>>21744948, >>21744993 An appeals judge just ruled AZ Gallego records will be released UNREDACTEDPN

Gallego is so fucked it’s not even funnyPress release from the Republican Party, read this and then read the clips from the Court Order, specifically they tried to prevent any information on their child from getting out.

JANUARY 19, 2024 ICYMI:Washington Free Beacon seeks Gallego’s sealed divorce records1/2

Ruben Gallego has frequently discussed his divorce in the media, but the Washington Free Beacon reports Gallego took the unusual step of sealing his divorce records. Now, the Washington Free Beacon filed a motion to unseal the records because “it is in the public’s interest to know their lawmakers.”

Is it possible these records show why Gallego abandoned his wife when she was nearly nine months pregnant?In case you missed it…

Why the Washington Free Beacon is Seeking Ruben Gallego’s Divorce Records

Washington Free Beacon Editors January 18, 2024

On Wednesday, the Washington Free Beacon filed a motion seeking to unseal Arizona Senate candidate Ruben Gallego’s divorce records. Gallego, a Democratic congressman who is running to unseat the left-leaning independent senator Kyrsten Sinema, was married to another Arizona politician, Phoenix mayor Kate Gallego, until 2017.

Their divorce took place when Kate Gallego was 9 months pregnant.

Though both Ruben and Kate Gallego are public figures, public records and basic information on the internet about the circumstances of the divorce are scant, likely because the Gallegos or their allies have buried them.

In Arizona, as in most states, court records—including those related to divorces—are generally accessible to the public.But in the Gallegos’ case, the entire docket is under seal, something incredibly unusual in a state where the sealing of information, if it happens at all, is typically limited to specific sensitive information, like the identifying information of minor children.

At the same time, Gallego himself made the dissolution of his marriage an integral part of his political story. In a long interview with the Washington Post last March,Gallego attributed his divorce to post-traumatic stress disorder he suffered after serving in Iraq, telling the paper he drank too much, smoked too much, and became prone to “extreme outbursts.”(Gallego was a congressman at the time.)

“The pressure of being a congressman and of being an expectant father, on top of the anxiety, moodiness, survivor’s guilt and the constant striving for success was too much for Gallego to handle,”the paper wrote.

The aspiring senator wants to have it both ways, yakking about his divorce in the media and on the campaign trail while keeping any materials that would allow the public to fact check him under lockdown.

Beyond that, it is in the public’s interest to know their lawmakers.What was the nature of these “extreme outbursts”? Did they result in physical threats or violence?What were the circumstances surrounding a divorce that Gallego himself said “outsiders think” came at “the worst possible time”? Surely, he has to admit the timing could have been better. Nonetheless, he wrote in his 2021 book, he and his ex-wife continue to “share in each other’s lives, and we certainly support each other’s careers.”

https://www.nrsc.org/press-releases/icymi-washington-free-beacon-seeks-gallegos-sealed-divorce-records-2024-01-19/

>>21747521

2/2

That brings us to Kate Gallego’s less-than-full-throated endorsement of her ex-husband last year in a terse, one-sentence statement. The former Phoenix city council member, now Phoenix mayor, surely has an interest in seeing her child’s father become a U.S. senator, and women have complicated reasons for making the decisions they do in these sorts of cases. In this one, however, the public has a vested interest as well.

This all takes place against the backdrop of the Democratic Party’s successful effort to release women who voluntarily entered into non-disclosure agreements relating to sexual harassment they had suffered in the workplace, in many cases in exchange for loads of money. President Joe Biden signed the Speak Out Act, which prevents the enforcement of non-disclosure agreements relating to sexual harassment or sexual assault, in 2022, and Gallego voted in favor of that bill.

The Gallegos’ divorce records appear to be a non-disclosure agreement of another kind, in which both parties prefer to keep the truth about it out of public view.In this case, as Democrats have argued with the Speak Out Act, there is a third party with a need to know.

That is why the Free Beacon filed a public access request in Yavapai County Superior Court seeking these documents. That request was denied, and the county clerk indicated we would reach a resolution only by filing a motion to unseal the case docket.

