ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuit

  • Denver jury awards nearly $20 million to 6 bystanders injured in LoDo police shooting

    [ad_1]

    Six people who were injured when a Denver Police Department officer fired into a crowd while trying to shoot an armed man in Lower Downtown in 2022 will receive nearly $20 million in damages, a jury ruled Friday.

    The $19.75 million ruling in the civil lawsuit comes one day after jurors began deliberating whether former officer Brandon Ramos was liable for injuring Yekalo Weldehiwet, Bailey Alexander, Willis Small IV, Mark Bess, Angelica Rey and Ayla Bersage when he opened fire on a suspect standing in front of a crowd near a food truck in the early hours of July 17, 2022.

    “The verdict sends an unmistakable message that officers must consider the safety of our communities when they decide to use deadly force,” attorneys with the Denver firm Rathod Mohamedbhai said in a statement. “Officers cannot treat the people of Colorado as collateral damage.”

    Through the lawsuit, the six bystanders asked the jury for $13 million for damages including lost wages, medical bills and pain and suffering and $13 million for punitive damages.

    Ramos was one of three Denver police officers who confronted a 23-year-old man they suspected of being involved in a fight near the Larimer Beer Hall.

    The officers shot the suspect, Jordan Waddy, as he pulled out a gun from his waistband, holding it by the slide. Two of the officers shot him from the front, but Ramos fired from the side, hitting bystanders in the crowd behind Waddy.

    Ramos was indicted on 14 charges in the case and pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree assault, a misdemeanor, in a plea deal with the Denver District Attorney’s Office. He was sentenced to 18 months of probation and can never work in Colorado law enforcement again.

    Waddy, who was also injured in the shooting, was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit possession of a weapon by a previous offender in 2024.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California lawsuit says makers of plastic bags lied about products being recyclable

    [ad_1]

    California ramped up its efforts to curb plastic pollution Friday — suing three plastic-bag makers, alleging the companies falsely claimed their products were recyclable.State Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said companies Novolex Holdings, Inteplast Group and Mettler Packaging violated a state law passed in 2014 that banned plastic bags that weren’t recyclable.Under the law, shoppers could pay 10 cents for thicker plastic bags that needed to be reusable and recyclable. But the makers of the bags labeled them as recyclable even though they were not — recycling facilities cannot process them and they end up dumped in landfills, incinerated, or in the state’s waterways, Bonta said.“In California, we’re making it clear,” he said at a news conference. “Truth matters. Public trust matters. Environmental protection matters.”The companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.The state filed a similar lawsuit against ExxonMobil about a year ago over the oil giant’s plastic products. The lawsuit said the company deceived the public by falsely promising that its plastic products would be recycled. The oil giant said California’s recycling system was ineffective and that the state should have worked with the company to keep plastics out of landfills.California lawmakers later decided the 2014 law didn’t go far enough. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law last year that will ban all plastic shopping bags at grocery stores starting next year.At least a dozen states have some type of statewide plastic bag ban, according to the environmental advocacy group Environment America Research and Policy Center. Hundreds of cities also have their own bans.Bonta announced Friday the state reached settlements with four other companies California alleged violated the 2014 law: Revolution Sustainable Solutions, Metro Poly, PreZero US Packaging and Advance Polybag. The businesses agreed to collectively pay the state nearly $1.8 million and halt plastic bag sales in California after selling the rest of their existing stock.The lawsuit and settlements hold companies accountable for mislabeling their products as recyclable, said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for environmental group Californians Against Waste.“Plastic bags are a uniquely wasteful product,” he said in an email. “Nothing we use for minutes should pollute our environment for centuries, especially something so lightweight that it’s practically designed to become litter.”See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    California ramped up its efforts to curb plastic pollution Friday — suing three plastic-bag makers, alleging the companies falsely claimed their products were recyclable.

    State Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said companies Novolex Holdings, Inteplast Group and Mettler Packaging violated a state law passed in 2014 that banned plastic bags that weren’t recyclable.

    Under the law, shoppers could pay 10 cents for thicker plastic bags that needed to be reusable and recyclable. But the makers of the bags labeled them as recyclable even though they were not — recycling facilities cannot process them and they end up dumped in landfills, incinerated, or in the state’s waterways, Bonta said.

    “In California, we’re making it clear,” he said at a news conference. “Truth matters. Public trust matters. Environmental protection matters.”

    The companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    The state filed a similar lawsuit against ExxonMobil about a year ago over the oil giant’s plastic products. The lawsuit said the company deceived the public by falsely promising that its plastic products would be recycled. The oil giant said California’s recycling system was ineffective and that the state should have worked with the company to keep plastics out of landfills.

    California lawmakers later decided the 2014 law didn’t go far enough. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law last year that will ban all plastic shopping bags at grocery stores starting next year.

    At least a dozen states have some type of statewide plastic bag ban, according to the environmental advocacy group Environment America Research and Policy Center. Hundreds of cities also have their own bans.

    Bonta announced Friday the state reached settlements with four other companies California alleged violated the 2014 law: Revolution Sustainable Solutions, Metro Poly, PreZero US Packaging and Advance Polybag. The businesses agreed to collectively pay the state nearly $1.8 million and halt plastic bag sales in California after selling the rest of their existing stock.

    The lawsuit and settlements hold companies accountable for mislabeling their products as recyclable, said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for environmental group Californians Against Waste.

    “Plastic bags are a uniquely wasteful product,” he said in an email. “Nothing we use for minutes should pollute our environment for centuries, especially something so lightweight that it’s practically designed to become litter.”

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Running shoe company On is sued over footwear’s allegedly “loud, embarrassing” squeak

    [ad_1]

    Trendy running shoe company On is being sued by some customers over what they claim is a defect in the shoes, which they allege emit “a loud, embarrassing and difficult-to-stop squeaking sound … with each step.”

    The class action lawsuit, filed Oct. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, claims the customers wouldn’t have bought the shoes if they had known about the noise. The complaint alleges that the squeak is caused by the company’s CloudTec shoe design, which relies on “hexagonal, octangular and ovular shaped holes that form the external landing surface of the shoes.” 

    An Oct. 9 class action lawsuit alleges On’s running shoes made with CloudTec technology emit “a loud, embarrassing” squeak with each step. 

    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon


    When wearers take a step, the rubber within the CloudTec design rubs together, resulting in a “noisy and embarrassing squeak,” the lawsuit claims. 

    On, a Swiss company with U.S. offices in Portland, Oregon, said it doesn’t comment on ongoing legal matters.

    Other customers have complained about the noise in online forums such as Reddit, with some posting hacks for trying to stop the shoes from squeaking. The two consumers who filed the lawsuit claim they stopped wearing their On running shoes shortly after purchasing them due to the noise, which they both described as embarrassing.

    The lawsuit also points out that the On running shoes cost a premium, with its CloudTec shoes retailing between $140 to $180 a pair, higher than the average running shoe price of $132.90. 

    The complaint names 11 types of On shoes made with CloudTec that could experience squeaking:

    • Cloud 5
    • Cloud 6
    • CloudMonsters
    • Cloudtilts
    • Cloudsurfers
    • Cloudeclipse
    • Cloudleap
    • CloudSky
    • Cloudswift
    • Cloudzone
    • Cloudrunner

    The lawsuit claims that consumers haven’t been able to successfully return the shoes based on the squeak because On’s warranty “does not extend to defects due to the wrong fit, normal wear and tear,” with the company allegedly describing the squeaking as “normal wear and tear.”

    The complaint is seeking compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for what it believes are likely “thousands of people” who purchased On shoes with the CloudTec design. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • I spent three months in jail because a prosecutor hid evidence of my fiance’s suicide (Opinion)

    [ad_1]

    Tragically, in 2019, my fiancée took her own life. What began as one of the most heartbreaking, devastating experiences of my life, turned into an unending nightmare. The police arrested me after I called 911 because they believed we had been arguing. But then, with scant investigation, prosecutors immediately charged me with murder and imprisoned me for 72 days without bail.

    A jury eventually found me not guilty, but only after my attorney learned a prosecutor purposefully withheld evidence exonerating me. That may be unimaginable in America — but it happened to me. And when it did, I learned the hard truth: prosecutors (unlike almost any other lawyer or professional) enjoy absolute immunity, meaning both the wrongly accused and victims of crime have no recourse, and prosecutors cannot be sued for the damage they cause.

    I learned firsthand that when attorneys fail to fulfill their oaths of office, just like a doctor or police officer, the consequences can be dire – even life-ending. This becomes even more egregious when that failure is purposeful, yet not all attorneys are held equal under the law.

    I was wrongly incarcerated and prosecuted, even though the forensic pathologist refused to rule my fiance’s death a homicide. Only weeks after my arrest — while I remained behind bars — Denver’s own chief deputy crime lab director and the lead Denver homicide detective advised the prosecutor of their opinions that the death was not a homicide, but a suicide. Even though the prosecutor knew this critical information that would have exonerated me, the prosecutor purposefully withheld this information from myself and my defense team for nearly 8 months. I was eventually acquitted only after these opinions were forcibly revealed in response to a court order.

    Who was that prosecutor? Chief Deputy Dan Cohen from the Denver District Attorney’s office. The judge, clearly outraged, issued a sanction allowing my lawyer to cross-examine the witnesses about their favorable opinions — but otherwise faced no consequences. His law license remained intact, and his boss excused the behavior.

