Connect with us

News

Jan. 6 Rioters Are Bringing In thousands In Donations. Now The US Is Coming After Their Haul

Published

on

rioters

Daniel Goodwyn, a Texan who pled guilty to storming the U.S. Capitol, made an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s former Fox News show less than two months after his plea and promoted a website where people could donate money to help him and other rioters, who the website referred to as “political prisoners.”

An increasing government effort to prohibit rioters from personally profiting from an act that rattled the foundations of American democracy has resulted in the Justice Department demanding that Goodwyn return more than $25,000 he raised.

Prosecutors in the more than one thousand criminal cases dating back to January 6, 2021, are increasingly requesting judges to impose fines in addition to prison sentences to balance donations from supporters of the Capitol rioters, according to a study of court documents by the Associated Press.

Prosecutors have acknowledged nothing improper about defendants setting up Internet fundraising efforts to help with legal expenditures. Since many of the accused have had government-funded legal representation, the Justice Department has occasionally raised concerns about the true use of the funds.

Most of these campaigns can be found on GiveSendGo, which promotes itself as “The #1 Free Christian Fundraising Site” and has become a safe haven for those originally banned from utilizing popular crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe on January 6. Even as they make deals to plead guilty and assist authorities, the rioters frequently declare their innocence and portray themselves as victims of government oppression.

Their ability to raise money demonstrates that many Americans maintain the false assumption that Democrats plotted to steal the 2020 presidential election from Donald Trump. The idea has been bolstered by the previous president’s promise to pardon rioters if he is re-elected.

More than $16,000 was gathered for Markus Maly’s family through an internet campaign that referred to him as a “January 6 P.O.W.” Maly is a Virginia man due to be sentenced next month for attacking police at the Capitol. Although a public defender represented Maly at no cost to himself, prosecutors have asked for a punishment of $16,000 or more.

rioters

An increasing government effort to prohibit rioters from personally profiting from an act that rattled the foundations of American democracy.

According to court documents, prosecutors believe it is inappropriate for the defendant to “capitalize” on his involvement in the Capitol breach by using the fame he has achieved due to his criminal activities.

According to the A.P.’s count, prosecutors have sought fines totaling over $390,000 from at least 21 riot suspects this year. These fines have ranged from $450 to over $71,000.

This year, judges have fined at least $124,127 amongst 33 riot suspects. Over the prior two years, over a hundred riot defendants were fined over $240,000.

To repay the nearly $2.8 million in damages to the Capitol and other expenses incurred on January 6, judges have ordered hundreds of convicted rioters to pay over $524,000.

The harshest sentences for those rioters who faced the most serious charges are finally being handed down. They are also the most active in soliciting donations, which may account for the uptick in requests for monetary penalties.

A judge earlier this month handed Nathaniel DeGrave a sentence of almost three years in prison and a fine of $25,000. Prosecutors said the Nevada man “incredibly” collected over $120,000 through GiveSendGo campaigns labeling him “Beijing Biden’s political prisoner” in “America’s Gitmo,” a reference to the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.

Despite “seeking to cooperate with the government and admitting he and his co-conspirators were guilty since at least November 2021,” the prosecutor wrote, “he did this.”

DeGrave’s attorney William Shipley, who has also represented more than two dozen other January 6 offenders, said his clients should not raise money as a political prisoners if they want to enter a guilty plea.

They have every right to scream from the rooftops that the only reason they are being kept is because of politics until they admit to having committed a crime, as Shipley put it. To quote the First Amendment: “It’s just free political speech.”

rioters

An increasing government effort to prohibit rioters from personally profiting from an act that rattled the foundations of American democracy

According to Shipley, he proved to the judge that DeGrave had $25,000 more in donations than legal fees.

“I’ve never had clients that had third-party fundraising like this,” Shipley said, “so I’ve never had to do it.” “There is a section of the population that feels sorry for these accused.”

Heather Wilson, the co-founder of the crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo, explained that accepting contributions for the legal defense of those accused in the Capitol riot “is rooted in our society’s commitment to the presumption of innocence and the freedom for all individuals to hire private attorneys.”

