[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Former President Donald Trump rejected his last chance Sunday to testify at a civil trial where a longtime advice columnist has accused him of raping her in a luxury department store dressing room in 1996.
Trump, a Republican candidate for president in 2024, was given until 5 p.m. Sunday by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to file a request to testify. Nothing was filed.
It was not a surprise. Trump has not shown up once during the two-week Manhattan trial where writer E. Jean Carroll testified for several days, repeating claims she first made publicly in a 2019 memoir. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages totaling millions of dollars.
The jury has also watched lengthy excerpts from an October videotaped deposition in which Trump vehemently denied raping Carroll or ever really knowing her.
Without Trump’s testimony, lawyers were scheduled to make closing arguments Monday, with deliberations likely to begin on Tuesday.
Getty Images
After plaintiffs rested their case Thursday, Trump attorney Joe Tacopina immediately rested the defense case as well without calling any witnesses. He did not request additional time for Trump to decide to testify. Tacopina declined in an email to comment after the deadline passed Sunday.
On Thursday, Kaplan had given Trump extra time to change his mind and request to testify, though the judge did not promise he would grant such a request to reopen the defense case so Trump could take the stand.
At the time, Kaplan noted that he’d heard about news reports Thursday in which Trump told reporters while visiting his golf course in Doonbeg, Ireland, that he would “probably attend” the trial. Trump also criticized Kaplan, a Bill Clinton appointee, as an “extremely hostile” and “rough judge” who “doesn’t like me very much.”
On the witness stand, Carroll, 79, testified that Trump, 76, raped her in spring 1996 after they met at the entrance of the midtown Manhattan department store Bergdorf Goodman.
Michael M Santiago/GettyImages / Getty Images
She said the encounter began as a fun and flirtatious outing as Trump coaxed her into helping him shop for a gift for another woman. She said they ended up in the store’s desolate lingerie section, where they teased each other to try on a see-through bodysuit.
As Carroll recalled it, laughter accompanied them into a dressing room where Trump became violent, slamming her up against a wall, pulling aside her tights and raping her before she kneed him and fled the store.
In his deposition, Trump said Carroll made it up. He called it “a false, disgusting lie” delivered by a “nut job” who was trying to stoke sales of her book.
He also repeated comments he made in statements that she was not his “type.”
“She’s not my type and that’s 100% true,” he said.
And he repeated his claims in a 2005 “Access Hollywood” video in which he bragged that men who are celebrities can grab women by the genitals without asking.
“Historically that’s true with stars,” he said.
Carroll sued Trump in November, minutes after New York state enacted a law allowing adult sexual assault victims to sue others even if the attacks occurred decades earlier.
Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, wrote a letter to the judge Sunday to complain that Trump still has not removed April 26 posts on his social media network in which he called Carroll’s allegations “a made up SCAM.” And she noted that he repeated disparaging remarks about the trial three days ago in Ireland.
After the April 26 postings on Truth Social, Judge Kaplan, who is not related to Carroll’s lawyer, said Trump’s comments were “highly inappropriate” and expressed concern that Trump was trying to communicate to the jury “about stuff that has no business being spoken about.”
The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Lawyers for failed Republican Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake on Thursday were fined $2,000 by the state Supreme Court for making “unequivocally false” allegations about November’s election.
Lake’s lawyers will have 10 days to comply, according to The Associated Press.
“Sometimes campaigns and their attendant hyperbole spill over into legal challenges. But once a contest enters the judicial arena, rules of attorney ethics apply,” Chief Justice Robert Brutinel said.
The ruling came in response to a request by Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) to sanction Lake and her lawyers for falsely saying that over 35,000 ballots were sent to a third-party processing facility to be included in the final tally for Maricopa County, the state’s most populous county.
Hobbs defeated Lake, who has yet to acknowledge her 2022 loss, by over 17,000 votes.
Brutinel did not grant Hobbs and Fontes’ request for Lake to pay their attorney fees. The judge added that Lake’s lawsuit challenging the verification of signatures in Maricopa County’s early voting is still moving forward.
“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s holding but look forward to presenting our case at trial on the claim of illegal signatures and any other claim the trial court may consider,” Kurt Olsen, a lawyer for Lake, told NBC News.
