Subscribe to the iGaming newsletter Finance CMC Markets hit by ESMA measures as income drops in 2018 Spread betting and contracts for difference (CFD) provider CMC Markets has cited the impact of new regulatory measures across Europe as the primary reason behind year-on-year declines across income and profit in 2018.Net operating income for the 12 months to March 31, 2019 totalled £130.8m (€147.6m/$165.7m), down 30% on £187.1m in the previous year, representing a decline of £56.3m.CMC Markets has said this drop was driven by a “significant decrease” in trading volumes from clients hit by European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) regulations, as well as a further drop in overall client volumes due to lower levels of market volatility presenting fewer trading opportunities to clients.ESMA has prohibited the marketing, distribution and sale of binary options to retail investors since July 1, 2018, with a number of new restrictions on Contracts for Difference (CFDs) coming into force in August that year. This saw negative balance protection introduced for retail investor accounts, a ban on the use of incentives by CFD providers to encourage customer uptake, and providers required to warn clients about the potential for losses, among other measures. Active client numbers dropped 10% year-on-year to 5,857 while new, enhanced appropriateness checks by the provider on customers meant fewer new clients signed up during 2018. However, CMC Markets has said this has helped boost the quality of its new clients.Lower active client numbers in conjunction with the lower net operating income resulted in revenue per client falling 30% to £2,068.Despite the new regulations, clients in the ESMA region collectively generated the most income for CMC Markets, with net operating income for the market at £74.4m for the year, down from £122.5m in 2017. Asia-Pacific and Canada revenue also fell from £52.9m to £35.8m.CMC Markets was able to offset some of this income decline by saving on costs, with total operating expenses down from £125.9m to £123.1m. After interest, total costs fell from £127.0m to £124.5m.This was primarily achieved by cutting staff costs from £57.9m to £51.7m, due to lower performance-related pay and share-based payments. Marketing costs were also down from £18.3m to £14.1m but CMC Markets did spend more on other areas including IT, with costs up from £16.9m to £20.0m.However, despite lower expenses, the double-digit income decline meant CMC Markets meant profit before tax plummeted 89% from £60.1m to £6.3m. Profit after tax was also down 88% year-on-year to £5.9m.Reflecting on the results, CEO Peter Cruddas admitted that while 2018 was a challenging year for the business, he said the provider has “weathered the ESMA transition” and exits the year with renewed confidence in the future.“We have learned as our clients adjusted to the imposition of much lower leverage levels at the same time as experiencing range bound markets,” he said. “As a result, we have adjusted our business to ensure we capture revenue appropriately and manage the net risk we are exposed to from higher client margins against smaller positions being held for longer periods.“Our business is much more balanced today than it has ever been, with a larger stockbroking business and important growth in our institutional business alongside our stabilised CFD and spread bet business all underpinned by our technology platform.“As regulatory change continues to be a key positive driver in our markets, we believe that our strong product offering, client service, technology platform and balance sheet will ensure our ongoing success.” Email Address 6th June 2019 | By contenteditor Topics: Finance AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to FacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitter Tags: Binary Options and Forex Online Gambling Spread betting and contracts for difference (CFD) provider CMC Markets has cited the impact of new regulatory measures across Europe as the primary reason behind year-on-year declines across income and profit in 2018.
This S4 Capital target price is close to the share price. Here’s why I’d still buy now I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Digital advertising/marketing agency and media business S4 Capital (LSE: SFOR) has been in the press a lot lately. Last week, broker Barclays initiated coverage. It set an S4 Capital target price of 475p. That’s above where the shares sit currently, but not by much.Although S4 Capital isn’t far off the latest target price, I would still buy it now. Here’s why.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…Strong results likelyS4 Capital’s final results are due next week. We already know roughly what to expect. The company previously posted strong performance in its first three quarters. It also noted that results were expected to be “well in line with market expectations”.This week, S4’s leader Sir Martin Sorrell was told an interviewer: “We will be at the north end of the market’s estimates of 15 to 20% like-for-like growth during Covid”.That suggests that the results next week will be strong. The company has repeatedly said its current three-year plan calls for an organic doubling of revenues and profits. To achieve that, this is the sort of annual growth I would hope to see.But what’s interesting here isn’t just the growth. Sorrell clearly knows how to grow companies, as he proved when building WPP. That’s why analysts have attached an S4 Capital target price above its current level. What attracts me is that S4 is able to register such growth despite the economic challenges of the past year. I take that as a vindication of its digital model. The agency is well matched to the current environment because it has been created for the contemporary ad marketplace.Other companies are moving into the space, though, which could reduce S4’s ability to win and grow client relationships. Sorrell’s prominence also underlines how central he is to the S4 story, but that could be a risk too, with a lot of expectations riding on one person.S4 Capital target price and growthSorrell’s approach at WPP was to grow through acquisition. He has brought the same strategy to S4. But acquisitions are now termed mergers and typically paid for in shares as well as cash.That means S4 shares are a currency. If they hit higher prices, bigger deals would be easier. In his interview this week, Sorrell dangled a tantalising prospect. He talked about the future possibility of rolling the firm into a larger company, such as Globant. By doing so, he reckons S4 would be a more rounded competitor to Accenture.The S4 Capital target price doesn’t reflect its actual price, but as City confidence in the company grows, a higher share price could enable larger deals. I don’t think it’s any accident Sorrell mentioned Globant now – he’s signalling his huge ambition for S4. As an S4 shareholder myself, I’m hoping that if he’s able to grow it as he did WPP, I will also benefit.But it might not work out like that. The share price has already risen sharply over the past year, pricing in expectations of success. This means that if expansion stalls or the results disappoint, the shares could fall sharply. With digital assets keenly sought, prices could go up to levels that make S4’s expansion less financially viable.I’ll certainly be watching next week’s results with a keen eye. