Contempt of court

Steven Avery Defense Expert, and Former Brainwave Science, Inc. Scientific Advisor, Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell, Apologizes for “Deceitful” Conduct in Wake of Permanent Injunctions and $1,125,000 in Punitive Damages Awards

Retrieved on: 
Monday, April 17, 2023
Software, Research, Other Defense, General Health, Contracts, Professional Services, Technology, Defense, Science, Legal, Other Science, Health, BMC, E.D.N.Y, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, BCI, National security, Contempt of court, Internet, United States district court, Law enforcement, Interface (computing), Federal law enforcement in the United States, Federal court, Judgement, Defend Trade Secrets Act, Multimedia, Brain, Person, Making a Murderer, Motion, Fabrication, Farwell, Corporation, Supreme court, FBI, New York State Court Officers, Crime, Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, Symbols of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Theft, Brain fingerprinting, Letter, Netflix, Judgement of the German Federal Court of Justice on Google's autocomplete function, Medical imaging, Medical device, Homeland security, Court

The technique, incorporated by Brainwave into its iCognative® System, allows testers to identify the presence or absence of specific information within a person's brain.

Key Points: 
  • The technique, incorporated by Brainwave into its iCognative® System, allows testers to identify the presence or absence of specific information within a person's brain.
  • By confirming that certain information is not present, authorities may quickly clear suspects and exonerate wrongfully convicted persons.
  • Dr. Farwell served as a Scientific Advisor for the company until being removed for “Fraudulent Misrepresentation” and attempted “Theft of Corporate Assets” in 2016.
  • This matter was investigated by Brainwave Science’s Senior Investigator, Raymond Tahir (Former Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation).

At FTC’s Request, Court Finalizes Orders and Monetary Judgments against Ringleaders of the Sanctuary Belize Real Estate Investment Scheme

Retrieved on: 
Friday, January 22, 2021
Abuse of the legal system, Civil law, Common law, Contempt of court, Legal procedure, Articles, BELIZE, Law, Countries

According to the FTC, Pukke, Baker, and Chadwick controlled, or illegally benefitted from, the deceptive marketing of the Sanctuary Belize real estate development in remote southern Belize.

Key Points: 
  • According to the FTC, Pukke, Baker, and Chadwick controlled, or illegally benefitted from, the deceptive marketing of the Sanctuary Belize real estate development in remote southern Belize.
  • The court also entered a final default order and monetary judgmentagainst defendants John Usher, 14 corporate entities, and the estate of Andris Pukkes father, John Pukke.
  • Lastly, the court issued a final contempt order holding defendants Pukke, Baker, and Usher in contempt of court for violating a prior court order prohibiting them from making misrepresentations while telemarketing.
  • The final contempt order enters a $172 million AmeriDebt judgment against Pukke, and a separate $120.2 million judgment against the three defendants.

At FTC’s Request, Court Finalizes Orders and Monetary Judgments against Ringleaders of the Sanctuary Belize Real Estate Investment Scheme

Retrieved on: 
Friday, January 22, 2021
Abuse of the legal system, Civil law, Common law, Contempt of court, Legal procedure, Articles, BELIZE, Law, Countries

According to the FTC, Pukke, Baker, and Chadwick controlled, or illegally benefitted from, the deceptive marketing of the Sanctuary Belize real estate development in remote southern Belize.

Key Points: 
  • According to the FTC, Pukke, Baker, and Chadwick controlled, or illegally benefitted from, the deceptive marketing of the Sanctuary Belize real estate development in remote southern Belize.
  • The court also entered a final default order and monetary judgmentagainst defendants John Usher, 14 corporate entities, and the estate of Andris Pukkes father, John Pukke.
  • Lastly, the court issued a final contempt order holding defendants Pukke, Baker, and Usher in contempt of court for violating a prior court order prohibiting them from making misrepresentations while telemarketing.
  • The final contempt order enters a $172 million AmeriDebt judgment against Pukke, and a separate $120.2 million judgment against the three defendants.

FS50773402

Retrieved on: 
Friday, May 31, 2019
Abuse of the legal system, Civil law, Common law, Contempt of court, Legal procedure, Law

The complainant requested from Hastings Borough Council information in relation to Councillors’ and Planning Officers’ potential membership of Freemasons’ lodges. The Council provided the complainant with a link which contained the Councillors’ record of interest forms and stated that it did not hold the requested information in relation to Planning Officers.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, the Council failed to respond to the complainant’s request in relation to the Councillors’ possible affiliation with Freemasons’ lodges; and does not hold information in relation to Council’s Planning Officers’ possible affiliation with Freemasons’ lodges;
The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant with a fresh response to the part of the request seeking information related to the Councillors’ possible affiliation with Freemasons’ lodges. This response must set out clearly and accurately whether the Council holds information falling within the scope of that part of the request and, in relation to any relevant information it does hold, either disclose any such information or explain why the FOIA does not require such a disclosure. 
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Key Points: 
  • The complainant requested from Hastings Borough Council information in relation to Councillors and Planning Officers potential membership of Freemasons lodges.
  • The Council provided the complainant with a link which contained the Councillors record of interest forms and stated that it did not hold the requested information in relation to Planning Officers.
  • The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
  • Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Mobile County Sheriff Held in Contempt of Court

Retrieved on: 
Monday, October 15, 2018
Law, Government, Legal professions, Police ranks, Law enforcement, Law enforcement in the United States, Sheriffs in the United States, Contempt of court, Constable

MOBILE, Ala., Oct. 15, 2018 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- On Thursday, a Mobile County Circuit Court judge held the Mobile County Sheriff's Office and Mobile County District Attorney's office in contempt of court for disobeying court orders in the case they filed against local businessman Doug Roberts.

Key Points: 
  • MOBILE, Ala., Oct. 15, 2018 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- On Thursday, a Mobile County Circuit Court judge held the Mobile County Sheriff's Office and Mobile County District Attorney's office in contempt of court for disobeying court orders in the case they filed against local businessman Doug Roberts.
  • The Mobile County Sheriff's Office operates without any regard for law or court orders, and seems to think that it is above the law.
  • The prosecutor, Shelley Pope Corley, who publicly maligned Roberts and all constables in open court, was dismissed by the Mobile County District Attorney's office in July.
  • Constables all over the county celebrated the court's decision as a victory against what they say is an oppressive Sheriff with a vendetta for constables.