Trump’s Fraud Trial Starts With Attacks on Attorney General and Judge

Donald J. Trump appeared in court as lawyers for New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, painted him as a fraudster. His lawyers said she was out to get the former president.

A judge could impose an array of punishments on Donald J. Trump, including a $250 million penalty and a prohibition on operating a business in New York.Credit...Jefferson Siegel for The New York Times

By Ben Protess, Jonah E. Bromwich and Kate Christobek Oct. 2, 2023

The trials of Donald J. Trump began Monday in a New York courtroom, where the former president arrived to fight the first of several government actions — a civil fraud case that imperils his company and threatens his image as a master of the business world.

The trial’s opening day brought Mr. Trump face-to-face with one of his longest-running antagonists: the attorney general of New York, Letitia James, who filed the case against him, his adult sons and their family business. If her office proves its case, the judge overseeing the trial could impose an array of punishments on Mr. Trump, including a $250 million penalty.

Outside the courtroom, Mr. Trump fired a fusillade of personal attacks on Ms. James and the judge, Arthur F. Engoron. He called the judge “rogue” and Ms. James “a terrible person,” even suggesting that they were criminals.

Inside, Mr. Trump sat in uncomfortable silence as Ms. James’s lawyers methodically laid out their case. The attorney general’s office accused the former president of inflating his riches by more than $2 billion to obtain favourable deals with banks and bragging rights about his wealth.

“Year after year, loan after loan, defendants misrepresented Mr. Trump’s net worth,” Kevin Wallace, a lawyer for Ms. James, said during opening statements. Exaggerating for a television audience or Forbes Magazine’s list of the richest people is one thing, he said, but “you cannot do it while conducting business in the state of New York.”

Mr. Wallace cast doubt on the value of some of Mr. Trump’s signature properties, including Trump Tower in Manhattan, laying the groundwork for a reckoning of the former president’s net worth.

An empire under scrutiny. Letitia James, New York State’s attorney general, has been conducting a yearslong civil investigation into former President Donald Trump’s business practices, culminating in a lawsuit that accused Trump of “staggering” fraud. Here’s what to know:

The origins of the inquiry. The investigation started after Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, testified to Congress in 2019 that Trump and his employees had manipulated his net worth to suit his interests.

The findings. James detailed in a filing what she said was a pattern by the Trump Organization to inflate the value of the company’s properties in documents filed with lenders, insurers and the Internal Revenue Service.

💬“Year after year, loan after loan, defendants misrepresented Mr. Trump’s net worth,” Kevin Wallace, a lawyer for Ms. James, said during opening statements. Exaggerating for a television audience or Forbes Magazine’s list of the richest people is one thing, he said, but “you cannot do it while conducting business in the state of New York.”

Fraud lawsuit. In September 2022, James’s office rebuffed a settlement offer from Trump’s lawyers. Days later, she filed a lawsuit against Trump and his family business, accusing them of a sweeping pattern of fraudulent business practices.

Two key rulings. The civil trial against Trump began on Oct. 2, after a New York appeals court rejected the former president’s attempt to delay it. The decision came after the judge overseeing the case found that Trump persistently committed fraud by inflating the value of his assets and stripped him of control over some of his signature New York properties.

Possible penalties. James has argued that Trump inflated the value of his properties by as much as $2.2 billion and is seeking to recover about $250 million. The former president and his sons could also be barred from running any business in New York.

The trial, expected to last more than a month and to include testimony from Mr. Trump, coincides with the former president’s latest White House run. After Ms. James’s civil case ends, Mr. Trump will face four criminal trials that touch on a range of subjects: hush-money payments to a porn star, the handling of classified documents and his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.

Ms. James’s case, which will be decided by the judge rather than a jury, has struck a nerve with the former president. Her claims portray him as a cheat rather than a captain of industry and undercut an image he constructed while he catapulted from real estate to reality television fame and ultimately the White House.

For now, though, government scrutiny has only bolstered Mr. Trump’s political fortunes. He is polling far ahead of his Republican rivals and has used the cases against him to make fund-raising appeals, casting himself as a martyr under attack from Democrats like Ms. James and Justice Engoron.

“For years, Donald Trump falsely inflated his net worth to enrich himself and cheat the system,” Letitia James said in a statement Monday. Credit...Ahmed Gaber for The New York Times

The trial will enable Mr. Trump to bring the campaign to the courthouse steps, where he can deliver impassioned defenses and pointed attacks while his lawyers inside the courtroom grapple with accounting and financial arcana.

On Monday, Mr. Trump sat at the defense table, arms crossed and scowling, while occasionally rolling his eyes at the judge and yawning during the duller portions of the proceeding. But he came out swinging on his way into the courtroom, telling reporters that Ms. James was out to get him because he is performing so well in the polls.

“You ought to go after this attorney general,” he said, without specifying who or how.  He said that Justice Engoron should “be disbarred” and that the case against him was “a witch hunt, it’s a disgrace.”

One of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Alina Habba, echoed some of his harshest claims during her opening statement, saying that Ms. James ran for her office to “get Trump.”

She argued, as Mr. Trump nodded along, that his company was simply “doing business” and that “there was no intent to defraud, period, the end.” She spoke as though she were addressing a jury, or a television camera, rather than Justice Engoron.

Her statement, which she said he had not planned, altered the tenor of what had begun as a dry proceeding. It prompted squabbles between the defense team and the judge.

The substance of Mr. Trump’s defense is that his annual financial statements were merely estimates, and that valuing real estate is more art than science. The banks to which Mr. Trump submitted his statements, his lawyers argued, were hardly victims: They made money from their dealings with Mr. Trump and did not rely on his estimates.

A Guide to the Various Trump Investigations

Confused about the inquiries and legal cases involving former President Donald Trump? We’re here to help.

• Key Cases and Inquiries: The former president faces several investigations at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers. Here is a close look at each.
• Case Tracker: Trump is at the center of four criminal investigations. Keep track of the developments in each here.
• What if Trump Is Convicted?: Will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign? Can a convicted felon even run for office? Here is what we know, and what we don’t know.