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Image source: Getty Images. christopherruane owns shares of S4 Capital plc. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Barclays. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Enter Your Email Address Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. Christopher Ruane | Wednesday, 17th March, 2021 | More on: SFOR Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” See all posts by Christopher Ruane
News “Objectionable remarks” News This would clearly have been unconstitutional and the outcry was such that the supreme court did not acquiesce. But it did however make concessions to the government, ruling that, to avoid the dissemination of “unverified news capable of causing panic,” the media must “refer to and publish the official version about the developments” including the government’s daily bulletin. In a continuing display of governmental desire to restrict reporting, the health ministry dispatched the next day’s press conference in less than 15 minutes. The ministry’s representatives told reporters they would only take questions from Asian News International and the state TV broadcaster Doordarshan, both well known for supporting Modi’s Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). IndiaAsia – Pacific Protecting journalistsMedia independenceProtecting sources Covid19Judicial harassment Three weeks after India imposed a nationwide lockdown to combat the coronavirus pandemic, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) looks back at the government’s frantic race to control all aspects of information about the crisis, trampling on journalistic freedom in the process. In rural India, journalists face choice between covering pandemic and survival Calls to murder journalists At midnight on 25 March, 1.3 billion Indians were suddenly placed under lockdown. A few hours earlier, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had personally asked the owners and editors of the 20 biggest mainstream print media outlets to publish “positive stories” about the crisis and to “act as a link between government and people.” News A policeman wearing a coronavirus helmet takes part with others in a procession to raise awareness about the COVID-19 coronavirus during a government-imposed nationwide lockdown as a preventive measure against the COVID-19 coronavirus, in Chennai on April 12, 2020 (Arun Sankar / AFP). Information control In India as a whole, several media outlets and journalists have been the targets of judicial proceedings sometimes bordering on harassment. This has been the case with The Wire, an independent news website that was formally accused on 1 April of publishing “fake news” about Yogi Adityanath, the chief minister of the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, because it reported that he attended a religious gathering on 25 March. Judicial harassment April 27, 2021 Find out more When contacted by RSF, she confirmed that the persons posting these hate messages with linked to the government and BJP. Receive email alerts Organisation On the evening of 7 April, a Damodharan TV reporter whose name is not being disclosed was arrested in Minjur, a suburb of the southeastern city of Chennai, as a result of a complaint filed by a local health centre doctor after the reporter filmed a pharmacy employee selling medicine to patients without prescriptions. He is charged with deception, forgery, and preventing a public servant from discharging their duty. While disturbing at the national level, this determination to control information has attained extreme proportions in the far-north Kashmir Valley, where the Jammu and Kashmir government announced for the fifth time on 3 April that it was extending its blocking of mobile Internet in the region although the supreme court had ruled as early as 10 January that such blocking was “inadmissible.” June 10, 2021 Find out more Four days later, on 29 March, it emerged that the epidemic in India had officially gone from limited “local transmission” (in which carriers are identified and their contacts can be traced) to “community transmission” (in which it is no longer known who is carrying and transmitting the virus). April 12, 2020 – Updated on May 6, 2020 How India’s government tries to suppress all Covid-19 reporting RSF already pointed out on 26 March that blocking telecommunications in Jammu and Kashmir could be dangerous during the Covid-19 crisis. The Kashmir Press Club also condemned the government’s attempts to “throttle information on coronavirus amid the unprecedented lockdown across the region” after the regional health services director ordered doctors and paramedical staff “not to share information with media about the ongoing crisis.” India: RSF denounces “systemic repression” of Manipur’s media “Ever since the start of the coronavirus crisis, the Indian authorities have displayed a lack of transparency towards the media that could eventually prove deadly,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk. “Reporters are being denied access to public interest information and some are being prosecuted for revealing information. We urge Narendra Modi’s government to stop trying to impose its version of events and allow journalists to work with complete independence.” The site’s editor, Siddharth Varadarajan, is currently being investigated under articles 188 and 505 of the penal code for disobeying an “order duly promulgated by a public servant” and for “statements