Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump Won't Help Deported Man & Menendez Brothers Get a Chance

Transcript

Trump Won't Help Deported Man & Menendez Brothers Get a Chance · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: How can I return him to day eulat states, I
0:10
Speaker 2: could I smuggle him into the United States or whether
0:12
Speaker 2: I do, of course, I'm not gonna do it.
0:14
Speaker 3: It's like let meet. The question is for busterous, how
0:18
Speaker 3: can I smuggel the terrorist into the United States.
0:21
Speaker 4: I don't have the power to return him to the
0:23
Speaker 4: United States.
0:24
Speaker 1: So you can release the inside of Alabas.
0:26
Speaker 5: Yeah, but I'm not releasing I mean, we're not very
0:28
Speaker 5: fond of releasing terrorists into our country.
0:30
Speaker 6: The President of L Salvador, Naibu Kelly, said in the
0:34
Speaker 6: Oval office today that he would not return a man
0:37
Speaker 6: who was wrongfully deported to his country. This was backed
0:41
Speaker 6: up by US Attorney General Pam Bondi's seemingly incorrect interpretation
0:47
Speaker 6: of the Supreme Courts ordered that the Trump administration facilitate
0:51
Speaker 6: Kilmar Abrego Garcia is released from custody in L Salvador.
0:56
Speaker 3: That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him.
0:59
Speaker 3: That's not to us. The Supreme Court rule President that
1:03
Speaker 3: if as El Salvador wants to return him, this is
1:06
Speaker 3: international matters, foreign affairs. If they wanted to return him,
1:10
Speaker 3: we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.
1:14
Speaker 6: And Secretary of State Marco Rubio basically said, there's nothing
1:19
Speaker 6: to see here, even though the issues in the case
1:21
Speaker 6: have been litigated all the way up to the Supreme
1:24
Speaker 6: Court and are now back before a federal judge for
1:27
Speaker 6: another hearing tomorrow.
1:29
Speaker 5: I don't understand what the confusion is. This individual is
1:32
Speaker 5: a citizen of Olsavador. He was illegally in the United
1:35
Speaker 5: States and was returned to his country. That's where you
1:37
Speaker 5: deport people back to their country of origin. Except for Venezuela.
1:40
Speaker 5: That wasn't refusing to take people back of places like that.
1:43
Speaker 5: I can tell you this, mister President. No, the foreign
1:46
Speaker 5: policy of the United States is conducted by the President
1:49
Speaker 5: of the United States, not by a court, and no
1:51
Speaker 5: court in the United States has a right to conduct
1:53
Speaker 5: the foreign policy of the United States. It's that simple,
1:56
Speaker 5: end of story.
1:57
Speaker 6: No one in the Trump administration mentioned that Garcia was
2:00
Speaker 6: not given due process before he was deported and that
2:04
Speaker 6: there was a court order forbidding his deportation to El Salvador.
2:09
Speaker 6: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis. David start
2:13
Speaker 6: by telling US, who Brego Garcia is and how he
2:17
Speaker 6: ended up in an El Salvador prison.
2:19
Speaker 4: A Brego Garcia is a migrant from l Salvador who
2:26
Speaker 4: lived in Maryland outside of Washington. He has a wife
2:31
Speaker 4: and three children who are US citizens. He had been
2:34
Speaker 4: working as a day laborer. He had been picked up
2:39
Speaker 4: by immigration authorities in twenty nineteen, and they said in
2:44
Speaker 4: proceedings that year that he was a member of MS thirteen,
2:48
Speaker 4: which is a criminal gang. A Brego Garcia and his
2:53
Speaker 4: attorneys steadfastly denied that. What's clear coming out of those
3:00
Speaker 4: twenty nineteen proceedings is that an immigration judge ruled that
3:04
Speaker 4: he could not be deported to Al Salvador because he
3:08
Speaker 4: would be subjected to persecution and extortion by another criminal gang,
3:15
Speaker 4: and so that meant that he could not be sent
3:18
Speaker 4: lawfully by the United States back to his native Al Salvador,
3:24
Speaker 4: So skipping ahead, in the middle of March, he was
3:27
Speaker 4: picked up by US immigration authorities who said that he
3:32
Speaker 4: was an MS thirteen member. And at that point the
3:34
Speaker 4: Trump administration had said that MS thirteen is a foreign
3:40
Speaker 4: terrorist organization, and they now interpret that to mean that
3:45
Speaker 4: they had the authority to remove him from the United
3:48
Speaker 4: States back to his native Al Salvador, where he was
3:52
Speaker 4: flown on March fifteenth in one of three planes with
3:56
Speaker 4: about two hundred and fifty alleged gang members else staying
4:00
Speaker 4: in a notorious prison in Al Salvador.
4:04
Speaker 6: So let's skip the lower court and just go right
4:07
Speaker 6: to the Supreme Court ruling, which Trump advisor Stephen miller
4:12
Speaker 6: I would say wrongly characterized the Supreme Court ruling as
4:16
Speaker 6: being in Trump's favor nine nothing, So explain what the
4:19
Speaker 6: Supreme Court ruled unanimously last.
