ReportWire

Tag: Crime/Legal Action

  • Lula wins Brazil’s presidential runoff in rebuke of far-right Bolsonaro

    Lula wins Brazil’s presidential runoff in rebuke of far-right Bolsonaro

    [ad_1]

    SAO PAULO — Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has done it again: Twenty years after first winning the Brazilian presidency, the leftist defeated incumbent Jair Bolsonaro Sunday in an extremely tight election that marks an about-face for the country after four years of far-right politics.

    With 99.9% of the votes tallied in the runoff vote, da Silva had 50.9% and Bolsonaro 49.1%, and the election authority said da Silva’s victory was a mathematical certainty. At about 10 p.m. local time, three hours after the results were in, the lights went out in the presidential palace and Bolsonaro had not conceded nor reacted in any way.

    Before the vote, Bolsonaro’s campaign had made repeated — unproven — claims of possible electoral manipulation, raising fears that he would not accept defeat and would challenge the results if he lost.

    The high-stakes election was a stunning reversal for da Silva, 77, whose imprisonment for corruption sidelined him from the 2018 election that brought Bolsonaro, a defender of conservative social values, to power.

    “Today the only winner is the Brazilian people,” da Silva said in a speech at a hotel in downtown Sao Paulo. “This isn’t a victory of mine or the Workers’ Party, nor the parties that supported me in campaign. It’s the victory of a democratic movement that formed above political parties, personal interests and ideologies so that democracy came out victorious.”

    Da Silva is promising to govern beyond his party. He wants to bring in centrists and even some leaning to the right who voted for him for the first time, and to restore the country’s more prosperous past. Yet he faces headwinds in a politically polarized society where economic growth is slowing and inflation is soaring.

    This was the country’s tightest election since its return to democracy in 1985, and the first time since then that the sitting president failed to win reelection. Just over 2 million votes separated the two candidates; the previous closest race, in 2014, was decided by a margin of roughly 3.5 million votes.

    The highly polarized election in Latin America’s biggest economy extended a wave of recent leftist victories in the region, including Chile, Colombia and Argentina.

    As Lula spoke to his supporters — promising to “govern a country in a very difficult situation” — Bolsonaro had yet to concede.

    Da Silva’s inauguration is scheduled to take place on Jan. 1. He last served as president from 2003-2010.

    Thomas Traumann, an independent political analyst, compared the results to Biden’s 2020 victory, saying da Silva is inheriting an extremely divided nation.

    “The huge challenge that Lula has will be to pacify the country,” he said. “People are not only polarized on political matters, but also have different values, identity and opinions. What’s more, they don’t care what the other side’s values, identities and opinions are.”

    Congratulations for da Silva — and Brazil — began to pour in from around Latin America and across the world Sunday evening, including from U.S. President Joe Biden, who highlighted the country’s “free, fair, and credible elections.” The European Union also congratulated da Silva in a statement, commending the electoral authority for its effectiveness and transparency throughout the campaign.

    Bolsonaro had been leading throughout the first half of the count and, as soon as da Silva overtook him, cars in the streets of downtown Sao Paulo began honking their horns. People in the streets of Rio de Janeiro’s Ipanema neighborhood could be heard shouting, “It turned!”

    Da Silva’s headquarters in downtown Sao Paulo hotel only erupted once the final result was announced, underscoring the tension that was a hallmark of this race.

    “Four years waiting for this,” said Gabriela Souto, one of the few supporters allowed in due to heavy security.

    Outside Bolsonaro’s home in Rio, ground-zero for his support base, a woman atop a truck delivered a prayer over a speaker, then sang excitedly, trying to generate some energy as the tally grew for da Silva. But supporters decked out in the green and yellow of the flag barely responded. Many perked up when the national anthem played, singing along loudly with hands over their hearts.

    For months, it appeared that da Silva was headed for easy victory as he kindled nostalgia for his presidency, when Brazil’s economy was booming and welfare helped tens of millions join the middle class.

    But while da Silva topped the Oct. 2 first-round elections with 48% of the vote, Bolsonaro was a strong second at 43%, showing opinion polls significantly had underestimated his popularity.

    Bolsonaro’s administration has been marked by incendiary speech, his testing of democratic institutions, his widely criticized handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the worst deforestation in the Amazon rainforest in 15 years. But he has built a devoted base by defending conservative values and presenting himself as protection from leftist policies that he says infringe on personal liberties and produce economic turmoil. And he shored up support in an election year with vast government spending.

    “We did not face an opponent, a candidate. We faced the machine of the Brazilian state put at his service so we could not win the election,” da Silva told the crowd in Sao Paulo.