with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public.” “The threats of physical violence, rape and torture have been compounded by the health ministry’s insistence on describing any critical reporting as ‘fake news’,” she said. “Almost all science journalists in India are getting trolled for ‘unpatriotic’ coverage. In my case it got a little crazier because I am Indian and I am writing for Western publications against the Indian government.” But this information, of absolutely fundamental public interest, was not revealed in a government press release or at a press conference. It was inadvertently leaked in a health ministry directive to health professionals about operational procedures. Another freelancer, Mumbai-based Rashmi Puranik, was subjected to online attacks orchestrated by BJP activists after she posted a tweet criticizing the prime minister’s call for people to light traditional Hindu candles to combat the coronavirus. She received many extremely obscene messages and, after she filed a complaint, one of these activists was finally detained by the police in Nashik, 160 km northeast of Mumbai. But the government continued to publicly maintain that India was still in the lower phase of limited local transmission. In reaction to this flagrant and dangerous disinformation, 20 journalists specializing in covering health issues addressed ten key questions to the government on 30 March about its handling of the crisis and the lockdown. They received no response. Help by sharing this information Follow the news on India IndiaAsia – Pacific Protecting journalistsMedia independenceProtecting sources Covid19Judicial harassment Online reporter Pawan Choudhary was arrested in Jamalpur, a city in the northeastern state of Bihar, on 6 April in connection with his social media coverage of Covid-19 developments in his neighbourhood, Keshopur, and was imprisoned in the adjoining city of Munger. The government has repeatedly tried to exercise total control over information about Covid-19. On 31 March, it asked the supreme court to “direct” the media to publish nothing about the epidemic “without first ascertaining the facts from the mechanism provided by the government.” This was tantamount to prior censorship, to forcing journalists to publish only government-approved information. RSF_en March 3, 2021 Find out more As well as being exposed to possible arrest, Indian journalists covering the Covid-19 epidemic are also liable to be the targets of cyber-harassment. The victims have included freelance journalist Vidya Krishnan, who has been subjected to an online hate campaign, including many calls for her to be murdered or gang-raped, ever since The Atlantic, a US monthly magazine, published an article by her on 27 March criticizing the “callousness” of India’s handling of the epidemic. RSF demands release of detained Indian journalist Siddique Kappan, hospitalised with Covid-19 to go further News In Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh’s capital, the local BJP leader in the suburb of Ashiana filed a complaint on 7 April accusing a reporter, Prashant Kanojia, of making “objectionable remarks” on social media about Prime Minister Modi and Chief Minister Adityanath in connection with their handling of the lockdown. The police are now investigating Kanojia under various sections of the penal code for defamation and offences committed with intent to cause fear or alarm among the public. India is ranked 140th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index.
Home / Daily Dose / Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Suspend Holiday Evictions Sign up for DS News Daily The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Tagged with: Fannie Mae Foreclosures Freddie Mac Holiday Eviction Suspension REO Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Thursday both announced their annual holiday moratorium on evictions of foreclosed occupied single-family homes and 2 to 4 unit properties that are owned or guaranteed by one of the GSEs.Evictions will be suspended for the period between December 18, 2015, and January 3, 2016. During that period, local companies handling evictions for the GSEs may continue administrative proceedings or filing documentation for the evictions, but families will not be evicted during that time.“Today’s announcement is intended to provide a greater measure of certainty to families during the upcoming holiday season,” said Chris Bowden, SVP of REO at Freddie Mac. “We also strongly urge homeowners who are facing financial challenges and possible foreclosures to explore Freddie Mac’s workout options with their mortgage servicers. They do help and have prevented more than 1.1 million foreclosures since 2009.”The suspension applies only to evictions on REO properties owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but will not affect other pre- and post-foreclosure activities, according to the announcements.“As we have done in past years, we are suspending evictions during the holidays,” said Joy Cianci, SVP of Credit Portfolio Management for Fannie Mae. “We also continue to remind homeowners who may be struggling with their mortgages to reach out for help. Options are available to avoid foreclosure, and we want to help pursue those options whenever possible.”The GSEs have made helping families avoid foreclosure a top priority since the housing crisis hit the nation seven years ago. Freddie Mac offers information on ways struggling borrowers can find mortgage relief on its My Home by Freddie Mac website. Fannie Mae offers assistance in its Know Your Options site. Share Save Previous: DS News Webcast: Thursday 12/10/2015 Next: Bank of America’s Revised Capital Plan Earns Fed’s Approval Brian Honea’s writing and editing career spans nearly two decades across many forms of media. He served as sports editor for two suburban newspaper chains in the DFW area and has freelanced for such publications as the Yahoo! Contributor Network, Dallas Home Improvement magazine, and the Dallas Morning News. He has written four non-fiction sports books, the latest of which, The Life of Coach Chuck Curtis, was published by the TCU Press in December 2014. A lifelong Texan, Brian received his master’s degree from Amberton University in Garland. Related Articles Fannie Mae Foreclosures Freddie Mac Holiday Eviction Suspension REO 2015-12-10 Brian Honea Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Print This Post Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Suspend Holiday Evictions Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago December 10, 2015 1,291 Views About Author: Brian Honea in Daily Dose, Featured, News, Secondary Market The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Subscribe