4:22
Speaker 4: Week on April tenth. The Supreme Court said that the
4:27
Speaker 4: Trump administration needed to take steps to bring back Abrego
4:32
Speaker 4: Garcia because he had been wrongly deported, and that is
4:36
Speaker 4: in fact something that the Justice Department admitted that he
4:41
Speaker 4: was wrongly deported because of the twenty nineteen ruling that
4:44
Speaker 4: he could not be sent back to Al Salvador, And
4:48
Speaker 4: so the Supreme Court said that the government needed to
4:52
Speaker 4: facilitate his release from custody in Al Salvador and sent
4:57
Speaker 4: it back to the District court judge in Maryland to
5:00
Speaker 4: work out how to facilitate this return. The judge has
5:07
Speaker 4: asked for daily updates since then from the government on
5:12
Speaker 4: how they were going to facilitate this return, and the
5:17
Speaker 4: Trump administration has been silent on that question, has not
5:21
Speaker 4: said what they were doing. And it became clear Sunday
5:26
Speaker 4: night and on Monday what their real intention is, and
5:30
Speaker 4: that is that they don't believe that the Supreme Court
5:34
Speaker 4: ordered Abrigo Garcia returned to the United States, and they
5:38
Speaker 4: don't believe that any US courts have the authority to
5:43
Speaker 4: dictate foreign policy. They believe this is a question of
5:47
Speaker 4: foreign policy and that it's up to the El Salvadoran
5:51
Speaker 4: President Bukelly to decide whether to send him back to
5:56
Speaker 4: the United States. And bu Kelly answered thatively today from
6:01
Speaker 4: the Oval Office.
6:02
Speaker 6: So we saw this remarkable tour de force in the
6:07
Speaker 6: Oval Office, where you had President Trump, the Secretary of
6:11
Speaker 6: State Marco Rubio, you have the Attorney General Pam Bondi,
6:15
Speaker 6: the Vice President basically saying that they don't have to
6:19
Speaker 6: return him, that it's up to L Salvador.
6:22
Speaker 4: Right, and the L Salvador and President Bukelly said he
6:26
Speaker 4: can't send him back. He doesn't have the power to
6:29
Speaker 4: return him to the United States. He said, how can
6:33
Speaker 4: I return him to the United States? I smuggle him
6:35
Speaker 4: into the United States. I'm not going to do it.
6:38
Speaker 6: This is such an unusual situation because the man who
6:43
Speaker 6: was wrongfully depored is actually a citizen of L. Salvador.
6:47
Speaker 6: If he was a Venezuelan, it would be a different story.
6:50
Speaker 6: But now he's actually back in his native country.
6:54
Speaker 4: But that gives more force to the Trump administration argument
6:58
Speaker 4: that he's an L. Salvador citizen and that the president
7:02
Speaker 4: cannot send him back to the United States. But the
7:06
Speaker 4: question was was he wrongly deported from the United States
7:12
Speaker 4: originally because of this twenty nineteen order that said he
7:15
Speaker 4: couldn't be sent there.
7:17
Speaker 6: It doesn't appear that the Trump administration has asked L.
7:19
Speaker 6: Salvador to send him back, or that they intend to
7:23
Speaker 6: ask L. Salvador to send him back.
7:26
Speaker 4: They put it to the Salvador and President point blank
7:29
Speaker 4: in the Oval office today, will you send him back?
7:32
Speaker 4: And he said no.
7:34
Speaker 7: I Mean.
7:34
Speaker 6: Part of this, I think is they're afraid that if
7:37
Speaker 6: they open the doors of the prison, let's say to
7:41
Speaker 6: this one guy, that then they're going to have more
7:44
Speaker 6: and more people trying to use that as a president
7:47
Speaker 6: saying well, I don't belong here either. I mean the
7:50
Speaker 6: vast majority of Venezuelans who were deported to L. Salvador
7:54
Speaker 6: to that prison have no criminal record.
7:57
Speaker 4: The immigration law, as I understand in the United States,
8:01
Speaker 4: is stacked very much against migrants, and so the government
8:05
Speaker 4: has a great deal of authority to deport people. The
8:09
Speaker 4: cases that have reached the Supreme Court were unusual variations
8:14
Speaker 4: from that law. The one involving the Alien Enemies Act,
8:18
Speaker 4: which is not the normal immigration law that the United
8:21
Speaker 4: States uses, and this one where a migrant said that
8:25
Speaker 4: I have a specific order that says I cannot be
8:28
Speaker 4: sent and so he was denied his due process. I
8:32
Speaker 4: think the Supreme Court is not necessarily saying that Trump
8:36
Speaker 4: administration cannot use regular immigration laws to deport people. It's
8:42
Speaker 4: just that they have to give due process to everyone
8:45
Speaker 4: they deport.
8:46
Speaker 6: Tomorrow, there's going to be a hearing before the Federal
8:50
Speaker 6: Court judge. And last Friday's hearing was also kind of
8:54
Speaker 6: remarkable because they wouldn't even tell her where he was
8:58
Speaker 6: at that time. Now we do know they've can firm
9:00
Speaker 6: right that he is in the L. Salvador prison.
9:02
Speaker 4: Correct. They wouldn't tell her where he was. They told
9:06
Speaker 4: her over the weekend that he was alive and in
9:10
Speaker 4: that El Salvador prison that's built to hold terrorists, as
9:16
Speaker 4: the Salvadorans would say, but they won't say what they're
9:19
Speaker 4: doing to try to return him. And this judge has
9:24
Speaker 4: had very harsh words for the Justice Department in its
9:28
Speaker 4: handling of the case. So one has to assume that
9:31
Speaker 4: she won't be pleased with this turn of events at
9:34
Speaker 4: the hearing on Tuesday.
9:35
Speaker 6: So, I mean, it seems like this could go back
9:39
Speaker 6: to the Supreme Court, as she issued a ruling. Since
9:42
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court handed down its decision.