The people of Arizona deserve to know the man who is getting down on one knee before they accept his proposal.

https://www.nrsc.org/press-releases/icymi-washington-free-beacon-seeks-gallegos-sealed-divorce-records-2024-01-19/

Court Case to follow

Anons there is something very deep and dark with this guy, new wife, old wife and the democrat party, he sounds like a rageaholic and Kari says he is a Communist Marxist, etc.

>>21747535

PDF Attached

GALLEGO/GALLEGO v. WA FREE BEACON Decision of the Court

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, DC By Miachel J. Edney1/2

Counsel for Real Party in Interest/Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 The Gallegos appeal the unsealing of their divorce records as ordered by the Yavapai Superior Court. They argue the court abused its discretion when it rejected some of the proposed redactions to the record. We accept jurisdiction through special action and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 The Gallegos sought dissolution of their marriage in 2016. At their request, the court sealed the records of their divorce proceedings in their entirety later that year. The court found at that time that “the privacy interests of the parties outweighs the general open records policy.” The Gallegos’ marriage dissolution was finalized in 2017.

¶3 Years later, in 2024, The Washington Free Beacon moved to unseal the Gallegos’ divorce records in the Yavapai Superior Court. The Gallegos did not want the record unsealed.The court found the original order sealing the record was improper and ordered the Gallegos to submit their redaction requests. The court accepted some redactions requested by the Gallegos to protect the privacy interests of their financial information and the best interests of their minor child. The rejected redactions are at issue here.

DISCUSSION

I. Appellate Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

¶4 Jurisdiction over this appeal depends upon two things: (1) “the issues raised by the appeal from the order must be different from those that would arise from an appeal from the underlying judgment,” and (2) “the order must either affect the judgment or relate to it by enforcing it or staying its execution.” Arvizu v. Fernandez, 183 Ariz. 224, 226–27 (App. 1995) (citations omitted).

¶5 Here, the issues raised in this appeal are different from those that would arise from an appeal from the underlying divorce decree. The Gallegos meet the first standard for establishing jurisdiction. However, as the Gallegos concede, the order on appeal is “entirely independent and ancillary to the underlying judgment.”The Gallegos fail to establish jurisdiction becausethe order at issue does not affect the original decree or relate to it by enforcing it or staying its execution. See Arvizu, 183 Ariz. at226–27; see also Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-2101(A)(2).

¶6 Still, when “this court lacks appellate jurisdiction, we may exercise our discretionary special action jurisdiction under appropriate circumstances, even when the parties have not requested such relief.” Phillips v. Garcia, 237 Ariz. 407, 410 ¶ 6 (App. 2015). Special action jurisdiction exists when there is no other “equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal.” Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a).We will accept special action jurisdiction when “the case presents purely legal issues, issues involving a matter of first impression, or issues of statewide importance.” Dep’t of Child Safety v. Stocking-Tate, 247 Ariz. 108, 112 ¶ 7(App. 2019). Further, exercise of special action jurisdiction may be appropriate when a child’s best interests stand in the balance. See Dep’t of Child Safety v. Beene, 235 Ariz. 300, 303 ¶ 7 n.5 (App. 2014), as amended (July 30, 2014).

¶7 The Gallegos should have filed for special action relief.The court’s order will take effect to unseal portions of the record without meaningful review if we do not address the merits and a minor child’s privacy interests are alleged to be implicated. Therefore, we will, in our discretion, treat this appeal as a petition for special action and grant review on the merits. ¶8 The Gallegos assign error in two respects. First, they argue the court erred by failing to make written findings to support its order unsealing their divorce records. Second, they argue the court erred by rejecting portions of their proposed redactions.