Erin Donalson/iStock(LOS ANGELES) — As fierce Santa Ana winds hit Southern California, the dry air is helping to fuel the already dangerous wildfires.With winds reaching 78 mph in Ventura County and 68 mph in Los Angeles County, the winds can easily shoot embers and sparks into the air and send them one or two miles away.In Simi Valley, where wind gusts peaked at 70 mph, winds propelled the roaring Easy Fire to 1,490 acres.Firefighters are working to defend the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library against the flames. The blaze is just 5 percent contained.In San Bernardino County, multiple homes were engulfed in flames early Thursday from the fast-moving Hillside Fire, which ignited as ferocious winds lifted burning embers into the air.Seven homes are believed to be lost in the Hillside Fire, a fire captain told ABC News.The blaze has covered 200 acres. Mandatory evacuations are in effect.The 46 Fire erupted in nearby Riverside County early Thursday, destroying three homes. It’s spread to 150 acres and is 0 percent contained.High wind warnings remain in effect in Southern California on Thursday. Winds are forecast to weaken Thursday afternoon. By Friday, conditions will be much better.Meanwhile, the monster Kincade Fire in Northern California has covered 76,800 acres, but has climbed to 60 percent containment as the winds calm down.Over 5,000 people remained under evacuation orders as of Wednesday night.Copyright © 2019, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
Florida Dept. of Law EnforcementBy JAMES HILL, ABC News(WASHINGTON) — Victims’ rights lawyers who have been battling the U.S. Department of Justice for a dozen years over the controversial “sweetheart deal” reached by federal prosecutors in Florida with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are blasting the department’s long-awaited review of the deal as “offensive” and a “whitewash.”“I think, frankly, what we got was an effort to paper over what happened,” said Paul Cassell, a former federal judge who now represents Epstein accusers. “I think they’re trying to put the most favorable light on what’s clearly misconduct on the part of their attorneys.”A 350-page report from the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which was made public Thursday, determined none of the five federal prosecutors who were deeply involved in the Epstein investigation committed professional misconduct or violated any clear and unambiguous rules when they reached the deal without informing or consulting with victims.Instead, the OPR report faulted former Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, then the U.S. Attorney in Miami, for exhibiting “poor judgment” in deciding to resolve the Epstein case through a non-prosecution agreement and in failing to make certain the alleged victims were notified in advance of Epstein’s guilty plea in state court that ended the federal investigation.“They just say he used poor judgment, and that’s their way of basically letting everyone off the hook while offering some sort of an olive branch to the victims that we acknowledge weren’t treated perfectly,” said Brad Edwards, who sued the DOJ in 2008 on behalf of Epstein accusers, seeking to invalidate the once-secret deal. “But nobody really did anything wrong. It’s really offensive. It’s hurtful.”Jena-Lisa Jones, who has alleged Epstein sexually abused her when she was just 14, called the Justice Department’s conclusions “like another slap in the face” to victims.“Poor judgment is cheating on a spelling test or speeding five miles over the speed limit. That would be poor judgment to me,” Jones said after attending a four-hour government briefing on the report’s findings at the FBI office in Miami. “I honestly don’t think that anybody will take responsibility in any sense, in any shape or form in the way that they actually should as adults.”The OPR report, which took 22 months to complete, is not likely to be the last word on the Florida prosecutors’ treatment of Epstein, who was arrested last year by federal authorities in New York and then died while in custody in a Manhattan detention center.Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., who requested the department review after the Miami Herald’s in-depth reports on the Epstein case were published in late 2018, harshly criticized OPR’s conclusions and vowed to keep investigating what he labeled a “disgusting failure.”“OPR might have finished its report, but we have an obligation to make sure this never happens again,” Sasse said in a statement.Authorities in New York, meanwhile, have vowed to continue investigating anyone who may have conspired with Epstein or assisted him in the commission of his alleged crimes. Earlier this year, Manhattan prosecutors charged Epstein’s former girlfriend and close associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, with helping to facilitate and, in some cases, participating in Epstein’s crimes against three minor girls in the mid-1990s. Maxwell pleaded not guilty and has long denied any knowledge of Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking. Her trial is scheduled for next summer.And next month, lawyers Edwards and Cassell will argue before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that the Epstein deal, which also conferred federal immunity to any potential co-conspirators, should be rescinded because it was reached in violation of the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act. The Justice Department has acknowledged that Epstein’s victims were not informed in advance about the deal reached with Epstein but contends that notification was not required because the federal government didn’t file charges.Here are some key takeaways from the OPR report:The lead prosecutor & FBI agents repeatedly pushed for Epstein’s arrest but were overruled by senior officialsMarie Villafaña, a career federal prosecutor assigned in 2006 to oversee the day-to-day Epstein investigation, repeatedly advocated for Epstein’s indictment and frequently clashed with her superiors over their decision to meet with Epstein’s high-profile defense lawyers, who were attempting to persuade the prosecutors to shut