9:45
Speaker 4: She has not The Supreme Court returned it to her
9:48
Speaker 4: to essentially work this out under their ruling, and she's
9:53
Speaker 4: trying to do that and asking the Justice Department, what
9:57
Speaker 4: are you doing to comply? And now we know their
10:01
Speaker 4: answer is we don't believe we have to comply. So
10:05
Speaker 4: it's possible she could cite people from the Justice Department
10:09
Speaker 4: for contempt or the Department of Homeland Security. It's also
10:14
Speaker 4: possible that the plaintiffs in this case, mister Abrigo Garcia's lawyers,
10:19
Speaker 4: might go back to the Supreme Court. This is a
10:21
Speaker 4: very unusual situation and it's hard to know how it's
10:24
Speaker 4: going to play out.
10:25
Speaker 6: That hearing tomorrow will be very, very interesting, and I
10:28
Speaker 6: know you'll report back to us on it. Thanks so much, David.
10:32
Speaker 6: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis coming up next on
10:36
Speaker 6: The Bloomberg Law Show. Thirty five years after they were
10:39
Speaker 6: sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole
10:43
Speaker 6: for murdering their parents, the Menendez brothers have a chance
10:48
Speaker 6: to be released, but the LA District Attorney is fighting
10:51
Speaker 6: against their release, saying they haven't taken responsibility for their actions.
10:56
Speaker 6: I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg.
10:59
Speaker 8: Today, who's actually probably the biggest day since they've been
11:05
Speaker 8: in custody.
11:07
Speaker 6: This is a critical week for the Menendez brothers. Thirty
11:10
Speaker 6: five years after they were convicted of shooting their parents
11:13
Speaker 6: to death and their Beverly Hills mansion and sentenced to
11:17
Speaker 6: life in prison without the possibility of parole. They're getting
11:21
Speaker 6: a chance to argue to a judge that they've been
11:23
Speaker 6: rehabilitated and should be released from prison. It comes after
11:27
Speaker 6: hearing last week over the current LA District Attorney, Nathan Hackman,
11:32
Speaker 6: trying to rescind the prior district attorney's request that the
11:36
Speaker 6: brothers be resentenced.
11:38
Speaker 7: While the Menendez brothers persist in telling these lies for
11:43
Speaker 7: the last over thirty years about their self defense defense,
11:47
Speaker 7: and persist in insisting that they did not subborn any
11:51
Speaker 7: perjury or attempt to suborn perjury, then they do not
11:55
Speaker 7: meet the standards for Ree's sentence sake.
11:58
Speaker 6: The brothers joined last fri hearing by zoom as prosecutors
12:02
Speaker 6: displayed graphic photos from the crime scene, taking hours to
12:07
Speaker 6: paint them as serial liars. The Menendez brothers' attorney Mark
12:11
Speaker 6: Geragos called DA Nathan Hoffman a nineties Neanderthal for his
12:16
Speaker 6: dismissal of the allegations of sexual abuse in the case,
12:19
Speaker 6: but at the end of the hearing, Judge Michael Jessic
12:22
Speaker 6: denied the DA's request and the re sentencing hearing will
12:26
Speaker 6: go forward on Thursday and Friday. Garrigos called it the
12:30
Speaker 6: biggest day since the brothers have been in custody.
12:34
Speaker 8: Justice one over politics. It's been a long time coming.
12:40
Speaker 6: My guest is LA trial attorney David Ring, a partner
12:43
Speaker 6: at Taylor Ring. With this fighting between the current DA
12:48
Speaker 6: and the former DA, have the Menendez brothers become sort
12:52
Speaker 6: of like a political pawn.
12:54
Speaker 1: In a way, yeah, they did. The backstory is that
12:57
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles a few months the district Attorney was
13:01
Speaker 1: George Gascone and the public did not favor him after
13:04
Speaker 1: his four years in office. They wanted him out, and
13:06
Speaker 1: he's very liberal and progressive. And here's the one who
13:09
Speaker 1: brought this motion for resentencing that Basically, the DA's office
13:14
Speaker 1: wants Lyle and Eric Menendez to be resentenced, knowing that
13:17
Speaker 1: that would likely lead to them being released from prison. Well,
13:21
Speaker 1: George Gascone got defeated badly in the November election and
13:26
Speaker 1: the new DA is Nathan Hawkman, who's a tough on
13:29
Speaker 1: crime sort of DA, and he came in and reversed
13:33
Speaker 1: course and basically said, no, Lyle and Eric need to
13:36
Speaker 1: stay in prison for the rest of their lives. This
13:39
Speaker 1: was a cold blooded murder and I'm totally against them
13:43
Speaker 1: being released. So yes, in a way, it's become a
13:45
Speaker 1: bit political here.
13:48
Speaker 6: The District Attorney Hawkman is saying that they haven't admitted
13:52
Speaker 6: to the lies they told at trial, and so they
13:55
Speaker 6: haven't taken responsibility for their crime, so he wants them
13:59
Speaker 6: to say they lied it trial. Is that basically it?
14:01
Speaker 1: Yeah, Nathan Hakman the new DA. He's convinced and many
14:05
Speaker 1: in the DA's office are convinced that this defense, this
14:09
Speaker 1: self defense that Lyle and Eric came up with back
14:12
Speaker 1: in their trials back in the nineteen nineties, was fabricated,
14:17
Speaker 1: that they weren't sexually abused at all, that they had
14:20
Speaker 1: absolutely no reason at all to murder their parents, and
14:24
Speaker 1: they did it for one reason and one reason only,
14:26
Speaker 1: that is for greed for money for their parents' inheritance.