    Da Silva built an extensive social welfare program during his tenure that helped lift tens of millions into the middle class. The man universally known as Lula also presided over an economic boom, leaving office with an approval rating above 80%, prompting then U.S. President Barack Obama to call him “the most popular politician on Earth.”

    But he is also remembered for his administration’s involvement in vast corruption revealed by sprawling investigations. Da Silva’s arrest in 2018 kept him out of that year’s race against Bolsonaro, a fringe lawmaker at the time who was an outspoken fan of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

    Da Silva was jailed for for 580 days for corruption and money laundering. His convictions were later annulled by Brazil’s top court, which ruled the presiding judge had been biased and colluded with prosecutors. That enabled da Silva to run for the nation’s highest office for the sixth time.

    Da Silva has pledged to boost spending on the poor, reestablish relationships with foreign governments and take bold action to eliminate illegal clear-cutting in the Amazon rainforest.

    “We will once again monitor and do surveillance in the Amazon. We will fight every illegal activity,” da Silva said in his acceptance speech. “At the same time we will promote sustainable development of the communities of the Amazon.”

    The president-elect has pledged to install a ministry for Brazil’s original peoples, which will be run by an Indigenous person.

    But as da Silva tries to achieve these and other goals, he will be confronted by strong opposition from conservative lawmakers likely to take their cues from Bolsonaro.

    Carlos Melo, a political science professor at Insper University in Sao Paulo, compared the likely political climate to that experienced by former President Dilma Rousseff, da Silva’s hand-picked successor after his second term.

    “Lula’s victory means Brazil is trying to overcome years of turbulence since the reelection of President Dilma Rousseff in 2014. That election never ended; the opposition asked for a recount, she governed under pressure and was impeached two years later,” said Melo. “The divide became huge and then made Bolsonaro.”

    Unemployment this year has fallen to its lowest level since 2015 and, although overall inflation has slowed during the campaign, food prices are increasing at a double-digit rate. Bolsonaro’s welfare payments helped many Brazilians get by, but da Silva has been presenting himself as the candidate more willing to sustain aid going forward and raise the minimum wage.

    In April, he tapped center-right Geraldo Alckmin, a former rival, to be his running mate. It was another key part of an effort to create a broad, pro-democracy front to not just unseat Bolsonaro, but to make it easier to govern.

    “If Lula manages to talk to voters who didn’t vote for him, which Bolsonaro never tried, and seeks negotiated solutions to the economic, social and political crisis we have, and links with other nations that were lost, then he could reconnect Brazil to a time in which people could disagree and still get some things done,” Melo said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal appeals court temporarily blocks Biden’s student loan forgiveness program

    Federal appeals court temporarily blocks Biden’s student loan forgiveness program

    [ad_1]

    ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal appeals court late Friday issued an administrative stay temporarily blocking President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel billions of dollars in federal student loans.

    The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the stay while it considers a motion from six Republican-led states to block the loan cancellation program. The stay ordered the Biden administration not to act on the program while it considers the appeal.

    The order came just days after people began applying for loan forgiveness. It was not immediately clear how the stay would impact those have already applied.

    The court set a deadline of Monday at 5 p.m. CDT for a response for a response from the Biden administration and a 5 p.m. Central Tuesday deadline for any replay from the appellants.

    See also: What are Pell grants? Biden student-loan forgiveness climbs to $20,000 for recipients of Pell grants.

    See also: ‘It’s $10,000 that’s on the line.’ Borrowers who used Pell grants decades ago can’t find proof and worry they will lose Biden’s relief.

    The attorneys for the Republican-led states had asked the court to reconsider their effort to block the Biden administration’s program to forgive the student loan debt.

    A notice of appeal to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was filed late Thursday, hours after U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey in St. Louis ruled that since the states of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina failed to establish standing, “the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.”

    Separately, the six states also asked the district court for an injunction prohibiting the administration from implementing the debt cancellation plan until the appeals process plays out.

    Speaking at Delaware State University, a historically Black university where the majority of students receive federal Pell Grants, Biden on Friday said nearly 22 million people have applied for the loan relief in the week since his administration made its online application available.

    Also see: How to avoid being scammed when you apply for student-loan forgiveness

    The plan, announced in August, would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, will get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.

    The Congressional Budget Office has said the program will cost about $400 billion over the next three decades. James Campbell, an attorney for the Nebraska attorney general’s office, told Autrey at an Oct. 12 hearing that the administration is acting outside its authorities in a way that will cost states millions of dollars.

    The cancellation applies to federal student loans used to attend undergraduate and graduate school, along with Parent Plus loans. Current college students qualify if their loans were disbursed before July 1. The plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could get their debt erased entirely, according to the administration.