The state Supreme Court in March struck down the majority of Lake’s lawsuit challenging her election loss, but overturned a lower court’s decision dismissing the Trump-supporting extremist’s challenge over early voting signature procedures. That case will be decided by a trial court.
Lake, and other GOP candidates in Arizona races in November, also claimed election printer problems. A report by a retired Arizona Supreme Court justice found the issues arose from paper changes and didn’t affect election outcomes.
Lake, who still claims Trump won the 2020 presidential election, is in Budapest this week for the Conservative Political Action Conference.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
A judge in New York dismissed former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times and three of the paper’s reporters on Wednesday over a 2018 article that alleged Trump engaged in “suspect tax schemes.” The three authors of the article — David Barstow, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner — later won the 2019 Pulitzer Prize in explanatory reporting for the piece.
New York Supreme Court Justice Robert Reed dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against the paper and its journalists, and held him financially responsible for their attorneys fees and additional costs incurred as well, writing in his opinion that Mr. Trump’s claims “fail as a matter of constitutional law.”
“Courts have long recognized that reporters are entitled to engage in legal and ordinary newsgathering activities without fear of tort liability — as these actions are at the very core of protected First Amendment activity,” continued Reed.
Robert Alexander / Getty Images
Trump initially filed the suit against The Times, the three reporters and his niece, Mary Trump, in late 2021, alleging that the paper engaged in an “insidious plot” to illegally obtain copies of his confidential tax documents through Mary Trump, and subsequently exploit them. Trump’s attorneys alleged that in providing the paper with Trump’s 20-year-old tax documents, his niece had been in violation of a 1999 court ruling involving the will of Fred C. Trump, the former president’s father, reported The New York Times.
Reed asserted that Mary Trump “owned the files she disclosed to The Times, and thus there was nothing wrongful” about the paper and its reporters requesting the documents from her for journalistic use.
While Reed has tossed out the claims against The Times, Barstow, Craig and Buettner, the claims against Mary Trump have yet to be ruled upon. It is not immediately clear when a decision will be made.
“The New York Times is pleased with the judge’s decision today,” a spokesperson for the paper said in a statement provided to CBS News. “It is an important precedent reaffirming that the press is protected when it engages in routine newsgathering to obtain information of vital importance to the public.”
Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, said in a statement: “All journalists must be held accountable when they commit civil wrongs. The New York Times is no different and its reporters went well beyond the conventional news gathering techniques permitted by the First Amendment. In light of the Court’s decision, we will weigh our client’s options and continue to vigorously fight on his behalf.” She did not specify if they would appeal.
This is not the first time Trump has been unsuccessful in suing The New York Times. In 2020, the former president filed a libel lawsuit against the paper, claiming it inaccurately reported “as fact a conspiracy with Russia” in a 2019 opinion piece. The suit was dismissed in 2021.
–Graham Kates contributed reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Wisconsin’s conservative-controlled Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a hospital could not be forced to give a deworming drug to a patient with COVID-19, saying a county judge did not cite a legal basis for ordering the facility to administer ivermectin.
Ivermectin became popular among conservatives after commentators and even some far-right doctors held up the antiparasitic drug as a miracle cure for the coronavirus and other illnesses. But the Food and Drug Administration has not approved it for use in treating COVID-19 and warns that misusing ivermectin can be harmful, even fatal.
The Wisconsin lawsuit is one of dozens filed across the country seeking to force hospitals to administer ivermectin for COVID-19. The drug is commonly used in cattle and also approved for human use to fight parasites and certain skin conditions. But some members of online alternative medicine groups have reported self-administering highly concentrated, veterinary-grade ivermectin to treat illnesses. The FDA warns that self-administering the drug, especially in doses intended for animals, can be lethal.
In Tuesday’s ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in favor of Aurora Health Care, with three liberals and three conservatives in support and only conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley dissenting.
The decision upholds an appeal court’s ruling against Allen Gahl, who sued Aurora in October 2021 when doctors refused to treat his uncle, John Zingsheim, with ivermectin. Gahl was authorized to make medical decisions for Zingsheim and had researched the drug online after Zingsheim was put on a ventilator to treat COVID-19 complications.
