Click here to read a full copy of the indictment

1. 18 USC 371 – Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
2. 18 USC 1512(k) – Conspiracy to Obstruct Official Proceeding
3. 18 USC 1512(c)(2) – Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct Official Proceeding
4. 18 USC 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights

Click here to read the full indictment

Trump Indictment – No opinions. Just the facts – Southern District of Florida

On June 8, 2023, a federal grand jury indicted former President Donald Trump.  The indictment includes felony counts alleging the mishandling of classified documents, obstructing justice, and making false statements.  Codefendant Waltine Torre Nauta, Jr., a personal valet to the former president, was also indicted.  A superseding indictment was filed July 27, 2023, adding charges and defendant Carlos De Oliveira.

Charges include alleged violations of:

• 18 USC 793(e) – Counts 1 – 32 – Willful Retention of National Defense Information
• 18 USC 1512(k) – Count 33 – Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice
• 18 USC 1512(b)(2)(A) –  Count 34 – Withholding a Document or Record
• 18 USC 1512(c)(1) – Count 35 – Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record
• 18 USC 1519 – Count 36 – Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation
• 18 USC 1001(a)(1) – Count 37 – Scheme to Conceal
• 18 USC 1001(a)(2) – Count 38- False Statements and Representations
• 18 USC 1001(a)(2) – Count 39 (only applies to Nauta) – False Statements and Representations
• 18 USC 1512(b)(2)(B) –  Count 40 – Altering, Destroying, Mutilating, or Concealing an Object
• 18 USC 1512(c)(1) – Count 41 – Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record
• 18 USC 1001(a)(2) – Count 42 (only applies to De Oliveira) – False Statements and Representations

Click to read the full superseding indictment

Russell Glen Day was driving his motorcycle when a car driven by William Honda struck him in an intersection. Mr. Day then filed this action against Mr. Honda, the County of San Bernardino, and the City of Fontana. As against the city and county, Mr. Day alleged in part that the county and the city created or had actual or constructive notice of overgrown vegetation on public and private property surrounding the intersection, and that such vegetation created a vision obstruction for motorists traveling through the intersection.

At the time of the accident, Day did not have liability insurance on his motorcycle as required by state law. Discovery of that fact prompted the county and the city to file a motion to exclude from trial any evidence of damages for pain and suffering. The trial court granted the motion and excluded the evidence.

At trial, a jury determined that Day was not at fault in the accident. The jury awarded him $454,574.21 in economic damages and allocated responsibility for those damages between Honda (52 percent), the County (5 percent), and the City (43 percent).

Day was given no compensation for his pain and suffering.

You Decide

Was the trial court right in not allowing evidence of pain and suffering?

Scroll down…….

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Yes
“Section 3333.4 of the Civil Code limits the ability of uninsured motorists and convicted drunk drivers to recover losses [for pain and suffering] in certain accidents.” Therefore, Mr. Day was not entitled to recovery.  In short, you have a lot to lose if you drive without insurance, and even more to lose if you drive drunk.

The California Appellate Court’s opinion was published on April 5, 2001 as Day v. City of Fontana

During the morning of April 13, 1996, Wanjiko Hardin ingested cocaine. While riding as a passenger in his cousin Eric Davis’s car, Hardin became involved in a physical altercation with Davis. After rear-ending a car, Davis drove to a residential intersection in Berkeley, where he and Hardin continued to struggle.

Hardin ran into the home of 79-year-old Lucille Levingston, who had been standing on her porch. A few minutes later, the police arrived, knocked on the door, and announced themselves. Hardin responded by threatening to kill  Levingston. Straddling Levingston, he hit her repeatedly on her head and upper torso with a claw hammer.

Police entered the home and tackled Hardin, who yelled, ‘they’re trying to kill me; I gotta kill ’em.’ After wrestling the hammer from Hardin, the police handcuffed him. As he was escorted to the patrol car, Hardin yelled, ‘they’re trying to kill me’; ‘I hate all of you’; ‘I hate all cops’; and ‘Oakland police brutality.’

The officers and responding paramedics believed that he was under the influence of cocaine or another stimulant. Levingston died two weeks later from complications of the attack.  Hardin did not deny that Ms. Levingston died at his hands.

The defense argued that Hardin was guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Hardin testified that he had ingested cocaine and feared people were after him.

Three medical doctors testified that Hardin experienced a cocaine-induced psychosis that day.

The defense argued that Hardin’s ingestion of cocaine rendered him psychotic and unconscious at the time of the murder and that he acted in imperfect self-defense.

You Decide

Is Hardin guilty of Murder or Manslaughter?  Scroll down……

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

MURDER

Wanjiko Hardin was convicted by a jury of second degree murder of a victim over 60 years of age with personal use of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 1203.09, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)).   After admitting two prior convictions for drug-related felonies, defendant was sentenced to state prison for a total term of 17 years to life.

The California Appellate Court affirmed his conviction on December 18, 2000.

During the evening of January 19, 1999, off-duty deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department attended a hockey game.  Afterwards, four of the deputies went to Tam’s Restaurant in Lynwood.
Inside the restaurant, a patron began to harass and threaten them.  The patron suddenly punched two of the deputies, causing them minor injuries.  The deputies attempted to restrain the man, but he broke away and fled the restaurant. His identity remains unknown.

The deputies were ordered by a supervisor to write a report of the incident to detail their actions.  Sheriff’s department policy requires reports from deputies involved in forceful incidents whether they are on duty or off duty.
A witness was later located who saw the incident and believed that the deputies engaged in misconduct.  The matter was referred for an internal investigation.

When the deputies learned that they were under investigation for misconduct, they wished to avoid allegations of insubordination while at the same time avoiding making statements that could be used against them.  So, they prepared their reports on official forms, but instead of turning the reports over to the watch sergeant, the deputies sent the reports to an attorney.
The District Attorney requested copies of the reports to use in the criminal trial against the deputies.  The deputies objected, stating that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and violated their rights against self- incrimination.

You Decide

Are the documents protected by attorney-client privilege or the right against self-incrimination?
Scroll down…….
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.