NEW YORK: Harvey Weinstein is due back in court Wednesday as a judge is set to decide when the disgraced movie mogul’s #MeToo retrial will start and whether it will include an allegation involving a woman who wasn’t in the original case.
Weinstein, 72, wants the extra charge thrown out, arguing through lawyers that Manhattan prosecutors only brought it to bolster their case with a third accuser after New York’s highest court overturned his 2020 conviction on rape and sexual assault charges involving two women.
Judge Curtis Farber is expected to rule on that and other matters, including the trial date — a task that’s been complicated by an increasingly crowded court calendar.
Weinstein’s lawyer, Arthur Aidala, is representing conservative strategist Steve Bannon in a border wall fraud trial that’s set to start March 4 before a different Manhattan judge. Meanwhile, Farber has a murder trial in March.
Before Bannon’s trial date was set last week, Aidala had suggested that Weinstein’s trial go first in “the interest of humanity,” citing the ex-studio boss’ declining health.
Weinstein is being treated for numerous medical conditions, including chronic myeloid leukemia and diabetes.
“They know that Mr. Weinstein is dying of cancer and is an innocent man right now in the state of New York,” Aidala argued in court last week. He pleaded to prosecutors: “Can I try this dying man’s case first?”
Weinstein is being retried on charges that he forcibly performed oral sex on a movie and TV production assistant in 2006 and raped an aspiring actor in 2013. The additional charge, filed last September, alleges he forced oral sex on a different woman at a Manhattan hotel in 2006.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office said in court papers that the woman, who has not been identified publicly, came forward to prosecutors just days before the start of Weinstein’s first trial but was not part of that case.
Prosecutors said they did not pursue the women’s allegations after Weinstein was convicted and sentenced to 23 years in prison, but they revisited them and secured a new indictment after the state’s Court of Appeals threw out his conviction last April.
Farber ruled in October to combine the new indictment and existing charges into one trial.
Weinstein’s lawyers contend that prosecutors prejudiced him by waiting nearly five years to bring the additional charge, suggesting they had elected not to include the allegation in his first trial so they could use it later if his conviction were reversed.
Prosecutors called that thinking “absurd,” countering that Weinstein’s lawyers would have also been outraged if he had been charged based on the third woman’s allegation either during his first trial or immediately after his conviction.
Weinstein “would likely have characterized that timing as a vindictive and gratuitous pile-on,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing last month.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office said the previously uncharged allegation “required a sensitive investigation” and serious contemplation before seeking an indictment, in part because there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged assault and no scientific or other physical evidence.
Weinstein co-founded the film and television production companies Miramax and The Weinstein Company and was once one of the most powerful people in Hollywood, having produced films such as “Pulp Fiction” and “The Crying Game.”
In 2017, he became the most prominent villain of the #MeToo movement, which erupted when women began going public with accounts of his behavior.
He has long maintained that any sexual activity was consensual.
In vacating Weinstein’s conviction, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge, James M. Burke, unfairly allowed testimony against him based on allegations from other women that were not part of the case. Burke is no longer on the bench.
Weinstein was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape. His 16-year prison sentence in that case still stands, but his lawyers appealed in June, arguing he did not get a fair trial.
Weinstein has remained in custody in New York’s Rikers Island jail complex, with occasional trips to a hospital for medical treatment, while awaiting the retrial.
The Associated Press does not generally identify people alleging sexual assault unless they consent to be named.
Harvey Weinstein due in court as judge weighs scope of his #MeToo retrial and when it will start
https://arab.news/9zcrs
Harvey Weinstein due in court as judge weighs scope of his #MeToo retrial and when it will start
- Judge Curtis Farber is expected to decide Wednesday when the disgraced movie mogul’s #MeToo retrial will start
- He will also decide whether it will include an allegation involving a woman who wasn’t in the original case
Indian space agency’s satellite mission fails due to technical issue in launch vehicle
- The EOS-09 Earth observation satellite took off on board the PSLV-C61 launch vehicle from the Sriharikota space center in southern India on Sunday morning
The EOS-09 Earth observation satellite took off on board the PSLV-C61 launch vehicle from the Sriharikota space center in southern India on Sunday morning.