    Imagine my outrage and disappointment when I read a recent Denver Post article covering judges dismissing other cases in which Chief Deputy Daniel Cohen failed to disclose critical and favorable evidence to the accused. In the most recent case, this was again not a clerical oversight or an isolated misstep. In fact, the judge in the case ruled, “At this point in time, I can’t find that it’s anything other than willful given the number of times this issue has been addressed with this particular counsel.” The Post article pointed out that there have been at least seven other discovery violations committed by the Denver District Attorney’s Office since February of 2025.

    These are real Coloradan’s lives on the line. Yet the wrongly accused, like myself, have no recourse to hold prosecutors accountable.

    This story shows that even when judges grow frustrated with prosecutors’ misconduct, their tools are limited. They can allow broader cross-examination or dismiss a case — but they cannot punish the prosecutor. The repeated violations we see prove that these sanctions, while appropriate, do little to deter misconduct. And with Mr. Cohen still abusing his power five years after egregiously breaking the rules in my case, it’s clear the Denver District Attorney’s office isn’t imposing serious discipline either.

    Prosecutors are the most powerful lawyers in America. They decide who to criminally charge, when and what crimes to allege, whether to offer leniency, what evidence to turn over and what sentence to pursue. As I now personally understand, they have an immense amount of power to impact the lives and families of both the guilty and the innocent.

    Given this power, you’d expect prosecutors to be held to higher standards of accountability. Instead, the opposite is true. Misconduct is brushed off as business as usual, denied and excused at every turn, and much of it never comes to light.  Even when caught red-handed, prosecutors keep their jobs and their law licenses, shielded from any liability for damage they cause. In any other profession, mine included as an architect, such deliberate abuses would end a career.

    [ad_2]

    Micah Kimball

    Source link

  • Johnson & Johnson faces claim by 3,000 in U.K. who say asbestos in talcum powder made them sick

    [ad_1]

    London — Thousands of people in the United Kingdom have filed a joint legal claim estimated to be worth more than £1 billion ($1.34 billion) against Johnson & Johnson, accusing the U.S. pharmaceutical giant of selling baby powder that it knew was contaminated with carcinogenic asbestos.

    The claim involves more than 3,000 people who developed various forms of cancer and other diseases and is based on internal Johnson & Johnson memos and scientific reports. 

    The company has long fought thousands of similar cases in the United States, and despite winning some appeals, in June last year it agreed to pay $700 million in a nationwide settlement to resolve allegations that it misled customers about the safety of its talcum-based powder products in its marketing. 

    Just last week, a Los Angeles jury ordered the firm to pay $966 million to the family of a woman who died from a form of cancer after using J&J products.

    The U.K. lawsuit, which covers the years 1965 to 2023, claims that Johnson & Johnson, “knew their talc products contained carcinogenic fibres, including asbestos, for more than fifty years and chose to keep it on the market in pursuit of profit.”

    Despite the alleged knowledge of the carcinogens in its products, the firm only took its talcum powder products off shelves in Britain in 2023, the suit alleges, when it switched to a cornstarch based product — three years after doing so in Canada and the U.S.

    “For decades Johnson & Johnson have orchestrated a campaign of denials and subterfuge,” said the claimants’ lead lawyer, Tom Longstaff of KP Law, which has brought the case against J&J and a subsidiary, Kenvue Ltd., before the U.K. High Court. “The facts are clear, contaminated talc contains carcinogenic material and Johnson & Johnson knew the risk to consumers.”

    “The scale of Johnson & Johnson’s corporate wrongdoing is extraordinary, and we will be relentless in holding them to account on behalf of all those who have suffered due to their actions,” Longstaff said.   

    In a statement sent to CBS News on Thursday, Johnson & Johnson said inquiries about the claim “would be best addressed by Kenvue, our former consumer health business, which separated from Johnson & Johnson in August 2023. As a part of that separation, Kenvue retained the responsibility and any purported liability for talc related litigation outside of the United States and Canada.”

    Kenvue told the BBC in a statement that it sympathized “deeply with people living with cancer. We understand that they and their families want answers — that’s why the facts are so important,” adding that the safety of its baby powder was backed by testing by “independent and leading laboratories, universities, and health authorities in the U.K. and around the world” over years.

    The company told BBC that the J&J baby powder “was compliant with any required regulatory standards, did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer.”

    Talc is a naturally occurring mineral that is often found together with asbestos during the mining process, which makes eliminating all traces of asbestos from talcum powder difficult.

    The claim alleges people who regularly used Johnson & Johnson talcum powders have developed, and in many cases died from, ovarian cancer, mesothelioma — another form of cancer — uterine fibroids and other diseases.

    “My mother used it and I used it,” 63-year old Siobhan Ryan told CBS News’ news partner network BBC News. “It smelled nice and was soft and lovely. When my babies were born I used it on them. I thought I was doing my best for them … It was such a shock. We just hugged and cried. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing when the doctor told me I had stage-four ovarian cancer.”

    Siobhan, who blames her cancer on Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder, has been through three rounds of chemotherapy, near-fatal sepsis, and major abdominal surgery. Doctors say her cancer is no longer operable.

    “They knew it was contaminated and still they sold it to new mums and their babies,” she said.

    According to the U.K. claim, Johnson & Johnson began in the 1960s to commission scientists to analyze its talc-based products. In 1969, an internal memo stated that until tremolite — one of six types of asbestos — was proven to have no adverse effects, its use should be minimized, and noted that talc could no longer be guaranteed to be safe for babies.

    By the 1980s, it was widely accepted that all forms of asbestos were dangerous and could cause cancer, but Johnson & Johnson — and other firms — successfully lobbied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to not regulate asbestos content in talc, according to the lawsuit.

    In 2018, the FDA finally began testing talcum powder and other related products for asbestos. A year later, Johnson & Johnson voluntarily withdrew a batch of its powder after the FDA found asbestos fibers in a sample.

    The U.K. claims will be decided by a judge, rather than a jury, at the U.K. High Court’s Manchester Circuit Commercial Court. 

    In a statement issued behalf of Johnson & Johnson, the company said it believes the judge will find that its talc-based powder did not cause cancer.

    Editor’s note: This article has been updated to correct the attribution of the statement from Kenvue Ltd. to BBC News.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New Oklahoma schools superintendent rescinds order to teach Bible in classrooms

    [ad_1]

    Under new leadership, the Oklahoma State Department of Education will rescind a mandate from the previous superintendent that forced public schools to place Bibles in classrooms and incorporate the book into lesson plans for students.

    The Oklahoma State Department of Education plans to file a motion to dismiss pending lawsuits brought against the previous superintendent and his office in response to their plans to incorporate religion into public classrooms, the department said in a news release obtained by CBS affiliate KWTV. Their motion comes as the court seeks status updates to those cases amid what it described as “significant turnover among public officials named as respondents,” due to new department leadership, according to the release.

    “We plan to file a motion to dismiss, and have no plans to distribute Bibles or a Biblical character education curriculum in classrooms,” said Superintendent Lindel Fields, who recently took over that role, in a statement. “If resources are left to be allocated, the timing is fortunate since the team and I are currently reviewing the budget.”

    Last year, former Superintendent Ryan Walters issued a directive for Oklahoma public schools to incorporate the Bible into lessons for grades 5 through 12, saying in the mandate that “immediate and strict compliance” was expected. 

    “The Bible is a necessary historical document to teach our kids about the country,” Walters said in a social media video shared at the time. “Every teacher, ever classroom in the state will have a Bible in the classroom, and will be teaching from the Bible.”

    The mandate in Oklahoma was the latest in a series of efforts by conservative leaders to incorporate religion into classrooms and quickly drew condemnation from civil rights groups. A group of parents, teachers and religious leaders filed a lawsuit in response to the order, which is pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

    Walters resigned last month and accepted a job in the private sector, paving the way for Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt to appoint Fields as superintendent.

    Ryan Walters speaks at a rally, Nov. 1, 2022, in Oklahoma City.

    Sue Ogrocki / AP


    Jacki Phelps, an attorney for the Oklahoma State Department of Education, said she intends to notify the court of the agency’s plan to rescind the mandate and seek a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

    Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they were encouraged by Fields’ decision and plan to discuss next steps with their clients.

    “The attempts to promote religion in the classroom and the abuses of power that the Oklahoma State Department of Education engaged in under Walters’ tenure should never happen in Oklahoma or anywhere in the United States again,” the attorneys said in a statement.

    Many schools districts across the state had decided not to comply with the Bible mandate.

    A spokeswoman for the state education department, Tara Thompson, said Fields believes the decision on whether the Bible should be incorporated into classroom instruction is one best left up to individual districts and that spending money on Bibles is not the best use of taxpayer resources.

    Walters in March had announced plans to team up with country music singer Lee Greenwood seeking donations to get Bibles into classrooms after a legislative panel rejected his $3 million request to fund the effort.

    Walters, a far-right Republican, made fighting “woke ideology”, banning certain books from school libraries and getting rid of “radical leftists” who he claims were indoctrinating children in classrooms a focal point of his administration. Since his election in 2020, he imposed a number of mandates on public schools and worked to develop new social studies standards for K-12 public school students that included teaching about conspiracy theories related to the 2020 presidential election. Those standards have been put on hold while a lawsuit challenging them moves forward.

    Thompson said the agency plans to review all of Walters’ edicts, including a requirement that applicants from teacher jobs coming from California and New York take an ideology exam, to determine if those may also be rescinded.

    “We need to review all of those mandates and provide clarity to schools moving forward,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Are vaccine makers ‘exempt from all liability’?

