Tag: Courts

Federal appeals court says there is no fundamental right to change one’s sex on a birth certificate

[ad_1]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled 2-1 on Friday that Tennessee does not unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender people by not allowing them to change the sex designation on their birth certificates.

“There is no fundamental right to a birth certificate recording gender identity instead of biological sex,” 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the majority in the decision upholding a 2023 district court ruling. The plaintiffs could not show that Tennessee’s policy was created out of animus against transgender people as it has been in place for more than half a century and “long predates medical diagnoses of gender dysphoria,” Sutton wrote.

He noted that “States’ practices are all over the map.” Some allow changes to the birth certificate with medical evidence of surgery. Others require lesser medical evidence. Only 11 states currently allow a change to a birth certificate based solely on a person’s declaration of their gender identity, which is what the plaintiffs are seeking in Tennessee.

Tennessee birth certificates reflect the sex assigned at birth, and that information is used for statistical and epidemiological activities that inform the provision of health services throughout the country, Sutton wrote. “How, it’s worth asking, could a government keep uniform records of any sort if the disparate views of its citizens about shifting norms in society controlled the government’s choices of language and of what information to collect?”

The plaintiffs — four transgender women born in Tennessee — argued in court filings that sex is properly determined not by external genitalia but by gender identity, which they define in their brief as “a person’s core internal sense of their own gender.” The lawsuit, first filed in federal court in Nashville in 2019, claims Tennessee’s prohibition serves no legitimate government interest while it subjects transgender people to discrimination, harassment and even violence when they have to produce a birth certificate for identification that clashes with their gender identity.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Helene White agreed with the plaintiffs, represented by Lambda Legal.

“Forcing a transgender individual to use a birth certificate indicating sex assigned at birth causes others to question whether the individual is indeed the person stated on the birth certificate,” she wrote. “This inconsistency also invites harm and discrimination.”

Lambda Legal did not immediately respond to emails requesting comment on Friday.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement that the question of changing the sex designation on a birth certificate should be left to the states.

“While other states have taken different approaches, for decades Tennessee has consistently recognized that a birth certificate records a biological fact of a child being male or female and has never addressed gender identity,” he said.

[ad_2]

Source link

July 17, 2024
Former CIA official charged with being secret agent for South Korean intelligence

[ad_1]

WASHINGTON — A former CIA employee and senior official at the National Security Council has been charged with serving as a secret agent for South Korea’s intelligence service, the U.S. Justice Department said.

Sue Mi Terry accepted luxury goods, including fancy handbags, and expensive dinners at sushi restaurants in exchange for advocating South Korean government positions during media appearances, sharing nonpublic information with intelligence officers and facilitating access for South Korean officials to U.S. government officials, according to an indictment filed in federal court in Manhattan.

She also admitted to the FBI that she served as a source of information for South Korean intelligence, including by passing handwritten notes from an off-the-record June 2022 meeting that she participated in with Secretary of State Antony Blinken about U.S. government policy toward North Korea, the indictment says.

Prosecutors say South Korean intelligence officers also covertly paid her more than $37,000 for a public policy program that Terry controlled that was focused on Korean affairs.

South Korea’s National Intelligence Service, its main spy agency, said Wednesday that intelligence authorities in South Korea and the U.S. are closely communicating over the case. South Korea’s Foreign Ministry separately said it was not appropriate to comment on a case that is under judicial proceedings in a foreign country.

The conduct at issue occurred in the years after Terry left the U.S. government and worked at think tanks, where she became a prominent public policy voice on foreign affairs.

Lee Wolosky, a lawyer for Terry, said in a statement that the “allegations are unfounded and distort the work of a scholar and news analyst known for her independence and years of service to the United States.”

He said she had not held a security clearance for more than a decade and her views have been consistent.

“In fact, she was a harsh critic of the South Korean government during times this indictment alleges that she was acting on its behalf,” he said. “Once the facts are made clear it will be evident the government made a significant mistake.”

Terry served in the government from 2001 to 2011, first as a CIA analyst and later as the deputy national intelligence officer for East Asia at the National Intelligence Council, before working for think tanks, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Prosecutors say Terry never registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent.

On disclosure forms filed with the House of Representatives, where she testified at least three times between 2016 and 2022, she said that she was not an “active registrant” but also never disclosed her covert work with South Korea, preventing Congress from having “the opportunity to fairly evaluate Terry’s testimony in light of her longstanding efforts” for the government, the indictment says.

___

Associated Press writer Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul, South Korea, contributed to this report.

[ad_2]

Source link

July 17, 2024
Jontay Porter, banned from NBA, asks court for permission to resume career in Greece

[ad_1]

Jontay Porter, who has been banned from the NBA after admitting that he helped bettors by intentionally underperforming in games, asked a federal court Tuesday for permission to resume his playing career in Greece

Jontay Porter, who has been banned from the NBA after admitting that he helped bettors by intentionally underperforming in games, asked a federal court Tuesday for permission to resume his playing career in Greece.

Porter, in a letter sent by attorney Jeff Jensen, is asking that some conditions of his bond be modified so that he can get his U.S. passport back, be allowed to travel in Europe and to reside in Patras, Greece. Jensen told the court that Porter would play for the Greek club Promitheas BC.

Prosecutors have no opposition to the request, Jensen wrote.

“The proposed modification would allow Mr. Porter to pursue a very fortunate — and quickly diminishing — opportunity to earn income through his primary skillset,” Jensen wrote. “Mr. Porter, and more importantly his agent, believe such an opportunity is unlikely to arise again. … Since being banned from the NBA there have been no other opportunities available to continue his basketball career. Mr. Porter has a limited window to earn an income through professional basketball during his prime earning years as a professional athlete.”

Porter, 24, pleaded guilty last month to a federal conspiracy crime in the scandal that got him banned from the league. He is free on $250,000 bond while awaiting sentencing set on Dec. 18 and prosecutors have estimated that he could be facing a range from just under three and a half years in prison to a little over four years.

Jensen has said Porter “was in over his head due to a gambling addiction.” Porter told the court he has undergone inpatient rehab for a gambling problem and remains in therapy, which is being done virtually and wouldn’t be affected by a move to Greece, Jensen said. The Greek club has also arranged in-person counseling for Porter, and plans call for his mother and mother-in-law to regularly be with Porter and his wife in Greece to provide additional family support. Porter’s wife is also expecting a baby, Jensen said.

Porter averaged 4.4 points, 3.2 rebounds and 2.3 assists in 26 games, including five starts for Toronto this past season. He also played in 11 games for Memphis in the 2020-21 season.

Porter was banned by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver in April after a league probe found he disclosed confidential information to sports bettors and wagered on games.

___

AP NBA: https://apnews.com/hub/nba

[ad_2]

Source link

July 16, 2024
Corruption trial for Nadine Menendez, wife of Sen. Bob Menendez, postponed indefinitely

[ad_1]

The corruption trial for Nadine Menendez, the wife of New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D), has been postponed indefinitely due to her health issues.