14:30
Speaker 1: And so you know, he truly believes that, and he says,
14:34
Speaker 1: the whole status of the case now is the Menenta's
14:37
Speaker 1: brothers still making the same arguments they did thirty five
14:41
Speaker 1: or forty years ago, saying we were sexually abused, we
14:44
Speaker 1: obviously have the right to kill our parents, but we
14:47
Speaker 1: felt like they were going to turn around harm us
14:50
Speaker 1: in some way. And so Hawkman and the DA is like, no,
14:53
Speaker 1: we're not buying that at all. And so that's really
14:56
Speaker 1: what it comes down to is Hawkman saying, these two
15:00
Speaker 1: convicted murders haven't shown any remorse whatsoever. They're still making
15:05
Speaker 1: all these same arguments they made many years ago for resentencing.
15:09
Speaker 6: Is there anything that says that they have to admit
15:12
Speaker 6: to their crime, or is it about whether they've been
15:14
Speaker 6: rehabilitated in prison.
15:16
Speaker 1: Well, it's a little bit of both, because what's going
15:19
Speaker 1: to happen is, you know, the Menendez brothers and their
15:23
Speaker 1: lawyers are going to come in and say, hey, we've
15:25
Speaker 1: been model prisoners, We've served our time. We were sexually
15:30
Speaker 1: abused and people didn't really understand sexual abuse back in
15:33
Speaker 1: the nineteen nineties and have a much better understanding of
15:37
Speaker 1: it today, which you know is kind of a sympathy
15:39
Speaker 1: ploy and you know, we're in our fifties and we
15:43
Speaker 1: deserve to be released. We're not a risk to society anymore.
15:47
Speaker 1: Counter that to the DA, who's going to come in
15:50
Speaker 1: and say they've shown no remorse. This was a cold
15:52
Speaker 1: blooded murder. These guys deserve to spend the rest of
15:56
Speaker 1: their lives in prison. They've shown no insight, they've shown
16:00
Speaker 1: no contrition, and basically they're just saying the same things
16:04
Speaker 1: they did forty years ago that didn't help them in
16:07
Speaker 1: their trial and got them convicted.
16:09
Speaker 6: There was a hearing on Friday over the DA's motion
16:12
Speaker 6: to rescind the request for resentencing, and the prosecution, in
16:18
Speaker 6: a three hour presentation, showed the graphic crime scene photos.
16:24
Speaker 1: They did do that, and look, let's face it, this
16:26
Speaker 1: is closely watched by the media and by the public,
16:31
Speaker 1: so there's a little bit of a dog and pony
16:33
Speaker 1: show going on in that courtroom. You know, if this
16:35
Speaker 1: was just some run of the mill case that no
16:37
Speaker 1: one was paying attention to, you probably wouldn't see that
16:41
Speaker 1: type of evidence or photographs like that produced in that
16:44
Speaker 1: type of hearing. But you know, they're playing to the
16:47
Speaker 1: media and the public a little bit, and they want
16:49
Speaker 1: people to remember how heinous and horrific these shotgun slings were.
16:54
Speaker 1: And so that's why they're trying to introduce the photos
16:58
Speaker 1: at the hearing the other day, and absolutely you introduce
17:02
Speaker 1: all of that evidence again at this upcoming hearings.
17:05
Speaker 6: What the judge said is there's no new information. None
17:09
Speaker 6: of this is really new. They've stuck with their story.
17:11
Speaker 6: It goes to whether they've been rehabilitated.
17:15
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I don't want to get too technical. So
17:17
Speaker 1: the hearing from a few days ago, it was basically
17:21
Speaker 1: the DA Nathan Hawkman was coming in saying, hey, I
17:24
Speaker 1: want to withdraw this motion that my predecessor, George Gascon brought.
17:31
Speaker 1: I don't even want it heard. I want to rescind
17:34
Speaker 1: it all together, and the court, the judge said you
17:37
Speaker 1: can't do that. Look, the DA's office brought it, and
17:41
Speaker 1: the DA's office doesn't get to change their mind just
17:43
Speaker 1: because the new DA has come in. So really all
17:46
Speaker 1: the judges ruled on and says this hearing is going
17:49
Speaker 1: to go forward, and really what we're going to see
17:52
Speaker 1: at this two day hearing that's coming up, that's when
17:56
Speaker 1: we're going to see both sides really put on kind
17:59
Speaker 1: of a any trial at one side saying the Menenda's
18:02
Speaker 1: brothers deserve to be released, and the district attorneys saying
18:06
Speaker 1: they absolutely don't deserve to be released. And so you're
18:09
Speaker 1: going to see a lot of arguments and a lot
18:11
Speaker 1: of evidence at this upcoming two day trial.
18:14
Speaker 6: The Menandez brothers attorney Mark Geragos framed this as the
18:19
Speaker 6: biggest win they've had since they've been incarcerated. Do you
18:23
Speaker 6: agree with that?
18:24
Speaker 1: I do agree with that. It's a big win. You know,
18:26
Speaker 1: the Menenda's brothers have really exhausted almost all other avenues
18:33
Speaker 1: through the courts to be released. You know, they've they've
18:36
Speaker 1: exhausted their appeals and their habeas corpus attempts and all
18:39
Speaker 1: that stuff, and so this re sentencing is their best
18:43
Speaker 1: shot to get released from prison, and the fact that
18:47
Speaker 1: this judge is actually contemplating it and is going to
18:50
Speaker 1: hear arguments and evidence over it is a victory for
18:54
Speaker 1: them because it puts them one step closer to getting
18:58
Speaker 1: released or at least getting their sent reduced, so they
19:00
Speaker 1: get hearing in front of the parole board, and so
19:03
Speaker 1: they're one step closer that they've never been before to
19:07
Speaker 1: having a good shot at being released from prison. So yeah,
19:11
Speaker 1: it was it was a victory for Gergos and the
19:13
Speaker 1: Menendez brothers.