    [ad_1]

    A billboard near West Virginia University questions vaccine manufacturer protections, a topic in the news as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seeks to change vaccine policy.

    “Vaccine makers are exempt from all liability for vaccine injury and death,” says the billboard, which was sponsored by West Virginians for Health Freedom, a group that advocates for parental choice on vaccine requirements and risks.

    The billboard has advertised vaccine-skeptical perspectives for years, and passing motorists might wonder if the claim is true. So PolitiFact West Virginia took a closer look.

    Dr. Alvin Moss — a WVU professor of nephrology and medicine who was referred to PolitiFact West Virginia by West Virginians For Health Freedom — pointed to an academic paper that described vaccine manufacturers’ legal immunities as “broad” and a description of a Supreme Court case that characterized the industry’s legal protections as “significant.” (He said he was speaking in his personal capacity, not on behalf of his employer.)

    However, broad and significant are not synonymous with “all,” which is the word the billboard used. In practice, the laws that provide manufacturers with extensive liability protections do include exceptions and limits that allow lawsuits in some circumstances.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Lawsuits are allowed, eventually, under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act

    The most important law governing vaccine liability is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. This law created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a no-fault system for people who believe they have been injured by routinely recommended childhood vaccines. A fund is able to pay out awards to people claiming injury; the fund is filled by revenues from a 75 cent tax per disease prevented on each vaccine dose. 

    Initially, this law clamps down on the ability to pursue a lawsuit. Under the act, people who receive a covered vaccine must file a claim through the compensation program before they file suit. They must then wait for 240 days after filing to see if they are presented with an acceptable offer. If the program fails to issue a decision during that period, or if the petitioner loses their case, or they are awarded compensation but the petitioner rejects the program’s offer, the person can then file a civil lawsuit against the vaccine manufacturer.

    There are other limits. A 2011 decision in the Supreme Court case Bruesewitz v. Wyeth held that manufacturers cannot be sued over a claim related to design defects. Suits related to warnings are allowed only if the manufacturer failed to warn the doctor, not the patient.

    Other claims, like those related to negligence and fraud, can be pursued, though they are considered harder to prove.

    An earlier version of the billboard from 2023. (Bob Britten)

    Not all vaccines are covered by the 1986 law

    The law limits the types of vaccines that receive liability protections, said Renee Gentry, a law professor and director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at George Washington University Law School.

    The law covers routine childhood vaccines and does not address adult-only vaccines such as those for shingles or pneumonia. Manufacturers of these vaccines may be, and have been, sued. 

    COVID-19 vaccines fall under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. This law offers broader liability protection, effectively shielding manufacturers from litigation. 

    So while manufacturers are protected from lawsuits for some of the vaccines they make, these legal protections aren’t across-the-board, said Dorit Reiss, a law professor who specializes in vaccine liability. For instance, Reiss said, more than 200 cases have been brought against Merck related to its Gardasil vaccine, which aims to protect against HPV. Some of that litigation is ongoing.

    Moss, the doctor who was referred to PolitiFact West Virginia by West Virginians For Health Freedom, downplayed the protections for adult vaccines, saying that “childhood vaccines constitute a very high percentage of vaccines given.”

    Data from the federal Health Resources and Services Administration shows that childhood vaccinations are more numerous than adult vaccines, but adult vaccines still account for a large number of vaccines given. The influenza vaccine, which is mostly given to adults, had more than 2.5 billion doses distributed between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2023.

    Our ruling

    On its billboard, West Virginians For Health Freedom said, “Vaccine makers are exempt from all liability for vaccine injury and death.”

    Under federal law, vaccine manufacturers do benefit from significant lawsuit protections, including being shielded against suits about design defects. These protections are paired with a fund that is empowered to make compensation payments to injured parties in lieu of filing a lawsuit.

    However, vaccine makers’ liability protections are not — as the billboard says — unlimited. Companies may be sued if the injured party rejects the compensation fund’s offer; if negligence and fraud are alleged; and when a company’s vaccines are intended for adult use.

    We rate the statement Mostly False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Florida judge temporarily blocks transfer of Miami land for Trump’s presidential library

    [ad_1]

    A Florida judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the planned transfer of prime downtown Miami land for Donald Trump’s future presidential library.

    Ruling emphasizes non-political nature

    The move by Circuit Judge Mavel Ruiz came after a Miami activist alleged that officials at Miami Dade College violated Florida’s open government law when they gifted the sizable plot of real estate to the state, which then voted to transfer it to the foundation for President Trump’s planned library.

    “This is not an easy decision,” Ruiz said Tuesday when explaining her ruling from the bench.

    “This is not a case, at least for this court, rooted in politics,” she added.

    Valuable property at the heart of dispute

    The nearly 3-acre (1.2-hectare) property is a developer’s dream and is valued at more than $67 million, according to a 2025 assessment by the Miami-Dade County property appraiser.

    One real estate expert wagered that the parcel—one of the last undeveloped lots on an iconic stretch of palm tree-lined Biscayne Boulevard—could sell for hundreds of millions of dollars more.

    Lawsuit alleges violations of open government laws

    Marvin Dunn, an activist and chronicler of local Black history, filed a lawsuit this month in a Miami-Dade County court against the Board of Trustees for Miami Dade College, a state-run school that owned the property.

    He alleges that the board violated Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law by not providing sufficient notice for its special meeting on Sept. 23, when it voted to give up the land.

    A week later, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet voted to transfer the land again, effectively putting the property under the control of the Trump family when they deeded it to the foundation for Trump’s library.

    The foundation is led by three trustees: Eric Trump, Tiffany Trump’s husband, Michael Boulos, and the president’s attorney James Kiley.

    Attorney stresses public’s right to transparency

    Richard Brodsky, an attorney for Dunn, said the issue before the court was not a question of politics, but whether the public board followed the open government law.

    “The people have a right to know what they’re going to decide to do when the transaction is so significant, so unusual and deprives the students and the college of this land,” Brodsky said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harris County Wants $7 Billion Solar Program Restored – Houston Press

    [ad_1]

    Since Donald Trump took office in January, Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee has sued the federal government four times, saying Tuesday that it’s the only way to get the attention of an administration that has repeatedly, illegally, broken promises to low-income Texans. 

    Menefee announced this week that he filed the latest lawsuit in federal court demanding that the $7 billion Solar for All program be reinstated. The grant would have offered $59 million to Harris County, the largest Solar for All award in the nation. Earlier this year, the county attorney filed two lawsuits against the federal government related to healthcare funding and one to challenge federal workforce layoffs. 

    “In the two that were about money, we’re 2 and 0,” Menefee told the Houston Press on Tuesday. “Over the refugee health funds, the funding was restored. Over the public health funds in the wake of COVID-19, the funding was restored. In the federal layoffs case we got a temporary injunction that blocked the federal government from continuing the layoffs. That went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which eliminated the injunction.” 

    “In many instances, with the Trump administration, the left hand has no clue what the right hand is doing,” he added. “They’ll eliminate funding; they will get rid of programs; they will temporarily freeze programs. It is 100 percent illegal, and they’re not truly made aware of that until they’re hauled in front of a judge and they have to answer for what they’ve done.” 

    Menefee’s latest action is an effort to salvage about $250 million that was awarded to the nonpartisan Texas Solar for All Coalition, designed to lower electricity bills, create clean energy jobs, and expand access to affordable solar power across disadvantaged communities. 

    Grant recipients would have had their energy bills slashed by about $500 per year, and the funding would have covered solar and battery installation for thousands of residents in neighborhoods that experience blackouts and high heat, said Menefee, who is running for U.S. Congressional District 18 in November. 

    The Solar for All program was approved as part of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. The federal government rescinded the grant — illegally, according to Menefee — in August of this year, saying the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” eliminated the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority and funding for the program. 

    Menefee said Congress created the program and promised funding to local governments and families across the country. They can’t just walk it back, he said. 

    “This isn’t just another policy disagreement,” he said. “It’s a clear-cut case of federal overreach, an illegal attempt to cancel a program that Congress already appropriated the funds for. They never supported this program, so they made up a justification for killing it.”

    U.S. Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher, D-Houston, said at a Monday press conference that work had already started in the communities that were awarded Solar for All grants when the funds were rescinded. 

    “In Houston, Port Arthur and Waco, training programs were already underway to certify Texans in solar installation and energy efficiency,” Fletcher said. “The coalition had already begun building resilience hubs, community centers, and homes equipped with solar and battery backup to keep the lights on during hurricanes or potential grid failures. For communities like ours along the Gulf Coast, these hubs mean the difference between safety and suffering in the next storm.” 

    The Solar For All program would have offered measurable savings for families that have trouble paying the bills, “especially in times like these when prices are going up because of other terrible policies implemented by the Trump administration,” the congresswoman added.  

    When the cuts were announced, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called programs like Solar for All “a grift and a boondoggle,” citing a need for environmental regulation. About 90 percent of the EPA workforce has been furloughed during the government shutdown that began October 1, so it’s unclear whether a response to Harris County’s lawsuit will be forthcoming. 

    Menefee told the Press on Tuesday that the lawsuit and media events aren’t part of a symbolic pep rally; the goal is to get the funds reinstated. 

    “We want a ruling that the EPA’s decision violates the law,” he said. “We’re taking action to ensure that the courts hold the federal government accountable. The elimination of this program is illegal .My hope is that the court requires the EPA to reinstate the program.” 

    Hundreds of applications were submitted for the competitive program, and several county leaders worked to ensure that Harris County got a cut. The grant would have assisted more than 28,000 families across Texas and about 10,000 in Harris County. 