    The announcement immediately became a major political issue ahead of the November midterm elections.

    Conservative attorneys, Republican lawmakers and business-oriented groups have asserted that Biden overstepped his authority in taking such sweeping action without the assent of Congress. They called it an unfair government giveaway for relatively affluent people at the expense of taxpayers who didn’t pursue higher education.

    Many Democratic lawmakers facing tough reelection contests have distanced themselves from the plan.

    Biden on Friday blasted Republicans who have criticized his relief program, saying “their outrage is wrong and it’s hypocritical.” He noted that some Republican officials had debt and pandemic relief loans forgiven.

    The six states sued in September. Lawyers for the administration countered that the Department of Education has “broad authority to manage the federal student financial aid programs.” A court filing stated that the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, allows the secretary of education to waive or modify terms of federal student loans in times of war or national emergency.

    “COVID-19 is such an emergency,” the filing stated.

    The HEROES Act was enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to help members of the military. The Justice Department says the law allows Biden to reduce or erase student loan debt during a national emergency. Republicans argue the administration is misinterpreting the law, in part because the pandemic no longer qualifies as a national emergency.

    Justice Department attorney Brian Netter told Autrey at the Oct. 12 hearing that fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is still rippling. He said student loan defaults have skyrocketed over the past 2 1/2 years.

    Other lawsuits also have sought to stop the program. Earlier Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected an appeal from a Wisconsin taxpayers group seeking to stop the debt cancellation program.

    Barrett, who oversees emergency appeals from Wisconsin and neighboring states, did not comment in turning away the appeal from the Brown County Taxpayers Association. The group wrote in its Supreme Court filing that it needed an emergency order because the administration could begin canceling outstanding student debt as soon as Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sen. Lindsey Graham must testify in Georgia election probe, appeals court says

    Sen. Lindsey Graham must testify in Georgia election probe, appeals court says

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBIA, S.C. — U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham must testify before a special grand jury investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in Georgia, a federal appeals court said Thursday.

    The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paves the way for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to bring Graham in for questioning as she tries to wrap up the investigation. She has said she hopes to be able to “send the grand jury on their way” by the end of the year.

    Graham could appeal the ruling to the full appellate court. An attorney for Graham deferred comment to a spokesman for the senator’s office, which did not immediately comment on the ruling.

    Willis has said she wants to question the South Carolina Republican about phone calls he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the state’s top elections official, in the weeks after the 2020 election. Raffensperger has said he interpreted questions about whether he could reject certain absentee ballots as a suggestion to reject legally cast votes.

    Graham has challenged his subpoena, saying his position as a U.S. senator protects him from having to testify in the state investigation. He has denied any wrongdoing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge dismisses effort by 6 states to halt student-debt forgiveness plan

    Federal judge dismisses effort by 6 states to halt student-debt forgiveness plan

    [ad_1]

    ST. LOUIS — A federal judge in St. Louis on Thursday dismissed an effort by six Republican-led states to block the Biden administration’s plan to forgive student loan debt for tens of millions of Americans.

    U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey wrote that because the six states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina — failed to establish they had standing, “the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.”

    Suzanne Gage, spokeswoman for Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, said the states will appeal. She said in a statement that the states “continue to believe that they do in fact have standing to raise their important legal challenges.”

    Democratic President Joe Biden announced in August that his administration would cancel up to $20,000 in education debt for huge numbers of borrowers. The announcement immediately became a major political issue ahead of the November midterm elections.

    The states’ lawsuit is among a few that have been filed. Earlier Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected an appeal from a Wisconsin taxpayers group seeking to stop the debt cancellation program.

    Barrett, who oversees emergency appeals from Wisconsin and neighboring states, did not comment in turning away the appeal from the Brown County Taxpayers Association. The group wrote in its Supreme Court filing that it needed an emergency order because the administration could begin canceling outstanding student debt as soon as Sunday.

    In the lawsuit brought by the states, lawyers for the administration said the Department of Education has “broad authority to manage the federal student financial aid programs.” A court filing stated that the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, allows the secretary of education to waive or modify terms of federal student loans in times of war or national emergency.

    “COVID-19 is such an emergency,” the filing stated.

    The Congressional Budget Office has said the program will cost about $400 billion over the next three decades. James Campbell, an attorney for the Nebraska attorney general’s office, told Autrey at an Oct. 12 hearing that the administration is acting outside its authorities in a way that will cost states millions of dollars.

    The plan would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, will get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.

