Chobani, best known for producing the popular Greek yogurt, has filed a lawsuit against Alex Jones. Jones, the conspiracy theorist who runs the website InfoWars.com, has claimed that Chobani’s choice to hire refugees at its Idaho factory led to a sexual assault case in a local apartment building. Jones, and InfoWars, also claimed that the refugee workers at the factory led to increased crime in the area and an uptick in TB cases. Chobani is now suing Jones and InfoWars; the lawsuit includes two counts of defamation.

The owner of Chobani, Hamdi Ulukaya, has employed about 300 refugees, mostly from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey, at its Idaho and New York factories. In November, news broke that Ulukaya was getting death threats for those hiring decisions, particularly after some right-wing news outlets started reporting the same type of misinformation as InfoWars.

One particular InfoWars segment claimed that Chobani is tied to a case in the city–Twin Falls–where the factory is located. According to reports, three refugee boys sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl in the area. The assault did happen–the boys pled guilty–but there’s no evidence to suggest that the Chobani factory had anything to do with the children. Here’s one clip:

That clip draws a connection between the factory’s presence in the town and the sexual assault case–the title of the segment was “Idaho Yogurt Maker Caught Importing Migrant Rapists.” Another Jones video that implied that Chobani had something to do with the sexual assault case included “MSM Covers For Globalist’s Refugee Import Program After Child Rape Case.” The lawsuit also points out that these claims were repeated on social media platforms, and remain online to this date.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Idaho District Court, accuses InfoWars of knowingly publishing misinformation about the company and about Ulukaya. Chobani is now seeking at least $10,000 in damages.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chobani Sues Alex Jones, Claims He Spread Misinformation appeared first on Law Street.

Police officers in Idaho are hereby banned from talking to the media on weekends. The new policy from the Police Department in Lewiston, Idaho became official earlier this week in order redistribute resources during understaffed weekends. Journalists seeking weekend updates must now be present at an actual crime scene, even if it’s only to get a quick brief.

Lewiston’s City Councilman Jesse Maldonado disapproves of the new rule and called it “disquieting.” He told the Idaho Statesman, “City residents reading the newspaper, their interest doesn’t stop on Friday. That’s just not how it works.”

Newspaper readers aren’t the only ones affected by Idaho police suspending communications during weekends. The decision also hinders transparency between the police and the public, preventing them from interacting openly with the community. In the midst of recent discussions about police misconduct and violence, it would probably be in the police department’s own interest to show openness towards the media.

As Law Street reported previously, the number of prosecutions of police officers involved in civilian shootings is higher than it’s been in a decade. It’s possible that these numbers have grown in part due to growing media attention on the issue. Therefore, the media could play an important role in bringing cases of misconduct into the limelight.

According to the Idaho Statesman, surrounding towns have very open and transparent relationship with the media. One sheriff claimed that he bas given his cell phone number to reporters and another officer claimed he allows reporters to have access to call logs and personnel during regular business hours.

“As an agency we have a good, efficient, working relationship with the media and we keep those channels of communication open,” said Joel Hasting, Police Chief in Clarkston, Washington. “It’s about the police department being part of the community and not segregated.”

Progress is being made to make police departments more transparent, with more and more officers wearing body cameras and being indicted for use of excessive force. Prohibiting police officers from talking to the media seems like a step backwards. However, the mayor of Idaho pointed out that they can change the new policy at any time if it ends up hindering public information. Hopefully he will keep an eye out for that.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Idaho City Bans Police From Talking to Media on Weekends appeared first on Law Street.

According to one Idaho sheriff, the Idaho legislature shouldn’t have anything to do with making a statewide rape kit collection and tracking system because most rape accusations are just plain false.

A new bill, which is heading to the desk of the governor now, would standardize how medical clinics collect evidence from suspected sexual assaults, and would create and enforce a timeline for law enforcement agencies to send evidence for testing at a state forensic lab.

DNA collected from rape kits goes into a nationwide database in order to check for matches. Rape kits contain semen, saliva, or blood found on the victim during an examination. Agencies would need the approval of their county prosecutor if they do not believe a kit should be tested.

Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter has not yet indicated whether or not he will sign the bill. But Bingham County Sheriff Craig Rowland told Idaho Falls television station KIDK, according to OregonLive, that this new measure prohibits members of law enforcement from doing their jobs. Rowland said:

They need to let us decide if we’re going to send the kit and when we send the kits in. Because the majority of our rapes — not to say that we don’t have rapes, we do — but the majority of our rapes that are called in, are actually consensual sex.

These comments add to the systematic issue of law enforcement not always taking rape victims seriously.

“This bill sends a clear message that victims are to be taken seriously,” said Democratic Senator Maryanne Jordan to the AP. “The DNA evidence in these kits can be a powerful tool in solving these crimes.”