Gaetz Moves to Oust McCarthy, Threatening His Grip on the Speakership

The move forces a vote within days on whether to keep the speaker in his post, a challenge that only two other House speakers have faced in the history of the chamber. 

Representative Matt Gaetz’s animus toward Speaker Kevin McCarthy extends far beyond the most recent funding skirmish.Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

 

By Catie Edmondson

Reporting from Capitol Hill

Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida moved on Monday to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy from his post in an act of vengeance that posed the clearest threat yet to Mr. McCarthy’s tenure and could plunge the House into chaos.

After days of warnings, Mr. Gaetz rose on Monday evening to bring up a resolution declaring the speakership vacant. That started a process that would force a vote within days on whether to keep Mr. McCarthy in his post. In doing so, Mr. Gaetz sought to subject Mr. McCarthy to a rare form of political punishment experienced by only two other speakers in the 234-year history of the House of Representatives.

The move came just days after Mr. McCarthy opted to avert a government shutdown the only way he could — by relying on Democratic votes to push through a stopgap spending bill over the objections of an unmovable bloc of hard-liners in his own party, including Mr. Gaetz.

It was a brief but tense interruption of the day-to-day proceedings of the House. Mr. McCarthy was not present on the House floor when Mr. Gaetz made his motion, but scores of Democrats crowded in the aisles to watch the spectacle. The House adjourned shortly afterward, but under the chamber’s rules, Mr. McCarthy and his leadership team will need to address it within two legislative days.

“It is becoming increasingly clear who the speaker of the House already works for, and it’s not the Republican conference,” Mr. Gaetz said earlier Monday, making the case for Mr. McCarthy’s ouster. He added that the speaker had allowed President Biden to take his “lunch money in every negotiation.”

Mr. Gaetz cited Mr. McCarthy’s dependence on Democrats to pass the funding bill — which was necessary to avert a shutdown because Mr. Gaetz and 20 of his colleagues opposed a temporary funding bill. And he accused Mr. McCarthy of lying to his Republican members during spending negotiations and making a “secret deal” with Democrats about funding for Ukraine, which he and dozens of other conservatives have opposed.

The move is a significant escalation of the long-simmering power struggle between Mr. McCarthy and a clutch of conservative hard-liners in his party. They have dangled the threat of dethroning the speaker since he was elected, after they subjected him to a painful round of 15 votes.

Mr. McCarthy, a chronic optimist who has shown a remarkable willingness to weather political pain to maintain his grip on the speaker’s gavel, appeared undaunted. Minutes after Mr. Gaetz filed the resolution, he wrote on social media, “Bring it on.”

“I think it’s disruptive to the country, and my focus is only on getting our work done,” Mr. McCarthy said earlier Monday. “I want to win the vote so I can finish the job for the American people. There are certain people who have done this since the day we came in.”

Mr. Gaetz’s animus toward Mr. McCarthy extends far beyond the most recent funding skirmish. He emerged as Mr. McCarthy’s chief tormentor during the speaker’s fight in January, when he suggested on the House floor that the California Republican had “sold shares of himself for more than a decade,” and never quite stopped.

It was to appease Mr. Gaetz and the 19 other Republicans who opposed his speakership that Mr. McCarthy agreed to change the rules of the House to allow any one lawmaker to call a snap vote for his ouster.

After Mr. McCarthy struck a bipartisan deal with Mr. Biden in the spring to suspend the debt ceiling, there were rumblings among the far right about moving forward on a motion to vacate. They settled for shutting down the House floor instead.

It was unclear how many Republicans planned to join Mr. Gaetz in his attempt to dethrone Mr. McCarthy. Some archconservatives who have been critical of the speaker have said in recent days that they would not support removing him now.

But Mr. Gaetz told reporters at the Capitol he had sufficient G.OP. backing to prevail — unless Democrats voted to save Mr. McCarthy.

“I have enough Republicans,” he said. Four other Republicans, Representatives Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Eli Crane and Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Bob Good of Virginia, have said they were inclined to support the motion. More have signaled openness to it.

It remained to be seen whether Democrats would help Mr. McCarthy maintain his post. If they were to vote against Mr. McCarthy — as is almost always the case when a speaker of the opposing party is being elected — Mr. Gaetz would need only a handful of Republicans to join the opposition to remove him, which requires a simple majority vote.

But Mr. McCarthy could hang onto his gavel if enough Democrats voted to support him, skipped the vote altogether or voted “present.” In that situation, Democrats who did not register a vote would lower the threshold for a majority and make it easier to defeat Mr. Gaetz’s motion.

Some Democrats representing moderate and conservative-leaning districts have indicated that they would be hard-pressed to punish Mr. McCarthy for working across the aisle to prevent a shutdown.

But others said they saw no reason to bail him out, pointing to the string of concessions Mr. McCarthy has made to appease his right flank. Those included opening an impeachment inquiry into Mr. Biden and reneging on spending levels negotiated with the president during the debt limit crisis.

💬 Mr. Gaetz  accused Mr. McCarthy of lying to his Republican members during spending negotiations and making a “secret deal” with Democrats about funding for Ukraine, which he and dozens of other conservatives have opposed.

In a statement, Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, savaged Mr. McCarthy for his opposition to abortion rights and measures to combat climate change. She called him “a weak speaker who has routinely put his self-interest over his constituents, the American people and the Constitution.”

Mr. McCarthy “has made it his mission to cover up a criminal conspiracy from Donald Trump, and is himself a threat to our democracy,” she said. “He literally voted to overturn the 2020 election results, overthrow the duly elected president and did nothing to discourage his members from doing the same.”

Mr. Gaetz’s antics have infuriated Mr. McCarthy’s allies, who view the Florida Republican’s campaign as a publicity stunt motivated by personal animus. As Mr. Gaetz waited to speak on the House floor on Monday, Representative Tom McClintock, Republican of California, rose and chastised him to his face without naming him. Mr. McClintock said he could not “conceive of a more counterproductive and self-destructive course” than to try to remove the speaker from one’s own party.

“I implore my Republican colleagues to look past their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests and their selfish views,” Mr. McClintock said.

