blood people is something that just stands out about your practice,RK: Thank you, because I would like someone to say that about me, so I'm very pleased that you have. That's something we really care about a lot at Kaplan Hecker.DL: My second question is—and this'll be interesting because I know that from a young age, I think you have a line in your book about how at age 10 or 12, you were plotting out your legal career—what would you be if you were not a lawyer?RK: Believe it or not, because it's pretty timely, I thought seriously about becoming a Russian historian.DL: That was your undergrad major.RK: Yeah, I was a Russian history and lit major, and I spent—I think it was probably the single biggest influence on who I became—I spent the spring semester of my junior year in Moscow, in what was then the Soviet Union, but glasnost had been announced. So it was kind of the beginning of change, although change that didn't last very long. And I think that semester, I was fluent in Russian then, watching and living in what was then a totalitarian regime in, in a lot of ways—we were bugged and all kinds of things—just had a huge impact on the way I see the world. And maybe that made me a good lawyer, because I always expect the worst—which is a good thing as a lawyer in a lot of ways, because you want to be planning for and anticipating all contingencies.I ultimately realized that there are not a lot of happy years in Russian history, sadly continuing to today, and that if I became a Russian historian, it was going to be pretty depressing. But I originally went to law school just thinking, “Okay, this will be a way to figure out what else I want to do in my life.” And then I fell in love with it. I'd kind of forgotten about what I was thinking as a 10-year-old about getting paid to talk.Oh, and I flirted with the idea of going to the CIA.DL: Oh?RK: I started taking Russian because that was a big period of global crisis between the Soviet Union and the United States. My professor at Harvard was Richard Pipes, who came up with the phrase “the evil empire.” And I thought about it, but at that time, I don't think it would've been very easy for someone who was—I wasn't out as gay, but I certainly had concerns that I was gay and or lesbian, and I was smart enough to know that that probably wouldn't mix too well with going into either the NSA or CIA. So I didn't do it.DL: Mmm-hmm.RK: Probably the best for me in a whole lot of ways.DL: And certainly history has benefited from your choice to become a lawyer. So my third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?RK: Believe it or not, I'm probably at the high end of the people you've talked to, seven to eight hours a night. I've never been someone who's functioned well with very little sleep. I remember my freshman year in college, some of my friends and I decided as an experiment that we were going to stay up all night and then write some essay that was required for some writing class we had to take, taking a lot of NoDoz, like only freshmen in college would be stupid enough to do something like that. But suffice it to say, I had to ask for an extension of the due date for the essay.When I'm on trial, I sleep obviously a lot less, but even then I'll go to bed at midnight and wake up at four or five in the morning. I still need to sleep every night.DL: I'm glad to hear that. I always love talking to successful people who [get decent sleep]. And who are also working parents—you have a son. I think it's great when people can… Look, I know work-life balance may be sort of an illusion or maybe a little much to ask, but I'm glad to hear that you can get a decent amount of sleep.RK: I've had migraines ever since I was 12. I suffer from migraines, and if you sleep too little, it will bring on migraines. I remember once, when I was working for Chief Judge Kaye, I hadn't slept enough or I don't know what had happened, but she came into my office and I was curled up under my desk in the fetal position because I had a migraine. And I'll never forget, she thought I would die. She's like, “What is going on?” So since I suffer from something like that, I'm very careful about doing things that won't bring on a migraine, and lack of sleep—or even too much sleep, both sides—can cause migraines.DL: My final question: any words of wisdom for listeners who look at your life and career and say, I want to be Robbie Kaplan?RK: I'm not sure anyone should say that because we all have our own lives, and you shouldn't want my life any more than anyone should want anyone else's.But I would say one, stick to your guts. The single greatest lesson I've learned as a lawyer is to trust your own guts because they often tell you the right thing. There's a lot of distractions that you may listen to or follow instead of following your own inner voice, and that's really important, to hear your own inner voice.And two, and I alluded to this earlier, your ability to function as a lawyer is based on your integrity, and you should never, ever, no matter what the fee, what the pressure, what the circumstance—and again, we're seeing this today, unfortunately—never do anything for a client that in any way compromises your integrity. I learned that at Paul, Weiss. I learned it from my mentor at Paul, Weiss, Marty London, and a bunch of others. And it's the single most important thing you need to know as a lawyer.DL: Well said. Thank you so much, Robbie, for joining me. I am so grateful for your time and your insight, and I know my listeners will appreciate it as well.RK: It's a pleasure.DL: Thanks again to Robbie for joining me. She's had such a remarkable life and legal career, and it was wonderful to hear about her landmark wins and what she's working on today. If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend her memoir, Then Comes Marriage.As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is new, please help spread the word by telling your friends. And if you don't already, please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast will appear two weeks from now, on Wednesday, November 16. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe
FRANK MORANO INTERVIEW – Matt and Frank Morano, veteran Producer, Radio and Podcast Host discuss the Criminal Justice System, The “Rat” system, and characters such as Greg Scarpa, Sammy Gravano, Joe Massino, Lindley DeVecchio, Anthony “Gaspipe” Casso, “Tommy Shots” Gioeli and Judge Lewis Kaplan. Frank reveals the heavy-handed treatment of Italian Americans that he sees frequently in the courtrooms of New York City, as he covers criminal cases. It happens al the time, he says, because of “the press, promotion and politics” involved. In this inside view, Frank talks about the close relationships he has formed over the years with many of the defendants and their families.
Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre have reached a settlement, according to a court document filed by Giuffre's attorneys Tuesday. The parties anticipate filing a stipulation of dismissal of the case within 30 days, according to the letter addressed to federal Judge Lewis Kaplan.The sum of the settlement will not be disclosed, the filing says. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
It's been an exciting week for the royals with the Duchess of Cambridge's 40th birthday celebrations and the Queen's Platinum Jubilee plans revealed in full. Zoe Forsey and Russell Myers discuss what's in store for the bumper four-day celebration in June to mark the Monarch's 70 years on the throne, including the very exciting pudding competition. We also look in detail at the three stunning photos released by Kate on her landmark birthday and hear why Prince Charles was right when it comes to talking to plants. In a late addition to this week's episode, we also have an update on Prince Andrew's legal battle after Judge Lewis Kaplan refused to dismiss the sexual assault case against him by Virginia Giuffre - meaning he faces a court showdown.
Caroline re-hosts Steven Donziger, and also welcomes Paul Paz y Mino. Calling all protectors that we may extend the global conversing to the Earth, “The Amazon can't breathe.” Steven Donziger with his clients in Ecuador. © Steven Donziger Steven Donziger, indefatigable lawyer, lead organizer of 30,000 indigenous people in their class action suit agains Chevron for their apocalyptic degradation of Indigenous land in Ecuador. Chevron was ordered to pay $18 billion, later reduced to $9.5 billion. None of which has been paid. Judge Lewis Kaplan hired a private law firm to prosecute him.Steven refused to turn over his cell phone and computer, whereupon Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered him to be under house arrest, from whence he joins us today. Petition: www.donzigerlaw.com Petition: makechevroncleanup.com and Donations: www.donzigerdefense.com Paul Paz y Mino Paul Paz y Miño, Associate Director, joined Amazon Watch in 2007. He has an MA in International Affairs from George Washington University. Since 1995, he has volunteered as Colombia Country Specialist for Amnesty International USA and was the Guatemala/Chiapas Program Director at the Seva Foundation for seven years. Paul has lived in Chiapas, Mexico and Quito, Ecuador, promoting human rights and community development and working directly with indigenous communities. Paul is also an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and served on the board of Peace Brigades International USA. www.amazonwatch.org The post The Visionary Activist Show – Protectors & Earth Allies appeared first on KPFA.
Steven Donziger with his clients in Ecuador. © Steven Donziger Caroline welcomes Steven Donziger, indefatigable lawyer, lead organizer of 30,000 indigenous people in their class action suit agains Chevron for their apocalyptic degradation of Indigenous land in Ecuador. Chevron was ordered to pay $18 billion, later reduced to $9.5 billion. None of which has been paid. Judge Lewis Kaplan hired a private law firm to prosecute him.Steven refused to turn over his cell phone and computer, whereupon Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered him to be under house arrest, from whence he joins us today. To sign up to help with the campaign to free Steven, go to makechevroncleanup.com. To provide financial support to his legal defense fund, go to donzigerdefense.com. The Intercept: Judge Rules that Attorney Steven Donziger Must Remain Under House Arrest Until September Greenpeace: Steven Donziger: The man who stood up to an oil giant, and paid the price And one from a few years ago in Rolling Stone: Sludge Match: Inside Chevron's $9 Billion Legal Battle With Ecuadorean Villagers Support The Visionary Activist Show on Patreon for weekly Chart & Themes ($4/month) and more… *Woof*Woof*Wanna*Play?!?* The post The Visionary Activist Show – Environmental Ally Activism appeared first on KPFA.
-- On the Show:-- Glenn Loury, Professor of Economics at Brown University and author of the forthcoming memoir "Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative," joins David to discuss his views on crime, incarceration, culture, the 2024 election, and more. Get the book: https://amzn.to/47Ecraz-- Kentucky Republican Nick Wilson introduces a bill to make sex with one's cousins legal-- Judge Lewis Kaplan threatens to throw Donald Trump out of the courtroom for his outbursts during his defamation trial involving E. Jean Carroll, and Trump says he would love that-- Alina Habba, Donald Trump's lawyer, gets completely humiliated in court, and Donald Trump himself subsequently melts down outside the courtroom-- Questions about medical conditions including syphilis explode after Donald Trump's right hand is covered in blood as he enters court-- A visibly disoriented Donald Trump brags about "acing" a cognitive test in which you identify animals in front of a mildly interested crowd in Portsmouth, New Hampshire-- Confused rallygoers in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, remind us why MAGA is so scary-- Voicemail caller absolutely crushes David, daring him to play even a single one of his voicemails on the show, which David does today-- On the Bonus Show: Republican debate canceled after Nikki Haley says she won't go if Trump doesn't, conservative website's "racist" Ramaswamy joke sparks backlash, Sam Altman predicts AI will soon get "uncomfortable," much more...
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
