Categories
Selected Articles

Jeffrey Epstein accuser sues prominent psychiatrist for making her ‘sex slave’

Share The News

YXSEH4WLJFO7DIZNWY6TAOVMRU.jpg?auth=874c

NEW YORK, June 3 (Reuters) – A prominent 91-year-old psychiatrist who was once close friends with Jeffrey Epstein was sued on Monday by a onetime model who said he enabled the late financier’s sex trafficking, and turned her into his “modern-day sex slave.”

In a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court, the plaintiff, using a pseudonym Jane Doe 11, said Henry Jarecki raped her repeatedly starting in 2011, after Epstein referred her for mental health treatment following his own sexual abuses.

Doe also said Jarecki was Epstein’s “go-to” doctor for treating young women experiencing depression, shared victims’ confidential medical information with Epstein, and shielded Epstein from law enforcement.

“The allegations will be shown to be entirely false and baseless,” said Sarita Kedia, a lawyer for Jarecki. “Dr. Jarecki never engaged in any abusive conduct with the complainant or any other person.”

Doe’s civil lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for sexual battery, emotional distress, and violating the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

Epstein killed himself in a Manhattan jail cell in August 2019 at age 66 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

Jarecki, of Rye, New York, is the latest of many people sued over their ties to the registered sex offender.

He is a longtime Yale University, opens new tab faculty member whose works include the book “Modern Psychiatric Treatment.”

Jarecki also became wealthy trading commodities, and from selling MovieFone, which he co-founded with his son, to America Online for about $388 million in stock in 1999.

While Jarecki was in Epstein’s public address book, Monday’s lawsuit appears to be the first over their relationship.

Monday’s complaint said Doe came to the United States in 2010, seeking a visa to work a model, when another model told her that Epstein could help her career.

She said Epstein sent her to Jarecki after she became depressed, calling him “the best doctor in New York City.”

But instead of helping, Jarecki allegedly promised to “save” Doe from Epstein, pushing her to move into an apartment he could monitor from his own bedroom around the corner in Manhattan’s Gramercy Park neighborhood.

Doe said Jarecki, then in his late 70s, began using the apartment to force her into sex, threatening her work status or to return her to Epstein if she failed to comply.

She also said Jarecki ordered her to go to bed at 10 p.m., calling her to demand she sleep if he saw the light on at 10:15, and expressed displeasure when she didn’t smile enough.

The complaint accused Jarecki of “raping Jane Doe 11 by force on dozens of occasions in New York,” and trafficking her to his private Caribbean island where he sexually abused her.

Others sued over their ties to Epstein include former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. A U.S. appeals court is considering whether to overturn her conviction and 20-year prison sentence for aiding Epstein’s sex trafficking.

Brad Edwards, a lawyer for Doe and more than 200 other Epstein accusers, declined to elaborate on Monday’s lawsuit but said “we want other survivors to know that it is safe to come forward.”

The case is Doe v Jarecki, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 24-04208.

Sign up here.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York
Editing by Nick Zieminski

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab


Share The News
Categories
Selected Articles

Epstein Accuser Files Lawsuit Alleging Famed Psychiatrist Henry Jarecki Facilitated Sexual Abuse

Share The News

social


Share The News
Categories
Selected Articles

NATO to unveil Ukraine security package as ‘bridge’ to membership

Share The News

KBLXIZ3BJZCEZKDWO26CGV473Q.jpg

NATO plans to offer Ukraine a security package when the alliance convenes its annual summit this summer in Washington, though it’s expected to stop short of accepting the nation’s long-standing request for membership amid Russia’s invasion.

In addition to unveiling the package in July, an estimated 32 countries are finalizing a series of bilateral agreements to support Ukraine ahead of the summit, with 13 finalized so far, according to Julianne Smith, the U.S. ambassador to NATO.

“Allies will be putting forward a whole package of deliverables that will serve as a bridge to their membership inside the alliance,” Smith said at a Defense Writers Group roundtable on Monday. “Part of the package will be the language we use to describe Ukraine’s membership aspirations in the declaration itself.”

“Part of it will be an institutionalization of some of the bilateral support that’s currently being provided [to] Ukraine, and tucking it under NATO command. Part of it will be working to identify new resources for our friends in Ukraine, and ensuring that we send a signal to Moscow that the NATO alliance isn’t going anywhere,” Smith added.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asked for fast-tracked accession into the alliance shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 — a request NATO rebuffed at last year’s summit in Lithuania. Instead, NATO offered Ukraine a multiyear assistance package meant to bolster its defenses and help it transition away from Soviet-era equipment.

Ukrainian entry into NATO would allow Kyiv to invoke the alliance’s collective defense clause, potentially triggering a broader regional conflict with Russia. U.S. President Joe Biden said last year that the war with Russia would have to end before Ukraine enters the alliance.

Still, during an April visit to Kyiv, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg vowed that “Ukraine will become a member of NATO.”

“The work we are undertaking now puts you on an irreversible path towards NATO membership, so that when the time is right, Ukraine can become a NATO member straightaway,” Stoltenberg said.