    Conservative attorneys, Republican lawmakers and business-oriented groups have asserted that Biden overstepped his authority in taking such sweeping action without the assent of Congress. They called it an unfair government giveaway for relatively affluent people at the expense of taxpayers who didn’t pursue higher education.

    Chris Nuelle, spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, said the plan “will unfairly burden working class families with even more economic woes.”

    Many Democratic lawmakers facing tough reelection contests have distanced themselves from the plan.

    The HEROES Act was enacted after 9/11 to help members of the military. The Justice Department says the law allows Biden to reduce or erase student loan debt during a national emergency. Republicans argue the administration is misinterpreting the law, in part because the pandemic no longer qualifies as a national emergency.

    Justice Department attorney Brian Netter told Autrey that fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is still rippling. He said student loan defaults have skyrocketed over the past 2 1/2 years.

    The cancellation applies to federal student loans used to attend undergraduate and graduate school, along with Parent Plus loans. Current college students qualify if their loans were disbursed before July 1.

    The plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could get their debt erased entirely, according to the administration.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nikola founder Trevor Milton found guilty of securities fraud over misleading statements

    Nikola founder Trevor Milton found guilty of securities fraud over misleading statements

    [ad_1]

    A federal jury in New York convicted Nikola Corp. founder Trevor Milton of securities fraud for what prosecutors said were his repeated lies about the development of the company’s zero-emissions trucks and technology.

    The guilty verdict caps the downfall of Milton, who founded Nikola
    NKLA,
    -1.29%

    in his basement in 2015 and took it public in 2020 at a valuation of $3.3 billion, when the company hadn’t sold a single truck. The company’s market valuation briefly exceeded that of industry giants such as Ford Motor Co.
    F,
    -0.85%

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Weekend reads: The Federal Reserve gets a lot of flak for inflation, but it has actually hit its target recently

    Weekend reads: The Federal Reserve gets a lot of flak for inflation, but it has actually hit its target recently

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. stock market benchmark rebounded from a steep loss on the day when the government published hot inflation numbers.

    The S&P 500 Index ended Thursday with a 2.6% gain after investors took a closer look and saw a significant improvement from July through September, as Rex Nutting explained.

    The whipsaw action wasn’t limited to stocks, and was described by Rick Rieder, the chief investment officer for global fixed income at BlackRock, as “one of the craziest days” of his career.

    The bond market’s warning

    Some investors who focus on stocks might not realize that the bond market is much larger, and that its movements can cause government and central-bank policies to shift. Larry McDonald, founder of The Bear Traps Report and author of “A Colossal Failure of Common Sense,” which described the 2008 failure of Lehman Brothers, explained just how bad the action was in the U.K. bond market over the past few weeks, when 30-year government bonds issued in December traded as low as 24 cents on the dollar. He also predicted what will happen if the Federal Reserve continues on its current course of interest-rate increases.

    Related outlooks for interest rates:

    Bullish signs for long-term stock investors

    Getty Images

    Michael Brush argues the Federal Reserve is moving too quickly to raise interest rates and cool the U.S. economy. He expects a rapid decline in inflation and a new bull market for stocks. In a column, he shares five sentiment indicators that suggest it is time to buy stocks — especially this group of companies.

    More: Here’s how you’ll know stock-market lows are finally here, says the legendary investor who called 1987 crash

    Don’t forget to look over your portfolio

    Beth Pinsker explains how to make sure your investments are best diversified to fit your needs during time of uncertainty in all financial markets.

    Read on: $22 billion in I-bond sales can’t be wrong. Why you may want to buy them even when their rate resets soon

    Time for a refreshing COLA if you are on Social Security

    Getty Images

    The Social Security Administration has announced that its cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for 2023 will be 8.7%, the largest increase in four decades. There is more to the story, including tax implications and changes to Medicare, as Jessica Hall and Alessandra Malito explain.

    Related: Can I stop and restart Social Security benefits?

    Pay attention to Medicare open enrollment

    Getty Images/iStockphoto

    Medicare’s annual open enrollment season runs from Oct. 15 to Dec. 7. The majority of Medicare recipients don’t review their plans each year, which can cost them a lot of money. Here’s how to approach Medicare’s 2023 enrollment period.

    You won’t like this ‘new normal’ for the housing market

    West Coast housing markets are already seeing price declines as mortgage loan rates hit 7%.


    Stefani Reynolds/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

    Freddie Mac said interest rates on 30-year mortgage loans averaged 6.92% on Oct. 13, up from 3.05% a year earlier. Mortgage Daily said rates had hit 7.10% — the highest in 20 years — and economists are warning these levels could be a “new normal.”