Gahl obtained a prescription for ivermectin from a retired doctor who had never met Zingsheim or his medical team, but hospital staff said the drug did not meet their standards and refused to administer it. None of the information in the complaint Gahl subsequently filed against the hospital came directly from medical professionals, according to court documents.
The Waukesha County Circuit Court ordered hospital staff to give Zingsheim the drug but later modified its decision to say Gahl would have to provide the drug himself, as well as a doctor to administer it. An appeals court overturned that decision after Aurora’s attorneys argued a judge could not force a medical provider to give treatment they had determined to be substandard. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in January.
“We do not know what viable legal claim the circuit court thought Gahl had presented,” Justice Ann Walsh Bradley said in the court’s opinion.
Gahl was represented by the Amos Center for Justice, a conservative Wisconsin law firm that has brought litigation against ballot drop boxes and promotes conspiracy theories about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines on its website. His attorney, Karen Mueller, did not immediately return a voicemail Tuesday seeking comment.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Colorado’s governor signed four gun control bills Friday, following the lead of other states struggling to confront a nationwide surge in violent crime and mass shootings.
Before the ink was even dry on Gov. Jared Polis’ signature, gun rights groups sued to reverse two of the measures: raising the buying age for any gun from 18 to 21, and establishing a three-day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun. The courts are already weighing lawsuits over such restrictions in other states. The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that expanded Second Amendment rights.
The new laws, which Democrats pushed through despite late-night filibusters from Republicans, are aimed at quelling rising suicides and youth violence, preventing mass shootings and opening avenues for gun violence victims to sue the long-protected firearm industry. They were enacted just five months after a mass shooting at an LGBTQ club in Colorado Springs.
“Coloradans deserve to be safe in our communities, in our schools, in our grocery stores, in our nightclubs,” Polis said as he signed the measures in his office. The governor was flanked by activists wearing red shirts reading, “Moms Demand Action,” students from a Denver high school recently affected by a shooting, and parents of a woman killed in the Aurora theater shooting in 2012.
Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post
Supportive lawmakers and citizens alike had tears in their eyes and roared their applause as Polis signed each bill. Colorado has a history of notorious mass shootings, reaching back to the Columbine High School massacre in 1999.
Republicans decried the bills as onerous encroachments on Second Amendment rights that would impede Colorado residents’ ability to defend themselves amid a rising statewide crime rate. Gun rights advocates pledged to reverse the measures.
“This is simply bigoted politicians doing what bigoted politicians do: discriminating against an age,” said Taylor Rhodes, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, referring to the new age limit on gun purchases. Rhodes said he has confidence in the lawsuits that his group has filed.
A third measure passed by the legislature will strengthen the state’s red flag law, and a fourth rolls back some legal protections for the firearm industry, exposing them to lawsuits from the victims of gun violence.
The new red flag law, also called an extreme risk protection order, empowers those working closely with youth and adults — doctors, mental health professionals and teachers — to petition a judge to temporarily remove someone’s firearm. Previously, petition power was limited mainly to law-enforcement and family members. The goal is to act preemptively before someone attempts suicide or attacks others.
At the signing ceremony, Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Democrat and one of the bill’s sponsors, said Republicans and other gun control opponents often respond to mass shootings by saying it’s too soon to talk about restricting firearms.
“It isn’t too soon. It’s too late for so many of the lost souls,” Fenberg said. “We needed to have done more to prevent what happened.”
Republicans argued that the law would discourage people — especially military veterans — from candidly speaking with medical doctors and mental health professionals for fear of having their weapons temporarily seized.
The law requiring a three-day delay between buying and receiving a firearm — an attempt to curtail impulsive violence and suicide attempts — puts Colorado in line with nine other states, including California, Florida and Hawaii.
Colorado has the sixth-highest suicide rate in the country, with nearly 1,400 in 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A RAND Corporation analysis of four studies found that waiting periods are linked to lower suicide-by-gun deaths.
Opponents raised concerns that people who need to defend themselves — such as victims of domestic violence — may not be able to get a gun in time to do so.
In raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, Colorado joins California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, New York and Rhode Island. Proponents point to now oft-cited data from the CDC showing that gun violence has overtaken vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in recent years.
At the ceremony, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser likened the new laws to the campaign for vehicle safety that spawned groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the forerunner of Moms Demand Action.