Nadine Menendez and her husband are accused of aiding the foreign governments of Egypt and Qatar in exchange for cash, luxury cars and gold bars. Her trial initially had been postponed until August, because she had a mastectomy for breast cancer. On Monday, Judge Sidney Sine ordered the trial adjourned until further notice, CBS News reported.

MORE: Social media posts after Trump’s attempted assassination lead to firings, resignations locally

Bob Menendez’s trial began in May, and the jury is in deliberations. The senator’s lawyer’s have argued that Nadine accepted bribes from real estate developer Fred Daibes and businessmen Wael Hana and Jose Uribe without his knowledge.

Bob Menendez revealed Nadine’s diagnosis in a statement on May 16 – shortly after his trial began – but the jury in his case has not been notified of her health issues.

Bob Menendez is accused of sharing information about staffing at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and ghostwriting a letter from an Egyptian official to U.S. politicians about human rights issues. He also allegedly helped strike a $45 million real estate deal between Daibes, who also is facing charges, and a member of the Qatari royal family by making public statements in support Qatar.

Prosecutors say the bribery scheme began in 2018, when Bob and Nadine Menendez began dating. Bob’s defense lawyer argued that they lived separately until April 2020, had separate finances and led largely separate lives. The gold bars were found in Nadine’s locked closet.

Menendez previously faced public corruption charges for allegedly accepting bribes from an eye doctor in Florida. The 2017 trial ended in a hung jury.

Despite his ongoing trial, Menendez has filed to seek reelection by running as an independent.

[ad_2]

Michaela Althouse

Source link

July 16, 2024
Inside the courtroom as case dismissed against Alec Baldwin in fatal shooting of cinematographer

[ad_1]

SANTA FE, N.M. — A nearly three-year legal saga for Alec Baldwin in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer ended Friday without a verdict but with tears of relief for the actor and a small coterie of family who had settled into a somber daily routine on wooden benches inside a windowless New Mexico courtroom at trial.

In the morning, 16 jurors had filed into the courtroom for a third day of scrawling notes and listening with steepled hands to testimony in the involuntary manslaughter trial against Baldwin in the 2021 shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, only to be released for the day as the trial took an unscheduled detour.

“Have a great weekend,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said.

Outside the jury’s view, the criminal case against Baldwin was teetering as defense attorneys for Baldwin accused local investigators and prosecutors of concealing evidence that might shed light on the unconfirmed origin of live ammunition on the set of “Rust.”

It was Baldwin’s fifth day in court. He arrived each morning in a black SUV with his wife, Hilaria Baldwin, to a phalanx of outdoor media cameras. Inside the courtroom Monday, at the start, an energetic Baldwin whispered to an attorney, scrawled on a legal pad and passed post-it notes to his legal team.

The defense won an early victory as the judge ruled Baldwin could not be held criminally liable for his role as co-producer on “Rust.” The case would focus on Baldwin’s handling of a gun as lead actor.

Come Tuesday, the defendant’s younger brother, Stephen Baldwin, arrived in the back of the courtroom for jury selections. He would return each day, all day. Among a pool of 70 potential jurors, all but three were familiar with the “Rust” shooting case. By day’s end, a jury of five men and 11 women were seated for trial.

For opening statements Wednesday, the courtroom was packed to capacity, with half of the gallery reserved for news media, from local network TV to the Times of London, and a few designated photographers. Attorneys and the public filled the other half, some friends and relatives of Baldwin along with local curiosity seekers and traveling amateur trial afficionados.

Seated in court, Baldwin trained his eyes downward on a notepad, away from the jury as prosecutors gave opening statements and overhead video monitors showed the aftermath of the fatal shooting at a movie set ranch.

Prosecutors said Baldwin violated the cardinal rules of firearm safety in pointing a real gun toward Hutchins while playing make-believe. Defense attorneys argued Baldwin was just doing his job as an actor, reasonably relying on other professionals to ensure gun safety, though with tragic consequences.

Baldwin’s older sister, Elizabeth Keuchler, shed tears in court as the statements unfolded. She greeted her brother with an embrace across a courtroom banister and would sit close behind him thereafter.

A prominent critic of Baldwin also took her seat in the front of the court gallery: victims’ rights attorney Gloria Allred, who is representing the sister and parents of Hutchins in a civil trial seeking damages.

Baldwin’s every expression at trial registered on a video feed of the trial transmitted by CourtTV and The Associated Press. There was a restrained and attentive gaze during a first full day of witness testimony Wednesday from the A-list actor with a decades-long career in films and television, from “The Hunt for Red October” to “30 Rock” and as a fixture on “Saturday Night Live.”

Baldwin darted from the courtroom once, but otherwise paced slowly and deliberately through the courtroom and the courthouse, where impromptu interviews and photographs were prohibited.

On Friday afternoon, Baldwin’s outward demeanor changed little, but tension was building in the courtroom, where Marlowe Sommer weighed a motion to dismiss the case and probed revelations that investigators failed to disclose the receipt of ammunition in March by a man who said it could be related to Hutchins’ death.

Prosecutors said they deemed the ammunition unrelated and unimportant, while Baldwin’s lawyers alleged they “buried” it.

During an afternoon break, Baldwin took deep, measured breaths as he walked painstakingly from the courtroom. The air whistled slightly as he breathed out with lips pursed. Hilaria Baldwin took his arm and rubbed his back as they paced the hallway.

Back inside, the audience chuckled as defense attorney Alex Spiro sparred with the ammunition supplier for “Rust,” Seth Kenney, who had forged a cooperative relationship with investigators in the aftermath of the shooting.

But the courtroom fell silent amid the clatter of laptop keyboards as the judge questioned a sheriff’s detective about the decision to place the ammunition in an evidence file, separate from the “Rust” shooting case, and whether lead prosecutor Kari Morrissey knew about that.

“When you say that there were discussions and the decision was made by all of you to put that ammo in a separate file, was Ms. Morrissey part of that discussion?” Marlowe Sommer said.

“Yes,” the detective responded.

The case was collapsing. The courtroom gasped as Morrissey acknowledged her co-prosecutor had just resigned.

Tears welled in Baldwin’s eyes, followed by sobbing, as the judge outlined her decision: “The sanction of dismissal is warranted in this case.”

[ad_2]

Source link

July 13, 2024
Chief prosecutor defends Vatican’s legal system after recent criticism of pope’s absolute power

[ad_1]

ROME — The Vatican’s chief prosecutor has strongly defended the integrity and fairness of the city state’s justice system following criticism that Pope Francis’ absolute power and his interventions in the so-called “trial of the century” last year violated the defendants’ fundamental rights.

Prosecutor Alessandro Diddi’s defense comes as the Vatican tribunal finalizes its written reasonings for its December 2023 verdicts. The tribunal convicted a cardinal and eight others of various financial-related crimes related to the Holy See’s 350 million euro investment in a London property, but has not yet explained its decisions.

Diddi published an essay last month in a peer-reviewed Italian journal, “Diritto e religioni” (Law and Religion) though he was not identified as the Vatican’s top criminal prosecutor, in keeping with the journal’s practice. Legal experts said such a publication in an academic journal was unusual, since Diddi is a party to a trial that is heading into the appeals phase.

He was essentially replying to two academics — and lawyers representing some of the 10 defendants — who have raised questions about whether the two-year trial and preceding investigation were fair.