    A homeowner locked-in with a low interest rate on their mortgage loan will be reluctant to sell. And some would-be buyers may now be priced out of the market because of much higher loan payments. Here’s what economists expect for home prices in 2023.

    More housing coverage from Aarthi Swaminathan: ‘No housing market is immune to home-price declines’: Home values are already falling in these pandemic boomtowns.

    Tips for maximizing financial aid for college

    Getty Images/iStockphoto

    When you fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, to help pay for your child’s college education, there may be a problem — old news. The form reflects your financial situation up to two years ago, and things may have worsened recently. Here’s how to make sure schools have the most recent information to help you get as much financial aid as possible.

    This is why Florida’s insurance market is such a mess

    Florida insurers are not only suffering from storm-damage payouts.


    Joe Raedle/Getty Images

    Hurricanes are nothing new to Floridians, but insurers in the state are losing money even though premiums have doubled over the past five years. Shahid S. Hamid, the director of the Laboratory for Insurance at Florida International University, explains why the Florida insurance market is so distorted.

    Here’s a travel option you may never have heard of — home swapping

    Villefranche-sur-mer on the French Riviera.


    istock

    Home swapping can give you an opportunity to live as a local in a faraway place while spending much less than you would as a tourist. Here’s how it works.

    Want more from MarketWatch? Sign up for this and other newsletters, and get the latest news, personal finance and investing advice.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court refuses to get involved in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago case

    Supreme Court refuses to get involved in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago case

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected former President Donald Trump’s plea to step into the legal fight over the FBI search of his Florida estate.

    The justices did not otherwise comment in turning away Trump’s emergency appeal.

    Trump had pressed the court on an issue relating to classified documents seized in the search authorized by a federal judge of Mar-a-Lago.

    The Trump team was asking the justices to overturn a lower court ruling and permit an independent arbiter, or special master, to review the roughly 100 documents with classified markings that were taken in the Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago.

    A three-judge panel from the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit last month limited the special master’s review to the much larger tranche of non-classified documents. The judges, including two Trump appointees, sided with the Justice Department, which had argued there was no legal basis for the special master to conduct his own review of the classified records.

    But Trump’s lawyers said in their application to the Supreme Court that it was essential for the special master to have access to the classified records to “determine whether documents bearing classification markings are in fact classified, and regardless of classification, whether those records are personal records or Presidential records.”

    The Justice Department said in a Supreme Court filing that Trump’s request had no merit.

    The FBI says it seized roughly 11,000 documents, including about 100 with classification markings, during its search. The Trump team asked a judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon, to appoint a special master to do an independent review of the records.

    Cannon subsequently assigned a veteran Brooklyn judge, Raymond Dearie, to review the records and segregate those that may be protected by claims of attorney-client privilege and executive privilege. The Justice Department objected to Dearie’s ability to review the classified records, prompting the 11th Circuit to side with the department.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Infowars host Alex Jones ordered by Connecticut jury to pay $965 million over Sandy Hook ‘hoax’ claims

    Infowars host Alex Jones ordered by Connecticut jury to pay $965 million over Sandy Hook ‘hoax’ claims

    [ad_1]

    WATERBURY, Conn. (AP) — The conspiracy theorist Alex Jones should pay $965 million to people who suffered from his false claim that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax, a jury in Connecticut decided Wednesday.

    The verdict is the second big judgment against the Infowars host over his relentless promotion of the lie that the 2012 massacre never happened, and that the grieving families seen in news coverage were actors hired as part of a plot to take away people’s guns.

    It came in a lawsuit filed by the relatives of five children and three educators killed in the mass shooting, plus an FBI agent who was among the first responders to the scene. A Texas jury in August awarded nearly $50 million to the parents of another slain child.

    Experts testified that Jones’s audience swelled when he made Sandy Hook a topic on the show, as did his revenue from product sales.

    The Connecticut trial featured tearful testimony from parents and siblings of the victims, who told about how they were threatened and harassed for years by people who believed the lies told on Jones’s show.

    Strangers showed up at their homes to record them. People hurled abusive comments on social media. Erica Lafferty, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, testified that people mailed rape threats to her house.

    Mark Barden told of how conspiracy theorists had urinated on the grave of his 7-year-old son, Daniel, and threatened to dig up the coffin.

    Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis discusses a question from the jury with attorneys on Tuesday.


    H. John Voorhees III/Hearst Connecticut Media/AP

    Testifying during the trial, Jones acknowledged he had been wrong about Sandy Hook. The shooting was real, he said. But both in the courtroom and on his show, he was defiant.