Just over 500 defendants have been punished for offenses committed on January 6, marking a milestone in the largest federal investigation in American history and prompting the government to argue for higher punishments.

When prosecutors ask for a fine, judges are sometimes granting them.

Peter Schwartz, a guy from Kentucky who attacked Capitol police with pepper spray and a chair, was facing a fine of almost $70,000, according to prosecutors. This month, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta gave Schwartz one of the heaviest jail terms handed down in a case involving the Capitol incident, although he did not impose a fine.

Prosecutors accuse Schwartz of trying to make money via his GoFundMe page, “Patriot Pete Political Prisoner in D.C.” However, Dennis Boyle, who represents him, claims no such proof exists.

In this case, the judge “basically said that if the money was being used for attorneys’ fees or other costs like that, there was no basis for a fine,” Boyle said.

John Strand, a cover model for romance novels, was found guilty by a jury of storming the Capitol alongside Dr. Simone Gold, a prominent California physician in the anti-vaccine movement. The judge will sentence Strand on Thursday, and prosecutors ask for a $50,000 fine and jail time.

Prosecutors claim that Strand has raised over $17,300 for his defense, even though he uses a publicly financed attorney. The fact that Strand can afford to live in a mansion that cost over $3 million indicates that he has “substantial financial means,” as the authorities have put it.

“Strand has raised, and continues to raise, money on his website based upon his false statements and misrepresentations on the events of January 6,” the prosecutors stated.

Goodwyn will be sentenced in April after appearing on Carlson’s show in March. The defense team’s attorney, Carolyn Stewart, referred to the $25,000 fine requested by prosecutors as “demanding blood from a stone.”

“He received that amount in charity to help him in the debt for legal fees for former solicitors and this for unknown reasons is bothersome to the government,” Stewart wrote.

SOURCE – (AP)

Kiara Grace is a staff writer at VORNews, a reputable online publication. Her writing focuses on technology trends, particularly in the realm of consumer electronics and software. With a keen eye for detail and a knack for breaking down complex topics, Kiara delivers insightful analyses that resonate with tech enthusiasts and casual readers alike. Her articles strike a balance between in-depth coverage and accessibility, making them a go-to resource for anyone seeking to stay informed about the latest innovations shaping our digital world.

Continue Reading

News

Heatwave in Delhi Claims 200 Homeless Lives in One Week

Published

on

Heatwave in Delhi Claims 200 Homeless Lives in One Week

Around 200 homeless people have died in the Indian capital in the last week as a result of the country’s ongoing heatwave, according to a group committed to assisting homeless people.

The Times of India reported on Thursday that 52 bodies had been brought to hospitals in the previous two days, with the majority of them being poor people who lived and worked outside.

Delhi Heatwave

According to the Centre for Holistic Development, 192 homeless individuals died in New Delhi between June 11 and June 19, which is more than the number reported in prior years.

“The poorest people face the brunt of such climate change. Most of these folks live beneath flyovers and in the open, with no protection from the heat. According to Sunil Kumar Aledia, the head of CHD, heatwaves were primarily to blame for these deaths.

VOR News

This summer, India reported over 40,000 suspected heatstroke cases and at least 110 verified deaths between March 1 and June 18, when northwest and eastern India had more than double the typical number of heatwave days.

“A prolonged summer should be classified as a natural disaster,” the Hindu newspaper wrote in an editorial on Thursday, citing water shortages and record power demand.

VOR News

The health ministry asked federal and state institutions to provide rapid care to patients, while hospitals were told to make more beds available.

The meteorological office has anticipated above-normal temperatures for this month as well, and Delhi experienced its warmest night in over 50 years on Wednesday, with a minimum temperature of 35.2°C (95°F), according to weather department data.

Temperatures in the capital fell nearly 6°C to 37°C (98.6°F) on Thursday as rain provided relief from the heat, according to weather service data.