down the federal investigation and send it back to the state of Florida, where Epstein was under pending indictment for a single charge of solicitation of a prostitute.In May 2007, Villafaña drafted a 60-count federal indictment of Epstein for “substantive crimes against multiple victims” and sent an 82-page prosecution memo to her supervisors, which included Acosta, then-First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman, and Matthew Menchel, the chief of the criminal division in Miami at the time.According to the report, Sloman shared those documents with the head of the DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section in Washington, D.C., which reported back that while more research was needed, Villafaña’s work was “exhaustive,” “well done” and “correctly focused on the issues as we see them.”Villafaña planned to file the charges on May 15, and the FBI was planning to arrest Epstein shortly thereafter in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein was acting as a judge at a local beauty pageant. But those plans were quickly shot down by Villafaña’s superiors, according to the OPR report.“[A]fter learning that the FBI was planning a press conference for May 15, Sloman advised Villafaña that “[t]his Office has not approved the indictment,” the report said. “Therefore, please do not commit us to anything at this time.”An FBI agent leading the agency’s investigation of Epstein told the OPR reviewers she and her co-case agent were “disappointed with the decision” not to arrest Epstein and her supervisor was “extremely upset” about it.Acosta told OPR Villafaña was “very hard charging” but that her timeline for filing the charges was “really, really fast.” Menchel described Villafaña as “out over her skis a little bit” and ahead of Acosta, who needed more time to make a decision over how to proceed, the report said. But in the months that followed, Epstein’s attorneys heavily lobbied the prosecutors, often going around Villafaña or over her head when she rebuked the defense team’s demands for in-person consultations.“As the lead prosecutor, Villafaña vehemently opposed meeting with Epstein’s attorneys and voiced her concerns to her supervisors, but was overruled by them,” the report said, noting that senior prosecutors viewed the meetings as primarily “listening sessions” that could be helpful for learning how the defense intended to attack the credibility of certain witnesses and perceived weaknesses in the case.Villafaña said she feared her office was “going down the same path” the state of Florida had gone down in allowing Epstein’s defense attorneys to persuade prosecutors not to file serious charges, and she feared the delays might allow Epstein to continue to offend, the report said.“Villafaña told OPR that she ‘could not seem to get [her supervisors] to understand the seriousness of Epstein’s behavior and the fact that he was probably continuing to commit the behavior, and that there was a need to move with necessary speed,’” according to the report.Menchel told OPR that he didn’t recall Villafaña raising concerns about Epstein continuing to engage in criminal behavior and that “Epstein was ‘already under a microscope’ and it would have been ‘the height of stupidity’ for Epstein to continue to offend in those circumstances,” the report said.In Villafaña’s view, the report said, if it weren’t for those early meetings granted to the defense team “the [office] would not have offered” Epstein a deal she believed “would never have been offered to anyone else” facing serious allegations of child sex crimes.Villafaña’s disputes with her supervisors came to a head in July 2007, when she learned the office had proposed to Epstein’s lawyers that the federal investigation be resolved through a plea deal between Epstein and state prosecutors, a resolution Villafaña believed “didn’t make any sense” and “did not correspond” to Justice Department policy.In an email to Menchel that is included in the report, she wrote: “[I]t is inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without consulting with me or the investigative agencies, and it is more inappropriate to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], the victims, and me.”Villafaña also requested that all subsequent communications from the defense be directed to her and that she be afforded an opportunity to present a revised indictment to Acosta and other senior prosecutors to counter the defense arguments.Menchel’s reply, the report said, began with a rebuke of Villafaña: “Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls your judgment into question,” Menchel wrote to Villafaña.“You may not dictate the dates and people you will meet with about this or any other case. If [Acosta or Sloman] desire to meet with you, they will let you know. Nor will I direct Epstein’s lawyers to communicate only with you. If you want to work major cases in the district you must understand and accept the fact that there is a chain of command – something you disregard with great regularity,” Menchel’s message said.According to a footnote in the report, Villafaña believed Menchel’s email was “meant to intimidate” her and “put in [her] place,” but Menchel contended to OPR that Villafaña had a “‘history of resisting supervisory authority’ that warranted his strong response.”Villafaña did not get the meeting she requested with Acosta. Later in July 2007, according to the report, Acosta made the decision to offer Epstein a deal that would end the federal investigation if Epstein agreed to a two-year term of imprisonment, registered as a sex offender and paid restitution to his victims. The deal was signed two months later.Edwards, the lawyer for some of the alleged Epstein victims, told ABC News the OPR report bears out what he had long believed — that Villafaña was “a good person and a good prosecutor” who “tried to fight for the victims all along.”Acosta decided to make the deal before the investigation was completePerhaps the most serious criticisms of Acosta’s handling of the Epstein case was the determination by OPR that Acosta decided to resolve it through the negotiated plea “before the investigation was completed,” a decision the report describes as “troubling” because the federal government was “uniquely positioned to fully investigate” Epstein’s alleged conduct not only in Florida but in other places where Epstein traveled and maintained residences, including New York, New Mexico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.