In their speeches about rolling back legal protections for gun manufacturers, lawmakers looked often to Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter, Jessica Ghawi, was slain in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting. The parents tried to sue the companies that had sold the shooter ammunition and tear gas but were unsuccessful. Ultimately, the couple ended up owing more than $200,000 in defense attorney fees and had to file for bankruptcy.
California, Delaware, New Jersey and New York have passed similar legislation over the past three years. Opponents of the bill argued that it would merely bog the firearms industry down in bogus lawsuits.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Jury selection and opening statements are set to begin Monday in a trial that mashes up Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” with Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On.”
The heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye’s co-writer of the 1973 soul classic, sued Sheeran, alleging the English pop star’s hit 2014 tune has “striking similarities” to “Let’s Get It On” and “overt common elements” that violate their copyright.
The lawsuit filed in 2017 has finally made it to a trial that is expected to last a week in the Manhattan federal courtroom of 95-year-old Judge Louis L. Stanton.
Sheeran, 32, is among the witnesses expected to testify.
“Let’s Get It On” is the quintessential, sexy slow jam that’s been heard in countless films and commercials and garnered hundreds of millions of streams, spins and radio plays over the past 50 years. “Thinking Out Loud,” which won a Grammy for song of the year, is a much more marital take on love and sex.
While the jury will hear the recordings of both songs, probably many times, their lyrics — and vibes — are legally insignificant. Jurors are supposed to only consider the raw elements of melody, harmony and rhythm that make up the composition of “Let’s Get It On,” as documented on sheet music filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Sheeran’s attorneys have said the songs’ undeniable structural symmetry points only to the foundations of popular music.
“The two songs share versions of a similar and unprotectable chord progression that was freely available to all songwriters,” they said in a court filing.
Paul Natkin / Getty Images
Townsend family attorneys pointed out in the lawsuit that artists including Boyz II Men have performed seamless mashups of the two songs, and that even Sheeran himself has segued into “Let’s Get It On” during live performances of “Thinking Out Loud.”
They sought to play a potentially damning YouTube video of one such Sheeran performance for the jury at trial. Stanton denied their motion to include it, but said he would reconsider it after he sees other evidence that’s presented.
Gaye’s estate is not involved in the case, though it will inevitably have echoes of their successful lawsuit against Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and T.I. over the resemblance of their 2013 hit “Blurred Lines” to Gaye’s 1977 “Got to Give it Up.”
A jury awarded Gaye’s heirs $7.4 million at trial — later trimmed by a judge to $5.3 million — making it among the most significant copyright cases in recent decades.
Sheeran’s label Atlantic Records and Sony/ATV Music Publishing are also named as defendants in the “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit. Generally, plaintiffs in copyright lawsuits cast a wide net in naming defendants, though a judge can eliminate any names deemed inappropriate. In this case, however, Sheeran’s co-writer on the song, Amy Wadge, was never named.
Townsend, who also wrote the 1958 R&B doo-wop hit “For Your Love,” was a singer, songwriter and lawyer. He died in 2003. Kathryn Townsend Griffin, his daughter, is the plaintiff leading the lawsuit.
Already a Motown superstar in the 1960s before his more adult 1970s output made him a generational musical giant, Gaye was killed in 1984 at age 44, shot by his father as he tried to intervene in a fight between his parents.
Major artists are often hit with lawsuits alleging song-stealing, but nearly all settle before trial — as Taylor Swift recently did over “Shake it Off,” ending a lawsuit that lasted years longer and came closer to trial than most other cases.
But Sheeran — whose musical style drawing from classic soul, pop and R&B has made him a target for copyright lawsuits — has shown a willingness to go to trial before. A year ago, he won a U.K. copyright battle over his 2017 hit “Shape of You,” then slammed what he described as a “culture” of baseless lawsuits intended to squeeze money out of artists eager to avoid the expense of a trial.
“I feel like claims like this are way too common now and have become a culture where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court, even if there is no basis for the claim,” Sheeran said in a video posted on Twitter after the verdict. “It’s really damaging to the songwriting industry.”