 

Continue Reading

News

UAE Predicted to Become World’s Top Wealth-Attracting Country for Third Consecutive Year

Published

on

UAE Predicted to Become World's Top Wealth-Attracting Country for Third Consecutive Year

(CTN News) – The Henley Private Wealth Migration Report predicts that the UAE will become the world’s top wealth-attracting country for the third year in a row.

The survey, which was released earlier this week, expects an extraordinary inflow of 6,700 millionaires from all over the world by the end of 2024, CNBC reported.

The United States is trailing behind the UAE in second place, with an expected inflow of 3,800 millionaires by year end.

According to Henley, the analysis projects that 128,000 millionaires, or high-net-worth individuals with one million dollars or more, will relocate in 2024, breaking the previous record of 120,000 millionaires set last year, signaling a watershed moment in global wealth migration.

The analysis is based on data provided by the global wealth intelligence business, New World Wealth. It provides information on millionaires’ inflows and outflows, as well as their global mobility trends.

Why the UAE is a Top Choice for Millionaires

“This great millionaire migration is a canary in the coal mine, signaling a profound shift in the global landscape and tectonic plates of wealth and power, with far-reaching implications for the future trajectory of the nations they leave behind or those which they make their new home,” said Dominic Volek, director of private client services at Henley & Partners, an international law firm.

The UAE is becoming a popular choice for high-net-worth individuals worldwide, thanks to its favorable tax regulations, strategic location, and modern infrastructure.

The country offers a “golden visa” to attract foreign talent, intending to “provide long-term residence to investors, entrepreneurs, specialists, students, and researchers who make a significant investment in the country,” according to Henley & Partners.

People from the Middle East, India, Russia, Africa, and most recently, the anticipated migration from the United Kingdom and Europe, are driving an increase in migration to the UAE.

According to Henley & Partners, the top ten countries expecting the biggest net inflows of millionaires this year are listed below.

  • United Arab Emirates: +6,700
  • United States of America: +3,800
  • Singapore: +3,500
  • Canada: +3,200
  • Australia: +2,500
  • Italy: +2,200
  • Switzerland: +1,500
  • Greece: +1,200
  • Portugal: +800
  • Japan: +400
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court Upholds Trump-Era Foreign Earnings TAX

Published

on

US Supreme Court Upholds Trump- Era Tax

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court upheld an obscure tax established as part of Trump’s big 2017 reform package that targets U.S. taxpayers who own shares in certain foreign firms.

The Supreme Court concluded 7-2 that the so-called mandatory repatriation tax, or MRT, is constitutional under Article I and the 16th Amendment, rejecting a lawsuit by a Washington couple, Charles and Kathleen Moore, who claimed the provision violated the Constitution. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The Supreme Court’s decision was narrow, but by declining to overturn the tax, the justices avoided closing the door on Democrats’ proposals to levy taxes on the nation’s richest earnings. Kavanaugh emphasized that the court’s analysis ignores the difficulties created by holdings, wealth, or net worth taxes, as well as appreciation taxes.

“Those are potential issues for another day, and we do not address or resolve any of those issues here,” the Supreme Court judge’s counsel wrote. “In the Moores’ instance, Congress has long taxed an entity’s shareholders on its undistributed revenue, as it did with the MRT. This Court has long sustained such taxes, and we continue to do so with the MRT.

The high court opinion is also expected to allay fears about the impact of a sweeping decision rejecting the required repatriation tax on other elements of the tax legislation. Kavanaugh acknowledged the potential repercussions of such a finding, stating that if the Moores’ argument is adopted, “vast swaths” of the Internal Revenue Code may be declared unconstitutional.

“And those tax provisions, if suddenly eliminated, would deprive the U. S. government and the American people of trillions in lost tax revenue,” he wrote on behalf of the coalition. “The logical ramifications of the Moores’ thesis would thus oblige Congress to either dramatically slash important national programs or significantly increase taxes on the remaining sources available to it—including, of course, ordinary Americans. The Constitution does not need such a fiscal disaster.”

Dan Greenberg, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which represented the Moores, expressed disappointment with the verdict, which allows the government to collect income taxes on overseas stockholders who have never earned income.

“We think that is unfair, because the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax people on their income, not the income of foreign businesses that they do not control,” according to a press release.