    Harris County families and neighborhoods had not yet been identified as funding recipients, Menefee said, but the program was widely publicized. 

    “Folks very much knew that Harris County had been awarded this grant and we were going to, with federal dollars, make a deep investment in lowering people’s bills,” he said. “There were not specific individuals who were expecting they were going to get the money but certainly the community at large expected this money to come.” 

    Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo and Commissioner Adrian Garcia attended the press conference this week and detailed the rigorous grant application process for the solar program. 

    “Generating more electricity is not part of a political agenda, power is not partisan, and fuel for our first responders should not be controversial,” Garcia said. “We need to produce more energy to sustain the growth across Texas, and I hope the courts will see it this way too.”

    Hidalgo said the grant wasn’t just going to help Harris County families; it was going to boost infrastructure for natural disasters. 

    “There’s a saying in emergency management that there are two kinds of generators: the kind that start and fail and the kind that never start,” she said. “We were working based on that premise and developing hubs that would have their own ability to produce solar energy, their own microgrid, so if the grid failed, they could still have power.”

    Menefee said he hopes Harris County will get a response from the government within 60 days. 

    “This is about more than one grant,” Menefee said. “It’s about good government. The federal government made a promise to local communities. We did our part, and now Washington has to hold up its end of the deal.” 

    This article appears in Jan 1 – Dec 31, 2025.

    [ad_2]

    April Towery

    Source link

  • Family sues Roblox, alleging sex offender targeted their son on the game. He now battles PTSD, depression.

    [ad_1]

    The popular online gaming platform Roblox, which hosts millions of user-created games, is being sued by families and state attorneys general who claim online predators can groom, extort and exploit kids they meet on the platform.

    Steven, a father of two, is among those who have filed lawsuits as his family tries to rebuild their life after his son was allegedly targeted. 

    He said that allowing his teen son to play Roblox seemed like a safe bet — at first.

    “I set up every parental control I could find and did the best I could,” he told CBS News in an exclusive interview, asking that CBS News only use his first name for privacy reasons.

    But despite the platform’s parental controls, an alleged sex offender posing as a 16-year-old befriended his 13-year-old son in the popular “Pet Simulator” game, according to the lawsuit. Steven alleged the predator offered his son Roblox gift cards in exchange for sexually explicit photos, which his son sent via Discord – a separate gaming and chat platform.

    “At a certain point it was, ‘tell me what your address is’ and when he said no, he’s like, ‘Well, I have these photos of you, I’ll tell your parents,’” Steven said of the interaction between the predator and his son. “He was 30 feet down the hall from us and just— felt too trapped to … come and talk to us.”

    It was “pure luck,” Steven said, that he found out — because of a threatening message from the perpetrator that allegedly popped up as he was replacing the screen on his son’s phone, which had cracked.

    The person has since pleaded guilty to first-degree felony child endangerment.

    Lawsuits against Roblox, Discord

    Steven’s family is among dozens of families, as well as attorneys general in Kentucky and Louisiana, who are suing Roblox and other tech platforms, alleging they allowed sexual predators access to their children.

    Kentucky announced a lawsuit against Roblox last month, and Louisiana filed a suit against the platform in August. 

    “For years, Roblox has ignored this crisis so it could continue turning a profit,” Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman said in a statement. “Our responsibility is to protect Kentucky children from online exploitation by these predators and the companies like Roblox that knowingly facilitate it.” 

    Steven said his family is suing Roblox as well as Discord, an instant messaging and social platform, because “at the end of the day, the thing they seem to care about the most is the bottom line, their profit.”

    “It almost feels like they’re a haven for … predators, pedophiles, dangerous individuals and like they should do better,” he said.

    Steven’s attorney Alexandra Walsh, with the firm Anapol Weiss, is currently investigating hundreds of cases of child endangerment and grooming that allegedly started on Roblox. 

    “Roblox was the gateway. Roblox is the site that … in this case that gave this predator, this very dangerous man, the ability to find a target and groom this child,” Walsh said.

    Steven has moved his family across the country to have a new start as he supports his son through depression and PTSD, he said.

    “This thing happens so much faster than you can ever imagine,” Steven said. “You want to believe that like … you’ve done everything you can and that it’ll never happen to me and I thought the same thing until it did.”

    Roblox and Discord respond

    Matt Kaufman, the chief safety officer at Roblox, said the platform does not allow image sharing in filtered chats and has rolled out over 100 new safety features this year, including age estimation and increased chat monitoring.

    “We have safety systems that are in place by default and a lot of these situations that you’re talking about, like extortion, people sharing, graphic images, they simply cannot happen on Roblox,” Kaufman said.

    Until recently, Roblox did not verify players’ ages. By the end of the year, all users will have to pass its checks to communicate within the platform. According to Roblox, these checks will include “a combination of facial age estimation technology, ID age verification and verified parental consent.”

    Currently, any communication between adult users and those between 13 and 17 is prohibited, unless a real life confirmed relationship can be proven.

    “For users 13 to 17 who confirm their age through Facial Age Estimation, adding a Trusted Connection, whether a peer or an 18 or older user, requires an existing real-world relationship, verified by a QR scan or Contact Importer,” Roblox says on its site.

    Roblox’s chief safety officer Kaufman said the company has caught and self-reported 23,000 incidents of potentially harmful content to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children so far this year.

    “What’s really important about these cases that we report is: we report when we see signs of something that doesn’t look safe,” Kaufman said. “Any platform of our size … it draws bad actors and our job is to do the best that we possibly can to prevent anything from happening on our platform and to report those situations as quickly as possible.”  

    Discord told CBS News it won’t comment on pending litigation, but said in a statement that it is “deeply committed to safety,” and works to “prevent the spread of sexual exploitation and grooming.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Michael Jackson Bombshell! FIVE Siblings Who Defended MJ For Years Say He Molested Them, Too! – Perez Hilton

    [ad_1]

    Michael Jackson’s relationship with children is once again being called into question.

    Prior to his death in 2009, the King of Pop was accused of child abuse at two separate points in his career. Once in 1993, a case which was settled outside of court, and again in 2005, when he was acquitted in court. But throughout it all, the Cascio family stood behind him.

    The Cascio Family

    If the name sounds familiar, it’s because they’re the bunch Michael dubbed his “second family.” Back in the ‘80s, he met patriarch Dominic Cascio while staying at the Helmsley Palace in New York. They quickly became friends, and Dominic introduced the Thriller singer to his family, which included wife Connie, and their two sons. The husband and wife went on to have three more children: two boys and one girl, and Michael remained an active presence in all of their lives.

    Over the years, the family has been open about the dinners they shared with Michael in their New Jersey home, Christmas gift exchanges, shopping sprees, Disneyland trips, and stays at Neverland Ranch in California for the kids. All along they said it was innocent.

    Related: Priscilla Presley Hit With Lawsuit Claiming She Lied To IRS About MILLIONS

    The eldest boy, Frank Cascio, authored a book called My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship With An Extraordinary Man — a 2011 memoir about the nature of his relationship with Michael, where he vehemently defended the singer. He wrote:

    “I want to be precise and clear, on the record, so that everyone can read and understand: Michael’s love for children was innocent, and it was profoundly misunderstood.”

    He continued:

    “In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult.”

    Frank went on to claim Michael “was being attacked by liars”, maintaining:

    “There was nothing ambiguous about the whole thing. These people were after Michael’s money. But he was innocent, and we were going to destroy them in court.”

    However, Frank’s tune has now changed.

    The Accusations

    Over the weekend, DailyMail.com reported that all five Cascio children came together earlier this month to file a bombshell suit in Los Angeles Superior Court accusing Michael of of grooming, sexually abusing, and “brainwashing” their family for 25 years. Of the alleged abuse, a source told the outlet:

    “It was everything sexual: sex with under-age children. When they all realized what had been going on it was the most traumatic thing. Their story is insane.”

    According to filings seen by the outlet, the siblings claim:

    “From the early 1980s until at least 2009, Michael Jackson had intimate contact with the Cascio children. This abusive contact occurred over a span of decades and involved hundreds of instances. Each of the Cascio children were groomed, brainwashed and severely manipulated to believe that each was uniquely ‘special’ to Michael and that their relationship with him was exclusive.”

    The docs continue:

    “This emotional manipulation was designed to secure each family member’s loyalty and ensure their silence, making them feel indebted to Michael and isolated from any source of protection or perspective. Through years of psychological conditioning, Michael cultivated dependence and fear in the Cascios, making respondents believe they had no choice but to comply and no safe way to break free. The effects of this conditioning persisted into adulthood, leaving respondents with a deeply ingrained belief that speaking out would constitute betrayal — a dynamic the estate has continued to exploit in its dealings with them.”

    Wow.

    We know there are many MJ fans out there who never wanted to believe any of the allegations from longtime accusers James Safechuck and Wade Robson, who participated in the shocking 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland. But the Cascio family were some of his biggest defenders, and now even they’ve switched sides.

    What Sparked The Lawsuit

    Speaking of Leaving Neverland, multiple insiders tell DM it was the HBO doc that first sparked movement in the case. Safechuck and Robson, now both in their 40s, accused the Beat It star of subjecting them to years of abuse — Safechuck from 1988 to 1992, and Robson from 1990 to 1996. The doc changed things for the general public AND for the Cascios.

    According to sources earlier this year, when the Cascio family raised alarms, the Jackson estate attempted to get ahead of more public accusations in January 2020. Instead they tried to settle behind the scenes.