The “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuit also invokes one of the most common tropes in American and British music since the earliest days of rock ‘n’ roll, R&B and hip-hop: a young white artist seemingly appropriating the work of an older Black artist — accusations that were also levied at Elvis Presley and The Beatles, whose music drew on that of Black forerunners.
“Mr. Sheeran blatantly took a Black artist’s music who he doesn’t view as worthy as compensation,” Ben Crump, a civil rights attorney who represents the Townsend family but is not involved in the trial, said at a March 31 news conference.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Late Tuesday afternoon, amid a swirl of confusion over why the Dominion v. Fox trial had been delayed for hours, Judge Eric Davis announced that the “parties had resolved the case,” thus marking an abrupt end to one of the most highly anticipated defamation trials in decades. Every major media outlet, many of which had correspondents in Wilmington, immediately jumped on news of the settlement and its $787.5 million price tag. But one outlet was noticeably loath to get in on the feeding frenzy.
Fox News, the network at the heart of the story, covered the settlement only three times in about four hours after news of the settlement broke, “amounting to about six minutes of coverage,” according to The New York Times’ Stuart Thompson. One such instance occurred during the final moments of Fox anchor Neil Cavuto’s 4 PM hour. “Fox has agreed to pay $787 million to settle Dominion’s defamation lawsuit,” Cavuto said, a figure that he said came “officially from the Wall Street Journal”—an outlet that, like Fox News, is owned by Fox Corp. And yet, as The Daily Beast’s Justin Baragona noted, Fox media analyst Howard Kurtz claimed in a broadcast about an hour and a half later that he was unable to “independently confirm” the dollar figure of the settlement that Dominion’s lawyer gave reporters.
Kurtz—who, back in February, publicly voiced his disagreement with Fox’s decision to prevent him from covering the trial—went on to mention Dominion CEO John Poulos’ statement to reporters that “Fox has admitted telling lies about Dominion.” To which Kurtz added, “Now, both sides had an incentive to avoid a costly six-week trial. Dominion might have lost and gotten zero. Some of Fox’s top executives and Opinion hosts would have had to testify. But there’s undoubtedly disappointment at other networks that were relishing this spectacle.”
Meanwhile, during the Tuesday broadcasts of hosts Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity—both of whom were expected to take the stand in the Dominion trial—no reference to the settlement was made, according to Reuters. (Statements made on both hosts’ shows back in 2020 were among the 20 specific broadcasts and tweets in question that Dominion had alleged were defamatory.)
As for atonement, Fox’s statement acknowledging that “certain claims” about Dominion were false is apparently as far as the network is going to go. Multiple outlets reported that Fox will not have to issue an on-air apology or correction for the erroneous statements its stars made about Dominion as part of the settlement agreement. “There’s no doubt that the $787.5 million settlement is an emphatic win for Dominion. I can’t help but think, though, about the significance to Fox of not having to acknowledge, on air, that the network spread falsehoods,” tweeted media law professor Jonathan Peters. “Fox gets to duck *full* responsibility and avoid a head-on reckoning with its viewers.” That might have something to do, as Peters noted, with the fact that Fox “wanted to avoid statements that could be used against it in the future,” as the network is still facing another defamation lawsuit, filed by another election technology company, Smartmatic, over its 2020 election coverage.
Listen to Vanity Fair’s Inside the Hive: Fox on Trial podcast now.
[ad_2]
Charlotte Klein
Source link

[ad_1]
Washington — Lies about the 2020 presidential election spread in the wake of former President Donald Trump’s loss will take center stage in Delaware state court Tuesday, when Dominion Voting Systems will press its claims before a jury that Fox News aired baseless accusations against it that the network knew were false.
The high-stakes trial comes two years after Dominion filed its lawsuit against Fox News and is set to test the bounds of the First Amendment while highlighting unfounded allegations amplified by a former president and his allies that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. While the trial was set to kick off Monday with the final round of jury selection and opening statements, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, who is overseeing the case, announced Sunday night that the start would be postponed until Tuesday. He did not cite a reason.
“This is not unusual,” Davis said in brief proceedings Monday morning, noting that postponements often occur.
The key issue for the 12 jurors weighing Dominion’s defamation case against the cable news giant is whether Fox News defamed the company when it broadcast claims that the electronic voting company helped orchestrate a campaign to rig the election against Trump.