Even some Republicans who initially opposed Mr. McCarthy’s speakership indicated on Monday that they would not back Mr. Gaetz’s drive to dethrone him. Representative Chip Roy of Texas, an influential conservative, said on “The Sean Hannity Show” that he believed “the speaker deserves the ability to finish this year’s process.”

But he hinted that he would be open to getting rid of Mr. McCarthy if the speaker moved to approve aid to Ukraine without also securing the southern border.

“The gloves are off then,” Mr. Roy said.

There are a number of procedural sleights of hand that Mr. McCarthy and his allies could use to try to avoid an up-or-down vote on whether to keep him as speaker. He could hold a vote to table the resolution, which would effectively kill it, or refer it to a committee made up of his allies.

Still, Mr. Gaetz’s decision pushes the House into rarely tested waters.

Only two other speakers have faced motions to vacate: once in 1910, and more recently, in 2015, when Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina, sought to oust Speaker John A. Boehner. The House never voted on the motion, but it contributed to Mr. Boehner’s decision to give up his gavel and resign from Congress.

Luke Broadwater and Karoun Demirjian contributed reporting.

Catie Edmondson is a reporter in the Washington bureau, covering Congress. More about Catie Edmondson

☝

UK to Deploy Additional Troops in Kosovo After North Clashes

 

Balkaninsight Xhorxhina Bami and Sasa DragojloBelgrade, Pristina BIRN October 2, 2023

Britain is to send 200 more troops to keep the peace in Kosovo after an armed attack by Serb militants on September 24 raised the spectre of a wider conflict.

Armed Kosovo police officers patrol
the village of Banjska, Kosovo, 27 September 2023.
Photo: EPA-EFE/GEORGI LICOVSKI

The UK has decided to deploy additional troops to NATO’s peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, KFOR, after the violent attack on Kosovo Police on September 24 in northern Kosovo in the village of Banjska/Banjske in the municipality of Zvecan, where one Kosovo policeman was shot dead.

“Following a request from Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and approval by the North Atlantic Council, the UK will deploy around 200 soldiers from 1st Battalion of the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment in the coming days to join the 400-strong British contingent already in country as part of an annual exercise,” the UK government announced on Sunday.

KFOR is a NATO-led international peacekeeping force and has been present in Kosovo since the war there ended in 1999. Once about 50,000 strong, it now numbers about 4,500 troops, from 27 contributing nations with Italy (852 soldiers), Turkey (780) and United States (679) as three top contributors, according to KFOR’s last update in June.

Albania’s Prime Minister, Edi Rama, wrote on Twitter that Albania had “communicated at the highest levels of the Euro-Atlantic alliance and we have found maximum readiness” that “KFOR should take control of the north” of Kosovo as soon as possible.

But Rama’s request was dismissed by Germany’s Ambassador to Kosovo, John Rohde, who said such a move could happen only if Kosovo authorities call on EU’s EULEX and NATO’s KFOR mission to intervene.

“I don’t see the need that KFOR takes over [the north] because we have a sovereign country [Kosovo] with a law enforcement agency who acted very professionally,” Rohde told BIRN’s Kallxo Pernime show on Friday.

💬The director of Kosovo Police, Gazmend Hoxha, said on Sunday that, based on the investigation so far, “there is a [Serbian] plan for the total annexation of the northern part of Kosovo, foreseen in the initial phase with 37 positions from where our police units would be attacked not only in Banjska, but everywhere in the northern part of Kosovo”.

“Kosovo is a sovereign country, Kosovo Police is the law enforcement agency in Kosovo supported by KFOR and EULEX and if there is a request by Police to act… they will according to the rule. But there was no request and we commend the KP on its professional handling of the situation,” he added.

Top Serbian officials, including President Aleksandar Vucic and Defence Minister Milos Vucevic, have praised cooperation with KFOR.

“The cooperation of the [Serbian] Ministry of Defence with KFOR is good and continuous, it runs in accordance with Resolution 1244 and in accordance with the Kumanovo Agreement, it is daily and has been going on for years,” Vucevic said on Monday.

Kosovo police-confiscations weapons north, Weapons that the Kosovo police confiscated in Banjska/Bansjke.
Photo: Kosovo Police

Serbia denies attackers received military training

Kosovo Police on Sunday published footage from police armoured vehicles showing the alleged attack against them, as well as footage, claiming it was from confiscated drones, showing training. BIRN could not independently verify the footage and the claims.

Kosovo PM Albin Kurti, resharing some of the footage, claimed that “the terrorists who carried out the attacks trained in Pasuljanske Livade, one of the Serbian Army’s key bases, four days before the attacks. Other exercises took place in the Kopaonik base. The attacks enjoyed the full support & planning of the Serbian state”.

The Chief of the General Staff of Serbian Army, Milan Mojsilovic, and Defence Minister Vucevic denied that Milan Radoicic or his group joined any paramillitary excercises at Pasuljanske livade.

“Milan Radoicic did not participate in the training at Pasuljanski Livade, nor did he attend, nor did he fire any grenades, he did not respond to any calls, and what is he doing on private property it’s not a thing of Serbian Army”, he said.

On Friday, Radoicic, known as the real power holder of the north of Kosovo, took sole responsibility for the attack, claiming that he organised what he called a “defence” operation against the Kosovo authorities himself, without the knowledge of his party, Srpska Lista, or the Serbian authorities in Belgrade.

Defence Minister Vucevic denied claims that videos Pristina has published are authentic. “The fact that someone releases termovision photages from an unclear location with completely unidentified persons does not mean anything“, said Vucevic, adding that the Hammers in the videos look more like those Kosovo forces have, showing photos of them at the press conference.

He added that the fact the arms that the group led by Radoicic used were manufactured in Serbia proves nothing because the same weapons are used by the Kosovo Police, shoving photos of KP members with arms manufactured in Serbia.

Meanwhile, the head of Serbia’s office for Kosovo, Petar Petkovic, showed a photo of one of the murdered gunmen, Bojan Mijailovic, claiming that Serbian experts have concluded that Mijailovic was killed face to face, while he was lying wounded on the ground. BIRN could not independently verify that photo and claim. 