This new measure aims to streamline the process by bypassing skeptical police by requiring that clinics send their kits for testing, unless the victim or county prosecutor say otherwise.

“It’s hard to know if a claim is false if the kits don’t get tested,” Ilse Knecht, policy and advocacy director for the Joyful Heart Foundation told the AP. “Each one of these kits represents a survivor. … We need to take their claim seriously, treat them with respect and use the evidence.”

According to a Vox report, 2 to 8 percent of rape allegations are actually false. The six point discrepancy comes from different understandings of what rape is. Therefore, depending on where and who is doing the reporting and investigating, many cases are not considered rape, leading to discrepancies amongst state and national agencies.

“The heated public discourse about the frequency of false rape allegations often makes no reference to actual research,”–this is according to a ten-year study done by Violence Against Women. “When the discourse does make reference to research, it often founders on the stunning variability in research findings on the frequency of false rape reports. ” The study found that the range for false rape allegations was between 2 and 10 percent.

Only 32-33 percent of rapes are even reported, according to the Department of Justice, cited in a report by RAINN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network), and only two out of every 100 rapists will spend any time in jail. With numbers like that, legislation that aims to give a voice and legitimacy to each victim is vital.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Idaho Sheriff: Rape Kit System ‘Unnecessary’ Because Most Accusations are False appeared first on Law Street.

A 20-year-old Idaho murder case is currently stirring up concerns about police use of private genetic databases and the limitations of controversial familial DNA searches. The controversy is coming to light after a man named Michael Usry was accused of murder after police linked him to DNA found at the crime scene. The catch was that the officers got their lead from the world’s largest and most popular for-profit genealogical website.

According to the New Orleans Advocate, gory New Orleans filmmaker Michael Usry became implicated in the gruesome rape and murder of an Idaho woman named Angie Dodge after a genome database owned by Ancestry.com released private DNA information to the Idaho Falls Police Department. The information indicated that Usry’s DNA could be a match to semen found on Dodge’s corpse.

On June 13, 1996, 18-year-old Dodge was found stabbed in her Idaho Falls apartment. The violent nature of the crime and desecration of Dodge’s body led the Idaho Falls Police Department to believe that it was a crime of passion and that she knew her attacker. An investigation and confession led police to charge a man named Christopher Tapp for the murder, but his conviction has has been widely criticized and there have been claims that he was wrongly convicted.

That’s where Usry comes in. Decades later police were still concerned that they were never able to match Tapp’s DNA to the semen found on Dodge’s stomach. Last year investigators turned to the controversial technique of familial DNA testing, which involves identifying potential suspects by analyzing the DNA’s Y chromosome and trying to find a family member of the perpetrator. According to the Advocate,

A promising “partial match” emerged between the semen sample and the genetic profile of Usry’s father, Michael Usry Sr. — a finding that excluded the father but strongly suggested one of his relatives had a hand in the young woman’s murder.

The Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a nonprofit purchased by Ancestry.com, had the elder Usry’s DNA samples from years ago when he submitted them through a project sponsored by the Mormon Church. What’s concerning is that according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the DNA samples collected by the nonprofit were only meant to be accessed and analyzed by the “principal investigator and the others specifically authorized by the Principal Investigator, including the SMGF research staff.” Despite this, the company shared the samples with the police without a warrant or court order.

This DNA sample obtained by the police reportedly partially matched  Usry Sr., but it also partially matched with 41 other samples in the database. However, police followed the lead from Usry Sr.’s DNA. Despite police being sure they’d finally found Dodge’s real killer, when they eventually compared Usry Jr.’s DNA to the sample from the crime scene, they discovered that he was not a match.

The reason why this man’s case is so important is because police use of private DNA databases without authorization from the courts threatens all Americans’ privacy and civil liberties. The people who submitted their DNA to this company did so under the guise that their information would be protected, but this controversy is proof that that was simply not the case.

This case also adds further scrutiny to the controversial method of familial testing. Fans of familial testing see it as a way to crack unsolvable cases, but the potential discrepancies and large pools of related DNA hardly make it a perfect science. Just a few weeks ago the FBI found itself in similar deep water after it was uncovered that its experts gave flawed forensic testimony in many trials in recent decades. That revelation scrutinized the accuracy of microscopic hair analysis, also said to be an imperfect science.

These cases make it clear that the forensic world could use more advancements to generate greater certainty when it comes to DNA analysis. It also makes you wonder how many innocent people weren’t as lucky as Usry and are behind bars because of less than perfect DNA matches.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Idaho Murder Case Raises Concerns Over Crime-Solving Technique appeared first on Law Street.

I initially planned to dedicate this post to the dumb laws of Idaho and Montana exclusively, thinking that each state alone would probably have enough to constitute an entire addition to my series; however, I was shocked to find that both states have very few moronic laws on the books. Therefore, after much internal deliberation, Wyoming has been included in today’s post.

