ReportWire

Tag: Courts

  • NAACP Maintains 2019 Cleveland ‘Water Lien’ Case is Worthy of Class Action Suit With Thousands Affected

    NAACP Maintains 2019 Cleveland ‘Water Lien’ Case is Worthy of Class Action Suit With Thousands Affected

    [ad_1]

    Scene Archives

    Cleveland Water HQ

    Lawyers working for an affiliate of the NAACP argued earlier this month that an ongoing suit against Cleveland Water should be classified as a class-action case.

    That suit, Pickett v. City of Cleveland, which was originally filed in 2019, contends that tens of thousands of mostly Black Clevelanders had been discriminated against when the city’s water department overbilled them, shut off their water line unjustly or placed liens on their homes for, in some cases, as little as $300 in  overdue bills.

    Although the city has twice tried to appeal (and have the case dismissed), a trio of lawyers for the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund have argued since last year that, as assistant attorney to the plaintiffs Arielle Humphries said, “thousands of complaints” against Cleveland Water clearly amount to a suit greater than on a person-by-person basis.

    “We have shown that this is a widespread issue,” Humphries told Scene in a phone call on Wednesday. “And that there are a lot of Black Clevelanders that have been subject to the discriminatory lien policy and the discriminatory unfair billing policy.”

    “The policy needs to change,” she added.

    A brief filed in the Northern District of Ohio Court on October 4 supports the NAACP’s position that the case is worthy of class action status, which the court agreed with in a ruling late last year. Cleveland has since appealed.

    The subject at hand: From 2012 to 2020, there were 17,000 liens on Clevelanders’ homes placed due to unpaid bills, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argue.

    And unfairly so, they argue: 18 percent of those liens were on homes in majority-white neighborhoods, they say; about 70 percent of those liens were placed on homes in majority-Black neighborhoods, mostly those in Central, Lee-Miles, Fairfax and Slavic Village.

    Which is, the lawyers argue, a matter of color and race, not just financial status—a clear violation, they say, of the Federal Housing Act, along with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that no state “can take away a person’s life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

    “Even when controlling for median household income, the higher percentage of Black residents in any given neighborhood,” the October 4 brief reads, “the higher the number and proportion of all water liens are placed in that neighborhood.”

    “Cleveland Water will not be commenting on this particular case, as it is an ongoing legal matter,” a spokesperson told Scene via email.

    In a message to News 5, who covered the story in 2019, Cleveland Water said that they’re “currently working through the court system with outside counsel.”

    The city, they also found, had spent $1.4 million in attorneys fees up to 2023 arguging the case.

    Subscribe to Cleveland Scene newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Mark Oprea

    Source link

  • Kamala Harris says she owns a handgun—despite fighting to ban others from doing the same

    Kamala Harris says she owns a handgun—despite fighting to ban others from doing the same

    [ad_1]

    When Vice President Kamala Harris appeared in conversation with Oprah Winfrey last month, she dropped a tidbit that may have come as a surprise. “If somebody breaks in my house,” she said, “they’re getting shot.”

    It was, or at least it should have been, one of the more relatable things she’s ever said. Whatever your politics—Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Jill Stein groupie, etc.—the right to protect your life and your family when threatened with potentially deadly aggression is something so basic as to transcend partisanship.

    It’s a bit less relatable, however, when considering Harris’ past advocacy against other people accessing the same type of protection she has.

    She provided more specifics during her recent 60 Minutes interview. “I have a Glock, and I’ve had it for quite some time,” she said. “My background is in law enforcement. And, so there you go.”

    That admission should hardly be a bomb drop. But it’s difficult to reconcile with her support, as San Francisco District Attorney, for Proposition H, which banned the city’s residents from merely possessing (as well as manufacturing or selling) handguns. The ordinance passed in 2005, and a California appeals court threw it out three years later.

    Harris hasn’t said exactly how long she’s owned her firearm. Yet if it’s been for “quite some time,” as she said, then one can reasonably assume that her owning a gun overlapped with her view that the state should curtail others from doing the same. But the next detail she provided—that she was in law enforcement—possibly provides some context for her position, at least attitudinally, as Proposition H provided gun ownership exemptions for law enforcement, military, and security guards.

    Not long after, Harris would also go on to file a brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark Supreme Court decision that ruled D.C.’s handgun ban unconstitutional and established that people have a right to own a firearm for self-defense, divorced from military service.

    That was not the outcome Harris sought in the brief she submitted. Citing past jurisprudence at the time, she said that “the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms,” “the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments,” and “the restrictions bear a reasonable relationship to protecting public safety and thus do not violate a personal constitutional right.” Had that view prevailed, the handgun ban in D.C., where she now lives, would have remained intact.

    This position may be a bit easier to reconcile. “I don’t think there’s anything inherently hypocritical or duplicitous about someone owning a gun while also taking the position that the Constitution doesn’t protect the right to own a gun,” says Clark Neily, who successfully argued Heller as co-counsel, via email. “For example, many thoughtful people think women should be able to have an abortion—and have had or would have an abortion themselves—but nevertheless don’t believe there’s a constitutional right to an abortion.”

    The abortion comparison is an apt one, and it’s an interesting one to interrogate when considering Harris believes the U.S. Constitution promises a right to one, despite there being no text touching the topic directly. She has not struggled, meanwhile, to argue over the years that gun ownership should be heavily regulated, the Second Amendment notwithstanding.

    Neily is still correct, though, that these things are not necessarily inconsistent logically. But it’s still worth noting the practical implications: Had the Supreme Court ruled her way, the law would prohibit the people in the city where she lives from having the very sort of gun she now openly acknowledges she keeps to protect her safety—a contradiction that a journalist should be interested in cross-examining at some point during one of her campaign trail interviews, should she continue to give them.

    Harris’ interests as a prosecutor, it seems, directly contradicted her interests as a private person, and the interests of the little people generally. That discrepancy, if anything, is cause for introspection.

    [ad_2]

    Billy Binion

    Source link

  • US weighs asking court to break up Google as it weighs remedies in the antitrust case

    US weighs asking court to break up Google as it weighs remedies in the antitrust case

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Department of Justice is considering asking a federal judge to force Google to sell parts of its business in order to eliminate its online search monopoly.

    In a late court filing on Tuesday, federal prosecutors also said the judge could ask the court to open the underlying data Google uses to power its ubiquitous search engine and artificial intelligence products to competitors.

    “For more than a decade, Google has controlled the most popular distribution channels, leaving rivals with little-to-no incentive to compete for users,” the antitrust enforcers wrote in the filing. “Fully remedying these harms requires not only ending Google’s control of distribution today, but also ensuring Google cannot control the distribution of tomorrow.”

    To that end, the department said it is considering asking for structural changes to stop Google from leveraging products such as its Chrome browser, Android operating system, AI products or app store to benefit its search business. Prosecutors also seem to center on Google’s default search agreements in the filing and said any remedy proposals would seek to limit or ban these deals.

    Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said in response to the filing that the Department of Justice was “already signaling requests that go far beyond the specific legal issues” in this case. “Government overreach in a fast-moving industry may have negative unintended consequences for American innovation and America’s consumers.”

    U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August that Google’s search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation. He has outlined a timeline for a trial on the proposed remedies next spring and plans to issue a decision by August 2025.