“The issue of the autopsy is crucial when it comes to the manner in which they were killed, especially Bojan Mijailović,” said Petkovic.

He added that EULEX has told Belgrade that the autopsy of the murdered Serbs was performed on September 26, but the death certificate received by all three families states that the autopsy was published on September 25.

“That is why it is of crucial importance that we see the EULEX report on the autopsies because Pristina is falsifying the facts and that is why it is clear why EULEX was refused to participate in the investigation on September 24 and the following days,” he stated.

He said that Belgrade had requested that Serbian experts participate in the autopsy, but “they [Kosovo] didn’t allow us to, because they are obviously hiding something”.

The three murdered gunmen were buried on Sunday. The Kosovo Institute of Forensic Medicine finished the autopsies one day prior and has yet to publish the results.

The director of Kosovo Police, Gazmend Hoxha, said on Sunday that, based on the investigation so far, “there is a [Serbian] plan for the total annexation of the northern part of Kosovo, foreseen in the initial phase with 37 positions from where our police units would be attacked not only in Banjska, but everywhere in the northern part of Kosovo”.

But on September 30, President Vučić denied planning to invade any prt of Kosovo. He said he “does not intend to order the army” to cross the border with Kosovo it is also not true that Serbia has sent the army to the border.

 “Last year we had 14,000 people near the administrative line, today we have 7,500 and we will reduce it to 4,000,” Vucic told the UK Financial Times. On September 29, the US called on Serbia to withdraw its troops from the border, calling their move a “very destabilizing development”. 

A day later, the government of Kosovo and the European Union also asked Serbia to withdraw its troops from the border.

Resignation of Mullaitivu District Judge

New information has emerged

Communique reveals AG met Saravanaraja at latter’s request

Monday, 2 October 2023 

New information has emerged indicating that the meeting on 21 September involving Attorney General Sanjay Rajaratnam and the former Mullaitivu district judge T. Saravanaraja, took place at the judge's request to the Judicial Services Commission, seeking the Attorney General's assistance in two upcoming cases against him.

Following his resignation and self-exile Saravanaraja had publicly claimed that the Attorney General had ‘summoned’ him and attempted to pressure him during the meeting to reverse orders he had issued relating to the Kurunthamalai case.

This statement sparked public outrage directed towards the Attorney General, with many highlighting that he lacked the authority to ‘summon’ a judge.

However, in a communique seen by the Daily FT, it appears Secretary of the Judicial Services Commission H.S Somaratne had written to the Attorney General on 15 September requesting the latter to undertake the defence on behalf of Saravanaraja who has been named as the first respondent in two cases before the Court of Appeal concerning the controversial Kurunthamalai case. 

Sources from the Attorney General’s Department maintain that Rajaratnam had merely held a consultation with Saravanaraja on the day to discuss the strategy for the defence proceedings relating to the cases which are scheduled to be taken up on 11 October before the Court of Appeal. 

BASL to meet CJ about allegations

TM 02 Oct 2023 | BY Buddhika Samaraweera

Will hand over letters to IGP and Public Sec. Min. seeking inquiry: Nawaratna

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) is to reach out to Chief Justice, President's Counsel (PC) Jayantha Jayasuriya, Public Security Minister Tiran Alles, and Inspector General of Police (IGP) Chandana D. Wickramaratne today (2 October) regarding the allegations that surround the resignation of Mullaitivu District Judge and Magistrate T. Saravanarajah, and to seek a transparent investigation into the incident, The Daily Morning learns.

In a letter dated 23 September addressed to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Saravanarajah had tendered his resignation from a range of posts that he had held – viz. the posts of district judge, magistrate, family court judge, primary court judge, small claims court judge, and juvenile court judge – the letter read, due to threats to his life and mental stress.

Speaking to The Daily Morning yesterday (1 October), BASL President attorney Kaushalya Nawaratna said that they had been given an appointment at 9.30 a.m. today to meet Jayasuriya to discuss the matter. In addition, he said that they would hand over letters to Alles and Wickramaratne, seeking a thorough investigation into the factors that led to the Magistrate’s resignation, and for a report to be submitted to the public as quickly as possible.

"We have got to look into these actions in the background where the Judge/Magistrate had alleged that his life was under threat, and there are so many news items, especially on social media platforms, that the state intelligence services were keeping surveillance on him. There is also an allegation that his security was reduced. All these matters are of extreme importance as far as the entire legal fraternity is concerned. We want to have these allegations verified. In case they are proven to be true, it is of a serious nature with regard to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law," he added.

Minister of Justice, Prison Affairs and Constitutional Reforms Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC and Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles were not available for comment.

Reports circulating on social media and online platforms read that Saravanarajah had resigned and left the country, and that he had received death threats in connection with the lawsuit pertaining to the Kurundimale Vihara (Kurundi Temple) in Mullaitivu.

Following his resignation, President Ranil Wickremesinghe had directed President's Secretary Saman Ekanayake to launch an immediate and comprehensive investigation into the matter. The directive is said to have stemmed from the fact that the Judge/Magistrate had, it is reported, resigned without formally informing the Police or the JSC about the alleged death threats that he had received.

The Hindu September 29, 2023 - COLOMBO Meera Srinivasan

Spotlight on independence of judiciary in Sri Lanka after Mullaitivu judge resigns 

Mullaitivu District Judge T. Saravanaraja had written to the Secretary of Sri Lanka’s Judicial Services Commission, on his decision to resign owing to ‘threat of my life and due to lot of stress’

A district judge from Mullaitivu in Sri Lanka’s Northern Province has resigned and fled the country citing threats to his life, Tamil media in Sri Lanka reported on September 29.

In a letter that several publications reproduced in their news reports, Mullaitivu District Judge T. Saravanaraja — who recently ruled on two cases pertaining to a religious site in Kurunthurmalai and a remembrance event to commemorate LTTE member Thileepan — had written to the Secretary of Sri Lanka’s Judicial Services Commission last week, on his decision to resign owing to “threat of my life and due to lot of stress”.