Their critiques have raised more fundamental concerns about whether a fair trial is even possible in an absolute monarchy where the pope wields supreme legislative, executive and judicial power — and used it in this case.

These critics have cited Pope Francis’ role in the trial, since he secretly issued four decrees during the investigation that changed Vatican procedures to benefit prosecutors. And they have called into question the independence and impartiality of the tribunal itself since its judges swear obedience to Francis, who can hire and fire them at will.

Francis recently named several of his closest allies — cardinals with no experience in Vatican law — to sit as judges on the Vatican’s highest court of appeal and issued new rules on judges’ salary and pension benefits.

In his essay, Diddi argued the trial and Vatican system itself were most certainly fair. He insisted that the tribunal and its judges were fully independent and that the defense had every opportunity to present its case. He said the pope’s four decrees merely filled regulatory loopholes in the Vatican’s peculiar legal code and had no impact on the outcome of the trial or the rights of the defendants.

“Even though the Holy See isn’t a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, it doesn’t place itself outside the international community and doesn’t renege on the principles that inspire it,” Diddi wrote.

The four secret decrees were signed by the pope in 2019 and 2020, giving Vatican prosecutors wide-ranging powers to investigate, including via unchecked wiretapping and to deviate from existing laws in allowing them to detain suspects without a judge’s warrant. The decrees only came to light right before trial, were never officially published, provided no rationale or timeframe for the surveillance or detention, or oversight by an independent judge.

Diddi denied the decrees impacted the suspects’ rights. He said they merely provided an “authentic interpretation” by the pope to Vatican norms.

He argued that regardless, the decrees only “disciplined some particular aspects of the investigation,” and “and did not determine any failure in the guarantees offered to the suspects.”

Geraldina Boni, a canon lawyer who provided a legal opinion for the defense of Cardinal Angelo Becciu, has written that the decrees represented a clear violation of the right to a fair trial since the suspects didn’t know about the broad powers granted to prosecutors until they were on trial. One defendant who came in for questioning was jailed for 10 days by prosecutors.

Diddi noted that Swiss and Italian courts have previously recognized the independence and impartiality of the Vatican City State’s legal system in agreeing to provide judicial assistance in freezing assets of the suspects.

Those rulings, however, were issued before the current trial ended and the decrees’ existence known. Additionally, a British judge ordered the assets of one of the suspects released because he found “appalling” misrepresentations and omissions in Diddi’s case.

Questions about the fairness and impartiality of the Vatican City State’s legal system could have implications for the Holy See down the road, since the Vatican relies on other countries to cooperate in law enforcement investigations and implement its sentences. These countries might be less willing to cooperate if they doubt the fairness of the system.

Additionally, whenever the Holy See signs commercial contracts with non-Vatican entities, it insists that any contract dispute be handled by its own tribunal. That contractual clause could become difficult to negotiate if there are questions about whether the other side will be treated fairly by the Vatican court.

Less hypothetically, the Holy See is subject to periodic review by the Council of Europe’s Moneyval commission, whose evaluators analyze the effectiveness of the judicial system in fighting money laundering and terrorist financing.

In a related development, the Vatican’s No. 3 official on Monday wrapped up three days of testimony in a London court in a spinoff counter-suit brought by one of the Vatican defendants.

Raffaele Mincione, a London-based financier, is seeking to have the British High Court declare that he acted “in good faith” in his dealings with the Vatican over the London property. He is hoping to clear his name and repair the reputational harm he says he and his firm have endured as a result of the Vatican trial.

Mincione has also filed a complaint with the U.N. human rights office in Geneva, claiming that the pope violated his rights by authorizing surveillance via the decrees. The Vatican has rejected the claim, saying in a press statement that the investigation followed all relevant laws and international agreements and that no surveillance was actually ordered for Mincione.

Mincione, and the other defendants, have announced appeals.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

[ad_2]

By Nicole Winfield | Associated Press

Source link

July 13, 2024
Companies Sued Over Cucumbers Linked to Salmonella Outbreak

[ad_1]

A Florida woman is suing the distributor and growers of cucumbers tied to a salmonella outbreak that hit 31 states and D.C. and resulted in 449 people getting sick, alleging that the ones she purchased caused her to experience symptoms ranging from a fever to a urinary tract infection.

Lawyers at Marler Clark and Chaikin Law Firm filed the complaint on behalf of Melissa Milligan on Wednesday against Fresh Start Produce Sales Inc., which distributed the cucumbers, and Bedner Growers Inc., which grew the cucumbers. Milligan is suing on allegations of strict liability, breach of warranty, and negligence, according to the complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.

Milligan bought cucumbers at Publix Super Markets at Shoppes at Murabella in St. Augustine, Fla., on two separate occasions—May 19 and June 4—according to the complaint. She ate the cucumbers up until early June, and around June 10, she started experiencing nausea, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, fever, muscle aches, fatigue, headache, and a urinary tract infection—symptoms consistent with a salmonella infection.

A few days later, she went to an urgent care clinic and was prescribed medication for her diarrhea. Her symptoms got worse, so she went to her primary care doctor. She was diagnosed with a salmonella Africana infection from the stool sample she provided, according to Bill Marler, managing partner of Marler Clark and one of Milligan’s lawyers. Her urine test also showed blood in her urine, which can be a symptom of a severe infection, according to the complaint. Milligan is still recovering, and now struggles with anxiety over foods, the complaint said.

Marler says that Milligan will likely make a full recovery, but adds that she incurred medical expenses while seeking treatment. Marler says that it’s up to the jury to decide what compensation Milligan should receive.

“She was fortunate she wasn’t hospitalized, but she was quite ill and for an extended period of time, and having salmonella is not a pleasant experience,” Marler tells TIME.

A spokesperson for Fresh Start Produce Sales said in an emailed statement that the company is “aware of the lawsuit” and is “taking it seriously,” but declined to comment further because it’s a legal matter. Bedner Growers didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The cucumbers Milligan ate were among those recalled by Fresh Start Produce Sales at the end of May because of concerns that they had been contaminated with salmonella, Marler says.

Read More: You’re Not Imagining It: Food Recalls Are Getting More Common. Here’s Why

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on July 2 that officials at the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are investigating a “multistate outbreak of Salmonella Africana and Salmonella Braenderup infections.” The outbreak has led to 449 illnesses in 31 states and the District of Columbia, as of July 1, though the CDC said that the real number of people who became sick is “likely much higher” because many people recover from salmonella without seeking medical care and so are not tested for the bacteria. Of the 188 sick people that officials spoke to, nearly 70% said they had eaten cucumbers.

While initially considered to be two separate outbreaks, the CDC and FDA combined them because they shared many similarities, such as when and where the illnesses occurred, the demographics of people who became sick, and the foods they said they had eaten before they became ill. Investigators believe that cucumbers from Bedner Growers are a likely source of the illnesses, but the FDA emphasized that the company doesn’t account for all the illnesses in the outbreak.