    Google has already said it plans to appeal Mehta’s ruling, but the tech giant must wait until he finalizes a remedy before doing so. The appeals process could take as long as five years, predicts George Hay, a law professor at Cornell University who was the chief economist for the Justice Department’s antitrust division for most of the 1970s.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Musk’s X to be reinstated in Brazil after complying with Supreme Court demands

    Musk’s X to be reinstated in Brazil after complying with Supreme Court demands

    [ad_1]

    SAO PAULO — The Brazilian Supreme Court’s Justice Alexandre de Moraes on Tuesday authorized the restoration of social media platform X´s service in Brazil, over a month after its nationwide shutdown, according to a court document that was made public.

    Elon Musk’s X was blocked on Aug. 30 in the highly online country of 213 million people — and one of X’s biggest markets, with estimates of its user base ranging from 20 to 40 million. De Moraes ordered the shutdown after a monthslong dispute with Musk over free speech, far-right accounts and misinformation. Musk had disparaged de Moraes, calling him an authoritarian and a censor, even though his rulings, including X’s suspension, were repeatedly upheld by his peers.

    Despite Musk’s public bravado, X ultimately complied with all of de Moraes’ demands. They included blocking certain accounts from the platform, paying outstanding fines and naming a legal representative in the country. Failure to do the latter had triggered the suspension.

    “The resumption of (X)’s activities on national territory was conditioned, solely, on full compliance with Brazilian laws and absolute observance of the Judiciary’s decisions, out of respect for national sovereignty,” de Moraes said in the court document.

    “X is proud to return to Brazil,” the company said in a statement posted on its Global Government Affairs account. “Giving tens of millions of Brazilians access to our indispensable platform was paramount throughout this entire process. We will continue to defend freedom of speech, within the boundaries of the law, everywhere we operate.”

    Just two days before the ban, on Aug. 28, X said it was removing all its remaining staff in Brazil “effective immediately,” saying de Moraes had threatened with arrest its legal representative in the country, Rachel de Oliveira Villa Nova Conceição, if X did not comply with orders to block accounts.

    Brazilian law requires foreign companies to have a local legal representative to receive notifications of court decisions and swiftly take any requisite action — particularly, in X’s case, the takedown of accounts. Conceição was first named X’s legal representative in April and resigned four months later. The company named her to the same job on Sept. 20, according to the public filing with the Sao Paulo commercial registry.

    In an apparent effort to shield Conceição from potential violations by X — and risking arrest — a clause has been written into Conceição’s new representation agreement that she must follow Brazilian law and court decisions, and that any legal responsibility she assumes on X’s behalf requires prior instruction from the company in writing, according to the company’s filing.

    Conceição works for BR4Business, a business services firm. Its two-page website provides no insight into its operations or staff. “Something great is on its way,” the top of the site’s main page reads in English. Its other page is an extensive privacy policy.

    At three of its listed Sao Paulo offices, receptionists told the AP that the company’s offices are empty and employees work remotely. Neither Conceição nor BR4Business returned multiple phone calls and emails from the AP.

    There is nothing illegal or suspect about using a company like BR4Business for legal representation, but it shows that X is doing the bare minimum to operate in the country, said Fabio de Sa e Silva, a lawyer and associate professor of International and Brazilian Studies at the University of Oklahoma.

    “It doesn’t demonstrate an intention to truly engage with the country. Take Meta, for example, and Google. They have an office, a government relations department, precisely to interact with public authorities and discuss Brazil’s regulatory policies concerning their businesses,” Silva added.

    Indeed, it is rare for an established, influential company such as X to have only a legal representative, said Carlos Affonso Souza, a lawyer and director of the Institute for Technology and Society, a Rio-based think tank. And that could be problematic going forward.

    “The concern now is what comes next and how X, once back in operation, will manage to meet the demands of the market and local authorities without creating new tensions,” he said.

    Some of Brazilian X’s users have migrated to other platforms, such as Meta’s Threads and, primarily, Bluesky. It’s unclear how many of them will return to X. In a statement to the AP, Bluesky reported that it now has 10.6 million users and continues to see strong growth in Brazil. Bluesky has appointed a legal representative in the South American country.

    Brazil was not the first country to ban X — far from it — but such a drastic step has generally been limited to authoritarian regimes. The platform and its former incarnation, Twitter, have been banned in Russia, China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Venezuela and Turkmenistan. Other countries, such as Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt, have also temporarily suspended X before, usually to quell dissent and unrest.

    X’s dustup with Brazil has some parallels to the company’s dealings with the Indian government three years ago, back when it was still called Twitter and before Musk purchased it for $44 billion. In 2021, India threatened to arrest employees of Twitter (as well as Meta’s Facebook and WhatsApp), for not complying with the government’s requests to take down posts related to farmers’ protests that rocked the country.

    Musk’s decision to reverse course in Brazil after publicly criticizing de Moraes isn’t surprising, said Matteo Ceurvels, research firm Emarketer’s analyst for Latin America and Spain.

    “The move was pragmatic, likely driven by the economic consequences of losing access to millions of users in its third-largest market worldwide, along with the millions of dollars in associated advertising revenue,” Ceurvels said. “Although X may not be a top priority for most advertisers in Brazil, the platform needs them more than they need it.”

    ___

    Ortutay reported from San Francisco

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Japan prosecutors will not appeal acquittal of world’s longest death-row inmate in retrial

    Japan prosecutors will not appeal acquittal of world’s longest death-row inmate in retrial

    [ad_1]

    TOKYO — Japanese prosecutors said Tuesday they will not appeal the acquittal of the world’s longest-serving death-row inmate in a retrial last month, bringing closure to the 1966 murder case after more than a half-century of legal battles.

    Prosecutor-general Naomi Unemoto said the prosecution decided not to appeal the Shizuoka District Court decision that found Iwao Hakamada not guilty in a retrial 58 years after his arrest, saying: “We feel sorry for putting him in a legally unstable situation for an extremely long time.”

    Hakamada, an 88-year-old former boxer, was found not guilty on Oct. 26 by the Shizuoka court, which concluded that police and prosecutors collaborated in fabricating and planting evidence against him. The court said he was forced into confession by violent, hourslong interrogations.

    The top prosecutors’ decision to not appeal two days before the Oct. 10 deadline finalizes Hakamada’s acquittal by the district court.

    ”I’m delighted that we finally resolved this. Case closed,” his 91-year-old sister Hideko Hakamada told reporters after getting a phone call from her lawyer about the prosecutors’ decision.

    “I kind of knew this was going to happen,” Hakamada said, with a laugh.

    Unemoto, in a statement on the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office website, also apologized for Hakamada’s decades-long unstable legal situation amid a lengthy court process and pledged to investigate why the retrial took so long.

    Hakamada was convicted of murder in the 1966 killing of an executive and three of his family members and setting fire to their home in central Japan. He was sentenced to death in 1968 but was not executed, due to the lengthy appeal and retrial process in Japan’s notoriously slow-paced justice system.

    Hakamada became the fifth death row inmate to be found not guilty in a retrial in postwar Japan, where prosecutors have a more than 99% conviction rate and retrials are extremely rare.

    He spent more than 45 years on death row, making him the world’s longest-serving death-row inmate, according to Amnesty International.

    With Tuesday’s settlement of the retrial ruling, Hakamada is now entitled to receive government compensation of up to about 200 million yen ($1.4 million).