Let’s start with Montana. Not only is prostitution illegal, but  it is also considered a “crime against the family” there. So, don’t try to sell your body unless you plan to bring shame to your kin.

It’s a hard knock life for wives in Montana, too. It is a felony there for them to open their husband’s mail, and illegal for wives to go fishing alone on Sundays; however, that is a privilege considering that unmarried women are banned from fishing alone on any day of the week. And if you’re feeling like trying out something kinky in the bedroom, think again. In Montana, it is illegal for a man and woman to have sex in any position other than missionary.

A far as state laws, Idaho has shockingly few stupid ones, despite there being many illogical laws specific to certain cities. One state law that could qualify as stupid may actually make sense to women. There, it is illegal for men to give their “sweetheart” a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds. Sounds fair to me! Who wants candy if it weighs any less than 50 pounds? That’s right, no one.

Also, you’d better be ready to flash those pearly whites at all times in Pocatello, Idaho, despite whether you feel cheerful or not. There, it is illegal not to smile in public.

I’m not sure how fishing from the backs of various animals, especially those not native to North America, ever became a problem; however, there Idaho specifically prohibits fishing from a camel’s back. Animals surely must have caused a lot of trouble at some point in Boise, as leading an animal on sidewalks is banned as well.

Eagle, Idaho is quite strict. Lawmakers in the city have banned taking bicycles into tennis courts. Additionally, one cannot sweep dirt from his house into the street. Gotta keep those streets clean!

Keep it inside, buddy!

Wyoming has quite the slew of atypical laws related to alcohol. For one, being drunk in a mine could land you in jail, and so can skiing while drunk. I certainly see the validity behind both of these as doing either thing seems dangerous to me. Also, salespeople or corporations that deal with buying or selling junk metal are banned from making business transactions with intoxicated individuals. Makes sense–we wouldn’t want drunk people to sell beloved junk materials and completely regret it once they sober up. That would be tragic.

Women have it rough when going out for drinks in Wyoming, where a law prevents them from standing within five feet of a bar while drinking.

Although many consider the law that prohibits wearing hats that obstruct peoples’ view in theaters or other places of amusement to be stupid, I think it’s downright innovative. I personally can’t stand when I can’t see the stage at a theater because of someone sitting in front of me.

Wyoming lawmakers want their citizens to EARN their fish by using a good ol’ fashioned rod and reel. Using a firearm to fish is strictly forbidden. Speaking of animals, you may not take a photo of a rabbit without a permit from January to April. Perhaps that is when they feel the most camera shy.

My particular favorite? Neglecting to close a fence in Wyoming could earn you a $750 fine.

So there you have it, the dumb laws of Idaho, Montana and, Wyoming. Next up: Utah and Nevada.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming appeared first on Law Street.

In my search for a news story today, I came across what looked like an interesting topic. A trial is set to begin in Fort Hood, TX, regarding a prostitution ring that was supposedly set up by a Fort Hood sergeant who has yet to be charged. On trial is Master Sergeant Brad Grimes, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is accused of participating in the prostitution ring.

Conspiring to pay for sex is without a doubt a crime, and if Grimes did so, he deserves to be punished as the court sees fit. But what sparked my interest, and a bit of surprise, was that Grimes was also charged with adultery.

That got me thinking: am I woefully ignorant of current laws, or do I just not see adultery charges that often?

So, I looked it up, and what I found was an incredibly wide-ranging set of laws, and a number of strange cases. Let’s start with the most extreme derivations. In Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, adultery is a felony. Technically speaking, in Michigan, you could be sentenced to life in prison for cheating on your spouse, as Judge William Murphy in the Michigan Court of Appeals noted in 2007.

Then there are states that are not nearly as harsh. Of the 23 states that still have adultery laws on the books (Colorado abolished theirs earlier this year), most classify it as some type of misdemeanor. This means that in most of these states, an adultery conviction would result in a fine.

A slim majority of states don’t have any adultery laws on the books at all. And it’s important to note that in those that do, actual trials or charges rarely develop. In Massachusetts, one of the states that does classify adultery as a felony, no one has been convicted of it since 1983. Even in that case, the punishment was only two $50 fines, one for the woman who committing adultery and one for the man with whom she was sleeping. If anything, adultery comes up during custody or divorce battles.

In the military, adultery laws are taken more seriously. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not specifically contain adultery as a crime, but does have Article 134, which “prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline”. The Manual for Court Martial expands Article 134 to include examples of specific offenses, and does contain adultery. The penalty for adultery can include up to a year in confinement, and/or dishonorable discharge.

According to this Slate article, standalone charges for adultery are rare. They’re usually piled on with other misconduct charges, such as lying to a superior. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be damaging—in 1997, Lt. Kelly Flynn made headlines when she was dishonorably discharged after lying about sleeping with the husband of one of her coworkers.