US Supreme Court

Supreme Court Moore v. U.S.

The tax at the center of the case, known as Moore v. U.S., is imposed one time on U.S. taxpayers who hold shares of certain foreign corporations. The Moores challenged the measure after they were hit with a nearly $15,000 tax bill for 2017 as a result of the law, which required them to pay levies on their share of reinvested lifetime earnings from an India-based company called KisanKraft Tools.

The Moores had invested $40,000 in the company in 2006 in exchange for a 13% stake, and did not receive any distributions, dividends or other payments from it.

But the mandatory repatriation tax, enacted through the Tax Cut and Jobs Act that was signed into law by former President Donald Trump, taxed U.S. taxpayers who owned at least 10% of a foreign company on their proportionate share of that company’s earnings after 1986. The tax was projected to generate roughly $340 billion in revenue over 10 years.

Though KisanKraft reinvested its earnings in the years after its founding, rather than distributing dividends to shareholders, the tax still applied to the Moores.

The Moores paid, but filed a lawsuit against the federal government to obtain a refund and challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory repatriation tax.

A federal district court ruled for the government and dismissed the case, finding that the mandatory repatriation tax is permitted under the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the authority to tax “incomes, from whatever source derived.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from “attributing a corporation’s income pro-rata to its shareholders.” The 9th Circuit noted that courts have consistently upheld other similar taxes, and warned that finding the measure unconstitutional would call into question many other long-standing tax provisions.

The Supreme Court affirmed the 9th Circuit’s ruling and found that by 1938, its precedents had established a rule that contradicted the Moores’ argument in their case. That line of prior decisions, Kavanaugh wrote for the court, “remains good law to this day.”

Citing those earlier rulings and the similarities between the mandatory repatriation tax and other tax provisions, the court concluded that the measure “falls squarely within Congress’s constitutional authority to tax.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, in which she agreed with the outcome of the case, but split with the majority’s reasoning. Addressing the question that was before the court, Barrett said that the 16th Amendment does not authorize Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment to the states.

In a dissenting opinion joined by Gorsuch, Thomas said the Moores were correct in challenging the mandatory repatriation tax as unconstitutional. Because the couple never actually received gains from their investment, those unrealized gains couldn’t be taxed as income under the 16th Amendment, he wrote.

“The fact that the MRT has novel features does not mean that it is unconstitutional. But, the MRT is undeniably novel when compared to older income taxes, and many of those differences are constitutionally relevant,” he wrote. “Because the MRT is imposed merely based on ownership of shares in a corporation, it does not operate as a tax on income.”

Thomas criticized the majority over its concerns about the impact a broad decision would have on other longstanding taxes, writing that “if Congress invites calamity by building the tax base on constitutional quicksand, ‘the judicial power’ afforded to this court does not include the power to fashion an emergency escape.”

He also rebuffed the majority’s contention that its ruling does not speak to the constitutionality of other taxes that may be passed by Congress, such as a wealth tax.

“Sensing that upholding the MRT cedes additional ground to Congress, the majority arms itself with dicta to tell Congress ‘no’ in the future,” Thomas wrote. “But, if the court is not willing to uphold limitations on the taxing power in expensive cases, cheap dicta will make no difference.”

During oral arguments in December, the justices seemed sympathetic to concerns about how a sweeping ruling would reverberate across the U.S. tax system and threaten existing tax laws.

But some of the justices sought clarity on the limits of Congress’ taxing power. Lawyers for the Moores had warned the court that allowing a tax on income that has not yet been realized, or received, would pave the way for lawmakers to levy taxes on all manner of things, such as retirement accounts or gains in the value of real estate.

Justice Samuel Alito had faced pressure from some congressional Democrats to recuse himself from the case because of interviews he participated in with an editor at the Wall Street Journal and David Rivkin, a lawyer who represented the Moores.

The justice declined to step aside from the case, arguing there was “no valid reason” for him to do so.

Source: CBS News

 

 

Continue Reading

Download Our App

vornews app

Advertise Here

Volunteering at Soi Dog

People Reading

Trending