    His lawyer Hideyo Ogawa has said his defense team is considering filing a damage suit against the government and the Shizuoka prefecture over the collaboration of prosecutors and police in fabricating evidence, despite knowing it could send Hakamada to the gallows.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal court reviews civil rights lawsuit alleging environmental racism in a Louisiana parish

    Federal court reviews civil rights lawsuit alleging environmental racism in a Louisiana parish

    [ad_1]

    NEW ORLEANS — A federal appellate court is reviewing a civil rights lawsuit alleging a south Louisiana parish engaged in racist land-use policies to place polluting industries in majority-Black communities.

    The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard oral arguments on Monday for a lawsuit filed by community groups claiming St. James Parish “intentionally discriminated against Black residents” by encouraging industrial facilities to be built in areas with predominantly Black populations “while explicitly sparing White residents from the risk of environmental harm.”

    The groups, Inclusive Louisiana, Rise St. James and Mt. Triumph Baptist Church, seek a halt to future industrial development in the parish. They say they have suffered health impacts from pollution, diminished property values and violations of religious liberty as a result of the parish’s land use system.

    The plaintiffs say that 20 of the 24 industrial facilities were in two sections of the parish with majority-Black populations when they filed the complaint in March 2023.

    The parish is located along a heavily industrialized stretch of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, known as the Chemical Corridor, often referred to by environmental groups as “Cancer Alley” because of the high levels of suspected cancer-causing pollution emitted there.

    The lawsuit comes as the federal government has taken steps during the Biden administration to address the legacy of environmental racism. Federal officials have written stricter environmental protections and committed tens of billions of dollars in funding.

    “The decisions made in this courtroom will resonate far beyond our borders, impacting frontline communities nationwide who are yearning for acknowledgment and accountability,” said Shamell Lavigne, a St. James Parish resident and a leader with Rise St. James, a local environmental justice organization. “We are advocating for our future and the wellbeing of our children.”

    In November 2023, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana had dismissed the lawsuit against St. James Parish largely on procedural grounds, ruling the plaintiffs had filed their lawsuit too late. But he added, “this Court cannot say that their claims lack a basis in fact or rely on a meritless legal theory.”

    Barbier had accepted the parish’s argument that the lawsuit hinged on its 2014 land-use plan, which generally shielded white neighborhoods from industrial development and left majority-Black neighborhoods, schools and churches without the same protections. The plan also described largely Black sections of the parish as “future industrial” sites, a classification described by the plaintiffs as a form of “racial cleansing.”

    Regardless, the plaintiffs had missed the legal window to sue the parish by not filing their lawsuit within one year after the land-use plan was formalized, as required by statute of limitations laws, the judge had ruled.

    During the appeals hearing, Fifth Circuit Court Judge Catharina Haynes said that the argument raised by the parish “basically makes it sound like if you didn’t sue within a year, well, heck, you can be discriminated against in a bunch of different ways for the rest of eternity.”

    Carroll Devillier, Jr., a lawyer representing the parish, responded that residents had already had the opportunity to challenge the 2014 land use plan when it was being formulated. He also said the plaintiffs “have nothing” to prove they suffered from harms from discrimination in the year before they filed their lawsuit in March 2023.

    Haynes also observed that parish officials, including those representing majority Black areas, had voted to support the 2014 land-use plan. “Why would you vote to discriminate against yourself?” she asked.

    Pamela Spees, a lawyer for the Center of Constitutional Rights representing the plaintiffs, said the land-use plan could be approved by government officials but still reinforce discrimination.

    After the hearing, Spees said that the approval of the land use plan had to be understood in the context of ongoing structural racism.

    At its core, the lawsuit alleges civil rights violations under the 13th and 14th amendments, stating the land-use system in the parish allowing for industrial buildout primarily in majority-Black communities remains shaped by the history of slavery, white supremacy and Jim Crow laws and governance.

    The parish’s 2014 land use plan is just one piece of evidence among many revealing persistent and ongoing discrimination by the parish, Spees said.

    As evidence of more recent alleged discrimination, the lawsuit highlights the parish’s decision in August 2022 to impose a moratorium on large solar complexes after a proposed 3,900-acre (1,580-hectare) solar project upset residents of the mostly white neighborhood of Vacherie, who expressed concerns about lowering property values and debris from storms. The parish did not take up a request for a moratorium on heavy industrial expansion raised by the plaintiffs, the lawsuit states.

    The parish’s lawyer, Devillier, Jr., told judges the solar moratorium had applied to the entire parish and that the plaintiffs’ request for a moratorium on industrial expansion, which initially came in the form of a letter sent by the plaintiffs in 2019, was “never formally considered” by the parish.

    The lawsuit also argues the parish failed to identify and protect the likely hundreds of burial sites of enslaved people by allowing industrial facilities to build on and limit access to the areas, preventing the descendants of slaves from memorializing the sites. The federal judge tossed out that part of the lawsuit, noting the sites were on private property not owned by the parish.

    Lawyers for St. James Parish have said the lawsuit employed overreaching claims and “inflammatory rhetoric.” Victor J. Franckiewicz, who has served as special counsel to St. James Parish for land-use matters since 2013, declined to comment after the hearing. St. James Parish did not respond to a request for comment.

    “How can a judge rule a statute of limitations on clean air, clean water and clean soil? There should be none,” said Gail LeBoeuf, 72, a life-long St. James resident and a plaintiff in the case who co-founded Inclusive Louisiana.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found in a 2003 report that St. James Parish ranked higher than the national average for certain cancer deaths. Both majority Black sections of the parish are ranked as having a high risk of cancer from toxic pollutants according to an EPA screening tool based on emissions reported by nearby facilities, the complaint noted.

    ___

    Jack Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Brook on the social platform X: @jack_brook96.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Will global soccer be reshaped after EU’s top court issued a major ruling in Lassana Diarra case?

    Will global soccer be reshaped after EU’s top court issued a major ruling in Lassana Diarra case?

    [ad_1]

    The global soccer transfer market, worth more than $10 billion each season, is facing a revolutionary overhaul or a nuanced evolution following last week’s ruling by the European Court of Justice in the Lassana Diarra case.

    By ruling that some FIFA regulations on player transfers are contrary to EU legislation relating to competition and freedom of movement, the bloc’s top court has paved the way for deep changes in the sport’s economy.

    Here is a look at the key elements of the case and the possible impact of the landmark ruling.

    Lassana Diarra is a former much-traveled footballer whose career saw him play for prestigious clubs such as Chelsea, Paris Saint-Germain and Real Madrid. He represented France 34 times. At one point in his career, Diarra moved to the Russian league. It’s a dispute with Lokomotiv Moscow that triggered the legal case examined by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

    Diarra signed a four-year contract with Lokomotiv in 2013. The deal was terminated a year later after he was unhappy with alleged pay cuts. Lokomotiv applied to the FIFA dispute resolution chamber for compensation and the player submitted a counterclaim seeking compensation for unpaid wages. The Court of Arbitration for Sport found the Russian club terminated the contract “with just cause” and the player had to pay 10.5 million euros ($11.2 million). Diarra said his search for a new team was hampered by FIFA rules stipulating that any new club would be jointly responsible with him for paying compensation to Lokomotiv.

    Free movement is a fundamental right of workers in the European Union within the single market. On that basis, the EU’s top court said that the FIFA rules, including the one that resulted in the refusal to provide Diarra with an international transfer certificate (ITC) for a move to Charleroi, restricted his freedom of movement.