The FDA said officials conducted an inspection at Bender Growers, which supplies produce to Fresh Produce Sales, and found salmonella Braenderup in samples of untreated canal water used by the company—and that it was a match for the strain causing some of the illnesses in this outbreak. Officials found other types of salmonella in both soil and water samples at the site, and are investigating whether those strains caused illnesses as well.

The FDA said that Bedner Growers’ cucumber growing and harvesting season has ended, and that no product from that farm is on the market at this time so there is “likely no ongoing risk to the public.”

Marler says that there may be other people who became ill from eating contaminated cucumbers whose cases haven’t yet been counted by officials. While his firm has only filed the one lawsuit against Fresh Start Produce Sales and Bedner Growers related to this outbreak, he says that his team has been contacted by other people with similar reports.

“The farmers there, they certainly don’t intend to have this happen, but it just, I think, underscores how important food safety is—testing a product before it gets on the market so you don’t have these outbreaks happening,” Marler says.

Get alerts on the biggest breaking news stories here

[ad_2]

Chantelle Lee

Source link

July 12, 2024
Castle Pines sued by landowner for stopping city’s first McDonald’s – The Cannabist

[ad_1]

“No clown in our town!” residents chanted as they hoisted homemade protest signs that read, “No McDonald’s double drive-thru fast food dispensary on Castle Pines Parkway.”

It was May 28 in the bedroom community of Castle Pines, where the City Council was weighing whether to allow construction of the town’s first McDonald’s. About 100 people attended and two dozen testified. Most in the crowd and on the council were opposed.

“Garbage fast food that attracts low-income, high-yield traffic from a very busy highway isn’t what I want,” a woman testified. Another warned, “Your average McDonald’s transient customer — which means half are below average — isn’t the element we should be promoting.”

Read the rest of this story on TheKnow.DenverPost.com.

[ad_2]

The Cannabist Network

Source link

July 11, 2024
Mental health evaluation ordered in fatal Jeffco rock-throwing case after defense claims ADHD contributed to killing – The Cannabist

[ad_1]

A mental health evaluation has been ordered for the third and final suspect in last year’s deadly spree of rock-throwing attacks in suburban Denver after the defense claimed his ADHD contributed to the killing and the injury of half a dozen drivers.

Joseph Koenig, 19, was set to begin his jury trial for first-degree murder in Jefferson County district court later this month when his defense requested to introduce additional evidence and expert testimony into the case for an “impaired mental condition” defense, according to court documents.

Koenig’s trial has been delayed until health officials can return a mental health evaluation to the judge determining the 19-year-old’s “mental condition.”

Read the rest of this story on TheKnow.DenverPost.com.

[ad_2]

The Cannabist Network

Source link

July 11, 2024
Judge says Nashville school shooter’s writings can’t be released as victims’ families have copyright

[ad_1]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The writings of the person who killed three 9-year-olds and three adults at a private Christian elementary school in Nashville last year cannot be released to the public, a judge ruled Thursday.

Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea Myles found that The Covenant School children and parents hold the copyright to any writings or other works created by shooter Audrey Hale, a former student who was killed by police. As part of the effort to keep the records closed, Hale’s parents transferred ownership of Hale’s property to the victims’ families, who then argued in court that they should be allowed to determine who has access to them.

Myles agreed, ruling that “the original writings, journals, art, photos and videos created by Hale” are subject to an exception to the Tennessee Public Records Act created by the federal Copyright Act.

The ruling comes more than a year after several groups filed public records requests for documents seized by Metro Nashville Police during their investigation into the March 2023 shooting. Those killed were Evelyn Dieckhaus, Hallie Scruggs, and William Kinney, all 9 years old, and adults Cynthia Peak, 61; Katherine Koonce, 60; and Mike Hill, 61.

Part of the interest in the records stems from the fact that Hale, who police say was “assigned female at birth,” may have identified as a transgender man, and some pundits have floated the theory that the journals will reveal a planned hate crime against Christians.

The victims’ families released statements about the ruling on Friday. Cindy Peak’s family wrote, “The last year and a half without Cindy has been difficult. But today brings a measure of relief in our family. Denying the shooter some of the notoriety she sought by releasing her vile and unfiltered thoughts on the world is a result everyone should be thankful for.”

The shooter left behind at least 20 journals, a suicide note and a memoir, according to court filings. When the records requests were denied, several parties sued, and the situation quickly ballooned into a messy mix of conspiracy theories, leaked documents, probate battles and accusations of ethical misconduct. Myles’ order will almost surely be appealed.

After the initial records requests last year, police said they would eventually release the documents but could not do so right away because their investigation was still open. The groups suing for the immediate release of the records — including news outlets, a gun rights group, a law enforcement nonprofit and Tennessee state Sen. Todd Gardenhire — argued that there was no meaningful criminal investigation underway since Hale, who police say acted alone, was dead.

Meanwhile, a group of Covenant parents was allowed to intervene in the case and argue that the records should never become public. They said the release would be traumatic for the families and could inspire copycat attacks.

Myles found that the copycat risk was real and “of grave concern.”

“Hale used the writings of other perpetrators in similar crimes to guide how this plan was constructed and accomplished, mimicking some not only in their methodology, but also choice of weapons and targets,” Myles wrote. “Hale even held past perpetrators out as heroes in their attacks, idolizing them.”

Also intervening in the case were The Covenant School and the Covenant Presbyterian Church, which shares a building. They argued the records should remain closed because their release could threaten their security.

The Associated Press is among the groups that requested the records but did not participate in the lawsuit.

As the court case has dragged on, pages from one journal were leaked to a conservative commentator who posted them to social media in November. More recently, The Tennessee Star published dozens of stories based on allegedly 80 pages of Hale’s writings provided by an unnamed source. The publication is among the plaintiffs, and Myles briefly threatened to hold the paper’s editor-in-chief, Michael Leahy, and owner, Star News Digital Media, in contempt.

Although Myles’ ruling will shield many of the documents created by Hale from public release, other documents in the police file can be released once the case is officially closed as long as they fall under Tennessee’s open records law.

An attorney for the lead plaintiff in the case did not immediately have a reaction to the ruling.

___

This story was corrected to show that The Associated Press did not participate in the lawsuit.

[ad_2]

Source link

July 5, 2024
Man who stabbed South Korea’s opposition leader sentenced to 15 years in prison

[ad_1]

SEOUL, South Korea — A man who stabbed South Korea’s opposition leader in the neck earlier this year was sentenced to 15 years in prison on Friday, court officials said.

The knife-wielding man attacked Lee Jae-myung, head of the liberal Democratic Party, South Korea’s biggest political party, in January after approaching him asking for his autograph at an event in the southeastern city of Busan. After being detained by police, he told investigators that he wanted to kill Lee to prevent him from becoming South Korea’s president.

The Busan District Court said the man was handed the 15-year prison term after being found guilty for an attempted murder and a violation of an election law.

The court said that both the man and prosecutors have one week to appeal.

The attack happened ahead of the country’s crucial parliamentary elections in April, which ended with Lee’s Democratic Party and other opposition parties winning a massive victory against President Yoon Suk Yeol’s conservative governing party.

