Court Digest

The Hague
ICC judges authorize probe into Philippines’ ‘war on drugs’
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — International Criminal Court judges on Wednesday authorized an investigation into the Philippines’ deadly “war on drugs” campaign, saying the crackdown “cannot be seen as a legitimate law enforcement operation.”

The court’s former prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, sought permission from judges earlier this year to investigate the Philippine government’s campaign.

She said that a preliminary probe she began in February 2018 found “a reasonable basis to believe that the crime against humanity of murder has been committed” in the Philippines between July 1, 2016 and March 16, 2019, the date the Philippines withdrew from the court.

New Mexico
Ruling: Car lights don’t need to work perfectly, just well
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico’s highest court has ruled that state law doesn’t require vehicle tail lights all be working perfectly, only that they work well enough for their intended use.

A ruling Monday  by the state Supreme Court stems from a man’s conviction for violating a state law requiring that certain vehicle equipment be in “good working order.”

To conclude that “good working order” means free from flaws or defects “would impose an absurd standard for vehicles on New Mexico roads and highways because it would require that equipment be in perfect condition, beyond a more reasonable expectation that equipment functions for its intended use,” Justice S. Shannon Bacon wrote for the court.

The case began when a Bernalillo County sheriff’s deputy pulled the man over because one bulb in a tail lamp didn’t work despite the rest of the lamp being illuminated.

The man was convicted for both driving a vehicle with defective equipment and for driving under the influence, and his appeals argued that there weren’t grounds to pull him over because his tail lamp was operating well enough.

The Supreme Court’s ruling sends the case back to district court for further proceedings.

California
State reprimands LA judge over online postings
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A state watchdog agency reprimanded a Los Angeles County judge on Tuesday for making online postings that appeared to support positions on gun control, Black Lives Matter and the recall of the county’s top prosecutor.

Superior Court Judge Michael O’Gara’s comments on Facebook and Twitter “gave the appearance of bias,” the Commission on Judicial Performance said.

In its public admonishment, the commission said O’Gara “posted undignified, indecorous remarks in response to public figures, and appeared to espouse partisan and controversial viewpoints,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The judge declined to comment Tuesday, the paper said.

O’Gara spent nearly 20 years as an Los Angeles County prosecutor before he was elected to the Superior Court in 2008. He was reelected last year to a six-year term. The state reprimand doesn’t affect his term in office.

In its admonishment, the judicial commission said last December, O’Gara joined a Facebook group that favored recalling Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón three days after the former San Francisco prosecutor took office. The recall effort is still in the signature-gathering stage.

O’Gara posted a comment that said Gascón was violating state law by refusing to seek sentence increases and called judges who opposed the DA’s directives “heroes,” according to the judicial commission.

O’Gara also appeared to take a position against gun control in a 2016 tweet and issued Facebook “likes” of postings by a commentator who denounced Black Lives Matter activists and by former San Francisco Giants player Aubrey Huff.
Huff was disinvited to a reunion celebration last year after former teammates objected to his tweets, which among others urged training people to use guns in case Donald Trump lost the election to Bernie Sanders and calling on the United States to invade Iran and kidnap women there.

The commission said O’Gara later apologized for his postings, deleted his Twitter account and withdrew from the Gascón recall Facebook group.


Massachusetts
Man sentenced for signing for cocaine shipment
WORCESTER, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts man previously convicted of trying to smuggle three kilograms (about 6.5 pounds) of cocaine through Logan Airport in a wheelchair has been sent back to prison for signing for a shipment of cocaine sent to his home.

Emmanuelli Rojas-Moraza, 42, of Clinton, was sentenced Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Worcester to more than seven years behind bars, The Telegram & Gazette reported.

He was arrested in January 2020 after authorities reported intercepting a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cocaine mailed to his address. U.S. Postal Inspectors said Rojas-Moraza signed for the shipment during a sting.

He pleaded guilty to drug charges in May.

His lawyers wrote in court papers that their client has long suffered from mental illness.

But the prosecutor said Tuesday that although Rojas-Moraza’s mental struggles are well documented, there is no evidence suggesting he was not aware of what he was doing by accepting drug shipments.

Rojas-Moraza was sentenced to more than two years in federal prison in 2014 after admitting to trying to smuggle cocaine and heroin inside the wheels of a wheelchair on a flight from the Dominican Republic.

His lawyer in that case said he was likely a drug mule for “murderous drug traffickers.”

New York
DoorDash sues New York City over rights to customer data
DoorDash is suing New York City over a new law that requires delivery companies to share customer data with restaurants.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, is the latest in a string of legal tussles between the delivery companies and local governments, reflecting unease over the phenomenal growth of delivery and its impact on restaurants. Last week, DoorDash, Grubhub and Uber Eats sued New York over a separate bill that caps the fees delivery companies can charge to restaurants. DoorDash and Grubhub are also suing San Francisco over fee caps adopted there.