For Dominion to succeed, the company’s lawyers must convince the jury that Fox News acted with actual malice, the legal standard that requires a public figure to prove the publisher knew the offending statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. If Dominion succeeds in clearing that high bar, the jury will then decide how much in damages they believe the company is entitled to.
Dominion is suing Fox and its parent company, Fox Corporation, for $1.6 billion and has pointed to 20 statements — many made by conservative lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani — aired on shows hosted by Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity or on Twitter that they argue were defamatory.
“In the coming weeks, we will prove Fox spread lies causing enormous damage to Dominion. We look forward to trial,” a Dominion spokesperson said in a statement before the start of the trial.
Fox News argues that the claims involving Dominion were newsworthy given who made the statements, when they were made and what they concerned, and that the broadcasts are protected by the First Amendment.
“Dominion’s lawsuit is a political crusade in search of a financial windfall, but the real cost would be cherished First Amendment rights,” a Fox spokesperson said in a statement. “While Dominion has pushed irrelevant and misleading information to generate headlines, FOX News remains steadfast in protecting the rights of a free press, given a verdict for Dominion and its private equity owners would have grave consequences for the entire journalism profession.”
The case has already brought into the public view reams of internal text messages and emails exchanged by Fox’s hosts, producers and executives, many of which showed they had doubts about the veracity of the allegations being spread by Trump and his allies.
Both Dominion and Fox News asked Davis to rule in their favor based on the evidence presented in the case. But Davis said in an opinion late last month that a jury will decide whether Fox acted with actual malice in broadcasting the unfounded allegations about Dominion.
The judge also said it is “oxymoronic” to call the challenged 20 statements opinions while also asserting they’re newsworthy allegations. Davis, who reviewed all 20 broadcasts and tweets where the falsehoods about Dominion were made, said it’s “crystal clear” that none of the statements relating to the electronic voting company are true.
Davis last week sanctioned Fox’s attorneys after Dominion alleged the network withheld evidence and information it should have turned over. A Fox attorney apologized to the judge in a letter Friday, writing the network’s legal team is “committed to clear and full communication with the Court moving forward.”
A number of Fox News’ top hosts, including Carlson, Hannity and Baritromo, are expected to testify during the course of the roughly six-week trial, along with co-founder Rupert Murdoch.
Nicole Sganga contributed to this report.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Shaquille O’Neal has been served in a class-action lawsuit against FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried and multiple celebrity spokespeople, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said in a statement Sunday night. The announcement came several days after a Florida judge denied a motion to allow the NBA legend to be served electronically after allegedly dodging service for months.
“I wanted you to know the good news that we just served personally Shaquille O’Neal outside his house in Atlanta,” Adam M. Moskowitz, the attorney leading the lawsuit, said in a statement. “The good news is his home video cameras recorded our service and we have made it very clear, he is not to destroy and/or erase any of these security tapes, because they must be preserved for our lawsuit.”
Moskowitz and his law firm had been given a deadline of Monday to serve O’Neal, who Moskowitz said had “been hiding and driving away from our process servers for the past 3 months.”
O’Neal, who currently serves as an analyst for “Inside the NBA,” was the final defendant in the lawsuit to be served, according to the motion asking to serve him electronically.
The motion claimed that a process server had attempted to serve O’Neal dozens of times at his Texas and Georgia residences, and via mail to both the residences and his offices in Atlanta, where “Inside the NBA” is broadcast from.
Attorneys alleged in the motion that after an attempt to serve O’Neal in Texas, the process server “was sent an ominous and threatening text message by O’Neal or someone acting on his behalf.” The text message also claimed O’Neal lives in the Bahamas, which the law firm then determined to be untrue, the motion states.
The lawsuit accuses Bankman-Fried, O’Neal and other celebrity spokespeople, including Tom Brady and Larry David, of defrauding FTX investors.
“Mr. O’Neal will now be required to appear in federal court and explain to his millions of followers his ‘FTX: I Am All In’ false advertising campaign,” Moskowitz said Sunday night.
The four-time NBA champion has denied being involved in FTX beyond his sponsorship deal.
“A lot of people think I’m involved, but I was just a paid spokesperson for a commercial,” he said in an interview on CNBC after the lawsuit was filed.