CID inquiry into resignation of Mullaitivu District Judge

News Wire October 2, 2023 

Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles has issued a directive for a comprehensive investigation into the events that led to the resignation of Mullaitivu District Judge T. Saravanarajah.

According to reports, Minister Tiran Alles has issued instructions to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) to conduct a comprehensive probe into the resignation of the Judge and his departure from the country. 

In a letter addressed to the Judicial Services Commission, dated September 23, 2023, Mullaitivu District Judge T. Saravanarajah informed his decision to step down from the post of District Judge, Magistrate, Family Court Judge, Primary Court Judge, Small Claims Court Judge, and Juvenile Court Judge.

The Mullaitivu District Judge further stated in his letter, that the decision has been taken due to threats to his life and stress, hinting at the Kurunthur Malai case. 

In June 2022, the Mullaitivu District Judge had issued an order prohibiting any form of construction at Kurunthur Malai, an ancient hindu temple. 

However, Justice Saravanarajah is reported to have left Sri Lanka after handing in his resignation in which he had cited threats to his life and undue pressure from state authorities over his ruling pertaining to the Kurunthur Malai case. 

Following his resignation, several law associations in Sri Lanka had called on the state authorities to conduct an inquiry into the allegations, while pointing out the threat to the state’s judiciary. (NewsWire) 

Mullaitivu judge resigns citing death threats

The Island LK 2023/10/1 By Saman Indrajith

President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who was in Berlin on Friday issued directives to his secretary, Saman Ekanayake, for an immediate and comprehensive investigation into the abrupt resignation of Mullaitivu District Judge and Magistrate, T. Saravanarajah, who presided over the controversial Kurundimale Viharaya case. The judge cited receiving death threats as the reason for his resignation, sources of the President’s office said.

The President’s decision to order an investigation stemmed from the fact that the Judge resigned without formally informing the police or the Judicial Service Commission about the alleged death threats against him, according to sources.

In a letter dated September 23, 2023, addressed to the Judicial Services Commission, Saravanarajah conveyed his decision to step down from various judicial roles, including District Judge, Magistrate, Family Court Judge, Primary Court Judge, Small Claims Court Judge, and Juvenile Court Judge.

Reports circulating on social media and online platforms suggested that he had left the country for India. In these reports, he allegedly informed web journalists that he had received death threats in connection with the Kurundimale Viharaya case.

President’s Secretary Saman Ekanayake held discussions regarding the incident with Minister of Justice Wijayadasa Rajapaksa and Minister of Public Security, Tiran Alas. It was revealed during these discussions that the magistrate had not lodged any formal complaint about the alleged death threats prior to his resignation.

The magistrate left the country on September 24 and sent his resignation letter to the Judicial Service Commission the preceding day (Sept. 23).State intelligence agencies have apprised the President’s office of the magistrate’s purported close associations with officials from several foreign embassies.

COURTS & LAW

Resignation of Mullaitivu Judge T. Saravanarajah: A Telling Tale of Threats and Independence of Judiciary

BNN By Muhammad Jawad

Distinguished Judge T. Saravanarajah Resigns Amid Grave Threats

In an unexpected twist to the judicial landscape, venerated District Judge and Magistrate, T. Saravanarajah has vacated his spectrum of duties by handing in his resignation, tearing a significant hole in the judiciary fabric.

The Prompting Catalyst

Cited in his resignation letter, delivered to the Secretary of the Judicial Services Commission on 23rd September, Saravanarajah informed of his decision to step down from the manifold judicial positions he held,most notably being a District Judge and Magistrate. In addition, his resignation spanned across his commands as Family Court Judge, Primary Court Judge, Small Claims Judge and Juvenile Court Judge.

Death Threats – A Chilling Consequence

In a startling revelation—the catalyst propelling this decision—Sarvanarajah attributed the series of death threats he received as the reason for his abrupt departure. Not just an attack on personal security, these threats constitute a breach of the sanctity and impartiality of the judicial system, more potent for the timing coinciding with his handling of few notably sensitive and disputable cases.

Destabilizing The Balance

A seasoned jurist, Judge Saravanarajah’s exodus from the judiciary has implications reaching far deeper than personal safety. The endangerment of a key cog in the judicial apparatus threatens to destabilize the balance of the justice delivery system. His departure leaves a palpable void—the absence of an honest and integral judicial officer—barely replaceable overnight.

Investigating the Threats

In response to this alarming incident, it is crucial for authorities to unremittingly pursue these threats and ensure the culprits face just repercussions. Sweeping such incidents under the rug adds fuel to an eventual tire fire, jeopardizing the entire judicial system and its functionaries who dedicate themselves to maintain law and order.

Migrating for Safety

In the wake of these damning threats, Saravanarajah finds himself beyond national borders, having flown abroad post the submission of his resignation. While this move might provide temporary safety, it starkly underscores a stark issue—the fact even upholders of justice are susceptible to intimidation, raising stark questions on the overall security situation in the country.

☝

Governance in SL diagnosed as grave

IMF technical assistance report reveals systematic and severe governance weaknesses and corruption vulnerabilities across State functions

• IMF technical assistance report reveals systematic and severe governance weaknesses and corruption vulnerabilities across State functions
• Corruption vulnerabilities are exacerbated by weak accountability institutions
• Impunity for misbehaviour enjoyed by officials undermines trust in the public sector
• Stresses behaviour of top officials reflected a consensus that corruption paved the way for the economic crisis
• Acknowledges “Aragalaya” and calls for role of civil society in demanding accountability
• First-ever exercise lists 16 immediate and short-term measures to address key corruption issues and strengthen governance

The first-ever Governance Diagnostic Assessment (GDA) on Sri Lanka compiled by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has revealed widespread systematic and severe governance weaknesses and corruption vulnerabilities across State functions, with particular macroeconomic impact.

The report stressed the appalling status impacted budget credibility; expenditure control; public investment management and control of spending); public procurement; management and oversight of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs); transparency of revenue policy and the integrity of revenue administration; the governance and legal frameworks of the Central Bank; the application of financial sector regulations; and clarity and security of land ownership and the integrity of the judicial sector.