A court verdict called the attack “a grave challenge” to the country’s election systems and an act that “significantly destroys social consensus and confidence on the basic liberal democratic principles,” according to Yonhap news agency. It cited the verdict as saying the attacker had long loathed Lee because of differences of political opinions, practiced stabbing his neck in advance and followed him on five public events.

The court’s public affairs office couldn’t immediately confirm details of Friday’s verdict. The court didn’t disclose the man’s identity. Police earlier said he’s about 67.

Democratic Party officials earlier confirmed the attacker became a member last year. The ruling People Power Party said he is currently not their member but media reports said the man, only identified as his surname Kim, was previously affiliated with the party’s predecessor.

Lee, a sharp-tongued former provincial governor, lost the 2022 presidential election to Yoon, a former top prosecutor, by the narrowest margin recorded in a South Korean presidential election.

Their closely fought race and post-election political bickering have intensified South Korea’s already-toxic conservative-liberal divide. Surveys have showed that Lee is one of the early favorites for the 2027 presidential election. Yoon is by law barred from seeking reelection.

[ad_2]

Source link

July 4, 2024
Driver arrested in fatal hit-and-run at Colfax and Speer, police say – The Cannabist

[ad_1]

The pedestrian, a woman who has not been publicly identified, was struck and killed around Speer Boulevard and Colfax Avenue, according to Denver police.

The post Driver arrested in fatal hit-and-run at Colfax and Speer, police say appeared first on The Cannabist.

[ad_2]

The Cannabist Network

Source link

July 4, 2024
Cybersecurity breach could delay court proceedings across New Mexico, public defenders office says

[ad_1]

SANTA FE, N.M. — What officials are calling a cybersecurity breach at New Mexico’s statewide public defenders office could lead to delays in some court proceedings across the state, the department reported Wednesday.

The New Mexico Law Offices of the Public Defender said the breach began last Thursday. A timeline for restoration wasn’t immediately clear.

New Mexico includes 13 district courts, 54 magistrate courts, 81 municipal courts, probate courts and additional specialty courts, according to the Judicial Branch of New Mexico website.

The statewide public defenders office, which provides legal representation to low-income people facing criminal charges, is the largest law firm in the state with 13 offices, more than 400 employees and contracts with about 100 private attorneys.

The department said the cybersecurity issue was preventing its employees from accessing some internal records while also delaying communications with clients, attorneys and the courts.

“Email has been a primary way to send discovery, motions, communication and negotiations with prosecutors,” department spokesperson Maggie Shepard said. “All of that is now basically stopped.”

Shepard said the extent of the breach wasn’t yet known, although she said it did not immediately appear that the private information of clients and contracted lawyers had been compromised.

In the meantime, the department is communicating with New Mexico’s courts and its clients in person, by phone or by fax, she said.

[ad_2]

Source link

July 3, 2024
Malaysian court tosses jailed ex-Prime Minister Najib’s bid to serve graft sentence in house arrest

[ad_1]

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — A Malaysian court on Wednesday dismissed a bid by imprisoned former Prime Minister Najib Razak to serve his remaining corruption sentence under house arrest.

In an April application, Najib said he had clear information that then-King Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah issued an addendum order allowing him to finish his sentence under house arrest. Najib claimed the addendum was issued during a Jan. 29 pardons board meeting chaired by Sultan Abdullah, which also cut his 12-year jail sentence by half and sharply reduced a fine.

Najib’s counsel, Mohamed Shafee Abdullah, said it was disappointing for the High Court to rule Wednesday that the government has “no legal duty” to verify if such an order existed. He said they would file an appeal.

“The court said there is no legal duty but in terms of ethics, the government should have answered,” Shafee told a news conference at the court building.

In his application, Najib has accused the pardons board, home minister, attorney-general and four others of concealing the sultan’s order “in bad faith.” Sultan Abdullah hails from Najib’s hometown in Pahang. He ended his five-year reign on Jan. 30 under Malaysia’s unique rotating monarchy system. A new king took office Jan. 31.

Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said he had no knowledge of such an order as he wasn’t a member of the pardons board. The others named in Najib’s application have not made any public comments.

Shafee said Najib’s application was not based on hearsay but that there was “digital evidence” of the addendum as Trade Minister Zafrul Aziz had taken a snapshot of it on his mobile phone when told by Sultan Abdullah. He said the government’s silence also implied there is such an addendum order.

“One thing is clear, not one person or any government institutions have said that this addendum doesn’t exist. If it doesn’t exist, just say so. … If the government dare says clearly there is no addendum, we can all go home and sleep,” he said.

Najib, 70, served less than two years of his sentence before it was commuted by the pardons board. His sentence is now due to end Aug. 23, 2028. He was charged and found guilty in a corruption case linked to the multibillion-dollar looting of state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

The pardons board didn’t give any reason for its decision and wasn’t required to explain. But the move has prompted a public outcry on why Najib appeared to be given special privileges compared to other prisoners.

The Malaysian Bar, which represents over 20,000 lawyers, filed an application to challenge the pardons board decision that it said was illegal, unconstitutional and invalid. It said the decision made a mockery of Najib’s other ongoing criminal cases. The hearing for the Bar’s challenge started this week.

Najib set up the 1MDB development fund shortly after he took office in 2009. Investigators allege at least $4.5 billion was stolen from the fund and laundered by Najib’s associates through layers of bank accounts in the United States and other countries, financed Hollywood films and extravagant purchases that included hotels, a luxury yacht, art and jewelry. More than $700 million landed in Najib’s bank accounts.

[ad_2]

Source link

July 2, 2024
The US Supreme Court Has Handed Big Tech a Big Gift

[ad_1]

SpaceX has adopted similar tactics in its battles against federal regulators. After the National Labor Relations Board in January accused the company of illegally firing eight workers for criticizing Musk in an internal letter, SpaceX filed a lawsuit alleging that the agency’s structure is unconstitutional.

The overturning of Chevron in particular means “we’re clearly going to have more litigation,” says Berin Szoka, director of the Washington, DC-based nonpartisan think tank TechFreedom. For example, the FTC’s April decision banning noncompete clauses is likely at risk. Even though the agency has not relied on Chevron in its enforcement actions in recent years, the doctrine did provide it a level of deference in courts when it came to rulemaking. “There’s a zero percent chance that argument wins now,” Szoka says.

Another decision that could be more easily challenged is the Federal Communications Commission’s ruling, also in April, reinstating Obama-era net neutrality rules that were rescinded under the Trump administration. Net neutrality, proponents argue, is an important consumer protection principle that ensures service providers can’t give some types of traffic (for example, their own streaming services) better treatment than others. The FCC’s 500-page document on the decision explicitly names Chevron as one statute that gives it the authority to reinstate the rules.

Szoka emphasizes that while the decision to overturn Chevron is likely to create “confusion” in lower courts, it isn’t a death sentence for courts’ deference to regulators. Courts will now decide how much weight to give regulators’ decisions—that could be a little or a lot—and it’s possible that some of those cases will end up before the Supreme Court, further clarifying the new rules.

In the event of a second Trump administration, the recent changes may even end up being beneficial to progressives, Szoka points out. If the Trump administration packs agencies with leaders who are loyal to the president and carry out his agenda, Szoka says, “I think you have to ask, do you really want the courts deferring to those agencies?”