    The court also found that FIFA regulations breached the bloc’s competition law because they aim at restricting and preventing “cross-border competition which could be pursued by all clubs established in the European Union.”

    The ECJ ruling will now be referred back to the appeal court in Mons, Belgium, which will rule on the Diarra case. This could take years rather than months. Although FIFA said it was satisfied “that the legality of key principles of the transfer system have been reconfirmed,” Diarra’s lawyers claimed “total victory.”

    The judges in Luxembourg acknowledged having stability in player rosters and regularity in competitions are legitimate objectives for FIFA, but that rules must be applied proportionally.

    Some analysts have compared it to the ECJ’s 1995 decision on Belgian Jean-Marc Bosman. That ruling removed restrictions placed on foreign EU footballers within national leagues and allowed players in the bloc to move to another club for free when their contracts ended. Those principles had an obviously wider focus than the narrower scope of Diarra, about terminating a contract for cause.

    For now, the decision on Diarra does not change how the transfer market functions. But many legal experts believe that the ruling will ultimately have major effects on the sport’s economy.

    “The decision essentially says the current system is too restrictive and so will have to change,” said Ian Giles, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright law firm. “It’s entirely possible this means players will feel they can now break contracts and sign on with new clubs, without the selling club being able to hold them or demand significant transfer fees. This will likely result in reduced transfer fees and more economic power for players — but over time things will have to stabilize to allow clubs to remain economically viable.”

    It took more than five years after the Bosman ruling for updated FIFA transfer rules to be published in 2001. Some of those debates then will now be revisited.

    A major reset of transfer fee values can seriously affect many smaller market clubs. Bosman already accelerated gaps in wealth and competitive balance across European soccer, which is increasingly dominated by a small group of clubs. They can lure free-agent players with higher signing bonuses and salaries – money that previously would be more widely distributed via transfer fees.

    Spending by super-wealthy clubs can still reward smaller ones who excel at investing time and expertise in scouting and developing local and global talent: Ajax, Brighton, Genk in Belgium, which nurtured Kevin De Bruyne, Thibaut Courtois and Leandro Trossard.

    The influential European Club Association, which represents more than 700 teams, sees potential threats to the industry’s health in the fallout from Diarra. Transfer fees and payments to clubs from former players being sold later in their career “are an efficient and effective means of wealth distribution from bigger clubs to smaller ones,” the ECA noted.

    The soccer industry is increasingly a game being played by lawyers in courts and government offices.

    FIFA is being challenged in several legal arenas, in part because it works (Diarra, Super League, agents regulations ). There is also a growing perception FIFA does not listen before launching projects and that pro-transparency reforms demanded and passed a decade ago are in decline.

    Within hours of the Diarra ruling Friday, the group of domestic leagues and player unions announced a news conference in Brussels for Oct. 14 to explain their filing to the European Commission. The complaint on competition law grounds argues FIFA adds new and bigger tournaments to the congested calendar without proper consultation.

    European Leagues and FIFPRO once had a seat at FIFA’s Football Stakeholders Committee that was a key forum for debate, including on the transfer market. FIFA paused the panel in 2021 and soon its president Gianni Infantino pushed for playing World Cups every two years. The idea was resisted by a widespread backlash. The leagues group says the Diarra ruling shows how representation at FIFA is “becoming legally essential.”

    FIFA had indicated before Friday it would consult widely on transfer market reforms it believes can focus on specific issues raised by Diarra, rather than a total overhaul.

    Diarra’s lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont — who also represented Bosman 30 years ago — sees a bigger picture. He appeared to be recruiting for a wider suit against FIFA by claiming “all professional players have been affected by these illegal rules” and could now seek compensation.

    ___

    AP soccer: https://apnews.com/hub/soccer

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pennsylvania high court declines to decide mail-in ballot issues before election

    Pennsylvania high court declines to decide mail-in ballot issues before election

    [ad_1]

    HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has declined to step in and immediately decide issues related to mail-in ballots in the commonwealth with early voting already under way in the few weeks before the Nov. 5 election.

    The commonwealth’s highest court on Saturday night rejected a request by voting rights and left-leaning groups to stop counties from throwing out mail-in ballots that lack a handwritten date or have an incorrect date on the return envelope, citing earlier rulings pointing to the risk of confusing voters so close to the election.

    “This Court will neither impose nor countenance substantial alterations to existing laws and procedures during the pendency of an ongoing election,” the unsigned order said.

    Chief Justice Debra Todd dissented, saying voters, election officials and courts needed clarity on the issue before Election Day.

    “We ought to resolve this important constitutional question now, before ballots may be improperly rejected and voters disenfranchised,” Todd wrote.

    Justice P. Kevin Brobson, however, said in a concurring opinion that the groups waited more than a year after an earlier high court ruling to bring their challenge, and it was “an all-too-common practice of litigants who postpone seeking judicial relief on election-related matters until the election is underway that creates uncertainty.”

    Many voters have not understood the legal requirement to sign and date their mail-in ballots, leaving tens of thousands of ballots without accurate dates since Pennsylvania dramatically expanded mail-in voting in a 2019 law.

    The lawsuit’s plaintiffs contend that multiple courts have found that a voter-written date is meaningless in determining whether the ballot arrived on time or whether the voter is eligible, so rejecting a ballot on that basis should be considered a violation of the state constitution. The parties won their case on the same claim in a statewide court earlier this year but it was thrown out by the state Supreme Court on a technicality before justices considered the merits.

    Democrats, including Gov. Josh Shapiro, have sided with the plaintiffs, who include the Black Political Empowerment Project, POWER Interfaith, Make the Road Pennsylvania, OnePA Activists United, New PA Project Education Fund Pittsburgh United, League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Common Cause Pennsylvania.

    Republicans say requiring the date is an election safeguard and accuse Democrats of trying to change election rules at the 11th hour.

    The high court also rejected a challenge by Republican political organizations to county election officials letting voters remedy disqualifying mail-in ballot mistakes, which the GOP says state law doesn’t allow. The ruling noted that the petitioners came to the high court without first litigating the matter in the lower courts.

    The court did agree on Saturday, however, to hear another GOP challenge to a lower court ruling requiring officials in one county to notify voters when their mail-in ballots are rejected, and allow them to vote provisionally on Election Day.

    The Pennsylvania court, with five justices elected as Democrats and two as Republicans, is playing an increasingly important role in settling disputes in this election, much as it did in 2020’s presidential election.

    Issues involving mail-in voting are hyper-partisan: Roughly three-fourths of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania tend to be cast by Democrats. Republicans and Democrats alike attribute the partisan gap to former President Donald Trump, who has baselessly claimed mail-in voting is rife with fraud.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Colorado Supreme Court building to reopen after break-in, fire caused $35 million in damage

    Colorado Supreme Court building to reopen after break-in, fire caused $35 million in damage

    [ad_1]

    After nearly 10 months of extensive repairs and cleaning, the Colorado Supreme Court building will reopen its doors to the public on Tuesday.

    “The Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center is an important symbol in our legal community — it is the hub of activity for a number of agencies critical to our judicial system,” Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez said in a news release. “Its partial reopening marks a significant milestone in the recovery process from the devasting events that severely damaged the tower complex earlier this year.”

    The Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, which houses the Colorado Supreme Court, in Denver on Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2024. (Photo by Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post)

    Brandon Olsen, 45, allegedly shot through a window and broke into the court building in the early morning of Jan. 2 while fleeing from a car crash at 13th Avenue and Lincoln Street, police said.