“During the third stage ... there was a fall in the chamber pressure of the motor case, and the mission could not be accomplished,” said V. Narayanan, chief of the Indian Space Research Organization.
Active in space research since the 1960s, India has launched satellites for itself and other countries, and successfully put one in orbit around Mars in 2014.
After a failed attempt to land on the moon in 2019, India became the first country to land a spacecraft near the moon’s south pole in 2023 in a historic voyage to uncharted territory that scientists believe could hold reserves of frozen water. The mission was dubbed as a technological triumph for the world’s most populous nation.
Indian vets to be re-deployed as security guards in Kashmir, says Delhi
- Around 70 people were killed in violence last week in worst India-Pakistan fighting in decades
- Around 4,000 veterans have been “identified” as non-combatant volunteers, says Indian government
Srinagar, India: Military veterans will be redeployed as security guards in Indian-administered Kashmir, New Delhi said on Saturday, a week after it reached a ceasefire with Pakistan to end their most serious conflict in decades.
Around 70 people were killed in the violence, which was sparked by an attack on tourists by gunmen in Indian-administered Kashmir last month that New Delhi accused Islamabad of backing — a charge it denies.
The government of Jammu and Kashmir approved a “proposal for mobilizing Ex-Servicemen (ESM) to safeguard vital infrastructure across the Union Territory,” according to a government press release.
Around 4,000 veterans have been “identified” as non-combatant volunteers, out of which 435 have licensed personal weapons, it said.
This will help by “significantly enhancing the capacity to respond effectively to localized security situations,” the government added.
Veterans will work in “static guard” roles, focusing on “presence-based deterrence and local coordination.”
India already has an estimated half a million soldiers permanently deployed in the contested region that has been at the heart of several wars between the nuclear-armed neighbors, who administer separate portions of the divided territory.
Rebels in India’s Jammu and Kashmir have waged an insurgency since 1989, seeking independence or a merger with Pakistan.
Fighting had decreased since 2019, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government revoked the territory’s partial autonomy and imposed direct control from New Delhi.
But last year, thousands of additional troops, including special forces, were deployed across the territory’s mountainous south following a series of deadly rebel attacks that had left more than 50 soldiers dead in three years.
A similar veteran volunteer program took place with 2,500 veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the government.
Trump claims the US is the only country with birthright citizenship. It’s not
- As enshrined in the US Constitution, citizenship is granted to anyone born in the US, regardless of the parents’ immigration status
- Most countries with unconditional birthright citizenship are concentrated in the Americas. The rest are in Africa and Asia
As the Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments Thursday on whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to take effect, he falsely claimed on Truth Social that the United States is the only country that offers such a right.
Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20, the first day of his second term, that would deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the US illegally or temporarily. It has been put on nationwide holds by lower court orders.
The administration is now appealing, on an emergency basis, the authority of individual judges to issue these rulings, known as nationwide, or universal, injunctions. The constitutionality of the executive order itself is not yet before the court.
Here’s a closer look at the facts.
Trump, discussing birthright citizenship in a Truth Social post: “The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows.”
The facts: This is not true. About 30 countries, including the US, offer unconditional birthright citizenship, according to the CIA World Factbook and the Library of Congress. Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Constitution after the Civil War to ensure that formerly enslaved people would be citizens.
“The statement is pretty obviously wrong,” said Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University who is an expert on constitutional law and migration rights. “Many countries have birthright citizenship, though in some of them the rules are different from those in the US.”
Birthright citizenship is a principle known as jus soli or “right of the soil.” It bases citizenship on a person being born within a country’s territory. In contrast, the principle of jus sanguinis or “right of blood” determines citizenship based on the citizenship of one’s parents or other ancestors.
Citizenship is granted to anyone born in the US, regardless of the parents’ immigration status. Only children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government, and of enemies present in the US during hostile occupation do not qualify. Those born to parents of sovereign Native American tribes were also excluded until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Most countries with unconditional birthright citizenship, among them Canada and Mexico, are concentrated in the Americas. The rest are in Africa and Asia. Some countries offer citizenship to those born in their territory to noncitizen parents only under certain conditions, such as the legal status of their parents or the age of the person applying for citizenship based on place of birth.
These are: Antigua & Barbados, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, El Salvador, The Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Venezuela.