In the meantime, Sawyer-Phillips says, other countries have already stepped up to regulate tech companies in ways that affect US consumers. “Tying the hands of administrative agencies may have the effect of ceding regulatory authority of fast-moving tech industries to the European Commission on issues like privacy, data portability, and digital platform access and interoperability,” she says.

In effect, Sawyer-Phillips adds, the US is falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to important issues like antitrust: “The US invented competition policy—what we call antitrust law —but we’re not only failing to adapt to modern times, we’re falling into political retrenchment.”

With the death of Chevron, Congress could step in and try to legislate a comparable level of deference to regulators. However, that strategy is not guaranteed to succeed. “It’s hard for Congress to overrule the Supreme Court precedent,” says Vladeck. “Congress tomorrow could pass a statute reimposing the Chevron rule, and the court would ignore it.”

With all of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings undermining the federal government’s power and giving courts more latitude, something fundamental has shifted, according to Vladeck. “It’s now an imperial court,” he says.

[ad_2]

Jordan Pearson

Source link

July 1, 2024
The Supreme Court casts doubt on Florida and Texas laws to regulate social media platforms

[ad_1]

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday kept on hold efforts by Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users in a ruling that strongly defended the platforms’ free speech rights.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said the platforms, like newspapers, deserve protection from governments’ intrusion in determining what to include or exclude from their space. “The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world,” Kagan wrote in an opinion signed by five justices. All nine justices agreed on the overall outcome.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts for further review in broad challenges from trade associations for the companies.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address long-standing conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. The cases are among several this term in which the justices are wrestling with standards for free speech in the digital age.

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter, now X, to cut then-President Donald Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s statute, while another upheld the Texas law. But both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

While the cases are complicated, said First Amendment expert and Notre Dame Law School professor Richard W. Garnett, the justices were clear on two things:

“First, the First Amendment protects what we choose to say, but also what we choose not to say, support, or endorse. That is, the freedom of speech includes editorial judgment. This is true whether the speaker is a lone individual or a large media company,” he said. “Second, the government is not permitted to regulate speakers simply to produce what the government thinks would be a better, or more diverse, marketplace of ideas. What’s on offer in that marketplace is, in the end, up to us.”

In a statement when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be “protection against the Silicon Valley elites.”

When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms “are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely — but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas,” Abbott said. “That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas.”

But much has changed since then. Elon Musk purchased Twitter and, besides changing its name, eliminated teams focused on content moderation, welcomed back many users previously banned for hate speech and used the site to spread conspiracy theories.

President Joe Biden’s administration sided with the challengers, though it cautioned the court to seek a narrow ruling that maintained governments’ ability to impose regulations to ensure competition, preserve data privacy and protect consumer interests. Lawyers for Trump filed a brief in the Florida case that had urged the Supreme Court to uphold the state law.

Free speech advocates hailed the ruling as a victory.

“The court’s recognition that the government cannot control social media in an effort to impose its own vision of what online speech should look like is crucial to protecting all of our right to speak our minds and access information on the internet,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The court’s recognition that the government cannot control social media in an effort to impose its own vision of what online speech should look like is crucial to protecting all of our right to speak our minds and access information on the internet.”

Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at the nonprofit media advocacy group Free Press said that while the decision “rests on procedural grounds, Justice Kagan’s comprehensive opinion for the Court explains in very clear terms why the Florida and Texas laws will have a tough time ever passing First Amendment muster. That’s a very good thing.”

But it’s a “bumpy win,” noted Gus Hurwitz, academic director of the Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. He said the justices were “clearly frustrated” that the case came to them as a facial challenge — where the plaintiff argues that the law is unconstitutional — vacating both cases and sending them back to be “more fully developed.”

“Five of the justices sign on to the direct statement that ‘Texas does not like the way those platforms are selecting and moderating content, and wants them to create a different expressive product, communicating different values and priorities. But under the First Amendment, that is a preference Texas may not impose,” Hurwitz said. “It is hard to see how this doesn’t dictate the ultimate resolution of the case, and clearly foreshadows a rocky road ahead for these statutes if Texas and Florida continue to press forward with them.”

The cases are among several the justices have grappled with over the past year involving social media platforms, including one decided last week in which the court threw out a lawsuit from Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing federal officials of pressuring social media companies to silence conservative points of view.

During arguments in February, the justices seemed inclined to prevent the laws from taking effect. Several justices suggested then that they viewed the platforms as akin to newspapers that have broad free-speech protections, rather than like telephone companies, known as common carriers, that are susceptible to broader regulation.

But two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, appeared more ready to embrace the states’ arguments. Thomas raised the idea that the companies are seeking constitutional protection for “censoring other speech.” Alito also equated the platforms’ content moderation to censorship.

The justices also worried about too broad a ruling that might affect businesses that are not the primary targets of the laws, including e-commerce sites like Uber and Etsy and email and messaging services.

___

AP Technology Writer Barbara Ortutay contributed to this story.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

[ad_2]

Source link

July 1, 2024
The Supreme Court nears the end of another momentous term. A decision on Trump’s immunity looms

[ad_1]

WASHINGTON — In the last 10 days of June, on a frenetic pace of its own making, the Supreme Court touched a wide swath of American society in a torrent of decisions on abortion, guns, the environment, health, the opioid crisis, securities fraud and homelessness.

And, with the court meeting for the final time this term on Monday, an unusual push into July, the most anticipated decision of the term awaits: whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The court also will decide whether state laws limiting how social media platforms regulate content posted by their users violate the Constitution.

The immunity case was the last case argued, on April 25. So in one sense, it’s not unusual that it would be among the last decided. But the timing of the court’s resolution of Trump’s immunity may be as important as the eventual ruling.

By holding on to the case until early July, the justices have reduced, if not eliminated, the chance that Trump will have to stand trial before the November election, no matter what the court decides.

In other epic court cases involving the presidency, including the Watergate tapes case, the justices moved much faster. Fifty years ago, the court handed down its decision forcing President Richard Nixon to turn over recordings of Oval Office conversations just 16 days after hearing arguments.

Even this term, the court reached a decision in less than a month to rule unanimously for Trump that states cannot invoke the post-Civil War insurrection clause to kick him off the ballot over his refusal to accept Democratic President Joe Biden’s victory four years ago.

Delaying the start of trials has been a primary goal of Trump’s lawyers in all four criminal cases against him. Only one trial has been held and it resulted in his conviction for falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment made during the 2016 presidential election to a porn actor who says she had sex with him, which he denies. Trump is the first former president to be convicted of a felony.

The Supreme Court’s handling of the immunity case, which began when the justices rejected a first plea to take it up in December, have led critics to say the court has so far granted Trump “immunity by delay.” A federal appeals unanimously rejected Trump’s immunity claim in February, and the justices agreed a few weeks later to hear Trump’s appeal.

Then, too, the court considering the case has three justices nominated by the Republican — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Two other justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, have rejected calls to step aside from the case over questions about their impartiality.

On Friday, the justices voted 6-3 to narrow a federal obstruction charge that has been used against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, as well as Trump. In that case, Alito and Thomas again took part and five conservatives were in the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were the other three.