    The 45-year-old faces charges of arson, robbery and criminal mischief in connection with the incident, according to court records. He is accused of holding a security guard at gunpoint and starting a fire on the seventh floor of the building.

    The seventh-floor fire was extinguished by the building’s sprinklers, which ran for a couple of hours and caused significant water damage. In total, the break-in caused $35 million in damages and left four floors unusable, court officials said.

    Floors 3 through 7 are currently being rebuilt from scratch and are expected to reopen next summer, building officials said.

    During the building’s initial reopening next week, the public will have access to floors 1 and 2 of the office tower between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.  Access to floors 8 through 12 will be available by appointment only.

    [ad_2]

    Lauren Penington

    Source link

  • Appeals court reinstates Indiana lawsuit against TikTok alleging child safety, privacy concerns

    Appeals court reinstates Indiana lawsuit against TikTok alleging child safety, privacy concerns

    [ad_1]

    INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Court of Appeals has reinstated a lawsuit filed by the state accusing TikTok of deceiving its users about the video-sharing platform’s level of inappropriate content for children and the security of its consumers’ personal information.

    In a 3-0 ruling issued Monday, a three-judge panel of the state appeals court reversed two November 2023 decisions by an Allen County judge which dismissed a pair of lawsuits the state had filed in December 2022 against TikTok.

    Those suits, which have been consolidated, allege the app contains “salacious and inappropriate content” despite the company claiming it is safe for children 13 years and under. The litigation also argues that the app deceives consumers into believing their sensitive and personal information is secure.

    In November’s ruling, Allen Superior Court Judge Jennifer L. DeGroote found that her court lacked personal jurisdiction over the case and reaffirmed a previous court ruling which found that downloading a free app does not count as a consumer transaction under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.

    But in Monday’s ruling, Judge Paul Mathias wrote on behalf of the appeals court that TikTok’s millions of Indiana users and the $46 million in Indiana-based income the company reported in 2021 create sufficient contact between the company and the state to establish the jurisdiction of Indiana’s courts over TikTok, The Times of Northwest Indiana reported.

    Mathias also wrote that TikTok’s business model of providing access to its video content library in exchange for the personal data of its Indiana users counts as a “consumer transaction” under the law, even if no payment is involved.

    “The plain and ordinary definition of the word ‘sale,’ which is not otherwise defined in the DCSA, includes any consideration to effectuate the transfer of property, not only an exchange for money,” Mathias wrote.

    “It is undisputed that TikTok exchanges access to its app’s content library for end-user personal data. That is the bargain between TikTok and its end-users. And, under the plain and ordinary use of the word, that is a ‘sale’ of access to TikTok’s content library for the end-user’s personal data. TikTok’s business model is therefore a consumer transaction under the DCSA.”

    A spokesperson for the Indiana Attorney General’s office said Tuesday in a statement that the appeals court “took a common sense approach and agreed with our office’s argument that there’s simply no serious question that Indiana has established specific personal jurisdiction over TikTok.”

    “By earning more $46 million dollars from Hoosier consumers in 2021, TikTok is doing business in the state and is therefore subject to this lawsuit,” the statement adds.

    The Associated Press left a message Tuesday afternoon for a lead attorney for TikTok seeking comment on the appeals court’s ruling.

    TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company that moved its headquarters to Singapore in 2020. The app has been a target over the past year of state and federal lawmakers who say the Chinese government could access the app’s users’ data.

    Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has repeatedly personally urged Hoosiers to ”patriotically delete″ the TikTok app due to its supposed ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man pleads guilty to murder in fatal Topgolf shooting that killed one, wounded one

    Man pleads guilty to murder in fatal Topgolf shooting that killed one, wounded one

    [ad_1]

    A 27-year-old man who shot two of his Topgolf coworkers — killing one of them — in December has pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder.

    Victor Salazar-Guarache took a plea deal in Adams County District Court on Thursday, according to court records.

    Salazar-Guarache pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and second-degree attempted murder, court records show. The plea deal dropped charges of first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree attempted murder and a violent-crime sentence enhancer from his case.

    The then-26-year-old Topgolf dishwasher was arrested in December after a midnight shooting in the parking lot of the Thornton Topgolf, 16011 Grant St., left one man dead, police said.

    Police said Salazar-Guarache got into an argument with one of his coworkers, clocked out early and waited in the parking lot for an hour to ambush him.

    Bryce Holden, a 22-year-old Topgolf dishwasher, was shot multiple times and died from his wounds, police said. The kitchen manager who walked out with Holden also was shot.

    As Holden and the manager exited the building and entered the parking lot, Salazar-Guarache got out his car and fired 12 shots at the pair, continuing to shoot even after Holden fell, according to his arrest affidavit.

    [ad_2]

    Lauren Penington

    Source link

  • Top-ranked Jannik Sinner has his steroid case appealed by the World Anti-Doping Agency

    Top-ranked Jannik Sinner has his steroid case appealed by the World Anti-Doping Agency

    [ad_1]

    ROME — The steroid case involving top-ranked tennis player Jannik Sinner was appealed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, the Montreal-based body known as WADA announced Saturday.

    WADA said it is seeking a ban of one to two years for the U.S. Open champion.

    Sinner tested positive twice for an anabolic steroid in March but was not banned in a decision by an independent tribunal announced by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) on Aug. 20 because the ITIA determined he was not to blame.

    Sinner’s accepted explanation was that the banned performance-enhancer entered his system unintentionally through a massage from his physiotherapist, who used a spray containing the steroid to treat their own cut finger.

    WADA said it filed an appeal on Thursday to the Switzerland-based Court of Arbitration for Sport.

    “It is WADA’s view that the finding of ‘no fault or negligence’ was not correct under the applicable rules,” WADA said in a statement. “WADA is seeking a period of ineligibility of between one and two years. WADA is not seeking a disqualification of any results, save that which has already been imposed by the tribunal of first instance.”

    ___

    AP tennis: https://apnews.com/hub/tennis

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A Massachusetts woman accused of running a high-end brothel network pleads guilty

    A Massachusetts woman accused of running a high-end brothel network pleads guilty

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON (AP) — A Massachusetts woman accused of operating a high-end brothel network with wealthy and prominent clients in that state and the Washington, D.C., suburbs pleaded guilty in federal court Friday.

    Han Lee and two others were indicted earlier this year on one count of conspiracy to persuade, entice, and coerce one or more individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution and one count of money laundering, according to prosecutors.

    James Lee of Torrance, California, and Junmyung Lee of Dedham, Massachusetts, also were indicted.

    Han Lee initially had entered a not guilty plea before changing her plea. She remained in custody and faces up to 25 years in prison for the two felonies.

    Han Lee, 42, entered court dressed in an orange shirt and orange pants, her black hair tied in the back. She also relied on the help of a Korean translator. Lee said she was not a U.S. citizen and had gone as far as high school in her education.

    She was told that by pleading guilty she could be deported from the country.

    Scott Lauer, a lawyer for Han Lee, said she would remain in custody after the hearing but declined to comment further. A lawyer for James Lee declined to comment. A lawyer representing Junmyung Lee said his next court appearance has been rescheduled.

    Authorities said the commercial sex ring in Massachusetts and northern Virginia catered to politicians, company executives, military officers, lawyers, professors and other well-connected clients.

    Prosecutors have not publicly named any of the buyers and they have not been charged. Acting Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Josh Levy has said prosecutors are committed to holding accountable both those who ran the scheme and those who fueled the demand.