Some defense companies from the NATO bloc have expressed interest in co-producing certain military capabilities like unmanned systems. The U.S. in May announced a $2 billion Foreign Military Financing package largely geared toward helping Ukraine grow its defense-industrial base.

“This is coming from, in large part, European or Canadian or American companies that are looking at co-production opportunities,” Smith told Defense News.

Smith noted the July summit, which marks NATO’s 75th anniversary, will also focus on the regional defense and deterrence plans for northern, central and southern Europe, which the alliance formally agreed to during last year’s summit.

“It’s going to mean a major shift across the alliance in how countries invest, procure, work together to implement and execute those regional plans,” the diplomat said.

The plans are partially aimed at guiding NATO members when they make military procurement decisions to ensure they’re buying the right capabilities. For instance, a country could be responsible for three core tasks within a regional plan and would be expected to make procurement decisions accordingly.

“It’s ultimately up to them on how to spend the resources, but they have to answer to the regional plans,” Smith said.

She argued that the regional plans will also help reassure defense manufacturers that NATO intends to keep procuring larger amounts of ammunition and other materiel over the long term, encouraging them to ramp up production.

“It’s not a signed contract, but helping them see what the requirements will be across the alliance that’s tagged to these regional plans will certainly assure them that the demand signals will not just be over the next 12 months, but the demand signals to industry will be for the better part of a decade,” she said.

The summit will also focus on burden-sharing. Smith expects that slightly more than 20 countries will spend at least 2% of their respective gross domestic product on defense — a goal set by the alliance.

“We have to make sure that we keep pushing and get every member of the alliance to lay out a plan to get to the 2% within the next few years,” Smith said. “And I think 99% of the allies have a plan in place.”

Bryant Harris is the Congress reporter for Defense News. He has covered U.S. foreign policy, national security, international affairs and politics in Washington since 2014. He has also written for Foreign Policy, Al-Monitor, Al Jazeera English and IPS News.


Share The News
Categories
Selected Articles

Biden Issues Executive Order to Temporarily Seal the Border to Asylum Seekers

Share The News

  • Biden’s Executive Order
  • Trump’s Hard Line Resonates
  • A Surge in San Diego
  • Arizona Ballot Measure
  • Extremists Target Charities

The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to challenge the executive action in court.

Listen to this article · 7:42 min Learn more

Tuesday’s decision is a stark turnaround for President Biden, who came into office attacking Donald J. Trump for his efforts as president to restrict asylum.Credit…Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times

June 4, 2024Updated 12:40 p.m. ET

President Biden issued an executive order on Tuesday that prevents migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border when crossings surge, a dramatic election-year move to ease pressure on the immigration system and address a major concern among voters.

The order is the most restrictive border policy instituted by Mr. Biden, or any other modern Democrat, and echoes an effort in 2018 by President Donald J. Trump to cut off migration that was blocked in federal court.

The restrictions kick in once the seven-day average for daily crossings hits 2,500. Daily totals already exceed that number, which means that Mr. Biden’s executive order could go into effect right away, allowing border officers to return migrants across the border into Mexico or to their home countries within hours or days.

The border would reopen to asylum seekers only when the number of crossings falls significantly. The figure would have to stay below a daily average of 1,500 for seven days in a row. The border would reopen to migrants two weeks after that.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to challenge the executive action in court.

“The administration has left us little choice but to sue,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer at the A.C.L.U. who led the challenge against many of Mr. Trump’s policies. “It was unlawful under Trump and is no less illegal now.”

Mr. Biden’s move shows how drastically immigration politics have shifted in the United States. Polls suggest there is support in both parties for border measures once denounced by Democrats and championed by Mr. Trump as the number of people crossing into the country has reached record levels in recent years.

There would be limited exceptions, including for minors who cross the border alone, victims of human trafficking and those who use a Customs and Border Protection app to schedule an appointment with a border officer to request asylum.

But for the most part, the order suspends longtime guarantees that give anyone who steps onto U.S. soil the right to seek a safe haven. Typically, migrants claiming asylum are released into the United States to wait for court appearances, where they can plead their cases. A huge backlog means those cases can take years to come up.

The executive action mirrors a bipartisan bill that had some of the most significant border security restrictions Congress had considered in years. But Republicans thwarted the bill in February, saying it was not strong enough. Many of them, egged on by Mr. Trump, were loath to give Mr. Biden a legislative victory in an election year.

“Donald Trump begged them to vote ‘no’ because he was worried that more border enforcement would hurt him politically,” Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said in a statement on Tuesday. He added: “The American people want bipartisan solutions to border security — not cynical politics.”

The American Civil Liberties Union led the charge against the Trump administration’s attempt to block asylum in 2018, which resulted in the policy being stopped by federal courts. The group has signaled that it is ready to challenge any order that limits asylum at the border.

Immigration advocates and some progressive Democrats have expressed concern that Mr. Biden was abandoning his promise to rebuild the asylum system.