The first sentence of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, often referred to as the Citizenship Clause, guarantees birthright citizenship. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
This clause effectively overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision of 1857, in which the Supreme Court held that Black people, no matter whether or not they were enslaved, were not citizens. It was ratified, along with the rest of the 14th Amendment, in 1868 after it was passed by the Senate in 1866. The Civil War ended in 1865.
Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship conflicts with a Supreme Court decision from 1898 that held that the Citizenship Clause made citizens of all children born on US soil with narrow exceptions that are not at issue in the case currently before the court.
The justices are also considering appeals from the Trump administration on several other issues, many related to immigration.
Poland votes in tight election as Europe watches
- Warsaw's pro-EU mayor Rafal Trzaskowski face off with nationalist historian Karol Nawrocki
- Winner to succeed Andrzej Duda., who can't run again after serving two consecutive 5-year terms
WARSAW: Poles vote on Sunday in a tight presidential election that will be decisive for the future of the country’s centrist government as well as for abortion and LGBTQ rights.
Pro-EU Warsaw mayor Rafal Trzaskowski is expected to get 30 percent, ahead of nationalist historian Karol Nawrocki’s 25 percent, according to opinion polls.
That would put both through to the runoff on June 1 at a particularly fraught moment for Europe as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drags on, far-right populists continue to rise and ties with Washington come under strain.
Polls open at 7:00 am (0500 GMT) and close at 9:00 p.m. when exit polls are to be released. There are 13 candidates in total and definitive results are expected only on Monday.
Ever since former EU leader Donald Tusk’s coalition came to power in 2023, key government initiatives have been blocked by the veto of nationalist President Andrzej Duda.
Some Poles are hoping that logjam is about to end.
“I hope that these elections will complete the change,” said Hubert Michalowski, a self-employed 50-year-old.
Michalowski told AFP he was opposed to any rightward turn for Poland and instead wanted his country to “stay in the center and reverse this trend in Europe as well.”
The electoral campaign in the European Union and NATO member has largely revolved around foreign policy, showcasing a clash of philosophies over Poland’s engagement with the EU and the United States.
But social issues have also played a major part.
Trzaskowski, 53, has promised to support abortion and LGBTQ rights — a prospect that has raised the hopes of Malgorzata Mikoszewska, 41, a tourism agency employee.
“Above all, I hope for the liberalization of the law on abortion and sexual minorities,” she said.
The Law and Justice party (PiS), which backs Nawrocki, was frequently at odds with Poland’s Western allies and EU institutions in Brussels over rule-of-law concerns. It lost power in 2023.
Nawrocki, 42, admires Donald Trump and said the US president told him “You will win” when they met at the White House earlier this month.
The key to the election could be whether supporters of Slawomir Mentzen, a far-right candidate polling in third position with around 12 percent, cast their ballots for Nawrocki in the second round.
Mentzen is a Euroskeptic libertarian staunchly against abortion and migrants. He has accused the country’s one million Ukrainian refugees of taking advantage of Poland.
Echoing some of Mentzen’s rhetoric, self-employed 25-year-old Radoslaw Wiecek said he did not want Poland to be “totally subject to the EU.”
Wiecek said he wanted “a fresh wind” to end the dominance of the two main political groups — Law and Justice and the Civic Coalition (KO) which backs Trzaskowski.
For Anna Urbanska, a 74-year-old pensioner, the key electoral issue is immigration.
“I don’t want these immigrants to be allowed in here, in Poland. I want us to be able to live more peacefully,” she said.The governing coalition is hopeful a victory by Trzaskowski would enable it to fulfil its hitherto undelivered campaign pledges.
Tusk’s administration has been stymied from easing Poland’s stringent abortion laws and introducing other changes by the head of state’s veto power, to the disappointment of some voters.
Poland’s president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, steers foreign policy and can introduce and veto legislation.
“With Nawrocki as president, the government would be paralyzed, and that could eventually lead to the fall of the ruling coalition,” said political scientist Anna Materska-Sosnowska.
His victory could mean “the return of the populists with renewed force” at the next general election, she told AFP.
The stakes are high for Europe.
Under Tusk, Poland has grown more important on the continent, reinforcing its position as a key voice on NATO’s eastern flank against Russian aggression.