“As the investigation progressed, the FBI continued to locate additional victims, and many had not been interviewed by the FBI by the time of the initial offer. In other words, at the time of Acosta’s decision, the [government] did not know the full scope of Epstein’s conduct; whether, given Epstein’s other domestic and foreign residences, his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations; or whether the additional victims might implicate other offenders,” the report said.Acosta’s decision came before Villafaña and the FBI could complete several potentially significant investigative steps, the report said, including interviews with alleged victims in other states and planned efforts by the FBI to try to persuade some of Epstein’s key assistants to cooperate with authorities.“Although the FBI interviewed numerous employees of Epstein and Villafaña identified three of his female assistants as potential co-conspirators, at the time that [prosecutors] extended the terms of its offer, there had been no significant effort to obtain these individuals’ cooperation against Epstein,” the report notes.Crucially, the report said, Acosta ended the investigation without obtaining potentially key evidence — the computers that had been removed from Epstein’s Florida home prior to the Palm Beach Police Department’s execution of a search warrant in 2005.“The PBPD knew that Epstein had surveillance cameras stationed in and around his home, which potentially captured video evidence of people visiting his residence,” the report said. “There was good reason to believe the computers contained relevant — and potentially critical — information….[a]nd it was clear Epstein did not want the contents of his computers disclosed.”Villafaña learned early in the investigation that the missing computers were in the possession of an individual associated with one of Epstein’s attorneys, and she tried repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, to get the defense attorneys to turn them over to investigators. She told the OPR “she had learned through law enforcement channels that the defense team had reviewed the contents of Epstein’s computers” and she believed the reluctance of Epstein’s attorneys to produce the computers “was further evidence” of their importance.Villafaña ultimately obtained a grand jury subpoena for the computers, but Epstein’s attorneys fought the effort in court. The litigation was put on hold several times while Acosta contemplated how to proceed in the case, and the subpoena was eventually withdrawn as a condition of the non-prosecution agreement.Acosta told OPR “he had no recollection” of Villafaña’s efforts to obtain the computers and objected to the report’s conclusion that he should have given greater consideration to pursuing the evidence before entering the deal with Epstein, the report said.Villafaña told OPR that if the evidence on the missing computers “had been what we suspected it was … [i]t would have put this case completely to bed,” according to the report.Prosecutors included a provision protecting alleged co-conspirators without giving it much thoughtAmong the most controversial provisions of Epstein’s deal was that it protected not only him but also any potential co-conspirators, known or unknown, specifically naming four women who were described as assistants to Epstein. That unusual clause has come to be regarded by many as being designed to immunize powerful and influential friends of Epstein who may have assisted him or participated in the alleged abuse of minors.The OPR investigation found that the clause was inserted into the final agreement without much deliberation or consideration for how it might be interpreted in the future.“OPR found little in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it — or even gave it much consideration,” the report said.“Villafaña told OPR that she could not recall a conversation specifically about the provision,” the report said, “but she remembered generally that defense counsel told her Epstein wanted ‘to make sure that he’s the only one who takes the blame for what happened.’ Villafaña told OPR that she and her colleagues believed Epstein’s conduct was his own ‘dirty little secret.’”At the time of Epstein’s arrest and leading up to his deal, Villafaña told OPR, there had not been public reports or allegations suggesting that any of Epstein’s “famous contacts participated in Epstein’s illicit activity” and that none of the victims interviewed before the deal was signed told the investigators about sexual activity with any of Epstein’s influential friends. Those allegations didn’t surface until years later, the report said.At the time of the Florida investigation, “it was only Jeffrey Epstein,” Villafaña told OPR.The OPR report said the review found no evidence indicating that “Epstein had expressed concern about the prosecutive fate of anyone other than the four assistants and unnamed employees of a specific Epstein company.”The discussion in the OPR report regarding the co-conspirators’ clause does contain one passing reference to British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, though she isn’t identified by name. And there’s no indication in the OPR report that prosecutors were focusing on her or considered her to be among those Epstein was seeking to protect.“Villafaña acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein’s longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-known socialite, but, according to Villafaña, in 2007, they ‘didn’t have any specific evidence against her,’” the report said. “Accordingly, Villafaña believed that the only ‘co-conspirators’ of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name.”The report does note, however, that one alleged victim interviewed by the FBI in 2006 “implicated the female friend in Epstein’s conduct, but the conduct involving the then minor did not occur in Florida.”Some former prosecutors who were not directly involved in the Epstein deal told OPR the immunity provisions for any potential co-conspirators were “very unusual” and “a little weird.”While OPR concluded that “the evidence does not show that Acosta, [Andrew] Lourie, or Villafaña agreed to the non-prosecution provision to protect any of Epstein’s political, celebrity or other influential associates,” the report faults Acosta, as the senior official overseeing the deal, for approving the provision without adequate consideration of the potential ramifications.The U.S. Attorney’s Office “did not have a sufficient investigative basis from which it could conclude with any reasonable certitude that there were no other individuals who should be held accountable along with Epstein or that evidence might not be developed implicating others,” the report said. “The rush to reach a resolution should not have led [prosecutors] to agree to such a significant provision without a full consideration of the potential consequences and justification for the provision.”Epstein was not an intelligence asset and did not provide assistance in other investigationsThe OPR report also looked into allegations that have surfaced in press reports over the years that Epstein may have gotten special treatment because he was some sort of “asset” to U.S. intelligence agencies.