In its new lawsuit, DoorDash says an ordinance passed by the New York City Council in late July is unconstitutional and violates customer privacy. Under the law, delivery companies must share data collected on customers __ including names, addresses, phone numbers and order contents __ to any restaurant that requests that information. Customers can opt out and keep their information private, but only on an order-by-order basis.

“In an era of heightened concerns about data privacy and identity theft, this compelled disclosure is a shocking and invasive intrusion of consumers’ privacy,” the San Francisco company said in its court filing. The company pointed out that in-person diners would never be asked to share the same information with restaurants.

But many restaurants __ fed up with delivery fees and lack of transparency __ supported the bill. The NYC Hospitality Alliance, which represents bars and restaurants in New York, says the bill reduces the leverage delivery companies have over restaurants, because it ensures they won’t lose access to their customers if they decide to leave a delivery platform. It also gives them a chance to market directly to customers.

Delivery companies saw big sales gains over the last year as pandemic lockdowns closed restaurant dining rooms and more people ate at home. DoorDash booked a record 345 million orders in its most recent quarter, and its sales jumped 83% from the prior year to $1.24 billion.

Delivery companies say they help restaurants by connecting them to diners and handling tricky logistics. But their commission fees, which can be as high as 30% per order, have cut into the already thin margins of restaurant owners in an unprecedented era. The National Restaurant Association estimates 90,000 U.S. restaurants have closed permanently or long-term because of the pandemic.

That relationship between delivery companies got more scrutiny from local lawmakers as the pandemic wore on. Dozens of cities passed temporary fee caps. In July, Massachusetts sued Grubhub, claiming it charged restaurants illegally high fees during the pandemic. And last month, Chicago sued DoorDash and Grubhub, accusing them of deceptive business practices, including delivering from restaurants without their consent. Both companies denied those claims.

Texas
Company to pay nearly $3M for Clean Air Act violations
POINT COMFORT, Texas (AP) — A Texas plastics company has agreed to pay nearly $3 million in civil penalties for violating the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Department of Justice announced.

Formosa Plastics Corp. also agreed to improve its risk management program at its petrochemical plant in Point Comfort.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began investigating Formosa after a series of fires, explosions and accidental releases at the plant in Point Comfort, a city on the Gulf Coast about 105 miles (170 kilometers) southwest of Houston.

Workers suffered burns and inhaled chlorine as a result of those accidents, which happened from 2013 to 2016, the DOJ said.

“Formosa repeatedly failed to comply with the chemical accident prevention provisions of the Clean Air Act at the Point Comfort plant, repeatedly placing their workers, neighbors and the environment in danger,” said Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

In 2019, Formosa agreed to pay $50 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Texas residents over allegations that the company spilled tons of pellets into waterways near the Gulf of Mexico.

United Kingdom
US lawyers ask British courts to tell Prince Andrew of suit
LONDON (AP) — Attorneys representing a U.S. woman who claims Prince Andrew sexually assaulted her have asked British courts to formally notify him about her lawsuit after a lawyer for the prince maintained this week that Andrew has not been properly notified of the “baseless” civil action.

Britain’s High Court accepted the request from lawyers for Virginia Giuffre to formally contact Andrew about the lawsuit launched in America.

According to the lawsuit filed last month in New York federal court, Giuffre repeated claims she has made publicly about the prince, saying Andrew abused her on multiple occasions in 2001 when she was under 18.

In late 2019, Andrew told the BBC “Newsnight” program that he never had sex  with Giuffre, saying, “It didn’t happen.”

At a hearing in New York on Monday, Giuffre’s lawyer had argued that the prince was already properly served when documents formally notifying him of the lawsuit were handed over to a Metropolitan Police officer at the main gates of Andrew’s home in Windsor Great Park on Aug. 27.

But Andrew Brettler, representing the prince at the first court proceeding to result from the lawsuit, told Judge Lewis A. Kaplan that Andrew had not properly been served. He also said Giuffre’s claim was “baseless, non-viable and potentially unlawful.”

And he also argued that Andrew cannot be sued because an earlier lawsuit in the United States that was settled “absolves our client from any and all liability.” That settlement document, however, remains sealed.

Kaplan gave Giuffre’s attorneys a week to address the bureaucratic hurdles regarding service of the lawsuit so it could be resolved and the case could proceed.

Under a treaty that governs requests between countries called the Hague Service Convention, Giuffre’s legal team can ask the High Court in London to formally notify Andrew about her civil action. The court had earlier rejected the application on a technicality, but changed tack.

“The lawyers acting for Ms Giuffre have now provided further information to the High Court, and the High Court has accepted the request for service under the Hague Service Convention,’’ the court said. “The High Court will now take steps to serve under the convention, unless service is arranged by agreement between the parties.”