¶9 We review the court’s decisions regarding sealing or unsealing court records for an abuse of discretion. See Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 247 Ariz. 567, 571 ¶ 16 (App. 2019). A court abuses its discretion if it applies an erroneous rule of law in reaching its decision. Id. If its decision is supported by any reasonable evidence, we will not disturb the court’s exercise of its discretion. Id. II. The Court Was Not Required to Make Specific Findings in Its Order Unsealing the Record.

https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2024/1%20CA-CV%2024-0527%20Gallego-Gallego%20v.%20Wa%20Free%20Beacon.pdf

Since he and the Democrats spent $790,000 to lose this case, whatever is in that sealed doc, has to be really, really, really badDid he try to kill his wife?

>>21747571

2/2

¶10 Citing Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (“ARFLP”) 17 and Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“ARCP”) 5.4, the Gallegos contend that the court’s order must be vacated because it did not provide written findings to support its decision to grant The Free Beacon’s motion to unseal.

¶11 Here, the order at issue stems from a motion to unseal. Pursuant to ARFLP 82, “[t]he court is not required to state findings or conclusions in a ruling on any motion unless [the ARFLP] provide otherwise.” ARFLP 82(a)(2). The court was therefore under no obligation to make any findings or conclusions unless some other authority imposed that obligation. ARFLP 82(a)(2). The Gallegos’ reliance on ARFLP 17 is misplaced. That rule imposes a requirement for the court to make written findings only to justify sealing court records, not when, as here, the court orders records unsealed. Compare ARFLP 17(c) with ARFLP 17(f).

¶12 The Gallegos contend that ARFLP 17 should incorporate ARCP 5.4(h), which imposes a requirement that the court “state the reasons for unsealing [] document[s] or, if the order denies a motion to unseal []document[s], the reasons for denying it.” ARCP 5.4(h). But this case is governed by the ARFLP. See ARFLP 1(a). And though the ARCP may find application to family law cases in certain circumstances, that is “only when [the ARFLP] expressly incorporate them.” ARFLP 1(c).

¶13 The language of ARFLP 17(f) governs unsealing court records in family law cases and that rule does not expressly incorporate the ARCP. Nor does that rule contain the same language as ARCP 5.4 and “[w]e are not at liberty to rewrite a [rule] under the guise of judicial interpretation.” Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. v. Borek, 234 Ariz. 364, 368 ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (cleaned up); see also Chronis v. Steinle, 220 Ariz. 559, 560 ¶ 6 (2009) (“We construe rules of court using the same principles applicable to interpretation of statutes.”).

¶14 The Gallegos point to the 2016 order sealing their case’s records, arguing that this status quo should have been maintained. But this position fails to account for ARFLP’s requirement that they, as the party opposing unsealing, show overriding current or continuing circumstances that justify maintaining sealed status. ARFLP 17(f). Past circumstances are not relevant to their present objection to The Free Beacon’s request to unseal the record. Therefore, the prior 2016 order did not impose a requirement on the court to make findings regarding a change in the status quo. The court did not err by not stating any findings in its order unsealing the record. III. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It ejected Certain Redactions Requested by the Gallegos.

¶15 To begin, the State of Arizona presumes court records are available to the public. Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 123(c)(1). The burden is on a party opposing a motion to unseal to demonstrate why the records should not be unsealed. See ARFLP 17(f). To make that showing, the party opposing the unsealing “must show that overriding circumstances continue to exist or that other grounds provide a sufficient basis for keeping the record sealed.” Id. Moreover, “[w]ithout the requirement that the superior court make written findings, our standard of review presumes the superior court found every fact necessary to support its decision.” Whitt v. Meza, 257 Ariz. 149,153 ¶ 8 (App. 2024).

¶16 Here, the Gallegos argue the court erred by rejecting their request to seal the portions of the record “pertaining to their minor child.” Not so.

¶17 The Gallegos had the burden to show continuing or new overriding circumstances to prohibit access to court documents or any portions thereof. See ARFLP 17(f). They did not meet that burden. Given the applicable standard of review and the presumption that the court implicitly found all facts necessary to support its decision, we discern no error. Whitt, 257 Ariz. at 153

¶18Moreover, the court appropriately accepted certain redactions of the record to protect the best interests of the Gallegos’ minor child, along with some of their financial information. Ariz. R. Sup. Ct.123(c)(1), (3). Upon review, we hold the court properly exercised its discretion by narrowly tailoring what is to be withheld from public view for those legitimate purposes.

