New England Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs is being sued by his ex-girlfriend.
Source: Adam Glanzman / Aaron J. Thornton
Diggs’ ex-girlfriend, Mulan Hernandez of Basketball WivesOrlando fame, has filed a lawsuit against the NFL star for allegedly assaulting her and later attempting to silence her.
The former reality star filed a countersuit against Diggs in April after he initially accused Hernandez of assault in a separate lawsuit back in February. According to reports from Page Six, Mulan denied the baller’s allegations in her filing, claiming that he was actually the one who was physically aggressive during their brief relationship in 2024.
Hernandez claimed Diggs attacked her from behind and punched the back of her head on June 7, 2024. She says the alleged incident left her with a concussion before claiming that Diggs then “mounted an effort to induce [her] into signing a non-disclosure agreement so that [his] malicious and egregious act would be kept from the NFL and from public view.”
Love Celebrity? Get more! Join the Bossip Newsletter
According to the suit, the Patriots star allegedly acted “frantically,” sending his assistant to Houston to convince his ex to sign the NDA. It doesn’t seem like she signed the agreement.
In her filing, Hernandez requested a minimum of $250,000 and up to $1 million for damages she received from her physical and mental pain, along with medical bills.
In his original lawsuit, Diggs sued Mulan and Brianna Mack, a third party, accusing them both of assault, emotional distress, trespass, conspiracy and extortion.
The wide receiver claimed he would allow the duo to stay at his apartment in Houston before recalling the morning of June 7, 2024, when he alleged that Hernandez assaulted him and threatened to destroy his apartment after a night of partying.
“Hernandez burst through the bathroom and into the gaming room, visibly intoxicated and upset. [Diggs] told Hernandez to leave, but she refused,” the filing read, per Page Six. “[Diggs] attempted to diffuse the situation by attempting to remove himself from Jones’ line of fire, but she continued to castigate him,” the lawsuit continued.
Diggs claims that Hernandez threw his video game console on the floor, damaged a $130,000 watch, and tossed his phone in the toilet. He went on to allege that his ex punched his chest several times and used a weapon to threaten him, noting that Mack was present during the altercation.
The baller claims Hernandez slipped on a wet floor, but denies fighting back, alleging that Hernandez went to the doctors that night after experiencing nausea and received medication. He also said that she went to the doctors on June 14, 2024, and “falsely” alleged that she was hit “in the back of the head with a closed fist.”
He added that Hernandez’s lawyer claimed she was living with Diggs and was more than one month pregnant with his child when the alleged assault occurred.
“In the weeks and months that followed, Hernandez and Mack both individually and with the assistance of counsel, tried to use their newly spun tale to extort millions of dollars from [Diggs],” the lawsuit stated. “[Diggs] brings this case because he will not be victimized by the attempts of defendants to extort money from him. It is defendants who are liable to [Diggs], not the other way around.”
Diggs is also facing a paternity suit from a woman named Aileen Lopera, claiming he is the father of her child, who was born in April. He responded to the petition in July, stating he wasn’t sure if he is the father.
Meanwhile, the Patriots player is expecting a child with his girlfriend, Cardi B. She is currently in the middle of divorce proceedings from her estranged husband, Offset, with whom she shares three kids.
Texas National Guard troops arrive in Illinois ahead of expected Chicago deployment – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Members of the Texas National Guard arrived in Illinois on Tuesday and are expected on the streets of Chicago as early as Wednesday at the request of President Trump. CBS News Homeland Security correspondent Nicole Sganga has the latest.
A 69-year-old truck driver who was seriously injured in a fight that prosecutors say was started by former Broncos quarterback and sports analyst Mark Sanchez is now suing Sanchez and his employer, Fox Corporation, in Indiana state court.
Lawyers for Perry Tole filed the lawsuit Monday seeking an unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees. The lawsuit accuses Sanchez of instigating a fight with Tole late Saturday night outside a downtown Indianapolis hotel, leading to “severe permanent disfigurement, loss of function” and other injuries and emotional distress.
Tole also stabbed Sanchez several times in the fight, according to police. A picture of Tole circulating online shows him in a neck brace on a hospital bed, covered in blood with a deep slash to the side of his face.
A media contact for Fox Corporation did not immediately respond to an email Tuesday seeking comment. Attorneys representing Sanchez in his criminal case declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Attorneys representing Tole in the lawsuit, which requested a trial by jury, did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
“We are literally talking about people fighting over a parking space and-or a dispute about where people are parking, and it resulted in someone receiving just incredibly significant injures,” Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears said at a news conference Monday.