19:15
Speaker 6: The Menendez family members were angered that the prosecutors showed
19:18
Speaker 6: those gruesome crime photos, and they claim that shock over
19:23
Speaker 6: the photos sent the brothers eighty five year old and
19:27
Speaker 6: to a hospital critically ill. The family member said the
19:32
Speaker 6: violent graphic display violated Marci's Law California's Bill of Rights
19:37
Speaker 6: for Victims, which states that victims are entitled to be
19:40
Speaker 6: treated with fairness and respect, and the DA apologized for
19:45
Speaker 6: not giving prior warning that there was going to be
19:48
Speaker 6: this graphic evidence. Most of their relatives support the release
19:52
Speaker 6: of the Menendez brothers and aren't none too happy with.
19:55
Speaker 1: This new DA Well interesting, like the public is wildly
20:00
Speaker 1: divided on this case, so are the relatives. You have
20:04
Speaker 1: a group of relatives who want Eric and Lyle freed,
20:09
Speaker 1: who think they've served their time and who think they
20:11
Speaker 1: had some sort of justification for the murders. And then
20:14
Speaker 1: you have at least one or maybe some more other
20:17
Speaker 1: relatives who are like, no, that was a cold blooded
20:19
Speaker 1: murder and they should stay in prison for the rest
20:22
Speaker 1: of their lives. You have this polarization of this case,
20:25
Speaker 1: which is what makes it so fascinating, that makes this
20:28
Speaker 1: hearing that's coming up fascinating as to whether or not
20:32
Speaker 1: the judge is going to decide whether he's going to
20:36
Speaker 1: reduce their sentence. And if he reduces their sentence, there's
20:40
Speaker 1: a very good chance they get out on parole.
20:43
Speaker 6: They also have a request for clemency and with the
20:46
Speaker 6: governor that's another route out of prison. If this doesn't.
20:50
Speaker 1: Work exactly correct, they really have two paths to try
20:54
Speaker 1: to get released from prison. The one we've talked about
20:57
Speaker 1: already is this resentencing. Look, they were they were sentenced
21:00
Speaker 1: to life without the possibility of parole. So if they're
21:04
Speaker 1: re sentenced and they're given, you know, forty years with
21:08
Speaker 1: the possibility of parole. Well, they're eligible for parole, so
21:11
Speaker 1: that's how they get out. That's path number one. Path
21:15
Speaker 1: number two is the California Governor Newsom can grant them clemency,
21:21
Speaker 1: meaning basically on his own, he can say, I'm reducing
21:24
Speaker 1: your sentence to thirty years with the possibility of parole,
21:28
Speaker 1: and that's their other avenue for getting out if the
21:31
Speaker 1: re sentencing fails. You know, if you're reading the tea leaves,
21:34
Speaker 1: it looks like Governor Newsom might be leaning in that
21:38
Speaker 1: direction to maybe grant them clemency if they don't get
21:41
Speaker 1: re sentenced.
21:42
Speaker 6: And once again, that resentencing hearing will take place on
21:46
Speaker 6: Thursday and Friday. Thanks so much, Dave. That's David Ring
21:50
Speaker 6: of Taylor and Ring. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
21:53
Speaker 6: to Bloomberg. According to a class action lawsuit, weight Watcher's
21:59
Speaker 6: websites allegedly shared users' personal information, including health related data,
22:05
Speaker 6: with third party tracking services like Google, Facebook, and Amplitude.
22:11
Speaker 6: Several services on WeightWatchers international websites encourage providing personal data,
22:17
Speaker 6: sometimes health related, in an effort to personalize a weight
22:20
Speaker 6: loss journey, but a lawsuit alleges that WW International provided
22:26
Speaker 6: that data and other identifiable information to third parties despite
22:31
Speaker 6: promises in its privacy policy. Joining me is an expert
22:35
Speaker 6: in cybersecurity and data privacy. Colin Walkee, a partner at
22:39
Speaker 6: Holestal So Colin what kind of information did WeightWatchers allegedly
22:44
Speaker 6: give out.
22:44
Speaker 2: And how so WeightWatchers was able to give out this
22:48
Speaker 2: information utilizing pixels that were on their website from companies
22:53
Speaker 2: like Facebook, Splash, Meta Google for analytics purposes. And their
22:58
Speaker 2: allegations are that essentially every question that you answered on
23:03
Speaker 2: their website up to and including you know, are you
23:06
Speaker 2: living with type two diatabetes? Have you used any weight
23:09
Speaker 2: loss medication? You know, do you have a history of cancer?
23:13
Speaker 2: Blood pressure? All of these sorts of sensitive information, low testosterone,
23:18
Speaker 2: All of these questions were questions that you were supposed
23:20
Speaker 2: to answer when you went to the website that had
23:23
Speaker 2: these pixels on them and share that information then with
23:26
Speaker 2: third parties.
23:27
Speaker 6: The sharing with third parties was deliberate or was it
23:31
Speaker 6: a mistake?