    Some of the buyers have appealed to the highest court in Massachusetts in a bid to have their names remain private.

    At one point through a translator, Han Lee said that she didn’t control the women, but agreed that she had persuaded them to engage in interstate travel to take part in prostitution.

    The women who worked in the brothels were not identified or criminally charged and were considered victims, prosecutors said.

    Prosecutors said their evidence included witness testimony from women who worked at the brothels, sex buyers who made appointments or received services, physical surveillance and electronic evidence.

    Han Lee maintained the operation from 2020 to November 2023. The money made at the brothels was sometimes kept in the freezer to be picked up, prosecutors said. They said she also helped train Junmyung Lee to help vet sex buyers.

    The brothel operation used websites that falsely claimed to advertise nude models for professional photography, prosecutors allege. The operators rented high-end apartments to use as brothels in Watertown and Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Tysons and Fairfax, Virginia, prosecutors said. Brothels were maintained at four locations in Massachusetts and two in Virginia.

    Han Lee recruited women and maintained the websites and brothels, according to authorities, who said she paid Junmyung Lee, who was one of her employees, between $6,000 and $8,000 in cash per month in exchange for his work booking appointments for the buyers and bringing women to the brothels.

    The operators raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars through the network, where men paid from approximately $350 to upwards of $600 per hour depending on the services, according to prosecutors.

    Officials say Han Lee concealed more than $1 million in proceeds from the ring by converting the cash into money orders, among other things, to make it look legitimate.

    According to court documents, the defendants established house rules for the women during their stays in a given city to protect and maintain the secrecy of the business and ensure the women did not draw attention to the prostitution work inside apartment buildings.

    Authorities seized cash, ledgers detailing the activities of the brothels and phones believed to be used to communicate with the sex customers from their apartments, according to court papers.

    Each website described a verification process that interested sex buyers undertook to be eligible for appointment bookings, including requiring clients to complete a form providing their full names, email addresses, phone numbers, employers and references if they had one, authorities said.

    The defendants also kept local brothel phone numbers to communicate with customers; sent them a “menu” of available options at the brothel, including the women and sexual services available and the hourly rate; and texted customers directions to the brothel’s location, investigators said.

    She is next due in court for sentencing on Dec. 20.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nevada high court orders dismissal of Chasing Horse sex abuse case but says charges can be refiled

    Nevada high court orders dismissal of Chasing Horse sex abuse case but says charges can be refiled

    [ad_1]

    LAS VEGAS (AP) — The Nevada Supreme Court has ordered the dismissal of a sprawling sex abuse indictment against Nathan Chasing Horse, while leaving open the possibility of charges being refiled in a case that sent shockwaves throughout Indian Country and led to more criminal charges in the U.S. and Canada.

    Proceedings in the 18-count criminal case have been at a standstill for more than a year while the former “Dances with Wolves” actor challenged it. The full seven-member court’s decision, issued Thursday, reverses earlier rulings upholding the charges by a three-member panel of the high court and a state judge.

    Kristy Holston, the chief deputy public defender representing Chasing Horse, had argued that a definition of grooming presented to the grand jury without expert testimony tainted the state’s case. Holston said prosecutors also failed to provide the grand jury with evidence that could have cast a doubt on the allegations against Chasing Horse, including what she described as inconsistent statements made by one of the victims.

    The high court agreed.

    “The combination of these two clear errors undermines our confidence in the grand jury proceedings and created intolerable damage to the independent function of the grand jury process,” the court said in its scathing order.

    The ruling directs the judge overseeing the case in Clark County District Court to dismiss the indictment without prejudice, meaning charges against Chasing Horse can be refiled. But the order for dismissal won’t take effect immediately, as prosecutors also have the option to ask the high court to reconsider within 25 days.

    “The allegations against Chasing Horse are indisputably serious, and we express no opinion about Chasing Horse’s guilt or innocence,” the order says.

    Holston declined to comment. District Attorney Steve Wolfson, in a statement Thursday, described the court’s decision as “only a minor setback.”

    “My office is committed to resurrecting the charges in this case,” Wolfson said, “and we will not rest until we obtain justice on behalf of the victims in this matter.”

    Chasing Horse is charged with sexual assault of a minor, kidnapping and child abuse. He has pleaded not guilty.

    The 48-year-old has been in custody since his arrest last January near the North Las Vegas home he is said to have shared with five wives. He is unlikely to be released from custody, even after the high court’s decision, because he faces charges in at least four other jurisdictions, including U.S. District Court in Nevada and on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana.

    Chasing Horse is best known for portraying Smiles A Lot in the 1990 film “Dances with Wolves.” But in the decades since starring in the Oscar-winning movie, authorities said, he built a reputation as a self-proclaimed medicine man among tribes and traveled around North America to perform healing ceremonies.

    He is accused of using that position to gain access to vulnerable girls and women starting in the early 2000s, leading a cult and taking underage wives. Authorities have said one of the wives was offered to Chasing Horse as a “gift” when she was 15, while another “became a wife” after turning 16.

    Chasing Horse also is accused of recording sexual assaults and arranging sex with the victims for other men who allegedly paid him.

    His legal issues have been unfolding at the same time lawmakers and prosecutors around the U.S. are funneling more resources into cases involving Native women, including human trafficking and murders. Chasing Horse was born on the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota, which is home to the Sicangu Sioux, one of the seven tribes of the Lakota nation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nevada high court orders lower court to dismiss Chasing Horse sex abuse case

    Nevada high court orders lower court to dismiss Chasing Horse sex abuse case

    [ad_1]

    LAS VEGAS — The Nevada Supreme Court has ordered the dismissal of a sprawling sex abuse indictment against Nathan Chasing Horse, while leaving open the possibility of charges being refiled in a case that sent shockwaves throughout Indian Country and led to more criminal charges in the U.S. and Canada.

    The full seven-member court’s decision, issued Thursday, reverses earlier rulings upholding the charges by a three-member panel of the high court and a state judge. Proceedings in the 18-count criminal case have been at a standstill for more than a year while the former “Dances with Wolves” actor challenged it.

    Kristy Holston, the deputy public defender representing Chasing Horse, had argued that some evidence presented to the grand jury, including an improper definition of grooming that was presented without expert testimony, had tainted the state’s case. Holston said prosecutors also failed to provide the grand jury with exculpatory evidence, including inconsistent statements made by one of the victims.

    The high court agreed.

    “The combination of these two clear errors undermines our confidence in the grand jury proceedings and created intolerable damage to the independent function of the grand jury process,” the court said in its scathing order.

    Holston declined to comment further. Prosecutor Stacy Kollins did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.

    The ruling directs the judge overseeing the case in Clark County District Court to dismiss the indictment without prejudice, meaning the charges can be refiled.

    “The allegations against Chasing Horse are indisputably serious, and we express no opinion about Chasing Horse’s guilt or innocence,” the order says.

    Chasing Horse’s lawyer had also had argued that the case should be dismissed because, the former actor said, the sexual encounters were consensual. One of his accusers was younger than 16, the age of consent in Nevada, when the alleged abuse began, authorities said.

    The 48-year-old has been in custody since his arrest last January near the North Las Vegas home he is said to have shared with five wives. He also faces criminal sexual abuse charges in at least four other jurisdictions, including U.S. District Court in Nevada and on the Fort Perk Indian Reservation in Montana.