A police affidavit says the 38-year-old Sanchez, smelling of alcohol, accosted Tole, who had backed his truck into a hotel’s loading docks in downtown Indianapolis. Tole’s lawsuit said Sanchez entered Tole’s truck without permission, then physically blocked and shoved Tole, who then doused Sanchez with pepper spray.
When Sanchez advanced after being sprayed, Tole pulled a knife to defend himself, authorities said.
Sanchez was hospitalized with stab wounds to his upper right torso, according to a police affidavit.
Sanchez was in Indianapolis for Fox’s coverage of Sunday’s game between the Colts and the Las Vegas Raiders.
Sanchez had a 10-year NFL career before retiring in 2019. He spent four seasons with the Jets and also appeared in games with Philadelphia, Dallas and Washington.
He appeared on ABC and ESPN for two years before joining Fox Sports as a game analyst in 2021.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an appeal from Laura Loomer, the far-right personality and ally of President Donald Trump, in a lawsuit she filed against social media companies.
The justices did not explain why they decided not to hear the case. But a brief order said that Justice Samuel Alito “took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.”
The reason for his recusal was not provided, but it is likely because he owns stock in Procter & Gamble (P&G), which is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, according to advocacy group Fix the Court.
Newsweek has contacted a court spokesperson for comment via email. Loomer has been contacted for comment via social media.
Why It Matters
Federal law requires Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from cases in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The nation’s highest court also adopted an ethics code to guide the justices after fierce criticism over undisclosed gifts, trips and other scandals, although there is no real means of enforcing either.
Loomer filed the lawsuit against Meta, X and others, alleging the companies violated civil racketeering laws by removing her from the platforms as she ran for Congress in Florida in 2020 and 2022.
She was banned from Facebook in 2019 and from X, then known as Twitter, in 2018, but her account on the latter platform was reinstated after Elon Musk bought the company.
In a complaint, her attorneys alleged “a conspiracy involving government pressure, corporate collusion and biased content moderation” that “stifled” Loomer’s ability to “communicate with voters, raise funds, and compete in federal elections.”
It also alleged P&G provided Meta, then known as Facebook, with a list of individuals, including Loomer, to be banned from the platform “unless they publicly disavowed affiliation with the Proud Boys” and threatened to withdraw advertising if they were not.
Loomer repeatedly lost in lower courts.
The Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist militant organization that promotes political and cultural violence.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year agreed with a federal judge’s decision to dismiss the Loomer case, saying there was no plausible argument the companies had violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The federal judge ruled that Loomer’s claims against Meta and X were barred because previous lawsuits had already addressed the same underlying facts and that both companies were protected from liability for their content moderation decisions under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Meta, X and P&G waived their right to respond to Loomer’s petition.
What People Are Saying
Laura Loomer wrote on X on Monday, in part: “If the Supreme Court isn’t willing to address Big Tech supremacy & election interference NOW, then when? We can’t allow Big Tech to wield more power than the President of the United States & to silence the voices of the American people.”
She added: “Today is a sad day in US history, but I will keep fighting for free speech & I will keep fighting for accountability from Big Tech for the American People, President Trump & his supporters, because TRUTH AND JUSTICE matter!”
The state of Illinois and Chicago are suing the Trump administration over their plans to deploy the National Guard.
“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit states in its introduction.
In the lawsuit, which names both the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago as plaintiffs, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul writes, “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.”
Raoul is asking for a temporary restraining order, saying deployment will cause “additional unrest,” “mistrust of police” an dharm to the state’s economy.
Over the weekend, a federal memo obtained by CBS News revealed up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard would be federalized and deployed to “protect federal property” and “government personnel performing federal functions.”
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker confirmed that memo and said he had also been told an additional 400 other National Guard members from Texas would be deployed to Chicago and Portland, Oregon.
The quickly unfolding developments come as the administration portrays the Democrat-led cities as war-ravaged and lawless and amid Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Officials in both cities have disputed the president’s characterizations, saying military intervention isn’t needed and it’s federal involvement that’s inflaming the situation.
The lawsuit alleges that “these advances in President Trump’s long-declared ‘War’ on Chicago and Illinois are unlawful and dangerous.”
“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit says.