Conservative justices don’t usually side with criminal defendants, said University of Pennsylvania law professor Kim Roosevelt.

“But it’s a Trump case, and so the lineup is less of a surprise and more of a disappointment,” Roosevelt said. “Increasingly, it looks as though a majority of this Court is willing to bend the normal rules to favor Trump.”

The other major unresolved issue — state laws to regulate social media platforms — also could have an ideological tinge.

The court is weighing efforts in Texas and Florida that would limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right.

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter, now X, to cut Trump off over his posts related to the Capitol riot by his supporters.

On Wednesday, the justices dismissed a lawsuit filed by other Republican-led states against the Biden administration over claims that federal officials improperly coerced the platforms to take down controversial posts related to COVID-19 and election security.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court

[ad_2]

Source link

June 29, 2024
Here’s what you need to know about the verdict in the ‘NFL Sunday Ticket’ trial and what’s next

[ad_1]

LOS ANGELES — The NFL has been found guilty of breaking antitrust laws in its distribution of out-of-market Sunday afternoon games on the “Sunday Ticket” premium subscription service.

Even though the jury of five men and three women in a U.S. District Court awarded nearly $4.8 billion in damages Thursday to residential and commercial subscribers of “Sunday Ticket,” don’t expect any settlement checks or the shuttering of the service anytime soon.

The league broke antitrust laws by selling “Sunday Ticket” only on DirecTV and at an inflated price. By offering the service on only one distributor and with a high price, that limited the subscriber base and satisfied concerns by CBS and Fox about preserving local ratings while the NFL got a lot of money for its broadcast rights.

Three weeks. It began with opening statements on June 6 and featured 10 days of testimony before closing arguments on Wednesday. The jury deliberated for nearly five hours Wednesday and Thursday before coming to a decision.

The NFL brought in Commissioner Roger Goodell and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones to testify, but it didn’t help. The plaintiffs’ mostly used economists and video from pre-trial depositions.

The class action applied to more than 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses, mostly bars and restaurants, that purchased “NFL Sunday Ticket” from June 17, 2011, to Feb. 7, 2023.

The jury awarded $4.7 billion to residential subscribers and $96 million to businesses. Because damages are trebled under federal antitrust laws, the NFL could end up being liable for $14.39 billion unless it reaches a settlement or it is reduced

The residential damages were slightly less than the $5.6 billion offered under the plaintiffs’ College Football Model but more than a model where “Sunday Ticket” would have multiple carriers and a 49.7% reduction in the subscription cost ($2.81 billion).

The business damages were much lower than the plaintiffs presented in any of their three models. The lowest was $332 million under what was called the “NFL Tax” model.

It would be spread equally among the 32 teams. That means each one could be paying as much as $449.6 million.

Changes to the “Sunday Ticket” package and/or the ways the NFL carries its Sunday afternoon games would be stayed until all appeals have been concluded. If the league was smart though, it would start offering team-by-team or week-by-week packages along with reducing the price.

ESPN proposed offering “Sunday Ticket” for $70 per season with team-by-team packages in 2022, but it was turned down by the NFL before it went with YouTube TV.

If the NFL offered team-by-team packages all along, one of the key class members likely would not have been part of the lawsuit.

Rob Lippincott — a New Orleans native who moved to California — bought “Sunday Ticket” only for Saints games.

“He just wanted the Saints. If he had a choice to buy a single-team package and watch the Saints games, he absolutely would have,” plaintiffs attorney Amanda Bonn said during her opening remarks on June 6.

The landmark college football TV case in 1984 was determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. This was at the U.S. District Court level.

The NFL said it would appeal the verdict. That appeal would go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then possibly the Supreme Court.

It wouldn’t be the first time the 9th Circuit has seen this case.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2015 by the Mucky Duck sports bar in San Francisco. On June 30, 2017, U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell dismissed the lawsuit and ruled for the NFL. Two years later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case.

During his closing remarks, lead attorney Bill Carmody showed an April 2017 NFL memo that showed the league was exploring a world without “Sunday Ticket” in 2017, where cable channels would air Sunday afternoon out-of-market games not shown on Fox or CBS.

Judge Philip S. Gutierrez voiced his frustration with the plaintiffs’ attorneys midway through the trial, but the closing argument by Carmody was clear and easy to understand.

The NFL might be the king of American sports and one of the most powerful leagues in the world but it often loses in court, especially in Los Angeles. It was in an LA federal court in 1982 that a jury ruled the league violated antitrust rules by not allowing Al Davis to move the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles.

All eyes turn to July 31 when Gutierrez is scheduled to hear post-trial motions. That will include the NFL’s request to have him rule in favor of the league because the judge determined the plaintiffs did not prove their case.

All the major leagues offer out-of-market packages they are keeping an eye on this case because individual teams selling their out-of-market streaming rights, especially in baseball, would further separate the haves from the have nots.

A major difference though is that MLB, the NBA and the NHL sell their out-of-market packages on multiple distributors and share in the revenue per subscriber instead of receiving an outright rights fee.

___

AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nfl

[ad_2]

Source link

June 28, 2024
Diplo Accused of Distributing Revenge Porn in New Lawsuit

[ad_1]

A federal lawsuit filed in California on Thursday by a woman identified as Jane Doe accuses the DJ and producer Diplo of distributing revenge porn. According to the suit, Doe began communicating with Diplo, born Thomas Wesley Pentz, on Snapchat in April 2016, when she was 21 years old, and they exchanged pornographic images for two months. Doe and Diplo began having sex, according to the suit, and their relationship continued until October 2023, the month before Doe learned that Pentz had been distributing images and videos of their sexual encounters without her knowledge or consent.

Doe’s suit is the second set of revenge porn allegations filed in recent years against Pentz, whose globe-trotting lifestyle has become grist for his prolific social media presence. According to her account, she made Pentz aware that she didn’t want him to record their sexual activities without her consent or distribute images or video to third parties. In November of last year, Doe claims, another woman she didn’t know at the time reached out to her and said she was in possession of images and videos of Pentz and Doe having sex. The woman told Doe that she received the materials from Pentz via Snapchat in October 2018. The suit claims that Diplo continued to distribute Doe’s intimate images and videos up until the present.

On November 7, according to the suit, Doe reported Pentz to the New York Police Department, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The NYPD didn’t immediately return a request for comment, and it’s unclear whether Pentz has been in New York since November.

Representatives for Pentz didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Pentz achieved musical acclaim and prominence during the 2000s, but in more recent years, he has developed a public profile more readily tied to his social ubiquity. A staple of red carpets and A-list sports events, his winking presence tends to land as a Waldo-like trope.

That persona has endured through a separate sexual misconduct case that made headlines for a period beginning in late 2020. In October of that year, a woman named Shelly Auguste alleged that Pentz sexually assaulted her, recorded their sexual activity without consent, and distributed revenge porn. The following year, after Pentz and Auguste sued each other, he denied her claims in a detailed Instagram slideshow, calling her a “stalker” attempting to extort him. In September 2022, an arbitrator awarded Pentz $1.2 million after finding that Auguste’s social media posts violated a mutual restraining order she had signed with Pentz.