    Chasing Horse is best known for portraying Smiles A Lot in the 1990 film “Dances with Wolves.” But in the decades since starring in the Oscar-winning movie, authorities said, he built a reputation as self-proclaimed medicine man among tribes and traveled around North America to perform healing ceremonies.

    He is accused of using that position to gain access to vulnerable girls and women starting in the early 2000s.

    Las Vegas police arrested Chasing Horse in January 2023. The arrest helped law enforcement agencies in two countries corroborate long-standing allegations against the former actor.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court allows Missouri to proceed with the execution of death row inmate Marcellus Williams

    Supreme Court allows Missouri to proceed with the execution of death row inmate Marcellus Williams

    [ad_1]

    BONNE TERRE, Mo. — A Missouri man is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection Tuesday evening after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the state to proceed with its plan to execute him, rejecting a last-ditch request to intervene on his behalf.

    The justices rejected two separate appeals to spare Marcellus Williams’ life, over the objection of Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, a day after the Missouri Supreme Court and Republican Gov. Mike Parson declined to step in on Williams’ behalf.

    Williams, 55, has long maintained innocence in the 1998 death of Lisha Gayle, a social worker and former newspaper reporter who was repeatedly stabbed during a burglary of her suburban St. Louis home. The execution is opposed both by Gayle’s family and the prosecutor’s office that put Williams on death row — an unprecedented combination.

    “The family defines closure as Marcellus being allowed to live,” the clemency petition stated. “Marcellus’ execution is not necessary.”

    Williams is among inmates in five states who are scheduled to be executed in the span of a week — an unusually high number that defies a yearslong decline in the use and support of the death penalty in the U.S. The first was carried out Friday in South Carolina. The others are scheduled to take place in Texas on Tuesday, and in Oklahoma and Alabama on Thursday.

    Williams’ hopes of having his sentence commuted to life in prison suffered dual setbacks Monday when, almost simultaneously, Parson denied clemency and the Missouri Supreme Court declined to grant a stay of execution.

    Attorneys working on Williams’ behalf filed motions late Monday challenging the state Supreme Court’s decision.

    “We have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay Marcellus Williams’ execution on Tuesday based on a revelation by the trial prosecutor that he removed at least one Black juror before trial based on his race,” Tricia Bushnell, an attorney for Mr. Williams, said in a statement.

    The prosecutor in the 2001 murder case, Keith Larner, testified at an August hearing that he struck one potential Black juror partly because he looked too much like Williams — a statement which Williams’ attorneys asserted showed improper racial bias.

    Bushnell said Larner removed six of seven Black prospective jurors. The jury ultimately had 11 white members and one Black member. Larner contended that the jury selection process was fair.

    The Missouri attorney general’s office filed a response Tuesday saying the only effect of a stay of execution would be another delay in a case “that has already been delayed many years through Williams’ litigation of meritless claims.”

    The state Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision Monday afternoon, affirmed a lower court ruling rejecting Williams’ arguments.

    Parson accused Williams’ attorneys of trying to “muddy the waters about DNA evidence” with claims that courts have repeatedly rejected.

    “Nothing from the real facts of this case have led me to believe in Mr. Williams’ innocence,” Parson said in a statement.

    Parson, a former sheriff, has never granted clemency in a death penalty case. Williams’ execution would be the third in Missouri this year and the 100th since the state resumed executions in 1989.

    St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell has sought to set aside Williams’ sentence, citing questions about his guilt. His office joined lawyers from the Midwest Innocence Project in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a stay.

    “Even for those who disagree on the death penalty, when there is a shadow of a doubt of any defendant’s guilt, the irreversible punishment of execution should not be an option,” Bell said in a statement.

    This marks the third time Williams has faced execution. He was less than a week away from lethal injection in January 2015 when the state Supreme Court called it off, allowing time for his attorneys to pursue additional DNA testing.

    He was hours away from being executed in August 2017 when then-Gov. Eric Greitens, a Republican, granted a stay and appointed a panel of retired judges to examine the case. But that panel never reached a conclusion.

    Questions about DNA evidence also led Bell to request a hearing challenging Williams’ guilt. But days before the Aug. 21 hearing, new testing showed that DNA on the knife belonged to members of the prosecutor’s office who handled it without gloves after the original crime lab tests.

    Without DNA evidence pointing to any alternative suspect, Midwest Innocence Project attorneys reached a compromise with the prosecutor’s office: Williams would enter a new, no-contest plea to first-degree murder in exchange for a new sentence of life in prison without parole.

    Judge Bruce Hilton signed off on the agreement, as did Gayle’s family. But at the urging of Missouri’s Republican attorney general, Andrew Bailey, the state Supreme Court blocked the agreement and ordered Hilton to proceed with an evidentiary hearing, which took place Aug. 28.

    Hilton ruled on Sept. 12 that the first-degree murder conviction and death sentence would stand, noting that Williams’ arguments all had been previously rejected. That decision was upheld Monday by the state Supreme Court.

    Prosecutors at Williams’ original trial said he broke into Gayle’s home on Aug. 11, 1998, heard water running in the shower, and found a large butcher knife. Gayle, a former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, was stabbed 43 times when she came downstairs. Her purse and her husband’s laptop computer were stolen.

    Authorities said Williams stole a jacket to conceal blood on his shirt. Williams’ girlfriend asked him why he would wear a jacket on a hot day. The girlfriend said she later saw the purse and laptop in his car and that Williams sold the computer a day or two later.

    Prosecutors also cited testimony from Henry Cole, who shared a cell with Williams in 1999 while Williams was jailed on unrelated charges. Cole told prosecutors Williams confessed to the killing and offered details about it.

    Attorneys for Williams said that fingerprints, a bloody shoeprint, hair and other evidence at the crime scene didn’t match Williams.

    ___

    AP writer Mark Sherman contributed from Washington. Salter reported from O’Fallon, Missouri.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge suspends arrest order of a top Brazilian country music star amid money laundering probe

    Judge suspends arrest order of a top Brazilian country music star amid money laundering probe

    [ad_1]

    RIO DE JANEIRO — A Brazilian judge Tuesday suspended the preventive arrest of one of the country’s most popular country music stars in connection with a money laundering investigation, a court source with access to the ruling told The Associated Press.

    A court staffer in the state of Pernambuco confirmed that local Judge Eduardo Guilliod Maranhão issued a writ of habeas corpus to keep singer Gusttavo Lima out of jail in connection with the case. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the case, which is still sealed.

    Another judge in Pernambuco state had ordered the singer’s arrest for allegedly facilitating the escape of two people under investigation in the probe, which has already resulted in orders to arrest almost two dozen others.

    The judge who ordered Lima’s arrest, Andrea Calada de Cruz, wrote in her ruling that she was calling on Interpol to issue a red alert to apprehend four people still at large, noting that two of them traveled to Europe with Lima earlier this month and remained there.

    Lima’s attorneys said in a statement that the singer welcomed the habeas corpus granted on Tuesday. They said he believes the previous decision “established a series of assumptions” to seek his arrest.

    Lima has 13 million monthly listeners on Spotify, 45 million followers on Instagram and 20 million on YouTube.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kroger and Albertsons prepare to make a final federal court argument for their merger

    Kroger and Albertsons prepare to make a final federal court argument for their merger

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Ore. — Kroger and Albertsons were expected to present their closing arguments Tuesday in a U.S. District Court hearing on their proposed merger, which the federal government hopes to block.