    He called the proceedings a “kangaroo court,” mocked the judge, called the plaintiffs’ lawyer an ambulance chaser and labeled the case an affront to free speech rights. He claimed it was a conspiracy by Democrats and the media to silence him and put him out of business. “I’ve already said ‘I’m sorry’ hundreds of times, and I’m done saying I’m sorry,” he said during his testimony.

    Twenty children and six adults died in the shooting on Dec. 14, 2012. The defamation trial was held at a courthouse in Waterbury, about 20 miles from Newtown, where the attack took place.

    The lawsuit accused Jones and Infowars’ private parent company, Free Speech Systems, of using the mass killing to build his audience and make millions of dollars.

    Experts testified that Jones’s audience swelled when he made Sandy Hook a topic on the show, as did his revenue from product sales.

    Don’t miss: Alex Jones’s audience and Infowars’ revenue grew as Jones alleged Sandy Hook school massacre was a hoax

    Also: Alex Jones has created a ‘living hell’ of harassment and death threats, testify Sandy Hook school parents

    In both the Texas lawsuit and the one in Connecticut, judges found the company liable for damages by default after Jones failed to cooperate with court rules on sharing evidence, including failing to turn over records that might have showed whether Infowars had profited from knowingly spreading misinformation about mass killings.

    See: Texas jury orders Alex Jones to pay more than $49 million in damages in Sandy Hook case

    Because he was already found liable, Jones was barred from mentioning free-speech rights and other topics during his testimony.

    Jones now faces a third trial, in Texas around the end of the year, in a lawsuit filed by the parents of another child killed in the shooting.

    It is unclear how much of the verdicts Jones can afford to pay.

    During the trial in Texas, he testified he couldn’t afford any judgment over $2 million. Free Speech Systems has filed for bankruptcy protection. But an economist testified in the Texas proceeding that Jones and his company were worth as much as $270 million.

    Read on: Alex Jones’s Infowars picks new CRO for bankruptcy

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas Pete maker sued for crafting its hot sauce in — gasp — North Carolina

    Texas Pete maker sued for crafting its hot sauce in — gasp — North Carolina

    [ad_1]

    Some Texas Pete customers are hot under the collar about where this sauce is actually cooked up. 

    A California man has filed a class action suit against the hot sauce maker, claiming it “capitalizes on consumers’ desire to partake in the culture and authentic cuisine of one of the most prideful states in America” with a name and label that plays up Texas — yet, the product is actually whipped up in Winston-Salem, N.C.

    Hey, at least it wasn’t made in New York City!

    The complaint filed by the Clarkson Law Firm on behalf of customer Philip White says that the dissatisfied customer bought a bottle of Texas Pete for about $3 at a Ralph’s Supermarket in September 2021, because he believed it was made in Texas. The suit claims that White would have passed over the bottle of Texas Pete if he knew it really came from North Carolina.

    But with a name like Texas Pete, as well as a label featuring “distinct Texan imagery” like the “lone star” from the Texas flag and a cowboy, the suit says that consumers like White looking for an authentic Texas hot sauce are being misled. 

    “Because there is nothing ’Texas’ about Texas Pete, [the company’s] deceptive marketing and labeling scheme violates well-established federal and state consumer protection laws aimed at preventing this exact type of fraudulent scheme,” the suit states. 

    Garner Foods told MarketWatch in a statement over email that, “We are aware of the current lawsuit that has been filed against our company regarding the Texas Pete brand name.  We are currently investigating these assertions with our legal counsel to find the clearest and most effective way to respond.”

    It should be noted that both the Texas Pete and T.W. Garner Food Co. websites point out that the hot sauce is made in North Carolina. What’s more, the back label on the hot sauce bottle also reveals that it is made in the Tar Heel State. 

    But the suit argues that “consumers do not view the back label of the products when purchasing everyday food items such as hot sauce.” The plaintiffs are asking for unspecified damages, as well as for Texas Pete to change its label and advertising practices. 

    This brings to mind an Illinois woman’s $5 million suit against Kellogg last year, claiming the company is misleading consumers by selling “Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts” that barely contain any strawberries. 

    Or when Starbucks faced backlash several years ago as more consumers started realizing their beloved pumpkin spice lattes didn’t actually contain any pumpkin. The coffee chain has since tweaked the recipe to squeeze in autumn’s signature gourd.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Putin says military strikes against Ukraine were retaliation for bridge attack

    Putin says military strikes against Ukraine were retaliation for bridge attack

    [ad_1]

    MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin said that a series of strikes Monday across Ukraine came in retaliation against the Ukrainian attack on a bridge to Crimea and other attacks in Russia that he described as “terrorist” actions.

    Putin said the Russian military launched precision weapons from the air, sea and ground to target key energy and military command facilities.