Auguste is currently suing Pentz for claims including sexual battery and defamation; a civil trial is scheduled for January 2025. In November, according to a Pitchfork report, the Los Angeles city attorney’s office began reviewing Auguste’s revenge porn allegations after she filed a police report. (The office didn’t return a request for comment on the status of that review.) “For more than three years,” Pentz’s attorney Bryan Freedman told the outlet, “Shelly Auguste has been orchestrating an ongoing smear campaign against Wes—and this is just more of the same.”

Doe is seeking damages from Pentz for violations of revenge porn statutes. “Tragically, this is not the first time the defendant has shamed and violated a woman by disseminating intimate images without her consent,” Helene Weiss, an attorney for Doe, said in a statement. “Diplo’s alleged illicit pattern of behavior illustrates the harm he’s caused Jane Doe, and other young women just like her.”

[ad_2]

Dan Adler

Source link

June 27, 2024
Israeli supreme court says ultra-Orthodox must serve in military

[ad_1]

JERUSALEM — Israel’s Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that the military must begin drafting ultra-Orthodox men for compulsory service, a landmark decision that could lead to the collapse of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition as Israel continues to wage war in Gaza.

The historic ruling effectively puts an end to a decades-old system that granted ultra-Orthodox men broad exemptions from military service while maintaining mandatory enlistment for the country’s secular Jewish majority. The arrangement, deemed discriminatory by critics, has created a deep chasm in Israel’s Jewish majority over who should shoulder the burden of protecting the country.

The court struck down a law that codified exemptions in 2017, but repeated court extensions and government delaying tactics over a replacement dragged out a resolution for years. The court ruled that in the absence of a law, Israel’s compulsory military service applies to the ultra-Orthodox like any other citizen.

Under longstanding arrangements, ultra-Orthodox men have been exempt from the draft, which is compulsory for most Jewish men and women.

These exemptions have long been a source of anger among the secular public, a divide that has widened during the eight-month-old war, as the military has called up tens of thousands of soldiers and says it needs all the manpower it can get. Over 600 soldiers have been killed since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.

Politically powerful ultra-Orthodox parties, key partners in Netanyahu’s governing coalition, oppose any change in the current system. If the exemptions are ended, they could bolt the coalition, causing the government to collapse and likely leading to new elections at a time when its popularity has dropped.

In the current environment, Netanyahu could have a hard time delaying the matter any further or passing laws to restore the exemptions. During arguments, government lawyers told the court that forcing ultra-Orthodox men to enlist would “tear Israeli society apart.”

A statement from Netanyahu’s Likud party criticized the ruling, saying a bill in parliament backed by the Israeli leader would address the draft issue. Critics say it falls short of Israel’s wartime needs.

“The real solution to the draft problem is not a Supreme Court ruling,” the statement said.

The court decision comes at a sensitive time, as the war in Gaza drags on into its ninth month and the number of dead soldiers continues to mount.

In its ruling, the court found that the state was carrying out “invalid selective enforcement, which represents a serious violation of the rule of law, and the principle according to which all individuals are equal before the law.”

It did not say how many ultra-Orthodox should be drafted, but the military has said it is capable of enlisting 3,000 this year.

Some 66,000 ultra-Orthodox men are now eligible for enlistment, according to Shuki Friedman, an expert on religion and state affairs and the vice-president of the Jewish People Policy Institute, a Jerusalem think tank.

The ruling of Israel’s highest court must be followed, and the military is expected to begin doing so once it forms a plan for how to draft thousands of members of a population that’s deeply opposed to service, and which follows a cloistered and modest lifestyle the military may not be immediately prepared to accommodate. The army had no immediate comment.

The court also ruled that state subsidies for seminaries where exempted ultra-Orthodox men study should remain suspended. The court temporarily froze the seminary budgets earlier this year.

In a post on the social media platform X, Cabinet minister Yitzhak Goldknopf, who heads one of the ultra-Orthodox parties in the coalition, called the ruling “very unfortunate and disappointing.” He did not say whether his party would bolt the government.

“The state of Israel was established in order to be a home for the Jewish people whose Torah is the bedrock of its existence. The holy Torah will prevail,” he wrote.

The ultra-Orthodox see their full-time religious study as their part in protecting the state. Many fear that greater contact with secular society through the military will distance adherents from strict observance of the faith.

Ultra-Orthodox men attend special seminaries that focus on religious studies, with little attention on secular topics like math, English or science. Critics have said they are ill-prepared to serve in the military or enter the secular work force.

Religious women generally receive exemptions that are not as controversial, in part because women are not expected to serve in combat units. The ruling does not address the status of Israel’s Palestinian citizens, who are not required to serve and most of whom do not. As descendants of Palestinians who remained in Israel after the 1948 war that led to its creation, their ties to the military are more fraught and some in Israel see them as a fifth column because of their solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Tuesday’s ruling now sets the stage for growing friction within the coalition over the draft issue. Ultra-Orthodox lawmakers are likely to face intense pressure from religious leaders and their constituents and may have to choose whether remaining in the government is worthwhile for them. Previous court rulings on the issue and threats of enlistment have sparked protests and violence between ultra-Orthodox and police.

Friedman said the ultra-Orthodox “understand that they don’t have a better political alternative, but at same time their public is saying ‘why did we vote for you?’”

The exemptions have faced years of legal challenges and a string of court decisions has found the system unjust. But Israeli leaders, under pressure from ultra-Orthodox parties, have repeatedly stalled.

The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, which has helped lead the challenge against the exemptions, called on the government to immediately draft all eligible seminary students. “This is their legal and moral duty, especially in light of the complex security situation and the urgent need for personnel” in the army, said Tomer Naor, head of the group’s legal department.

Netanyahu’s coalition is buoyed by two ultra-Orthodox parties who oppose increasing enlistment for their constituents. The long-serving Israeli leader has tried to adhere to the court’s rulings while also scrambling to preserve his coalition. But with a slim majority of 64 seats in the 120-member parliament, he’s often beholden to the pet issues of smaller parties.

The government could in theory try to draft a law that restores the exemptions, but doing so will be politically challenging in light of the court’s ruling.

Some moderate members of the government have indicated they will only support a law that enlists sizable numbers of ultra-Orthodox, and the legislative clock is running out with the Knesset soon to leave for summer recess. That could force the military to begin drafting religious men before any new law is in place.

Netanyahu has been promoting a bill tabled by a previous government in 2022 that sought to address the issue by calling for limited ultra-Orthodox enlistment.

But critics say that bill was crafted before the war and doesn’t do enough to address a pressing manpower shortfall as the army seeks to maintain its forces in the Gaza Strip while also preparing for potential war with the Lebanese Hezbollah group, which has been fighting with Israel since the war in Gaza erupted last October.

With its high birthrate, the ultra-Orthodox community is the fastest-growing segment of the population, at about 4% annually. Each year, roughly 13,000 ultra-Orthodox males reach the conscription age of 18, but less than 10% enlist, according to the Israeli parliament’s State Control Committee.

___

AP writer Isaac Scharf in Jerusalem contributed to this story.

[ad_2]

Source link

June 25, 2024