That brings us back to Grimes. He was charged with adultery in conjunction with other charges, and really, my point here is not to diminish the conspiracy to pay for sex charges he is also facing. My point is that I was shocked to see an adultery charge listed at all. Off the top of my head, I don’t think I can think of a popular prime-time drama in which adultery does not incur. In fact, there have been entire shows that pretty much revolve around it—Desperate Housewives, anyone? Maybe I’m just cynical, but I’ve always seen adultery as a personal act in which a decent proportion of our population engages—not a potential felony. Now I’m not trying to say that adultery is an ok thing to do, or morally acceptable. But the truth of the matter is that it happens. The percentage of married women reporting affairs in the last two decades was around 15% in 2013, for men it was around 21%. Grimes probably deserves the sentence he will receive. But our archaic adultery laws also deserve a look.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Harsh Agrawal/www.chromoz.com via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Adultery in the US: Do You Know the Laws? appeared first on Law Street.

After evading authorities for nearly two decades, former mobster Enrico Ponzo will finally get his day in court on October 7, 2013. Ponzo, referred to by the Boston Globe as a “wannabe gangster,” is best known for attempting to murder Francis “Cadillac Frank” Salemme in 1989. In a superseding indictment released on January 31, 2013, he has been charged with 18 counts of racketeering, drug trafficking, witness tampering, as well as other charges. This indictment tacks more crimes onto an original 1997 indictment that includes attempted murder, intent to distribute drugs, extortion, and forfeiture.

This case will not garner nearly as much attention as the Whitey Bulger trial earlier this year, but it will offer a look into the life of a mobster—a subculture that has become so oddly romanticized by media darlings such as The Sopranos, The Godfather trilogy, and Scarface.

Ponzo’s case offers a completely different look at what it means to be a member of the mob scene. Unlike the household names of Bulger, Al Capone, or John Gotti, Enrico Ponzo was a mid-level lackey at best. In the 1980s, as a teenager, Ponzo was swept into the infighting that occurred in the New England Patriarca crime family. The Patriarca family, an almost exclusively Italian crime network based in Boston and Providence, rose to prominence in the 1950s and took on the nickname “La Cosa Nostra.”  Their leader, Raymond Patriarca died in 1984 and his second in command Jerry Angiulo was sent to prison in 1986. In the years that followed, the family suffered an organizational crisis.

“Cadillac Frank” Salemme, a prominent member of the Patriarca family operation, was one of the options to take over the network, but his partly Irish heritage and strong connections to rival Irish gangs worried some members. Put simply, two factions developed-one led by Joseph Russo, the other led by Frank Salemme. The fierce infighting that ensued almost led to Salemme’s death when he was shot outside an IHOP in 1989 by a group of armed men. Ponzo is accused of being part of that group.

According to the FBI, Salemme became the de facto head of the Patriarca family in 1991, but the war between his faction and Russo’s waged on. Ponzo was one of Russo’s loyalists, and under his tenure may have committed a number of nefarious acts. In 1994 Ponzo fled New England to avoid arrest.

Ponzo spent approximately the next 16 years on the lam, hiding in the town of Marsing, Idaho under the name Jay Shaw. In some ways, he was hiding in plain sight—in a town of just over 1,000 people, it’s impossible to stay completely anonymous. He worked as a cattle rancher, and his 2011 arrest sent shockwaves through the town. According to the Boston Globe, his 80-year-old neighbor Bob Briggs stated, “I don’t think anybody in Marsing could think he’d hurt anyone, not here anyway.”

After his trial in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts this week, Ponzo may also face charges in Idaho. When arrested, it was discovered that he had a firearm store of approximately 30 weapons in his Idaho home. The Idaho indictment also alleges other counts, such as identity theft. This case will not be dealt with until the Massachusetts trial has been finished.

In many ways, the Italian mafia’s real power has diminished greatly over the last 20-30 years. The FBI has cracked down on mob bosses in all the major centers of power: Chicago, New York, and Boston. But a different sort of Italian mafia has arisen since the turn of the century—one that exists purely in the sphere of pop culture. When James Gandolfini passed away in June of 2013, the nation mourned such a talented actor. The first sentence of a Washington Post blog post by Brad Hirschfeld read, “Mourning a mobster – a man whose life was predicated on intimidation, extortion and murder – may seem odd.  Odder still, when the mobster in question is a fictional character.  But with the sudden death of James Gnadolfini that is exactly what millions of people, including me, are doing.”

Romanticizing the mob—a network of organizations that survived on murder, extortion, drug dealing, and other crimes, has become the norm. But Ponzo’s case, the case of a petty criminal, reminds us that such a culture does not consist purely of plots, games, and critically acclaimed series finales.

[Boston Globe]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Wally Gobetz via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Friendly Neighborhood Mobster? appeared first on Law Street.