    He warned that if Ukraine continues to mount “terrorist attacks” on Russia, Moscow’s response will be “tough and proportionate to the level of threats.”

    The intense, hours-long attack marked a sudden military escalation by Moscow. It came a day after Putin called the explosion Saturday on the huge bridge connecting Russia to its annexed territory of Crimea a “terrorist act” masterminded by Ukrainian special services.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk would lose 13.5 million Twitter followers if he scraps most spam accounts; Justin Bieber would lose 27.6 million, data finds

    Elon Musk would lose 13.5 million Twitter followers if he scraps most spam accounts; Justin Bieber would lose 27.6 million, data finds

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk would lose about 13.5 million Twitter followers, if he pushes through his plan to get rid of most spam accounts, according to data crunched by CodeClan, a Scottish digital skills academy.

    The Tesla Inc.
    TSLA,
    -3.84%

    CEO on Tuesday gave up a legal battle and agreed to pay $44 billion to take over the social-media company. Musk has said he wants less than 5% of Twitter
    TWTR,
    -2.35%

    accounts to be spam.

    But Musk’s losses pale in comparison with singer Justin Bieber, who would lose 27.6 million of his 114.2 million followers, according to the data.

    Britney Spears would lose the highest percentage of fake followers out of the top 20 with some 48% of her 55.8 million followers being classified as fakes.

    See also: Elon Musk says Twitter will eventually be part of ‘X, the everything app’

    Former President Barack Obama would lose 19.3 million of his 131.9 million followers, the data shows.

    Among other high profile names; Katy Perry has about 23.3 million fakes among her 108.9 million followers, or 21.4% of the total; Rihanna has about 26.5 million fakes, or 24.9% of her 106.5 million followers; Lady Gaga has 10.9 million fakes in her roster of 84.7 million followers, for 12.9% of the total; Kim Kardashian has about 14 million fakes, or 19.4% of her 72.4 million followers, and Ellen DeGeneres has about 24.4 million fakes, equal to 31.5% of her 77.5 million followers.

    See now: Elon Musk’s legal battle with Twitter may be over, but his war with the SEC continues

    In the world of politics, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has about 17.5 million fakes in his 78.8 million followers, equal to 22.2% of the total.

    CNN Breaking News has about 7.7 million fakes, or 12.2% of its 63.1 million followers. Bill Gates has about 14.3 million fakes, or 24.2% of his 58.9 million followers. And NASA has some 14.7 million fakes, or 26.8% of its 57.1 million followers.

    Twitter shares were slightly lower premarket, while Tesla was down 1.1%.

    Shares of Digital World Acquisition Corp.
    DWAC,
    +0.03%
    ,
    the special-purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, buying the company behind former President Donald Trump’s Truth Social social-media company, was slightly higher premarket after falling more than 5% Tuesday in the wake of the Musk/Twitter news.

    The SPAC has fallen 67% in the year to date, while the S&P 500
    SPX,
    -1.28%

    has fallen 20%.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk wants to move forward with his purchase of Twitter. Here’s how some Twitter users reacted.

    Elon Musk wants to move forward with his purchase of Twitter. Here’s how some Twitter users reacted.

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk sent a letter to Twitter
    TWTR,
    +22.24%

    indicating he intends to move forward with his original proposal that he acquire the company for $54.20 a share, according to a filing from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    The Tesla Inc.
    TSLA,
    +2.90%

    CEO agreed to buy the social media company back in April for $44 billion, but in recent months said he wanted to terminate the deal, publicly citing concerns about bots on the platform. The two sides had been entrenched in a legal battle over the past few months, and a Delaware Chancery Court judge was scheduled to hear arguments on the case in October, a case Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives said Musk was “highly unlikely” to win.

    See also: College students who got low grades complained about their ‘dismissive’ professor. Then NYU fired him.

    Twitter users reacted to the news on Tuesday afternoon, many of them joking about a potential resolution to the seemingly never-ending Elon Musk Twitter saga.

    One Twitter user said she believes Musk will look to reinstate the account of former President Donald Trump, which was banned shortly after the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump has claimed he won’t return to Twitter even if the Musk deal is executed, and he’ll continue to post on his platform, Truth Social.

    See also: Trump’s Facebook ban may end as soon as January 2023, Meta executive says

    “We’re doing a big platform right now, so I probably wouldn’t have any interest,” the former president said.

    Another user tweeted that supporters of the meme crypto dogecoin
    DOGEUSD,
    +1.11%

    are excited by Musk’s move to proceed with the deal. Musk has touted dogecoin on several occasions in the past few years.