23:32
Speaker 2: Well, it appears that it was deliberate. I mean, according
23:34
Speaker 2: to the allegations, certainly weight Watchers knew about utilizing pixels
23:39
Speaker 2: in relation to healthcare information because the Federal Trade Commission
23:43
Speaker 2: has issued warnings to that, and in fact, weight Watchers
23:46
Speaker 2: was sued once before regarding these types of issues, and
23:50
Speaker 2: so weight Watchers knew that pixels were being utilized and
23:53
Speaker 2: continued to do so in spite of warnings from the
23:56
Speaker 2: Federal Trade Commission. So, for example, like fitbit, it couects
24:00
Speaker 2: healthcare information, but it's not a hippoprotected entity, and so
24:03
Speaker 2: they can do whatever they want with that information. So consequently,
24:07
Speaker 2: the FEC came out and said, no, you need to
24:09
Speaker 2: start treating healthcare information wildly different than any other type
24:13
Speaker 2: of information and protect it better, ie, don't use pixels
24:16
Speaker 2: on website.
24:17
Speaker 6: They had a privacy policy, right, and they pledged that
24:20
Speaker 6: they wouldn't share the information without written consent.
24:23
Speaker 2: That's correct, but you have to read between the lines
24:26
Speaker 2: on their privacy policy because they do not that they
24:30
Speaker 2: share this information with third parties. And that part of
24:32
Speaker 2: the problem with privacy policies. One, if you actually took
24:35
Speaker 2: the time to read all of them, you know, you
24:36
Speaker 2: would never actually utilize a website. You'd just be reading
24:39
Speaker 2: all these vague details. And then two, because there aren't
24:43
Speaker 2: requirements on what privacy policies have to contain. With certain
24:46
Speaker 2: nominal exceptions, they can get away with making broad statements
24:50
Speaker 2: like we don't sell or share your data to third parties,
24:53
Speaker 2: and at the same time they can still do it
24:55
Speaker 2: because they'll share that information for marketing purposes or other
24:58
Speaker 2: sorts of quote unquote internal business purposes. And so if
25:02
Speaker 2: you're utilizing the information for internal business purposes i e. Analytics,
25:06
Speaker 2: then you can get away with sharing this type of
25:08
Speaker 2: information with certain parties. So it's really all about wordsmithing.
25:12
Speaker 6: They're suing them for exactly what.
25:15
Speaker 2: Yeah, so for several different violations. One, there's a couple
25:18
Speaker 2: of state law claims involved in this as well as
25:21
Speaker 2: unjust enrichment because you're taking individual private information and then
25:25
Speaker 2: profiting off of it. They've included a claim for intrusion
25:28
Speaker 2: upon to seclusion, which is a common law claim, a
25:31
Speaker 2: violation of the California Code as well as the New
25:34
Speaker 2: York General Business Code, and violations of the Electronic Communications
25:39
Speaker 2: Privacy Act. So they have two or three common law
25:41
Speaker 2: claims and two statutories.
25:43
Speaker 6: Weight Watchers is reportedly facing bankruptcy if it does go
25:47
Speaker 6: into bankruptcy, what happens with the data?
25:50
Speaker 2: So that's all part of the question, right. So first
25:52
Speaker 2: and foremost, this class action law to filed against weight
25:55
Speaker 2: Watchers was filed on April nine, so they're still at
25:57
Speaker 2: the beginning stages. And in fact, I do not believe
25:59
Speaker 2: that wait Watchers has answered yet. If it's the case
26:02
Speaker 2: that WeightWatchers is in fact going to file for bankruptcy,
26:06
Speaker 2: the question becomes is it going to be like a
26:08
Speaker 2: twenty three and me situation in which they're looking for buyers,
26:11
Speaker 2: ie a Chapter seven or something along those lines, or
26:14
Speaker 2: is it going to be something more like a Chapter
26:17
Speaker 2: eleven where it's a true restructuring, in which case WeightWatchers
26:20
Speaker 2: wouldn't necessarily sell or give away this information to any
26:23
Speaker 2: third parties, but would retain it for their future use,
26:26
Speaker 2: you know, after they've addressed all of their debt issues.
26:29
Speaker 2: But all that said, it goes right back to what
26:31
Speaker 2: we saw with twenty three and meters filing bankruptcy, which is,
26:34
Speaker 2: if it's the case that they go ahead and liquidates company,
26:37
Speaker 2: these are assets, which is part of the reason why
26:39
Speaker 2: the plane eff stued for unjust En Richmond. And this
26:42
Speaker 2: is the private type of information that's going to be
26:44
Speaker 2: sold in a bankruptcy proceeding.
26:45
Speaker 6: So you can go on these sites and they give
26:47
Speaker 6: you options about whether you want to share your information
26:51
Speaker 6: or not. Does any of that matter in reality?
26:54
Speaker 2: Well, so you've got to remember there's a slight difference
26:57
Speaker 2: between for example, accepting cookie right or rejecting cookies, which
27:02
Speaker 2: is one way that they can obtain your information. But
27:06
Speaker 2: anytime you fill out a form, the form and that
27:09
Speaker 2: information is going to be stored with that company. So
27:12
Speaker 2: even if you opt out of all cookies, you might
27:14
Speaker 2: still be consenting to them utilizing this information. Because remember
27:19
Speaker 2: all state laws at this stage are opt out and
27:23
Speaker 2: with the exception of Colorado, which is a minor exception
27:25
Speaker 2: for sensitive information, but otherwise these are all opt out statuses.