    The involved parties reportedly reached a confidential settlement that included payouts over five years. However, the Cascio family’s attorney allegedly demanded an additional $213 million in 2024 against a threat the family would “expand the circle of knowledge” to negatively impact the Jackson estate’s business dealings, per the New York Post. The estate has since responded by calling the case a “civil extortion scheme” before initiating arbitration in September 2024, accusing the family of breach of contract and civil extortion.

    However, the filings further accuse the Jackson estate of “exploiting the same patterns of trust, fear and conditioned loyalty” employed by Michael in order to get them to sign the agreement in 2020.

    Family Fallout

    This shocking about-face from the Cascio family follows an implied change even closer to home. Fans noticed Paris Jackson recently got her MJ tattoo covered up. And she’s since raised even more suspicion that she believes the worst allegations against her father.

    When one of the actors in an upcoming Jackson Family biopic said Paris and her family were “very much in support of our film,” she hit back hard! She not only said she “wasn’t involved at all,” she told everyone why:

    “A big reason why I haven’t said anything up until this point is because I know a lot of you guys are gonna be happy with it. A big section of the film panders to a very specific section of my dad’s fandom that still lives in the fantasy, and they’re gonna be happy with it.”

    The fantasy… of his innocence? Did things change for her because of the documentary? Because of the Cascios?? Will she speak out against him, too??

    This is some seriously troubling stuff! What do YOU make of it? Let us know in the comments down below!

    [Images via Michael Jackson/YouTube & WENN]

    [ad_2]

    Perez Hilton

    Source link

  • Loudoun Co. students’ suspension on hold while legal action over locker room incident proceeds – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    A Loudoun County student’s suspension is on hold while litigation over whether the punishment was warranted moves forward, a federal judge ruled Friday.

    A Loudoun County student’s suspension is on hold while litigation over whether the punishment was warranted moves forward, a federal judge ruled Friday.

    The ruling comes after two students’ families filed a lawsuit against the Northern Virginia school district, alleging the kids were wrongfully punished for speaking out about an incident in a school locker room. During the encounter, they said a transgender student identifying as male recorded them in a locker room at Stone Bridge High School.

    The students had been suspended for 10 days for harassment. And in a new court filing this week, the school system described incidents in which the two students harassed the other student before the incident in the locker room.

    The Washington Post was first to report on the filing.

    “These boys never directly spoke with the complainant, and so our boys were merely complaining that there was a biological girl in their locker room,” said Victoria Cobb, president of the Founding Freedoms Law Center. “The school has decided to make them political pawns in a battle over ideology.”

    In court documents, the school system said witnesses describe threatening incidents or behavior in gym class and school hallways.

    In an 11-second video, a speaker is heard saying “girl boy” several times. The student who filed the complaint said the two boys said to “get out” of the locker room and was referred to as “it” during P.E. class.

    According to the court files, investigators spoke to Loudoun County Public School staff members and a variety of student witnesses.

    The locker room incident prompted some community members to speak out, and resulted in a federal Department of Education investigation. The agency found Loudoun County violated Title IX and retaliated against the boys, who expressed concern about being recorded by a transgender boy in the boys’ locker room.

    The incident has also been referenced as the Education Department found bathroom policies at five Northern Virginia school districts violate Title IX. The agency said policies that allow students to use facilities based on their gender identity rather than biological sex violate the law. The families’ lawsuit seeks to end that school system policy in Loudoun County.

    A recording of the locker room incident, documents said, reveals a series of comments the two boys made, including things such as “there’s a girl,” “why is there a girl?”

    Reviewers described in documents as “independent decision makers” ruled that the two boys had sexually harassed the student.

    “Our clients never spoke to the female student,” Cobb, the boys’ attorney, said. “They only expressed confusion and discomfort about having a girl in the boys locker room.”

    After Friday’s ruling, Cobb said one of the two students can remain in school while the case progresses. The other moved away from the area, but Cobb said it’s “about their student record more than a suspension.”

    In a statement on Friday, a spokesman for Loudoun County schools said the division acknowledges “the court’s decision today and will prepare for the next steps in this matter. We remain committed to fostering a safe, inclusive, and respectful learning environment for all students.”

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Scott Gelman

    Source link

  • Media Mogul Richard Desmond Seeks $1.58B in Damages from UKGC

    [ad_1]

    Billionaire media mogul Richard Desmond has called on a court to lean on the side of “generosity” in evaluating a GBP 1.3 billion (approximately $1.58 billion) damages claim against the United Kingdom’s Gambling Commission (UKGC). This is a sum that would likely be covered by taxpayers if he prevails in the legal battle.

    Richard Desmond Seeks GBP 1.3 Billion in Damages from the UKGC

    Lawyers representing Richard Desmond’s Northern & Shell investment firm and his lottery bid vehicle, the New Lottery Company (TNLC), argue that the Gambling Commission committed “manifest errors” during the complex and opaque competition process for Britain’s largest public sector contract. The 10-year licence was awarded in 2022 to Allwyn, a newly formed company ultimately owned by Czech billionaire Karel Komárek, which has operated the National Lottery since 2024.

    If successful, the payout could have a major financial impact on both charities and taxpayers, as the compensation would come from a lottery fund designated to support good causes. If the award exceeds the available funds, which are believed to receive around GBP 30 million (approximately $36.4 million) per week from lottery ticket sales, the shortfall would likely be covered by taxpayers.

    TNLC alleges that the Gambling Commission gave feedback to rival bidder Allwyn at a stage in the process when it should not have, calling this a “very serious breach” of the competition’s rules. 

    Speaking of Allwyn, it is also participating in the case, effectively aligning itself with the Gambling Commission. The company has a vested interest in defending the outcome of the bidding process, as its reputation could be damaged if Desmond’s legal team succeeds in persuading the judge that Allwyn should not have been awarded the license.

    While the UKGC sought a settlement with Desmond’s Northern & Shell PLC, the issue continued, and a bitter case opened this week. At the High Court, Desmond’s legal team told Mrs Justice Smith that the bidding process was fundamentally flawed on multiple grounds, and argued that the competition should have been rerun after the terms of the contract were changed post-award.

    UKHC Responds

    The Gambling Commission has defended its handling of the licensing process, describing it as robust and thorough. In legal submissions, the regulator argued that Desmond’s bid was “fanciful” and performed “extremely badly” in what it called a rigorous competition.

    Sarah Hannaford KC, representing the commission, dismissed Desmond’s claim, seeking damages for potential earnings TNLC might have made if the process were rerun as “hopeless.” She told the court it was “extremely unusual, if not unique, for a bidder who lost so spectacularly to argue that it should have won,” adding that TNLC’s belief it could have succeeded with more detailed early feedback was merely “wishful thinking.”

    [ad_2]

    Stefan Velikov

    Source link

  • Minnesota postal worker died in jail cell after officers ignored signs of stroke, lawsuit says

    [ad_1]

    The family of a Minnesota postal worker has filed a federal lawsuit after police and correctional officers allegedly ignored signs of his stroke for hours and he died in custody.

    The lawsuit was filed Thursday, accusing Eagan police, Dakota County and its correctional officers of demonstrating a “deliberate indifference” to the 50-year-old Cottage Grove resident’s medical needs during the five hours and 40 minutes he was in custody.

    According to the lawsuit, Kinglsey Fifi Bimpong left work early on Nov. 16, 2024, due to a headache, and was pulled over by Eagan police after he drove into oncoming traffic. From the responding officer’s body camera, the lawsuit says Bimpong “exhibited serious physical and cognitive abnormalities.” 

    Bimpong could not tell Eagan officers who pulled him over “the simplest of facts – his own name, where he was coming from, where he was going, or where he lived,” according to the lawsuit filed by head attorney Katie Bennett.

    The responding officer called a drug recognition evaluator, who didn’t complete a typical 12-step evaluation to determine if Bimpong was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the lawsuit says. The officers noted that he did not smell of alcohol and found nothing in his car to indicate drug or alcohol use. At the traffic stop site and throughout the evening, the lawsuit states that the officers had multiple conversations discussing whether Bimpong was suffering from a medical issue.

    The officers then placed Bimpong under arrest and took him to the Eagan Police Department for a blood draw. While at the facility, the lawsuit says Bimpong “stumbled” and “remained confused” and at times “nodded off to sleep.”

    An emergency medical provider at the station asked officers if they were planning to take him to the hospital, but the responding officer said “it’s a whole thing,” and instead, officers transported Bimpong to the Dakota County Jail, the lawsuit says. While transporting him, the responding officer was recorded on body camera video saying, “Is this dude having a stro–.” (The lawsuit says the word “stroke” was cut off because the officer muted his camera.)

    According to the suit, Bimpong arrived at the jail, where he lost balance and had trouble walking. Despite needing help walking to the jail, Bimpong’s booking paperwork said he did not require further evaluation, the lawsuit states. 

    In the jail cell, the suit says he stumbled and limped and rolled on the ground for hours. Dakota County Jail procedure requires that all inmates are observed by a staff member at least once every 30 minutes. Multiple officers observed Bimpong struggling on the ground for several hours, yet marked his status as “OK,” the lawsuit says.  

    “[He] ends up losing control of his bladder, rolling around in his own urine,” Bennett said. “Clearly in pain and struggling for hours when no one is helping him.”

    A nurse entered his cell after three hours and 26 minutes, at which time he was cold to the touch and unresponsive, the lawsuit states. The nurse administered Narcan three times without a response.