CONCLUSION

¶19 We affirm.

https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2024/1%20CA-CV%2024-0527%20Gallego-Gallego%20v.%20Wa%20Free%20Beacon.pdf

>>21746562, >>21746567, >>21746986 Massive implications in DOJ plea deal with TD Bank - THE COVER-UP IS ONPN

I agree anon, the cover up in on, but in reality it's always on when it comes to big banks and big pharma.

When I researched DOJ indictments a couple of years ago, every single bank, big bank, etc. Never got a fine to meet the crime, if anyone went to jail, it was the low level people. The fines can be a $1 billion to $20-30 billion, but not even close to the net worth of those banks or the damage they've done to the people and economy. The DOJ makes a deal with them all the time, this exercise is simply to rack up a new win, it's never about justice.

The only people that get punished or the low level criminals that stole a $100,000 or less, and then they are locked up for life. No Bank honchos ever go to jail, and none of their banks are harmed.

The DOJ is not ever about justice, it's about money making and ringing up wins.

Did anyone get punished for 9/11? How about the OK bombing? Can you think of one major case that was punished? Sure they do great press releases, but when you look under the hood, it's a slap on the wrist.

Just like the scam of Garland saying they are going after Google and want to break it up. Will anything happen with that? NO because Google supports every democrat cause that exists.

>>21747812

Three Former Traders for Major Banks Indicted in Foreign Currency Exchange Antitrust Conspiracy(YES only 3 former traders, like their leaders never knew anything about what they were doing.)

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

A federal grand jury returned an indictment against three former traders of major banks for their alleged roles in a conspiracy to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars and euros exchanged in the foreign currency exchange (FX) spot market, the Justice Department announced today.

The one-count indictment, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges Richard Usher (former Head of G11 FX Trading-UK at an affiliate of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as well as former Managing Director at an affiliate of JPMorgan Chase & Co.), Rohan Ramchandani (former Managing Director and head of G10 FX spot trading at an affiliate of Citicorp) and Christopher Ashton (former Head of Spot FX at an affiliate of Barclays PLC)with conspiring to fix prices and rig bids for U.S. dollars and euros exchanged in the FX spot market.

“Whether a crime is committed on the street corner or in the corner office, no one gets a free pass simply because they were working for a corporation when they broke the law,” said Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates. “Today’s indictment reiterates our commitment to holding individuals accountable for corporate misconduct.”

“The charged conspiracy involved competitors manipulating the exchange rate for the hundreds of billions of dollars traded on foreign exchange markets for their benefit and to the detriment of their customers,” said Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Bill Baer. “We previously secured criminal convictions of the financial institutions involved in the misconduct. Today we seek to hold accountable the individuals who conspired on their behalf.”

“These former bank traders are alleged to have gained an unfair advantage on their counterparts by committing corporate fraud involving the manipulation of the foreign currency exchange,” said Assistant Director in Charge Paul M. Abbate of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. “Their actions affected worldwide trading positions in the global marketplace. Today’s announcement reinforces the FBI’s commitment to investigate and prosecute individuals responsible for criminally interfering with the global financial markets.”

The indictment follows the May 20, 2015 agreements of Barclays PLC, Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc to plead guilty to conspiring to fix prices and rig bids for U.S. dollars and euros exchanged in the FX spot market, and to pay criminal fines totaling more than $2.5 billion. On Jan. 5, 2017, the federal district court in Connecticut accepted those plea agreements and sentenced the banks accordingly.

The charge in the indictment carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by victims if either amount is greater than $1 million.

The charge in this case was brought in connection with the President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The president established the task force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and state and local partners, it is the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud.Since fiscal year 2009, the Justice Department has filed over 18,000 financial fraud cases against more than 25,000 defendants.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-former-traders-major-banks-indicted-foreign-currency-exchange-antitrust-conspiracy