27:29
Speaker 2: And what that means is is while you may decline cookies,
27:32
Speaker 2: once you've submitted your information to that company, they can
27:35
Speaker 2: basically do anything that they want with that information, up
27:38
Speaker 2: to including selling it to third party.
27:40
Speaker 6: So then as you respond to the questions or fill
27:44
Speaker 6: out forms, you should just consider that information is gone.
27:48
Speaker 6: Whatever information I'm giving them.
27:50
Speaker 2: I don't think that most consumers realize how unprotected their
27:54
Speaker 2: data is once you go on the Internet and you
27:56
Speaker 2: interact with the third party for all intents and purposes,
27:59
Speaker 2: that information is then going to be retained by them
28:02
Speaker 2: and they can pretty much do whatever they want with it.
28:05
Speaker 2: And so the concept of privacy no longer exists because
28:10
Speaker 2: we have divided human beings from their data. What the
28:14
Speaker 2: reality is is human beings are data. What we do
28:18
Speaker 2: on a daily basis is being collected, and so consequently
28:21
Speaker 2: we need to make sure or we need to try
28:23
Speaker 2: and obtain right to our data, not just privacy laws
28:28
Speaker 2: and those sorts of things, but actual rights, because then if,
28:31
Speaker 2: for example, weightwatcher says we don't sell your information or
28:34
Speaker 2: give it away to third parties, and meta gets hacked
28:38
Speaker 2: and all of a sudden you find out that they've
28:39
Speaker 2: got WeightWatchers information in their website, you now have a claim,
28:44
Speaker 2: plain and simple, because they stole your property and used
28:47
Speaker 2: it without your consent. But right now, there are no
28:50
Speaker 2: laws on the books they even except for a few
28:52
Speaker 2: minor exceptions, that say your data is yours. Otherwise your
28:56
Speaker 2: data is whoever you.
28:57
Speaker 6: Give it to, So then it would take a law
29:00
Speaker 6: to change this.
29:02
Speaker 2: That's correct. So, for example, in Oklahoma, and this is
29:05
Speaker 2: the only law that I'm aware of on the books,
29:07
Speaker 2: but I would love to see it in other states.
29:08
Speaker 2: In Oklahoma, there's a law that says if you upload
29:12
Speaker 2: health care information to Oklahoma's Health Information Exchange, which is
29:15
Speaker 2: a database that most states have where if you get
29:18
Speaker 2: injured in one part of the state, a doctor in
29:20
Speaker 2: another part of the state can look up that information
29:22
Speaker 2: and the Health Information Exchange. And the law says that
29:26
Speaker 2: all of the information and data that you upload to
29:29
Speaker 2: the Health Information Exchange, you quote retain a property right
29:34
Speaker 2: in that healthcare data, but then gives them a license
29:37
Speaker 2: to use it. So there is a statutory instantiation of
29:42
Speaker 2: your property rights in your healthcare data. Now how far
29:45
Speaker 2: does that extend, Probably not much further than your healthcare data.
29:48
Speaker 2: But you can see how we would be able to
29:49
Speaker 2: pass the law that would cover any type of data
29:51
Speaker 2: that you give over to third parties.
29:53
Speaker 6: So a few months ago, I got to notice that
29:56
Speaker 6: a company had been hacked, and it was a company
29:59
Speaker 6: that was so somehow involved in processing claims for one
30:03
Speaker 6: of my doctors. So you're giving information to your doctors
30:07
Speaker 6: and somehow that information is getting hacked.
30:10
Speaker 2: So that's another great example. So within HIPPA there are
30:13
Speaker 2: rules that permit third parties to utilize this data on
30:17
Speaker 2: behalf of the covertant. So for example, your doctor, he
30:20
Speaker 2: gives this over to a third party so that they
30:22
Speaker 2: can essentially manage it, but not utilize it without his permission.
30:26
Speaker 2: Here's the problem is that I would be shocked in
30:28
Speaker 2: a sound whether many, if any health care entities actually
30:33
Speaker 2: then go to their business associates and bet their cybersecurity
30:37
Speaker 2: protocols instead. Business associate agreements typically say that you know
30:41
Speaker 2: you're going to comply with HIPPA and you're going to
30:44
Speaker 2: comply with my instructions, but there's no verification, there's no
30:47
Speaker 2: auditing that in fact, that's what they're doing with that data.
30:51
Speaker 2: And in healthcare space, it is all over the place
30:54
Speaker 2: because you're sharing information with testing facility, with third party
30:58
Speaker 2: billing companies, so your data gets spread all over the place,
31:02
Speaker 2: and you're hoping and praying that somebody's actually imply with
31:04
Speaker 2: that business associate agreement.
31:06
Speaker 6: And their solution is usually to give you something like
31:09
Speaker 6: a year of free credit monitoring. But what can you do.
31:12
Speaker 6: You really don't have a choice but giving information in
31:15
Speaker 6: some of these situations.
31:16
Speaker 2: That's a very good point and not only that, but
31:18
Speaker 2: what are you going to do about the data breaches themselves.
31:20
Speaker 2: I mean, in HIPPA, if somebody has breached in less
31:24
Speaker 2: than five hundred healthcare records or access the reporting entity,
31:28
Speaker 2: it does not have to report that hack until February
31:31
Speaker 2: one of the following year. So you, as a consumer,
31:34
Speaker 2: how are you going to protect yourself when you find
31:36
Speaker 2: out about this hack a year later? You're not. And
31:39
Speaker 2: in fact, I've been an advocate that we need to
31:41
Speaker 2: rethink our breach notification laws altogether, because just like you said,
31:46
Speaker 2: what do you do when you get that piece of paper?