    He was taken to the hospital, where his alcohol and drug screens came back negative, and a CT scan showed a hemorrhage and swelling in his brain, the suit states. He was declared brain dead on Nov. 18, and taken off a ventilator a day later. 

    “At every step along the way with Eagan and jail defendants, it was a conscious choice of deliberate inference to not bring him to the hospital,” said Bennett.

    After his death, an investigation performed by the Minnesota Department of Corrections found that none of the Dakota County correctional officers were current with their first aid and CPR certifications. The investigation also found the correctional officers had failed to document any emergency medical information or conduct a mental health screening, in violation of state law.

    Bennett said that “police and correctional officers acted on incorrect and unfounded assumptions about Kingsley as justification for treating a person suffering from classic stroke symptoms with callous indifference that resulted in his death.”

    “Hours after Eagan officers transported Mr. Bimpong to the jail, it was discovered that he had experienced a stroke, which was fatal,” the City of Eagan said in a statement. “While Mr. Bimpong’s death is tragic, he was not exhibiting an objectively serious medical condition that was obvious to lay persons at the time he was in the Eagan officers’ custody and there (was) no indication that he required emergent medical treatment.”

    The lawsuit seeks $120 million in damages and policy changes at the Dakota County Jail.

    Dakota County says it cannot comment at the time due to the ongoing litigation process.

    [ad_2]

    WCCO Staff

    Source link

  • Chicago federal judge temporarily blocks National Guard deployment in Illinois

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Thursday granted a restraining order temporarily blocking the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois, after state and local leaders objected to the deployment.  

    In a ruling from the bench, U.S. District Judge April Perry said no National Guard units may be deployed in Illinois for the next 14 days. A full written ruling will be published on Friday, and Perry said she expects her order will be appealed.

    The restraining order expires at 11:59 p.m. on Oct. 23, but Perry has scheduled a telephone hearing for 9 a.m. on Oct. 22 to determine if it should be extended for another 14 days.

    Perry’s ruling means National Guard units already sent to the Chicago area cannot operate on the mission they were sent for — to protect federal agents and facilities in Illinois, including a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Broadview, where 45 soldiers arrived overnight.

    While the restraining order remains in effect for 14 days, the Trump administration had moved to deploy troops in Illinois for at least 60 days, so it’s very possible both sides will be back in court before the restraining order expires.

    Perry said her decision came down to a “credibility determination,” and she found the Department of Homeland Security’s assessment of recent events in the Chicago area to be “unreliable.”

    The judge ruled there is no credible evidence of an organized rebellion in Illinois, despite multiple protests and some assaults against federal agents, nor was there any evidence that the federal government has been unable to enforce the law without bringing in troops amid an ongoing immigration crackdown in the Chicago area.

    The judge said there is “no doubt there have been acts of vandalism and assaults” during the ICE operation in Chicago, but she could not agree that local law enforcement have been unable to handle the situation, calling the Trump administration’s claims otherwise “unreliable.” 

    She also noted that federal grand juries have refused to indict a number of protesters who were arrested outside the Broadview ICE facility, casting “significant doubt” on Homeland Security’s credibility and assessment of what’s happening on the streets in the Chicago area.

    The judge also said there is overwhelming evidence that deploying troops would lead to civil unrest, and said the provocative nature of ICE agents’ actions, and in some cases constitutional violations, has led to an increase in protest activity already.

    “I find that allowing the National Guard to deploy will only add fuel to the fire that the defendants have started,” she said.

    Because the National Guard is not trained in law enforcement functions or de-escalation tactics, the judge said allowing troops at the Broadview ICE facility or anywhere else would not be responsible, noting state and local police have indicated they are able to provide protection and keep the peace.

    The judge said adding militarized and untrained troops to the situation would not be in the community’s best interest.

    In a statement Thursday night, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said: “Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders like [JB] Pritzker have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

    Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said he believes the judge “did a very careful job of weighing the evidence” and “made the correct decision to enter a temporary restraining order.”

    “This is an important decision not just for the state of Illinois, but for the entire country. The question of states’ sovereignty was addressed in this decision. The question of whether or not the President of the United States should have unfettered authority to militarize our cities was answered today,” he said.

    In a statement, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson called the judge’s ruling “a win for the people of Chicago and the rule of law.”

    “Judge Perry echoed many of the points that we have made repeatedly: Trump’s deployment is illegal, unconstitutional, dangerous, and unnecessary. There is no rebellion in Chicago. There are just good people standing up for what is right,” Johnson said. “The judge established that the Trump administration is unreliable. They lie, misrepresent, and put people in danger. We will continue to use all of the tools at our disposal to end the Trump administration’s war on Chicago.” 

    Gov. JB Pritzker also praised the judge’s ruling in a post on X.

    “Donald Trump is not a king — and his administration is not above the law. Today, the court confirmed what we all know: there is no credible evidence of a rebellion in the state of Illinois. And no place for the National Guard in the streets of American cities like Chicago,” Pritzker wrote.

    Lawsuit filed by Chicago and Illinois called Trump’s deployment of troops “patently unlawful”

    In a lawsuit suit, filed Monday, the state of Illinois and city of Chicago claimed that the Trump administration’s “deployment of federalized troops to Illinois is patently unlawful.” 

    “Plaintiffs ask this court to halt the illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional federalization of members of the National Guard of the United States, including both the Illinois and Texas National Guard,” the lawsuit states.

    The federal government filed its response with moments to spare before a midnight deadline Wednesday night, in a 59-page filing that argued President Trump has the legal authority to deploy the troops and that state objections should not block the operation. 

    Attorneys for the federal government also argued the courts should be “highly deferential” when reviewing a president’s judgment, saying it’s within the scope of the authority the executive branch is given by the Constitution and statutes.

    Perry began hearing arguments in the case at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in Chicago at 11 a.m., and noted at the start of proceedings that the hearing has taken on new urgency because in the time between the lawsuit being filed Monday and today’s hearing, the government has already deployed 500 National Guard troops to Illinois and Chicago. 

    The judge initially declined to grant an emergency temporary restraining order in the hours after the lawsuit was filed but warned the federal government they should “take a pause” on deployment amid the legal proceedings. 

    READ MORE: U.S. District Court chief judge says National Guard not needed at Dirksen Federal Building

    Lawyers for the state of Illinois and the federal government gave opening statements before being questioned for hours by Judge Perry. Many of her questions focused on what exactly the National Guard would be authorized to do in their capacity of “protecting” federal property and federal agents. 

    Judge Perry admitted the open-ended nature of the president’s order is cause for concern. 

    The federal government’s attorneys argued repeatedly that the president’s judgment in deciding to federalize the National Guard in Illinois is not reviewable by the courts, and declined to articulate clear parameters on the guard’s orders because the situation is fluid. They said orders issued would be tailored to the needs of the moment. 

    Would they be limited to protecting ICE? The attorney for the government said probably. When Judge Perry asked if the guard might go into neighborhoods, hospitals and schools, the attorney said there is a vetting process but didn’t describe it. 

    Could they help any federal agency? The government’s attorney answered, “I actually don’t know the answer to that.”

    And the big question: Will they be fighting crime in Chicago? “Certainly to an extent,” the Trump administration’s attorney said. “The mission, again, is a federal protection one.”

    The attorneys repeatedly cited violence and “riots” in Illinois, particularly at the Broadview ICE facility, but the judge questioned whether the government was presenting an accurate representation of the violence on the ground, at one point pointing out the gulf between statements made on social media and reporting in Illinois.

    We do know 45 members of the Texas National Guard were at the Broadview ICE facility ahead of Thursday’s hearing. In the state’s opening argument, they mentioned internal communications from the person in charge at Broadview said “the situation was under control.”

    Perry also asked the government’s lawyers about two temporary restraining orders issued against ICE in the past 48 hours for violations of the First and Fourth amendments — one in a lawsuit in Chicago filed against ICE by reporters and media members, the other filed by an immigration attorney to prevent ICE from searching his phone — which the government said they were not aware of. 

    Perry questioned the government about its definition of the “danger of rebellion,” and what acts would comprise such a rebellion. At one point, when asking the government about threats made toward ICE and other federal agents, Perry noted, “I agree with you about threats across the U.S. now. Mine started about 10 minutes after I got the case.”

    Perry had fewer questions for the state, asking them about their definition of rebellion, the distinction between state and local law enforcement powers and military forces and their objections to using the military to protect federal property. Illinois attorneys argued the power to determine military conditions belongs to Congress, and they do not believe the president can summon troops to places where other law enforcement can be used effectively.

    Perry also asked about why they think a temporary restraining order is necessary. Attorneys for Illinois referenced statements made by Mr. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, particularly at the meeting of generals and other military leaders who were called to the Pentagon. 

    In closing arguments, the state argued the president doesn’t have the authority to send in troops to fight crime, and said the case is full of bad faith and abandonment of public virtues, and presents a “risk of wanton tyranny.” 

    The federal government argued in return that there is coordinated and complex violence in Illinois, and the president has a right to respond. They argued that a temporary restraining order would interfere with the president’s decision to protect personnel and property. 

    Mr. Trump has claimed that Chicago is “out of control” as justification for sending in the National Guard, and his administration and the Department of Homeland Security have claimed that federal agents and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities need protection from protesters.

    The president once again spoke about Chicago on Thursday, thanking Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for his troops and “doing what has to be done.” Chicago Mayor Johnson reacted to his latest comments outside court, saying, “We said that this deployment had nothing to do with public safety. We said that this has nothing to do with immigration. This is purely political.” 