    Similar to bitcoin, dogecoin is a peer-to-peer, open-source cryptocurrency. It trades under the ticker symbol “DOGE” and features the face of the shiba inu from the popular Doge meme as its logo. Dogecoin was up as much as 9.16% after the Bloomberg news was published.

    Musk has not publicly commented on the report, but one Twitter user pointed out that he tweeted about his satellite internet project Starlink after the news broke, but did not mention Twitter in any way.

    A report from The Wall Street Journal stated Musk’s legal team relayed the proposal to Twitter’s team “overnight Monday.”

    Shares of Tesla Inc. dipped after the news, and are now up just 1.31% during Tuesday’s trading. Shares of the EV maker were up as much as 5.65% on the day before the Musk news.

    See also: SPAC backing Trump’s Truth Social hit by news Musk is again offering to acquire Twitter at original price

    The news comes a few days after hundreds of text messages from Musk’s phone were made public as evidence in Twitter’s lawsuit.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Twitter stock surges 22% after Elon Musk gives up bot battle and commits to $44 billion deal

    Twitter stock surges 22% after Elon Musk gives up bot battle and commits to $44 billion deal

    [ad_1]

    Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk now plans to close his proposed $44 billion deal for Twitter Inc., according to a Tuesday filing that arrived less than two weeks before a judge was scheduled to hear a case on the disputed acquisition.

    Musk’s lawyers sent a letter to Twitter’s management team indicating that he was proposing to move forward with the original acquisition terms late Monday, and that letter was released as a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission Tuesday afternoon. A Twitter spokesperson later confirmed to MarketWatch that the company intended to proceed with the deal for $54.20 a share.

    Twitter
    TWTR,
    +22.24%

    shares jumped 22.2% to $52 in Tuesday’s session, after an hours-long trading halt that started after Bloomberg News first reported the move around noon Eastern time, suggesting a possible end to the legal saga between the two parties. The increase is the second best daily percentage gain on record for Twitter stock, behind only the 27.1% gain experienced when Musk disclosed his initial ownership stake in Twitter in April. Twitter was the best performing stock Tuesday in the S&P 500 index
    SPX,
    +3.06%
    ,
    and is now up 20.3% on the year.

    The two sides have been locked in a legal battle for months, and a Delaware Chancery Court judge was expected to hear from both sides in a five-day trial slated to begin Oct. 17. The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the Delaware judge asked the two sides to come up with a plan by the end of the day that could bring about an end to the litigation.

    “Musk could see the writing on the wall that he was going to lose the trial,” said Josh White, an assistant finance professor at Vanderbilt University, in an email to MarketWatch. “By doing this, he can save legal costs, time and ultimately losing in a very public trial.”

    See also: Here’s how Twitter’s users reacted to Musk agreeing to buy the platform

    Musk agreed in April to buy Twitter in a deal that valued the company at roughly $44 billion, but he later said that he was terminating the deal. The Tesla
    TSLA,
    +2.90%

    CEO cited concerns about bot activity on Twitter and said he believed the company’s management team wasn’t accurate in its public disclosures about the extent of spam activity on the platform.

    White noted that text messages released in conjunction with the case showed that Musk was aware of Twitter’s bot issue before going forward with his original deal offer, and he doubted that Musk would be able to show that “something really changed” after that point.

    “If he offered less than $54.20, Twitter might have proceeded with the trial, and he would be deposed,” White continued. “By offering the original price, he maximizes the chance that Twitter accepts and the trial ends. I expect Twitter’s board to accept the deal and for it to close rather quickly.”

    Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives agreed that the Tesla leader’s latest move marked a “clear sign that Musk recognized heading into Delaware Court that the chances of winning vs. Twitter board was highly unlikely and this $44 billion deal was going to be completed one way or another,” he wrote in a note to clients. “Being forced to do the deal after a long and ugly court battle in Delaware was not an ideal scenario and instead accepting this path and moving forward with the deal will save a massive legal headache.”

    Opinion: Twitter stood up to Elon Musk and won, but will it feel like a win once he owns it?

    Vanderbilt’s White noted that a deal at the original price would be a “big” win for Twitter shareholders.

    “The stock price of Snap
    SNAP,
    +8.42%

    and Twitter seemed to trade around the same price level before the offer,” he told MarketWatch. “Snap is now a ~$10 stock with a $17 billion market cap. So Twitter’s shareholders win by getting $54.20 rather than having the price drop to $10-20 per share.”

    Additionally, he deemed Delaware business law another winner: “This deal shows that even the richest man in the world cannot overcome well-written contracts enforced in a neutral and fair way by the Delaware courts.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link