“Acosta stated to OPR that ‘the answer is no,’” the report said.The OPR review also knocked down previous media reports that Epstein received leniency from Florida prosecutors by cooperating with federal prosecutors in New York who were investigating the collapse of investment bank Bear Stearns during the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008.Villafaña told OPR she spoke to prosecutors in New York and was told they “had never heard of” Epstein and he was not a cooperating witness in the Bear Stearns case.“In 2011, Villafaña reported to senior colleagues that ‘this is urban myth. The FBI and I looked into this and do not believe that any of it is true,’” the OPR report said, adding that Villafaña believed that the rumors of Epstein’s cooperation were “completely false.”“OPR found no evidence suggesting that Epstein was such a cooperating witness or ‘intelligence asset,’ or that anyone—including any of the subjects of OPR’s investigation—believed that to be the case,” the report said. “It is highly unlikely that defense counsel would have omitted any reason warranting leniency for Epstein if it had existed. Accordingly, OPR concludes that none of the subjects of OPR’s investigation provided Epstein with any benefits on the basis that he was a cooperating witness in an unrelated federal investigation, and OPR found no evidence establishing that Epstein had received benefits for cooperation in any matter.”Epstein hired multiple lawyers with personal connections to the prosecutorsMuch has been made over the years of Epstein employing a “dream team” of highly skilled lawyers to help persuade federal prosecutors to drop their investigation. Epstein’s advocates included the famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and former U.S. Solicitor General Ken Starr, best known for his role as the independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation, which eventually led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.But the OPR report also details for the first time the breadth of the personal connections many of Epstein’s lesser-known defense lawyers had to the prosecutors conducting the investigation.Among the first wave of attorneys to contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office on Epstein’s behalf were three former prosecutors, including two who were friends with Andrew Lourie, who was part of the supervisory team overseeing the Epstein investigation and the negotiations leading to the non-prosecution agreement. The third, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez, had been a deputy chief of the major crimes section in Miami until leaving in 2005. Sanchez worked with Menchel during her tenure in the office, and Menchel told OPR the two had a “social relationship” that included “a handful of dates” over a two- or three-week period in 2003, before they mutually decided it “was probably best not to pursue” the relationship further.During the negotiations over the deal, Epstein supplemented his team with Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, who had served in the administrations of former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Lefkowitz and Starr had each worked previously with Acosta when he was a junior associate at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. Acosta met personally with Lefkowitz and Starr after the non-prosecution agreement was signed but while Epstein’s attorneys were pursuing further review of the deal’s terms at higher levels of the Justice Department.Villafaña told OPR she believed Acosta was “influenced by the stature of Epstein’s attorneys” and that the defense lawyers convinced some members of the prosecution team that the case was “extremely novel and legally complex.”“It was not as legally complex as they made it out to be,” Villafaña told OPR.According to the report, Lourie disclosed his friendships with the two former prosecutors working for Epstein’s defense and sought guidance from a professional responsibility officer before continuing to supervise the Epstein investigation. He told OPR his “pre-existing associations” with the attorneys “didn’t influence anything.”Menchel told OPR he and his colleagues recognized that Epstein was selecting attorneys based on their perceived influence with the office, but that he viewed this tactic as “ham-fisted” and “clumsy.”“[O]ur perspective was this is not going to … change anything,” Menchel told OPR, according to the report.The OPR report, however, did issue a mild rebuke of Menchel for failing to disclose he had previously dated Sanchez, a fact Acosta, Lourie and Sloman said they were unaware of at the time of the Epstein investigation.“Although OPR does not conclude Menchel’s prior relationship with Sanchez influenced the Epstein investigation, OPR assesses that it would have been prudent for Menchel to have informed his supervisors so they could make an independent assessment as to whether his continued involvement in the Epstein investigation might create the appearance of a loss of impartiality,” the report said.Menchel said by the time he got involved in the Epstein investigation in 2006, he was married and his relationship with Sanchez had “changed dramatically” after she left the office.“[T]hat was three and a half years [prior] for a very brief period of time, and I don’t think I gave it a moment’s thought,” Menchel told OPR.