    [ad_2]

    Todd Feurer

    Source link

  • Chicago federal judge temporarily blocks National Guard deployment in Illinois

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Thursday granted a restraining order temporarily blocking the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois, after state and local leaders objected to the deployment.  

    In a ruling from the bench, U.S. District Judge April Perry said no National Guard units may be deployed in Illinois for the next 14 days. A full written ruling will be published on Friday, and Perry said she expects her order will be appealed.

    The restraining order expires at 11:59 p.m. on Oct. 23, but Perry has scheduled a telephone hearing for 9 a.m. on Oct. 22 to determine if it should be extended for another 14 days.

    Perry’s ruling means National Guard units already sent to the Chicago area cannot operate on the mission they were sent for — to protect federal agents and facilities in Illinois, including a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Broadview, where 45 soldiers arrived overnight.

    While the restraining order remains in effect for 14 days, the Trump administration had moved to deploy troops in Illinois for at least 60 days, so it’s very possible both sides will be back in court before the restraining order expires.

    Perry said her decision came down to a “credibility determination,” and she found the Department of Homeland Security’s assessment of recent events in the Chicago area to be “unreliable.”

    The judge ruled there is no credible evidence of an organized rebellion in Illinois, despite multiple protests and some assaults against federal agents, nor was there any evidence that the federal government has been unable to enforce the law without bringing in troops amid an ongoing immigration crackdown in the Chicago area.

    The judge said there is “no doubt there have been acts of vandalism and assaults” during the ICE operation in Chicago, but she could not agree that local law enforcement have been unable to handle the situation, calling the Trump administration’s claims otherwise “unreliable.” 

    She also noted that federal grand juries have refused to indict a number of protesters who were arrested outside the Broadview ICE facility, casting “significant doubt” on Homeland Security’s credibility and assessment of what’s happening on the streets in the Chicago area.

    The judge also said there is overwhelming evidence that deploying troops would lead to civil unrest, and said the provocative nature of ICE agents’ actions, and in some cases constitutional violations, has led to an increase in protest activity already.

    “I find that allowing the National Guard to deploy will only add fuel to the fire that the defendants have started,” she said.

    Because the National Guard is not trained in law enforcement functions or de-escalation tactics, the judge said allowing troops at the Broadview ICE facility or anywhere else would not be responsible, noting state and local police have indicated they are able to provide protection and keep the peace.

    The judge said adding militarized and untrained troops to the situation would not be in the community’s best interest.

    In a statement Thursday night, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said: “Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders like [JB] Pritzker have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

    Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said he believes the judge “did a very careful job of weighing the evidence” and “made the correct decision to enter a temporary restraining order.”

    “This is an important decision not just for the state of Illinois, but for the entire country. The question of states’ sovereignty was addressed in this decision. The question of whether or not the President of the United States should have unfettered authority to militarize our cities was answered today,” he said.

    In a statement, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson called the judge’s ruling “a win for the people of Chicago and the rule of law.”

    “Judge Perry echoed many of the points that we have made repeatedly: Trump’s deployment is illegal, unconstitutional, dangerous, and unnecessary. There is no rebellion in Chicago. There are just good people standing up for what is right,” Johnson said. “The judge established that the Trump administration is unreliable. They lie, misrepresent, and put people in danger. We will continue to use all of the tools at our disposal to end the Trump administration’s war on Chicago.” 

    Gov. JB Pritzker also praised the judge’s ruling in a post on X.

    “Donald Trump is not a king — and his administration is not above the law. Today, the court confirmed what we all know: there is no credible evidence of a rebellion in the state of Illinois. And no place for the National Guard in the streets of American cities like Chicago,” Pritzker wrote.

    Lawsuit filed by Chicago and Illinois called Trump’s deployment of troops “patently unlawful”

    In a lawsuit suit, filed Monday, the state of Illinois and city of Chicago claimed that the Trump administration’s “deployment of federalized troops to Illinois is patently unlawful.” 

    “Plaintiffs ask this court to halt the illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional federalization of members of the National Guard of the United States, including both the Illinois and Texas National Guard,” the lawsuit states.

    The federal government filed its response with moments to spare before a midnight deadline Wednesday night, in a 59-page filing that argued President Trump has the legal authority to deploy the troops and that state objections should not block the operation. 

    Attorneys for the federal government also argued the courts should be “highly deferential” when reviewing a president’s judgment, saying it’s within the scope of the authority the executive branch is given by the Constitution and statutes.

    Perry began hearing arguments in the case at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in Chicago at 11 a.m., and noted at the start of proceedings that the hearing has taken on new urgency because in the time between the lawsuit being filed Monday and today’s hearing, the government has already deployed 500 National Guard troops to Illinois and Chicago. 

    The judge initially declined to grant an emergency temporary restraining order in the hours after the lawsuit was filed but warned the federal government they should “take a pause” on deployment amid the legal proceedings. 

    READ MORE: U.S. District Court chief judge says National Guard not needed at Dirksen Federal Building

    Lawyers for the state of Illinois and the federal government gave opening statements before being questioned for hours by Judge Perry. Many of her questions focused on what exactly the National Guard would be authorized to do in their capacity of “protecting” federal property and federal agents. 

    Judge Perry admitted the open-ended nature of the president’s order is cause for concern. 

    The federal government’s attorneys argued repeatedly that the president’s judgment in deciding to federalize the National Guard in Illinois is not reviewable by the courts, and declined to articulate clear parameters on the guard’s orders because the situation is fluid. They said orders issued would be tailored to the needs of the moment. 

    Would they be limited to protecting ICE? The attorney for the government said probably. When Judge Perry asked if the guard might go into neighborhoods, hospitals and schools, the attorney said there is a vetting process but didn’t describe it. 

    Could they help any federal agency? The government’s attorney answered, “I actually don’t know the answer to that.”

    And the big question: Will they be fighting crime in Chicago? “Certainly to an extent,” the Trump administration’s attorney said. “The mission, again, is a federal protection one.”

    The attorneys repeatedly cited violence and “riots” in Illinois, particularly at the Broadview ICE facility, but the judge questioned whether the government was presenting an accurate representation of the violence on the ground, at one point pointing out the gulf between statements made on social media and reporting in Illinois.

    We do know 45 members of the Texas National Guard were at the Broadview ICE facility ahead of Thursday’s hearing. In the state’s opening argument, they mentioned internal communications from the person in charge at Broadview said “the situation was under control.”

    Perry also asked the government’s lawyers about two temporary restraining orders issued against ICE in the past 48 hours for violations of the First and Fourth amendments — one in a lawsuit in Chicago filed against ICE by reporters and media members, the other filed by an immigration attorney to prevent ICE from searching his phone — which the government said they were not aware of. 

    Perry questioned the government about its definition of the “danger of rebellion,” and what acts would comprise such a rebellion. At one point, when asking the government about threats made toward ICE and other federal agents, Perry noted, “I agree with you about threats across the U.S. now. Mine started about 10 minutes after I got the case.”

    Perry had fewer questions for the state, asking them about their definition of rebellion, the distinction between state and local law enforcement powers and military forces and their objections to using the military to protect federal property. Illinois attorneys argued the power to determine military conditions belongs to Congress, and they do not believe the president can summon troops to places where other law enforcement can be used effectively.

    Perry also asked about why they think a temporary restraining order is necessary. Attorneys for Illinois referenced statements made by Mr. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, particularly at the meeting of generals and other military leaders who were called to the Pentagon. 

    In closing arguments, the state argued the president doesn’t have the authority to send in troops to fight crime, and said the case is full of bad faith and abandonment of public virtues, and presents a “risk of wanton tyranny.” 

    The federal government argued in return that there is coordinated and complex violence in Illinois, and the president has a right to respond. They argued that a temporary restraining order would interfere with the president’s decision to protect personnel and property. 

    Mr. Trump has claimed that Chicago is “out of control” as justification for sending in the National Guard, and his administration and the Department of Homeland Security have claimed that federal agents and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities need protection from protesters.

    The president once again spoke about Chicago on Thursday, thanking Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for his troops and “doing what has to be done.” Chicago Mayor Johnson reacted to his latest comments outside court, saying, “We said that this deployment had nothing to do with public safety. We said that this has nothing to do with immigration. This is purely political.” 

    [ad_2]

    Todd Feurer

    Source link

  • Jack Ciattarelli says he will sue Mikie Sherrill over accusations made during final debate

    [ad_1]

    NEW JERSEY (WABC) — Jack Ciattarelli, Republican nominee for New Jersey governor, announced that he plans to sue his Democrat counterpart, Mikie Sherrill, over what he calls an “inflammatory and irresponsible allegation” she made during Wednesday night’s gubernatorial debate.

    The development comes following a heated debate where both candidates butted heads over issues including over the federal government shutdown, Sherrill’s military records, President Donald Trump and the high cost of living in the state.

    However, one of the most contentious moments came when Sherrill, a four-term congresswoman elected during Trump’s first midterm to a longtime GOP-held seat, accused Ciattarelli, running for governor for the third time, of profiting off the opioid crisis, leading to deaths.

    “You’re trying to divert from the fact you killed tens of thousands of people by printing your misinformation, your propaganda,” she charged.

    The candidates debate opioids, their backgrounds, and claims of legality.

    Ciattarelli denied the accusation – “shame on you,” he said, accusing his opponent of lying in an act of desperation – and responded by referencing the scandal surrounding Sherrill’s military records, saying, at least “I got to walk at my college graduation.”