FTX, which collapsed late last year, shuffled customer money between affiliated entities, using new investor funds and loans to pay interest on old ones in an attempt “to maintain the appearance of liquidity,” Moskowitz told CBS News in an email.
“FTX were geniuses at public relations and marketing, and knew that such a massive Ponzi scheme — larger than the Madoff scheme — could only be successful with the help and promotion of the most famous, respected, and beloved celebrities and influencers in the world,” he said.
— Kate Gibson contributed reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Two years after a mass shooting at a FedEx facility in Indiana, survivors and victims’ family members are suing the company that distributed the magazine used in the killings.
New York-based American Tactical sells high-capacity ammunition magazines (HCMs) that allow shooters to fire off 60 rounds of ammunition without reloading. That feature is “not necessary, or even useful, for lawful self-defense or hunting,” a federal lawsuit filed Thursday argues. Court documents also allege that American Tactical is aware of how many times high-capacity magazines have been used in recent killings and that its decision to continue selling them is “reckless.”
A magazine is what is used to store and feed ammunition into semiautomatic and automatic guns. Rounds, or cartridges, are units of ammunition, consisting of a bullet or projectile that is fired from a gun, explains the lawsuit.
Nine people — including Jaswinder Singh — died in the April 2021 shooting when former FedEx employee Brandon Hole opened fire on people in a Fedex shipping facility in Indianapolis. Singh’s son Gurinder Singh Bains told CBS affiliate WTTV on Thursday that American Tactical sells “instruments of mass killing and have no problem marketing them directly to people with horrific intentions.”
The lawsuit notes 11 mass shootings that occurred between 2012 and 2019 — including at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, the Mandalay Bay incident in Las Vegas and the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida — in which a gunman used high-capacity magazines.
“This isn’t a hypothetical,” Bains told WTTV. “My father is gone because they didn’t care they were enabling mass shooters. They have to be held accountable not just for my father’s sake but everyone who may still suffer what my family and I have been forced to go through.”
American Tactical didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.
Survivors of the shooting and victims’ families are suing the company for negligence, wrongful death and public nuisance. The lawsuit accuses American Tactical of selling the magazines to customers without requiring face-to-face interactions or providing a criminal history and mental health screening.
At its heart, the lawsuit against supplier American Tactical, along with magazine manufacturer Schmeisser GmbH, centers on how gun manufacturers and distributors market and sell their “highly lethal” products.
Gunmakers in the U.S. are facing intense scrutiny over how they market weapons to young consumers. Weapons like the AR-style guns used in mass shootings are often marketed on social media through posts tailored to appeal to young adults and teens, gun control advocates and experts say.
Gunmakers generally don’t advertise on television because companies such as Comcast have restrictions against airing their ads and those of ammunition makers.
The lawsuit claims the defendants “published video advertisements on social media platforms of their HMCs featuring extreme violence and reckless spraying of bullets,” using a “video game and action movie aesthetic.”
The marketing videos were produced by firearms media production company Polenar Tactical, according to the suit.
American Tactical tends to “target their advertising and marketing to … emotionally troubled young men,” the lawsuit states. It alleges the company does so “even though, as participants in a highly profitable, but uniquely dangerous market, they can reasonably be expected to be fully aware of these facts.”
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Donald Trump on Wednesday filed a $500 million lawsuit against his former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, a week after the former president was indicted over a hush money payment Cohen facilitated to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.
Cohen testified before the Manhattan grand jury that indicted Trump on 34 criminal charges of falsifying business records and may be a key witness in the criminal trial. Trump, who pleaded not guilty, has denied involvement in the scheme.
In the suit, Trump alleges Cohen violated attorney-client privilege by sharing confidential information and spread lies about him “with malicious intent and to wholly self-serving ends.”
“Plaintiff has suffered vast reputational harm as a direct result of Defendant’s breaches,” the lawsuit filed by Trump attorney Alejandro Brito in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida states.
The suit claims the most “egregious breaches of fiduciary duty” involve two books authored by Cohen, his podcast, and other public statements about Trump.