“Corruption vulnerabilities are exacerbated by weak accountability institutions, including the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption (CIABOC) that have neither the authority nor competency to successfully fulfil their functions,” stated the GDA, which the IMF compiled in response to a request from the Government of Sri Lanka.

It said current governance arrangements have not established clear standards for permissible official behaviour, acted to deter and sanction transgressions, nor pursued individuals and stolen public funds that have exited the country. Regular civil society participation in the oversight and monitoring of Government actions is restricted by limited transparency, the lack of platforms for inclusive and participatory governance, and by broad application of counter-terrorism rules.

“These weaknesses and vulnerabilities highlight several broader governance themes that need to be addressed for planned reforms to be sustained. Problematic structural issues that shape governance dynamics include the compromised independence of key governance institutions, critical gaps in the legal and regulatory infrastructure for managing and overseeing public resources, limited fiscal discipline and transparency, and a disorganised regulatory and legislative process that provides for insufficient review and engagement,” it said.

It was pointed out that minimal progress has been made in integrating modern information technology into public sector operations and public-private interfaces, or in linking information to detect and correct inefficiencies and improprieties. These governance features form the basis for the substitution of informal mechanisms of control for rule-based systems of accountability for performance and integrity over an expansive State.

“The impunity for misbehaviour enjoyed by officials undermines trust in the public sector and compounds concerns over limited access to efficient and rule-based adjudication process for resolving disputes,” the GDA revealed.

💬 “The recommendations coming out of this diagnostic will contribute to the formulation of governance and anticorruption policies and programs, improvement of the legal and institutional frameworks, as well as governance and anti-corruption reform measures agreed to in the Staff Level Agreement for an Extended Credit Facility Arrangement for Sri Lanka,” the GDA report stressed.

The report highlights immediate and short-term measures to address key corruption issues, as well as structural reforms that require more time and resources but are essential to strengthen governance and initiate lasting change. A list of “priority” recommendations is provided below. They primarily focus on measures related to critical risks, including addressing gaps in existing legal frameworks and the public provision of essential information for oversight and monitoring. Priority recommendations are explored in more depth in the subsections of the report, which also contain more extensive recommendations, including structural and institutional measures to achieve more transparent and efficient governance that operates with integrity and in accordance with the rule of law.

The recommendations are designed as a coherent approach to improving governance through a focus on clarity of authority and responsibility for core functions; financial and operational independence of essential accountability and law enforcement institutions; transparency in government practices and performance, especially relating to the planning, spending, and accounting for the use of public funds and assets; inclusive, accessible, and rule-based means to enforce private agreements and challenge official behaviour; and efficient mechanisms for making information public and holding organisations and individuals to account for their performance and behaviour.

The IMF report said the combination of short-term actions to deliver concrete and observable improvements and long-term structural initiatives to change how the public sector functions in Sri Lanka is essential to achieving the social and economic aspirations of the country.

It acknowledged that comprehensively addressing governance weaknesses would require medium – and long-term initiatives, significant resources, and prolonged efforts, including support from Sri Lanka’s international partners.

“The recommendations coming out of this diagnostic will contribute to the formulation of governance and anticorruption policies and programs, improvement of the legal and institutional frameworks, as well as governance and anti-corruption reform measures agreed to in the Staff Level Agreement for an Extended Credit Facility Arrangement for Sri Lanka,” the GDA report stressed.

The report noted that widespread and persistent popular protests in 2022 over the behaviour of top officials reflected a consensus that corruption had paved the way for the economic crisis. The subsequent resignation of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in July 2022 emphasised that addressing the crisis required changes in governance as much as changes in economic policies. The role of civil society in demanding accountability carried an equally important message about the drivers of change.

The report acknowledged that President Wickremesinghe has announced that his Government is “committed to implementing anti-corruption practices through a Government mechanism that emphasises accountability.”

☝

Zelenskyy wanted to make Ukraine’s defence sector into a “large military hub”

Ukraine tempts Western arms producers with plan for ‘large military hub’

Incentives available to partner with Ukrainian manufacturers as Kyiv looks to create ‘world class military products’.

AJ 1 Oct 2023

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has announced plans to expand the country’s domestic defence industry through partnerships with Western weapons manufacturers, in a bid to increase supplies for its counteroffensive against Russia.

Speaking at the opening of the International Defence Industries Forum, Zelenskyy said he wanted to make Ukraine’s defence sector into a “large military hub” where military equipment and weapons could be built and repaired.

“Ukraine is in such a phase of the defence marathon when it is very important, critical to go forward without retreating. Results from the front line are needed daily,” the president told executives representing more than 250 Western weapons producers.

“We are interested in localising production of equipment needed for our defence and each of those advanced defence systems which are used by our soldiers, giving Ukraine the best results at the front today.”

Zelenskyy said that air defence and de-mining were his immediate priorities. Ukraine also aims to boost domestic production of missiles, drones and artillery ammunition.

The foreign ministry said Ukrainian producers had signed about 20 agreements with foreign partners for joint production, exchange of technology or supply of components to make drones, armoured vehicles and ammunition. It did not identify the companies.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who spoke by video link during the forum after visiting Kyiv earlier in the week, threw his weight behind the initiative.

💬

• 250 Western weapons producers.
• 20 agreements with foreign partners.
• “There is no defence without industry.”
• Several leading Western arms makers  Germany’s Rheinmetall, United Kingdom’s BAE Systems have  plans to team up with Ukrainian producers.
• NATO threw his weight behind the initiative.
• Ukrainian officials see the development of the country’s domestic defence industry as a potential boost to the economy

“Heroism alone cannot intercept missiles. Ukraine needs capabilities, high quality, high quantity, and quickly,” Stoltenberg said. “There is no defence without industry.”

Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson in November last year, and began a long-awaited counteroffensive in early June to try and recapture other territories seized by Russia, which launched its full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022.

Kyiv has reported advances in several directions and liberated more than a dozen villages since but Moscow still controls about 18 percent of Ukrainian territory.

Ukraine’s allies have provided financial and military support worth tens of billions of dollars to help it push back Moscow’s forces.