    Now, the Republican’s campaign is hitting back with the lawsuit.

    Ciattarelli strategist Chris Russell said in a statement that Sherrill’s comments were a “clearly defamatory attack that shocked the moderators, press, and public alike.”

    “In a time where political violence and violent rhetoric are becoming all too prevalent, Mikie Sherrill baselessly and recklessly accusing a political opponent of mass murder in a televised debate crosses the line.”

    Ciattarelli’s campaign said they expect the lawsuit to be formally filed early next week in court.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    ———-

    * Get Eyewitness News Delivered

    * More New Jersey news

    * Send us a news tip

    * Download the abc7NY app for breaking news alerts

    * Follow us on YouTube


    Submit a tip or story idea to Eyewitness News

    Have a breaking news tip or an idea for a story we should cover? Send it to Eyewitness News using the form below. If attaching a video or photo, terms of use apply.

    Copyright © 2025 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WABC

    Source link

  • New York City Sues Social Media Companies Over ‘Youth Mental Health Crisis’

    [ad_1]

    Here’s a new element of the East Coast vs. West Coast beef: The City of New York is reaching across the country to sue tech giants headquartered in California over allegations that their platforms have created a youth mental health crisis. The city, along with its school districts and health department, alleges that “gross negligence” on the part of Meta, Alphabet, Snap, and ByteDance has gotten kids hooked on social media, which has created a “public nuisance” that is placing a strain on the city’s resources.

    In a 327-page complaint filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the city alleges that tech companies have designed their platforms in a way that seeks to “maximize the number of children” using them, and have built “algorithms that wield user data as a weapon against children and fuel the addiction machine.” The city also alleges that these companies “know children and adolescents are in a developmental stage that leaves them particularly vulnerable to the addictive effects of these features,” but “target them anyway, in pursuit of additional profit.”

    The claims that social media is addictive to underage users aren’t necessarily new. New York state, in fact, is part of a coalition of states that have sued social media companies for allegedly exploiting young users. But the New York City suit does bring some unique and jurisdiction-specific information. It cites data from the New York City Police Department, for instance, that show at least 16 teens have died while “subway surfing”—riding outside of a moving train—a dangerous behavior which the lawsuit claims has been encouraged by social media trends. Two girls, ages 12 and 13, died earlier this month while subway surfing.

    It also cited survey data collected from New York high school students, which shows that 77.3% of the city’s teens spend three or more hours per day on screens, which it claims has contributed to lost sleep and, in turn, absences from school—corroborated by the city’s school districts, which provided data to show that 36.2% of all public school students are considered chronically absent, missing at least 10% of the school year.

    According to Reuters, this lawsuit from New York City is part of a larger effort by other governments to hold social media firms accountable. There are more than 2,050 similar lawsuits in litigation. The city withdrew a previous lawsuit, announced by Mayor Eric Adams in 2024, to join this wider effort in federal court. By doing so, New York City immediately becomes one of the largest plaintiffs, with a population of 8.48 million and nearly two million residents under the age of 18.

    “These lawsuits fundamentally misunderstand how YouTube works, and the allegations are simply not true. YouTube is a streaming service where people come to watch everything from live sports, to podcasts to their favorite creators, primarily on TV screens, not a social network where people go to catch up with friends,” José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, told Gizmodo. “We’ve also developed dedicated tools like Supervised Experiences for young people, guided by child safety experts, that give families control.”

    Gizmodo reached out to Meta, Snap, and ByteDance for comment but did not receive a response at the time of publication.

    [ad_2]

    AJ Dellinger

    Source link

  • Judge to rule on National Guard lawsuit filed by Illinois and Chicago in Thursday hearing

    [ad_1]

    A judge is set to rule on a lawsuit filed by the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago seeking to prevent the National Guard from being deployed by the federal government over their objections. 

    A hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois began at 11 a.m. CT. Judge April M. Perry has set strict limits on the structure of the proceedings: each side will get 10 minutes for their opening statements, then she will get to ask questions, and then each side will be given 15 minutes for closing arguments before she makes her ruling.

    CBS News Chicago Legal Analyst Irv Miller said there are three likely possible outcomes for the hearing. First, the judge could tell the government they can’t deploy the National Guard and have to leave. Second, the judge could rule the president was acting within his power and the guard can stay and do what they wish. Third, she could rule the guard can stay temporarily, but place major restrictions on their actions and autonomy. 

    READ MORE: U.S. District Court chief judge says National Guard not needed at Dirksen Federal Building

    Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul argues in the suit, filed Monday, that “Defendants’ deployment of federalized troops to Illinois is patently unlawful.” He continues, “Plaintiffs ask this court to halt the illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional federalization of members of the National Guard of the United States, including both the Illinois and Texas National Guard.” 

    The judge initially declined to grant an emergency temporary restraining order in the hours after the lawsuit was filed, instead giving the federal government until Wednesday at 11:59 p.m. CT to file their response.

    They did so with moments to spare, in a 59-page filing that argues President Trump has the legal authority to deploy the troops and that state objections should not block the operation. 

    Attorneys for the federal government also argued the courts should be “highly deferential” when reviewing a president’s judgment, saying it’s within the scope of the authority the executive branch is given by the Constitution and statutes.

    Mr. Trump has claimed that Chicago is “out of control” as justification for sending in the National Guard, and his administration and the Department of Homeland Security have claimed that federal agents and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities need protection from protesters.

    Raoul said in a Monday news conference following the filing of the lawsuit that the only situation in the city or state that is “out of control” are the ICE agents themselves, whose overreach he said creates pretext for military deployment, and cited Mr. Trump’s own statements that he wants to use American cities as military training grounds and said Chicago “is about to find out why it’s called the Department of War.”

    Charlie De Mar

    contributed to this report.

    Sara Tenenbaum

    Sara Tenenbaum is the Senior Digital Producer for CBS News Chicago covering breaking, local and community news in Chicago. She previously worked as a digital producer and senior digital producer for ABC7 Chicago.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cannabis trade group sues Michigan over new 24% wholesale tax – Detroit Metro Times

    [ad_1]

    The state’s largest cannabis trade group has filed a lawsuit against Michigan, arguing that a new 24% wholesale tax on marijuana is unconstitutional and will devastate a legal market already struggling from plummeting prices and numerous closures.

    The Michigan Cannabis Industry Association (MCIA) filed the complaint Tuesday in the Michigan Court of Claims, just hours after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed the tax into law as part of the new state budget. The Senate approved the measure 19-17 last week after it passed the House 78-21.

    The lawsuit argues lawmakers lacked the three-quarters supermajority required to change voter-approved cannabis laws under the Michigan Constitution. When voters legalized recreational marijuana in 2018, they approved a 10% excise tax and 6% sales tax on retail cannabis sales. Any new or higher tax, the MCIA contends, amounts to an amendment of that ballot measure and therefore needs a supermajority vote.

    The lawsuit argues that lawmakers violated the constitutional protections that voters included in the 2018 ballot initiative that legalized recreational marijuana. The complaint adds that the new wholesale tax amounts to an additional excise tax under a different name. 

    “Legislative authority over marihuana excise taxes is exclusive to MRTMA; no other statute may intrude upon or duplicate the marihuana excise tax,” the lawsuit states. “Thus, additional excise taxes require a direct amendment to MRTMA itself.”

    Under the new law, the 24% tax will be levied on all marijuana sold or transferred to retailers beginning Jan. 1. The Whitmer administration projects it will raise roughly $420 million a year to fund road repairs.

    Cannabis businesses say the tax will drive up prices, fuel the illicit market, and force more licensed operators out of business.

    “This is going to be a nail in the coffin, especially for mom and pops,” said Tom Farrell, owner of the Refinery dispensaries in New Buffalo and Kalamazoo and Growing Pains, a cultivator. “The industry is in turmoil right now.”

    At Farrell’s Kalamazoo location, sales have dropped 70% in the past 18 months. 

    “It has been horrendous,” he said. “We had to lay off employees.”

    The MCIA’s lawsuit also accuses lawmakers of misleading the public by inserting the tax into a road-funding bill at the last minute. In addition the complaint alleges the measure unconstitutionally interferes with existing contracts between cannabis suppliers and retailers by taxing discounts and rebates that are already part of negotiated agreements.

    State leaders, including Whitmer and House Speaker Matt Hall, maintain that the tax is legal because it does not alter the existing excise tax structure approved by voters.

    Cannabis business owners and advocates strongly disagree. They argue the new tax undermines the intent of the 2018 legalization measure, which was designed to keep taxes low enough to compete with the unregulated market.

    “It’s a slap in the face to the cannabis industry and voters,” said Nick Hannawa, partner and chief legal counsel of Puff Cannabis, which operates 11 dispensaries. “It’s totally unfair to a struggling industry. We are already taxed more harshly than any other industry in the country.”

    Michigan’s cannabis market has already been reeling from oversupply, falling prices, and shrinking profit margins. In August, the average retail price of recreational flower dropped to a record low of $61.79 an ounce, which is down from $512 when legal sales began in 2020.

    Industry leaders warn that adding a 24% wholesale tax will push Michigan’s legal cannabis prices close to those in California, where high taxes eroded parts of the legal market and drove consumers back underground.

    In the same week the Michigan House approved the wholesale tax, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to roll back a 25% tax increase on recreational cannabis. He approved the measure because the state’s high tax rates have forced thousands of legal businesses to shut down and drove residents to the unregulated market.

    The MCIA is seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the tax while the case moves forward.


    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link