“Defendant derived a significant benefit, to Plaintiff’s detriment and at Plaintiff’s
expense, as a direct result of his breach of fiduciary duty, including, without limitation, realization of substantial monetary gain in the form of compensation, advances, royalties, proceeds and/or profits received for his role in the writing, publication, promotion, and/or sale of the Books,” the suit says.
Trump is requesting over $500 million in “actual, compensatory, incidental, and punitive damages” from Cohen, and any profits he made through his books and podcast.
Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, predicted Trump’s lawsuit would fail. In a statement, the lawyer characterized the lawsuit as an effort by Trump “to send a message to other potential witnesses who are cooperating with prosecutors against him.”
Cohen, who arranged the payoff of Daniels and served prison time for campaign finance violations, has vowed to continue fighting for the truth.
“Despite Trump’s attempts to intimidate and harass me, I will NEVER stop fighting and holding him accountable for his dirty deeds,” Cohen wrote on Twitter Wednesday, linking to a GoFundMe page raising money for his legal defense.
Manhattan prosecutors alleged Cohen handled three hush money payments for Trump involving Daniels, model Karen McDougal, and a former Trump Tower doorman who claimed Trump had had a child out of wedlock.
Trump has a long history of attacking perceived enemies in court. Earlier this year, a Florida judge ordered Trump and his lawyer Alina Habba to pay just under $1 million for bringing a “completely frivolous” lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other defendants.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
Embattled electronic cigarette-maker Juul Labs will pay $462 million to six states and the District of Columbia, marking the largest settlement the company has reached so far for its role in the youth vaping surge, New York Attorney General Letitia James said Wednesday.
The agreement with New York, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Washington, D.C. marks the latest in a string of recent legal settlements Juul has reached across the country with cities and states.
On Monday, the vaping company agreed to pay $7.9 million to settle a lawsuit alleging the company violated West Virginia’s Consumer Credit and Protection Act by marketing its products to underage users. Last month, the company paid Chicago $23.8 million.
Minnesota’s case against Juul went to trial last month with the state’s Attorney General Keith Ellison asserting that the company “baited, deceived and addicted a whole new generation of kids after Minnesotans slashed youth smoking rates down to the lowest level in a generation.”
Juul has laid off hundreds of employees since last fall, and plans to slash its operations by 30% to 40%, Reuters reported.
Like some other settlements reached by Juul, the latest agreement includes various restrictions on the marketing, sale and distribution of the company’s vaping products. For example, it is barred from any direct or indirect marketing that targets youth, which includes anyone under age 35. Juul is also required to limit the amount of purchases customers can make in retail stores and online.
“Juul lit a nationwide public health crisis by putting addictive products in the hands of minors and convincing them that it’s harmless,” James said in a statement. “Today they are paying the price for the harm they caused.”
New York sued Juul in 2019, accusing the e-cigarette maker of lying about the nicotine content of its products, falsely depicting them as safer than cigarettes and spurring a surge of youth nicotine addiction.
James said the $112.7 million due to New York will pay for underage smoking abatement programs across the state. The company will pay in eight annual installments, James said.
District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb said in a statement that Juul “knew how addictive and dangerous its products were and actively tried to cover up that medical truth.”
A spokesperson for the Washington D.C.-based Juul said that with Wednesday’s settlement, “we are nearing total resolution of the company’s historical legal challenges and securing certainty for our future.”
The spokesperson added that underage use of Juul products has declined by 95% since 2019 based on the National Youth Tobacco Survey. According to the CDC, though, since surveys were administered online instead of on school campuses during the pandemic, the results cannot be compared to prior years.
In September, Juul agreed to pay nearly $440 million over a period of six to 10 years to settle a two-year investigation by 33 states into the marketing of its high-nicotine vaping products to young people. That settlement amounted to about 25% of Juul’s U.S. sales of $1.9 billion in 2021.
Three months later, the company said it had secured an equity investment to settle thousands of lawsuits over its e-cigarettes brought by individuals and families of Juul users, school districts, city governments and Native American tribes.
Juul rocketed to the top of the U.S. vaping market about five years ago with the popularity of flavors like mango, mint and crème brûlée. But the startup’s rise was fueled by use among teenagers, some of whom became hooked on Juul’s high-nicotine pods.
Parents, school administrators and politicians have largely blamed the company for a surge in underage vaping.
[ad_2]