“Menchel stated that his relationship with Sanchez did ‘[n]ot at all’ affect his handling of the Epstein case,” the report said.After examining the scope of the relationships, OPR said it could not “rule out the possibility” that prosecutors may have been willing to meet with Epstein’s lawyers because they knew them but concluded “OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the meetings themselves resulted in any substantial benefit to the defense.”Acosta’s email inbox had a “data gap” covering several monthsIn conducting its review, OPR indicated it had access to more than 850,000 emails of the five prosecutors who were the subject of the review as well as six additional witnesses. But in an appendix to the report, OPR revealed there was an 11-month gap in Acosta’s incoming emails that coincided with the time frame of the Epstein investigation and negotiations over the deal.After investigating the circumstances of the missing emails, which did not affect Acosta’s sent mail, the OPR determined it was most likely a “technological error” that caused those emails not to be preserved.“OPR questioned Acosta, as well as numerous administrative staff, about the email gap,” the report said. “Acosta and the witnesses denied having any knowledge of the problem, or that they or, to their knowledge, anyone else made any efforts to intentionally delete the emails.”After being informed of the “data gap” at a briefing for victims and their attorneys last week, Cassell said he was stunned, because he and his co-counsel Edwards have been seeking those emails for several years in their litigation on behalf of the victims, and they had never been told about the issue.“Let’s assume it’s all innocent,” Cassell told ABC News. “Why weren’t we told, you know, years ago there was a technical glitch or something? Why is that just coming out now?”Copyright © 2020, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
View post tag: USS Ralph Johnson View post tag: HII Back to overview,Home naval-today 64th Arleigh Burke destroyer launched View post tag: US Navy The U.S. Navy’s Aegis-equipped Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Ralph Johnson (DDG 114) was launched at the Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) shipyard December 12.The ship was translated from the land level facility to the drydock which was slowly flooded until the ship was afloat. You can watch the video of the operation here.Captain Mark Vandroff, DDG 51 class program manager, said: “This is an exciting milestone and represents a significant amount of effort by our Navy and industry team to get the ship to this point. We’re looking forward to completing outfitting efforts, undergoing test and trials and delivering another highly-capable asset to our Fleet.”According to the U.S. Navy, Ralph Johnson, a Flight IIA destroyer, will be equipped with Aegis Baseline 9 which incorporates Integrated Air and Missile Defense and enhanced Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities.Ralph Johnson will be the 64th Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class destroyer, and will be the 30th ship built by the Pascagoula shipyard. In addition to DDG 114, HII is currently constructing the future Arleigh Burke class ships, John Finn (DDG 113), Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) and Delbert Black (DDG 119).[mappress mapid=”17525″] 64th Arleigh Burke destroyer launched Authorities December 15, 2015 Share this article
FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmail Governor Eric J. Holcomb today introduced Indiana’s Next Level Recovery website (IN.gov/Recovery) to be the online entry point for all state resources on the opioid crisis.“The Next Level Recovery website will be the front porch for Hoosiers looking for information and resources on opioid addiction,” Gov. Holcomb said. “This website will change and develop over time along with our efforts, and I hope it will become a go-to resource for communities, families and individuals.”Indiana Executive Director for Drug Prevention, Treatment and Enforcement Jim McClelland led the website’s development as part of his mission to build a comprehensive, community-based and proactive plan of attack against the epidemic. The Next Level Recovery website at www.in.gov/recovery offers information for healthcare professionals, emergency personnel, law enforcement, community leaders and persons with substance use disorder and their families.“For the first time, the state will have website for Hoosiers looking for information and help for substance abuse disorder,” McClelland said. “Previously, people had to jump around from site to site to find the one program they needed for a family member or for themselves. Now we have a hub to direct them to the right state resources.”The Next Level Recovery website will house an ever-evolving clearinghouse of information on Indiana’s fight against the opioid epidemic, including the following:Data and FactsIndiana InitiativesWays to Get InvolvedInformation on Opioid Abuse Prevention, Treatment and EnforcementResources and Information for Healthcare Professionals and First RespondersNotices and Meeting Minutes from Indiana’s Commission to Combat Drug Abuse“When it comes to taking down Indiana’s opioid crisis, we must apply every asset,” Gov. Holcomb said. “I am committed to using a comprehensive, data-driven strategy so that we can address gaps in the system and stop the current trajectory in Indiana.”Gov. Holcomb made attacking the drug epidemic one of the five pillars of his agenda upon taking office in January 2017. His first action as governor was to create a new position dedicated to tackling the drug crisis, and he appointed Jim McClelland as Indiana’s first executive director of drug prevention, treatment and enforcement.McClelland is carrying out the strategic approach he formulated after months of listening to the concerns of the community and researching best practices to overcome the crisis in Indiana.
John Oliver recently ran a segment on his popular HBO show Last Week Tonight, talking about the ongoing problem of segregation in schools. Somehow, Oliver turned the corner from talking about school funding to Phish fans, saying “funding tends to follow white people around the way white people follow the band Phish around.”He then joked on the Phish mentality, putting on an affected character voice while saying “it’s a different show every time, man.” He must have gotten the tip from fellow former Daily Show correspondent Stephen Colbert, a known Phish fan who occasionally pokes fun at the Vermont band.Watch the full clip video below, with the Phish joke coming in at around the 6:30 minute mark.[H/T JamBase]