Ukrainian officials see the development of the country’s domestic defence industry as a potential boost to the economy, which shrunk by about a third last year as a result of the war.

Several leading Western arms makers including Germany’s Rheinmetall and the United Kingdom’s BAE Systems have already announced plans to team up with Ukrainian producers.

Ukraine will create new incentives to draw Western defence investment and establish a special fund, through dividends from state defence resources and profits from the sale of confiscated Russian assets, to support new technology development, officials said.

“It will be a mutually beneficial partnership. I think it is a good time and place to create a large military hub,” Zelenskyy said during a separate meeting with weapons producers from the United States, the UK, Czechia, Germany, France, Sweden and Turkey.

Recently appointed Defence Minister Rustem Umerov said Kyiv had to do everything possible to produce all the necessary military services and products in Ukraine for the needs of its army.

“Our vision is to develop world-class military products,” Umerov said.

SOURCE: NEWS AGENCIES

Washington Wakes Up to Harsh Reality Amid Ukraine Proxy War

 

25.09.2023 Author: Brian Berletic https://journal-neo.su

Long gone are Western headlines heralding Ukraine’s NATO-trained and armed forces and the prospects of them able to “sweep Putin’s conscripts aside,” as former British Army Colonel Hamish De Bretton-Gordon claimed in an article published as recently as June this year.

As Ukraine’s offensive forces broke across extensive Russian defenses all along the line of contact from Zaporozhye to Kharkov, the realization that Washington, London, and Brussels underestimated the Russian Federation economically, politically, diplomatically, and most importantly, militarily and industrially, began to set in.

Russian Military Production Grows, Western Stockpiles Dry Up 

Today, different kinds of headlines now appear across the collective West’s media.  The New York Times recently reported in an article titled, “Russia Overcomes Sanctions to Expand Missile Production, Officials Say,” that Russia ammunition production was at least seven times greater than the collective West.

The same article acknowledged that Russia had increased its tank production two-fold and was producing 2 million artillery rounds per year, a number that is larger than the combined planned expansion of shell production of the US and European Union some time between 2025 and 2027. Not only is Russia out-producing the West, it is producing weapons and ammunition at a fraction of the cost of Western arms and munitions.

As Russian military industrial production expands, producing more tanks, artillery, cruise missiles, and ammunition for the ongoing special military operation in Ukraine, Ukrainian forces find their sources of arms and ammunition drying up.

The BBC would report in a recent article, “Poland no longer supplying weapons to Ukraine amid grain row,” that:

One of Ukraine’s staunchest allies, Poland, has said it is no longer supplying weapons to its neighbour, amid a diplomatic dispute over Kyiv’s grain exports. 

Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said Poland’s focus was instead on defending itself with more modern weapons.

While both Poland and the BBC attempt to frame the decision as motivated by growing tensions between Poland and Ukraine, the reality is Poland had a finite amount of expendable arms and ammunition it could send Ukraine, and it has expended those stocks. This leaves a much smaller number of more modern systems Poland has acquired for its own defense. Neither Poland nor its foreign arms suppliers produce weapons and ammunition in the quantities required to sustain Ukrainian forces on the battlefield, meaning that should Poland continue supplying Ukraine from this point forward, it will eventually find itself “demilitarized.”

Other nations are failing to deliver much anticipated weapon systems. This includes the ATACMS ballistic missile Ukraine has demanded from the United States for months now, and despite claims of its arrival being imminent, Reuters in a recent article has ruled them out once again ahead of the Pentagon’s next assistance package.

Germany’s air-launched cruise missile, the Taurus, has also failed to turn up in additional assistance packages. Bloomberg in its article, “Germany Plans Additional $428 Million in Military Aid to Ukraine,” noted that Berlin is still weighing “a multitude of political, legal, military and technical aspects,” before finally sending any.

It should be noted that neither missile, along with a wide array of other so-called “wonder weapons,” has any prospect of changing the outcome of the fighting in Ukraine. While the missiles, if delivered, will result in tactical victories for Kiev, they will have little to no impact on the fighting strategically.

What remains of Western military assistance to Ukraine is inadequate amounts of ammunition, older and/or increasingly inappropriate armored vehicles including relics of the Cold War like the Leopard 1 main battle tank, and “training” for Ukrainian soldiers conducted in compressed timelines producing entirely unprepared soldiers almost certain to perish within days of arriving at the battlefield.

The US-led proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is unsustainable, and it appears many in the halls of power across the collective West are coming to grips with that.

Delusion Persists

However, elsewhere in the Western media, a deep sense of delusion is still reflected in articles that, despite admitting Ukraine’s failures, believe a “rethink” of Ukraine’s military strategy could help win what is obviously transforming into a “long war.”

For example, The Economist in its article, “Ukraine faces a long war. A change, of course, is needed,” admits the long-anticipated offensive “is not working,” but goes on to demands more offensive and defensive capabilities for Ukraine, including additional air defense systems and “reliable supplies of artillery,” both of which objectively do not and will not exist in the necessary quantities Ukraine requires for years to come.

At one point in the article, The Economist insists on Europe “beefing up its defense industry,” apparently oblivious to the lead times involved in doing so being measured in years – years Ukraine does not have.

The collective West apparently realizes their plans are failing to end the war in their favor sooner rather than later, but appear unaware that the “long war” they now realize awaits them is beyond their capability to fight by proxy or otherwise. The proxy war, designed to “extend Russia,” is now making Russia stronger militarily and industrially. At the same time, the conflict and the sanctions the West imposed on Russia are serving as a catalyst for other nations to pivot away from the US-led unipolar world and instead invest in a multipolar alternative, fearing that eventually the West may target them in a similar manner.

It is clear that the harder the collective West attempts to place Ukraine in a stronger position at the negotiation table, the weaker Ukraine and its Western sponsors become. The longer this conflict continues, the worse it will be for Ukraine and its sponsors. For the collective West, winning their proxy war is impossible militarily and industrially, but accepting this reality appears equally impossible for the collective West’s leadership psychologically.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

To Many Americans, Government Dysfunction Is the New Normal

 

NEWS ANALYSIS

To Many Americans, Government Dysfunction Is the New Normal

As the nation teetered on the brink of a shutdown, its citizens were largely focused on other things.