Materska-Sosnowska said the ballot was fundamental for “attempts to stop the anti-democratic, populist trend running through Europe.”
Vatican could be a venue for Russia-Ukraine talks, Rubio says, after pope renews an offer to help
- In a speech to eastern rite Catholics on May 8, Pope Leo XIV begged Russia and Ukraine to meet and negotiate
- The Vatican has a tradition of diplomatic neutrality and had long offered its services, and venues, to try to help facilitate talks
ROME: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Saturday that the Vatican could be a venue for Russia-Ukraine peace talks, taking up the Holy See’s longstanding offer after Pope Leo XIV vowed to personally make “every effort” to help end the war.
Speaking to reporters in Rome before meeting with Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, the Vatican point man on Ukraine, Rubio said that he would be discussing potential ways the Vatican could help, “the status of the talks, the updates after yesterday (Friday) and the path forward.”
Asked if the Vatican could be a peace broker, Rubio replied: “I wouldn’t call it broker, but it’s certainly — I think it’s a place that both sides would be comfortable going.”
“So we’ll talk about all of that and obviously always grateful to the Vatican for their willingness to play this constructive and positive role,” said Rubio, who also met Saturday with the Vatican secretary of state and foreign minister.
The Vatican has a tradition of diplomatic neutrality and had long offered its services, and venues, to try to help facilitate talks, but found itself sidelined during the all-out war, which began on Feb. 24, 2022.
Pope Francis, who occasionally angered both Kyiv and Moscow with his off-the-cuff comments, had entrusted Zuppi with a mandate to try to find paths of peace. But the mandate seemed to narrow to help facilitate the return of Ukrainian children taken by Russia, and the Holy See also was able to mediate some prisoner exchanges.
During their meeting at the US Embassy in Rome, Rubio thanked Zuppi for the Vatican’s humanitarian role, citing in particular prisoner swaps and the return of Ukrainian children. Rubio “emphasized the importance of continued collaboration under the new leadership of Pope Leo XIV,” US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said.
Leo, who was elected history’s first American pope on May 8, took up Francis’ call for peace in Ukraine in his first Sunday noon blessing as pope. He appealed for all sides to do whatever possible to reach “an authentic, just and lasting peace.”
Leo, who as a bishop in Peru had called Russia’s war an “imperialist invasion,” vowed this week personally to “make every effort so that this peace may prevail.”
In a speech to eastern rite Catholics, including the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine, Leo begged warring sides to meet and negotiate.
“The Holy See is always ready to help bring enemies together, face to face, to talk to one another, so that peoples everywhere may once more find hope and recover the dignity they deserve, the dignity of peace,” he said.
The Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, repeated the Vatican’s offer to serve as a venue for direct talks, saying the failure of negotiations in Istanbul to reach a ceasefire this week was “tragic.”
“We had hoped it could start a process, slow but positive, toward a peaceful solution to the conflict,” Parolin said on the sidelines of a conference. “But instead we’re back to the beginning.”
Asked concretely what such an offer would entail, Parolin said that the Vatican could serve as a venue for a direct meeting between the two sides.
“One would aim to arrive at this, that at least they talk. We’ll see what happens. It’s an offer of a place,” he said.
“We have always said, repeated to the two sides that we are available to you, with all the discretion needed,” Parolin said.
The Vatican scored what was perhaps its greatest diplomatic achievement of the Francis pontificate when it facilitated the talks between the United States and Cuba in 2014 that resulted in the resumption of diplomatic relations.
The Holy See has also often hosted far less secret diplomatic initiatives, such as when it brought together the rival leaders of South Sudan in 2019. The encounter was made famous by the image of Francis bending down to kiss their feet to beg them to make peace.
Perhaps the Holy See’s most critical diplomatic initiative came during the peak of the Cuban missile crisis when, in the fall of 1962, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev ordered a secret deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba that were soon detected by US spy planes.
As the Kennedy administration considered its response, with the threat of nuclear war looming, Pope John XXIII pleaded for peace in a public radio address, in a speech to Vatican ambassadors and also wrote privately to Kennedy and Khruschev, appealing to their love of their people to stand down.
Many historians have credited John XXIII’s appeals with helping both sides step back from the brink of nuclear war.