    Over the course of the three-week hearing in Portland, Oregon, the two companies have insisted that merging would allow them to lower prices and more effectively compete with retail giants like Walmart and Amazon.

    The Federal Trade Commission argued that the deal would eliminate competition and lead to higher food prices for already struggling customers.

    In 2022, Kroger and Albertsons proposed what would be the largest supermarket merger in U.S. history. But the FTC sued to prevent the $24.6 billion deal.

    The FTC wants U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson to issue a preliminary injunction that would block the deal while its complaint goes before an in-house administrative law judge.

    In testimony during the hearing, the CEOs of Albertsons and Kroger said the merged company would lower prices in a bid to retain customers. They also argued that the merger would boost growth, bolstering stores and union jobs.

    FTC attorneys have noted that the two supermarket chains currently compete in 22 states, closely matching each other on price, quality, private label products and services like store pickup. Shoppers benefit from that competition and would lose those benefits if the merger is allowed to proceed, they said.

    The FTC and labor union leaders also argued that workers’ wages and benefits would decline if Kroger and Albertsons no longer compete with each other. They also expressed concern that potential store closures could create so-called food and pharmacy “deserts” for consumers.

    Under the deal, Kroger and Albertsons would sell 579 stores in places where their locations overlap to C&S Wholesale Grocers, a New Hampshire-based supplier to independent supermarkets that also owns the Grand Union and Piggly Wiggly store brands.

    The FTC says C&S is ill-prepared to take on those stores. Laura Hall, the FTC’s senior trial counsel, cited internal documents that indicated C&S executives were skeptical about the quality of the stores they would get and may want the option to sell or close them.

    But C&S CEO Eric Winn testified that he thinks his company can be successful in the venture.

    The attorneys general of Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Wyoming all joined the FTC’s lawsuit on the commission’s side. Washington and Colorado filed separate cases in state courts seeking to block the merger. Washington’s case opened in Seattle on Monday.

    Kroger, based in Cincinnati, Ohio, operates 2,800 stores in 35 states, including brands like Ralphs, Smith’s and Harris Teeter. Albertsons, based in Boise, Idaho, operates 2,273 stores in 34 states, including brands like Safeway, Jewel Osco and Shaw’s. Together, the companies employ around 710,000 people.

    If Judge Nelson agrees to issue the injunction, the FTC plans to hold the in-house hearings starting Oct. 1. Kroger sued the FTC last month, however, alleging the agency’s internal proceedings are unconstitutional and saying it wants the merger’s merits decided in federal court. That lawsuit was filed in federal court in Ohio.

    ___

    Durbin reported from Detroit.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court reinstates Arkansas ban of electronic signatures on voter registration forms

    Court reinstates Arkansas ban of electronic signatures on voter registration forms

    [ad_1]

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A federal appeals court has reinstated an Arkansas rule prohibiting election officials from accepting voter registration forms signed with an electronic signature.

    The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday afternoon issued an administrative stay of a preliminary injunction that a federal judge issued against the rule adopted earlier this year by the State Board of Election Commissioners. An appeal of the preliminary injunction is still pending before the court.

    The board in April said Arkansas’ constitution only allows certain state agencies, and not elections officials, to accept electronic signatures. Under the rule, voters will have to register by signing their name with a pen.

    The rule was adopted after nonprofit group Get Loud Arkansas helped register voters using electronic signatures. Get Loud said the board’s decision conflicts with a recent attorney general’s opinion that an electronic signature is generally valid under state law. The group filed a lawsuit challenging the board’s decision.

    “This rule creates an obstacle that risks disenfranchising eligible voters and disrupting the fundamental process of our elections,” Get Loud said in a statement following the 8th Circuit order. “The preliminary injunction recognized that this irreparable harm must be avoided.”

    Chris Madison, director of the state Board of Election Commissioners, told county clerks on Monday that any voter registrations completed before the stay was issued Friday were eligible to have electronic signatures.

    Madison asked the clerks to identify any registration applications Saturday or later that used electronic signatures and to make every effort to contact the voter as soon as possible to give them a chance to correct their application.

    Madison in April said the rule was needed to create uniformity across the state. Some county clerks had previously accepted electronic signatures and others had not.

    The Arkansas rule is among a wave of new voting restrictions in Republican-led states in recent years that critics say disenfranchise voters, particularly in low-income and underserved areas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ohio Supreme Court clears ballot language saying anti-gerrymandering measure calls for the opposite

    Ohio Supreme Court clears ballot language saying anti-gerrymandering measure calls for the opposite

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The Ohio Supreme Court let stand late Monday ballot language that will describe this fall’s Issue 1 as requiring gerrymandering, when the proposal is intended to do the opposite.

    In a 4-3 ruling, the high court ordered two of eight disputed sections of the ballot description rewritten, while upholding the other six the issue’s backers had contested. The court’s three Democratic justices dissented. The ballot language was approved by the Republican-controlled Ohio Ballot Board.

    Citizens Not Politicians, the group behind the Nov. 5 amendment, brought the lawsuit last month, asserting the language “may be the most biased, inaccurate, deceptive, and unconstitutional” the state has ever seen.

    The bipartisan coalition’s proposal calls for replacing Ohio’s troubled political map-making system with a 15-member, citizen-led commission of Republicans, Democrats and independents. The proposal emerged after seven different versions of congressional and legislative maps created after the 2020 Census were declared unconstitutionally gerrymandered to favor Republicans.

    In Monday’s opinion, the court’s majority noted that it can only invalidate language approved by the ballot board if it finds the wording would “mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters.” The majority found most of the language included in the approved summary and title didn’t do that, but merely described the extensive amendment in detail.

    The two sections that justices said were mischaracterized involve when a lawsuit would be able to be filed challenging the new commission’s redistricting plan and the ability of the public to provide input on the map-making process.

    In a statement, Citizens Not Politicians said they disagreed with much of the decision, but agreed with justices’ conclusions that portions of the language were “inaccurate,” “defective” and amounted to “argumentation” against Issue 1.

    “The Ohio Supreme Court ruled seven times that politicians broke the law with unconstitutional gerrymanders, and the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today that politicians broke the law with lies about our Issue 1 amendment to end the gerrymandering they hold dear,” the campaign said.

    The group added: “Politicians are lying and doing everything they can to confuse voters.”

    Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and Justices Patrick Fischer, Patrick DeWine and Joseph Deters joined the majority opinion, while Justices Michael Donnelly, Melody Stewart and Jennifer Brunner dissented.

    Fischer wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he defended language voters will now see in November. The measure’s description will say that the commission created by Issue 1 is “required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor the two largest political parties.” He said the language, proposed at the last minute by Republican state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, is accurate because the panel will have to create maps that ensure certain political outcomes.

    Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who chairs the ballot board, praised Monday’s ruling.

    “This decision is a huge win for Ohio voters, who deserve an honest explanation of what they’re being asked to decide,” he said in a statement, adding that the approved description will help voters sort out what’s actually being proposed amid a barrage of expected television advertising.

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    The exact language of the constitutional amendment also will be posted at polling locations.

    LaRose has reconvened the ballot board for Wednesday morning to rewrite the two sections ruled unconstitutional, just as it had to do last year with portions of an amendment that enshrined access to abortion in Ohio’s state constitution. That issue passed easily, despite the ballot language dispute.

    [ad_2]

    Source link