As the nation’s capital seemed to be barreling toward another debilitating federal government shutdown this weekend, America, well, did not exactly seem to be on the edge of its collective seat.

Judging by Google search trends, at least, Americans in the days leading up to the shutdown-that-wasn’t were more curious about who shot Tupac Shakur, who might win “The Golden Bachelor” and who would claim the giant Powerball jackpot. Even National Coffee Day 2023 generated more searches at one point than the possible government shutdown.

Those are probably not signs of public confidence that the nation’s leaders would somehow avoid plummeting off the cliff at the last minute, even though, surprisingly, they did. Instead, they may indicate that America at this point assumes that Washington actually will go over the cliff, because that is what Washington does these days. After all, the 11th-hour congressional deal that kept the government open lasts only until mid-November.

America, it seems, has come to expect crisis. In an era of disruption and polarization and insurrection, with a former president facing 91 felony counts in four criminal indictments and a sitting president facing an impeachment inquiry and a House speaker facing a possible move to oust him, the country has grown accustomed to chaos in the capital. Dysfunction is the new normal.

“For the average American outside the Beltway, these hiatuses of governing are looked at as nothing new, unfortunately,” said G. William Hoagland, who spent 33 years in the federal government, most of it as a senior budget official for Senate Republicans.

Government shutdowns are a modern phenomenon, and a measure of how fractious the capital has become. While Congress occasionally failed to pass spending bills on time in the past, it did not result in wholesale closures until President Jimmy Carter’s attorney general ruled in 1980 and 1981 that without congressional appropriations, nonessential functions had to cease. That took place several times under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, but often for just a few hours or days or over a weekend, when it was hardly noticed.

The seismic change came in late 1995 and early 1996, when House Republicans set off back-to-back shutdowns during a budget fight with President Bill Clinton, resulting in a popular backlash that made such tactics politically radioactive for nearly 18 years. Since 2013, however, Presidents Barack Obama, Donald J. Trump and Biden, it seems likely, have all confronted the threat of multiday shutdowns, making them seem almost routine.

💬 America, it seems, has come to expect crisis. In an era of disruption and polarization and insurrection, with a former president facing 91 felony counts in four criminal indictments and a sitting president facing an impeachment inquiry and a House speaker facing a possible move to oust him, the country has grown accustomed to chaos in the capital. Dysfunction is the new normal.

“That is a big part of the problem,” said former Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. “Dysfunction and chaos are now in the political bloodstream, and therefore folks aren’t calling or emailing D.C.” to register objections with their representatives. “They see this as part of normal, polarized, partisan politics in Washington.”

What made this prospective shutdown different from those that came before was that it was less a fight between Democrats and Republicans than a fight between Republicans and Republicans. Speaker Kevin McCarthy lost control of his narrow majority and was pressed toward a shutdown by a handful of hard-liners who defied him, forcing him to turn to Democrats to avoid it.

In the days leading up to the Saturday midnight deadline, Mr. Biden’s White House tried to stir up public opposition to what it dubbed the “Extreme Republican Shutdown" by blitzing out a string of statements emphasizing the consequences: how it would cut off food assistance for impoverished parents, hinder efforts to fight fentanyl trafficking, delay disaster recovery and suspend paychecks for troops.

Yet as absorbed as Washington was by the game of political chicken, there has not been much of a popular uprising or even much complaining from the elites on Wall Street, who normally worry that a government shutdown could damage the economy. The financial markets shrugged off the threat. The Dow Jones industrial average closed on Friday 1.3 percent down for the week, while the S&P 500 was down about half of that.

The only way that might change, according to political veterans, is if a shutdown lasted for a prolonged period of time, suspending food assistance for millions of low-income mothers and children, closing national parks, delaying air travel and forcing more than three million civilian and military government workers to go without pay. “It will take an extended shutdown, when people really begin to feel pain, to see the political blowback on the Republican House members that are playing this irresponsible game,” said Ms. McCaskill.

Former Representative Carlos Curbelo, Republican of Florida, said “a small minority” of his party had no problem trying “to wreak havoc on the institution” and would continue to do so unless there was a political price to be paid.

“Financial markets and most Americans have become numb to the drama; however, swing voters tend to punish these unnecessary spectacles,” he said.

A survey by Monmouth University showed that voters, by a 2 to 1 margin, preferred their representatives to compromise rather than stick to principles if that led to a shutdown. But even though this weekend’s showdown was precipitated by a small cadre of far-right House Republicans, it was not clear from polls who would be held accountable.

Another survey, by YouGov this past week, showed that 29 percent of Americans blamed House Republicans for the standoff, compared with 14 percent who pinned the blame on House Democrats and 13 percent who named Mr. Biden — in other words, almost evenly split between both parties. Nearly a third considered everyone equally at fault.

💬After all, the 11th-hour congressional deal that kept the government open lasts only until mid-November.

“When you ask the American public if they want compromise, they say yes,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth poll. “But when you ask them who they will vote for,” he continued, they stand by their party, believing that it’s the other side that isn’t compromising.

David McLennan, a political science professor at Meredith College in Raleigh, N.C., and director of the university’s poll, said the cascade of once-rare eruptions in Washington — shutdown, impeachment, criminal trials, internal revolt — had fed into a broader sense of disenchantment with the direction of the country that has seeped down to the state level. He calls it a “contagion effect.”

“There is no demographic group where the majority of people think things are going well in the country,” he said. “Partisans, Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters all think things are going poorly.”

Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the public had become so inured to disarray in Washington that it had lowered the bar for what it would accept.

“Our expectations have plummeted, and we have become dangerously numb to the failures of our government,” she said. ”It gets increasingly difficult to see how we turn this around and maintain our role in the world. The only way it can change is if we make demands of our leaders that are driven not by more outrage, but by a desire for the country to become more united.”

=================

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The Times. He has covered the last five presidents and sometimes writes analytical pieces that place presidents and their administrations in a larger context and historical framework.