“By reviving Trump’s asylum ban, President Biden has undermined American values and abandoned our nation’s obligations to provide people fleeing persecution, violence, and authoritarianism with an opportunity to seek refuge in the U.S.,” said Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California.

Tuesday’s decision is a stark turnaround for Mr. Biden, who came into office attacking Mr. Trump for his efforts to restrict asylum. During a 2019 debate, Mr. Biden, then a candidate running against Mr. Trump for the first time, excoriated his rival’s policies.

“This is the first president in the history of the United States of America that anybody seeking asylum has to do it in another country,” Mr. Biden said at the time.

Mr. Trump tried several times to close the U.S. border to asylum seekers, succeeding only in 2020 when he used a Covid-era emergency rule to seal the border to most migrants.

In a call with reporters, Biden administration officials bristled the idea that the president’s executive order is comparable to Mr. Trump’s actions. They emphasized that Mr. Biden’s administration would only turn away asylum seekers during periods of surging crossings.

Immigration has proved to be a huge political vulnerability for Mr. Biden, reaching a crisis in December, when about 10,000 people a day were making their way into the United States.

Biden administration officials, panicked over those numbers, pressed Mexico to do more to curb migration. Mexican officials have since used charter flights and buses to move migrants deeper south and away from the United States.

The number of people crossing has plunged since then, though the numbers are still historically high. On Sunday, more than 3,500 people crossed without authorization, in line with the trends of recent weeks, according to a person with knowledge of the data.

Even with the executive order in place, migrants could still apply for other protections designed for those who can prove they will be tortured in their home country. But that screening has a much higher bar than asylum and as a result, administration officials said they do not expect many migrants to be screened into the United States.

People who cross illegally and do not qualify for those other protections would be subject to a five-year bar for entering the United States.

White House officials believe the order provides Mr. Biden an opportunity to take Republicans to task for dooming the bipartisan bill. That legislation also would have provided billions to the Department of Homeland Security for more border officers and immigration judges.

Mr. Biden cannot provide those resources through executive action. White House officials for weeks said they preferred legislation over presidential proclamation because it would more lasting and less exposed to a court challenge.

The order also comes with some political risks. Republicans have questioned why Mr. Biden did not take unilateral action at the border sooner. In January, he told reporters that he had “done all I can do” at the border and that he needed help from Congress.

“It’s window dressing. Everybody knows it,” Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, said of the president’s order at a news conference Tuesday morning. “If he was concerned about the border, he would have done this a long time ago.”

As Mr. Biden considered whether to take executive action in recent months, his administration has taken smaller steps to try to control those backlogs.

In May, the administration proposed a rule change that would allow officers to quickly identify people who are ineligible for asylum, such as those who have been convicted of serious crimes. Currently, they may be allowed to enter the country and wait months, or often years, for asylum proceedings. The proposal must go through a 30-day public comment period.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also issued a new policy in May instructing asylum officers to consider whether applicants could find refuge in their own countries before coming to the United States.


Share The News
Categories
Selected Articles

Fauci says ‘levels of vitriol’ in House hearing ‘really quite unfortunate’

Share The News

faucianthony_060324gn12_w.jpg?w=1280

Skip to content

Former White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci said the “levels of vitriol” in the county and in Congress, particularly Tuesday’s incident with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), is “really quite unfortunate.”

Facui joined CNN’s Kaitlan Collins to discuss his Monday testimony before the House Oversight and Accountability Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. He was the face of the Trump administration’s COVID-19 response while leading the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“I have testified literally hundreds of times over the last 40 years over Congress, and there’s always been differences of opinion, differences of ideology, criticisms and things like that,” Fauci said.

“But the level of vitriol that we see now, just in the country in general, but actually played out during this hearing, was really quite unfortunate. Because the purpose of hearings [is] to try and figure out how we can do better so that next time, if and when we are faced with a pandemic, we’d be better prepared and we could benefit,” he continued.

Fauci testified before the committee Monday for the first time since retiring. He said his goal is to help leaders identify mistakes that were made during the COVID-19 pandemic and correct them for the future.

“That’s not what we saw today, as shown by the clip you showed with Marjorie Taylor Greene,” Fauci said. “I mean, that was nothing about trying to do better, unfortunately.”

During the hearing, Greene refused to recognize him as a doctor, referring to him instead as “Mr. Fauci.” She questioned Fauci on why the American people “deserve to be abused” by him and said, “You’re not ‘Dr.,” you’re ‘Mr. Fauci’ in my few minutes.”

Fauci told the committee and Collins that he and his family still receive death threats for his role in the nation’s response to the pandemic. He said there’s a pattern with the threats, whether it’s Fox News or “somebody in the Congress” that alleges he is responsible for widespread death from COVID-19.

“So, that’s the reason why I’m still getting death threats, when you have performances like that unusual performance by Marjorie Taylor Greene in today’s hearing,” he said. “Those are the kinds of things that drive up the death threats, because there are a segment of the population out there that believe that kind of nonsense.”

Tags Anthony Fauci COVID COVID-19 pandemic House Oversight and Accountability Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Kaitlan Collins Marjorie Taylor Greene

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Share The News