31:48
Speaker 2: You throw it away or you call a credit agency
31:50
Speaker 2: to monitor your credit. That's about all that you can
31:53
Speaker 2: do at the moment. There needs to be more meat
31:55
Speaker 2: on the bones when it comes to data breach notification requirements.
31:58
Speaker 6: And for a moment, I want to turn to to
32:00
Speaker 6: the issue of DOGE accessing personal data of Americans. I
32:06
Speaker 6: was surprised in appeals court I think it was last
32:08
Speaker 6: week cleared the way for DOZE to access people's private
32:13
Speaker 6: data at three federal agencies. And then on Friday, a
32:18
Speaker 6: Manhattan judge said that one person, one member of does
32:22
Speaker 6: could have access to sensitive payment and data systems at
32:25
Speaker 6: the Treasury Department. I mean, this is another case of
32:29
Speaker 6: information that you have no control over that the government.
32:33
Speaker 2: Has absolutely and it's not just information that you've supplied
32:39
Speaker 2: through for example, social security information and those sorts of things,
32:42
Speaker 2: but it's all that information plus whatever else that the
32:45
Speaker 2: government can aggregate from data brokers, which they have full
32:48
Speaker 2: range and free access to just by asking the data
32:51
Speaker 2: brokers to give them copies of that information. And so
32:53
Speaker 2: it is very concerning, especially when you have individuals that
32:56
Speaker 2: haven't necessarily been vetted through proper credentialing, background checks and
33:00
Speaker 2: those sorts of things. But that's the problem is is
33:03
Speaker 2: how much are we going to trust our governments, whether
33:05
Speaker 2: that's a Democrat sitting in there or a Republican how
33:08
Speaker 2: much do we want to trust them with our data?
33:10
Speaker 2: And just think about it this way. Every time that
33:12
Speaker 2: you go to the airport, you have that bio information
33:15
Speaker 2: screen face check when you go to check in. That
33:18
Speaker 2: information is then stored and utilized so that, for example,
33:21
Speaker 2: if you're in New York City and there's a street
33:23
Speaker 2: camera that can pick you up, they can then reidentify
33:26
Speaker 2: you fairly quickly, and not just that, but your gate.
33:29
Speaker 2: All sorts of unique aspects about you are stored not
33:32
Speaker 2: just by third parties, but by the government as well.
33:34
Speaker 2: The thing is is that I do not think that
33:36
Speaker 2: people appreciate the surveillance state that we live in at
33:39
Speaker 2: the particular moment. If we want to identify any particular
33:42
Speaker 2: person in the United States right now, at this moment,
33:44
Speaker 2: where they're at, if they have a cell phone, we
33:47
Speaker 2: can do that fairly easy.
33:48
Speaker 6: So you mean that all the TV shows and movies
33:51
Speaker 6: that show a law enforcement agency tracking someone's every move
33:57
Speaker 6: are true? It is.
33:59
Speaker 2: It is. It's a very sery situation in which we're
34:02
Speaker 2: living in front of. I mean, for example, you know,
34:04
Speaker 2: one of the questions on Weight Watchers was, you know,
34:07
Speaker 2: have you made yourself vomit within the past week. What
34:10
Speaker 2: you could imagine then that information being sold to some
34:14
Speaker 2: diet pill company who then sends a targeted ad towards you,
34:17
Speaker 2: And now you're getting you know, fluff medication from some
34:21
Speaker 2: third party that probably doesn't work as opposed to from
34:23
Speaker 2: your actual healthcare provider. And so it's really concerning how
34:27
Speaker 2: we're giving away this information, how can be utilized.
34:30
Speaker 6: So what do you do when a website asked for
34:33
Speaker 6: your information.
34:34
Speaker 2: So again it's all about risk and so certain websites
34:37
Speaker 2: I have to use, but I will tell you I
34:39
Speaker 2: don't use apps on my phone at all. I have
34:41
Speaker 2: like five apps that didn't come pre stored, and it's
34:43
Speaker 2: because I'm more concerned about them tracking me on my
34:46
Speaker 2: phone and where I'm at, more so than necessarily what
34:49
Speaker 2: I'm uploading the website. Because the reality is is we
34:51
Speaker 2: live in the world in which we have to upload
34:53
Speaker 2: information to websites every day. So it's a matter of
34:56
Speaker 2: managing your risk.
34:57
Speaker 6: So then when you check don't follow me, uh huh,
35:01
Speaker 6: that doesn't work.
35:02
Speaker 2: Well, it can, I mean it can to some degree,
35:06
Speaker 2: but you just never know. I mean there's a lot
35:08
Speaker 2: of backdoors, and so I just prefer not to even
35:10
Speaker 2: risk it.
35:11
Speaker 6: So I guess the only solution is to go back
35:13
Speaker 6: to an analog world.
35:15
Speaker 2: I think that's the way people are going to realize
35:17
Speaker 2: they need to be safe.
35:18
Speaker 6: Yeah, whenever I talk to you, Colin, I make a
35:20
Speaker 6: pledge to be more careful about my data. Not that
35:24
Speaker 6: it can help much, but thanks for the warnings. That's
35:27
Speaker 6: Colin Walkee of hall Estel And that's it for this
35:30
Speaker 6: edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
35:33
Speaker 6: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
35:36
Speaker 6: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
35:39
Speaker 6: www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and
35:44
Speaker 6: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
35:47
Speaker 6: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
35:51
Speaker 6: you're listening to Bloomberg