Pritzker and Raoul will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. Monday, where they will also be joined by Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. CBS News Chicago will stream that news conference live on our 24/7 news stream and on air.
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.
The state of Illinois and Chicago are suing the Trump administration over their plans to deploy the National Guard.
“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit states in its introduction.
In the lawsuit, which names both the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago as plaintiffs, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul writes, “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.”
Over the weekend, a federal memo obtained by CBS News revealed up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard would be federalized and deployed to “protect federal property” and “government personnel performing federal functions.”
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker confirmed that memo and said he had also been told an additional 400 other National Guard members from Texas would be deployed to Chicago and Portland, Oregon.
President Trump first used the National Guard against anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests in Los Angeles in the spring.
Pritzker and Raoul will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. Monday. CBS News Chicago will stream that news conference live on our 24/7 news stream and on air.
This is a developing news story. Check back with CBS News Chicago for updates.
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.
The Minneapolis City Council voted last month to approve a $125,000 settlement for a man who claims a police officer severely injured him during a protest following the murder of George Floyd over five years ago.
According to the lawsuit, Mason Hermann, who was 20 at the time, was hit in the head with a non-lethal round during a protest outside the Third Precinct building on May 27, 2020. He was later found to have suffered a laceration to his scalp, an intracranial hemorrhage, a skull fracture and a concussion. His injuries have led to issues with cognitive abilities and otherwise negatively impacted his life.
Hermann’s lawyers say he had been peacefully exercising his First Amendment rights and that “no one was rioting or throwing projectiles at the MPD officers” while Hermann participated in the protest.
Without warning, the lawsuit claims, Minneapolis police officers began firing at the crowd with “40-millimeter projectiles, tear gas and other ‘less lethal’ munitions.” It was then that one of the non-lethal rounds hit Hermann in the head.
The lawsuit alleges the officer intentionally shot Hermann “in retaliation for and to chill Hermann’s further speech.”
Mayor Jacob Frey approved the settlement for the lawsuit last week.
Riley Moser is a digital producer who covers breaking news and feature stories for CBS Minnesota. Riley started her career at CBS Minnesota in June 2022 and earned an honorable mention for sports writing from the Iowa College Media Association the same year.
President Donald Trump’s crime and immigration crackdown hit a legal roadblock in Portland, Oregon, as new details emerged about the administration’s plan to send federal troops into Chicago. On Saturday, a federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s effort to federalize 200 members of the Oregon National Guard. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut said the plan to send troops to Portland likely overstepped Trump’s authority and threatened state sovereignty. “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation,” Immergut said. The decision was celebrated by state and local leaders who brought the lawsuit, but the White House vowed to appeal. “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland has been at the center of recent protests. On Saturday, hundreds marched to the building, prompting federal agents to deploy tear gas, among other crowd-control munitions. At least six people were arrested. Similar demonstrations and a similar debate have been playing out in Chicago. On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security said federal agents shot and injured one woman during what the agency described as a “defensive” response to an alleged vehicle-ramming attack. On Saturday, Trump authorized 300 troops to protect federal officers and assets in Chicago, despite opposition from Illinois Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker. The timeline of the National Guard’s arrival was not immediately clear. More from our Washington Bureau:
President Donald Trump’s crime and immigration crackdown hit a legal roadblock in Portland, Oregon, as new details emerged about the administration’s plan to send federal troops into Chicago.
On Saturday, a federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s effort to federalize 200 members of the Oregon National Guard. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut said the plan to send troops to Portland likely overstepped Trump’s authority and threatened state sovereignty.
“This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation,” Immergut said.
The decision was celebrated by state and local leaders who brought the lawsuit, but the White House vowed to appeal.
“President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland has been at the center of recent protests. On Saturday, hundreds marched to the building, prompting federal agents to deploy tear gas, among other crowd-control munitions. At least six people were arrested.
Similar demonstrations and a similar debate have been playing out in Chicago. On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security said federal agents shot and injured one woman during what the agency described as a “defensive” response to an alleged vehicle-ramming attack.
On Saturday, Trump authorized300 troops to protect federal officers and assets in Chicago, despite opposition from Illinois Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker. The timeline of the National Guard’s arrival was not immediately clear.
DRACUT — Superintendent of Schools Steven Stone intends to sue Town Manager Kate Hodges and Board of Selectmen Chair Josh Taylor, alleging defamation of character and abuse of power.
The news was disclosed at a special meeting of the School Committee in which committee member Rebecca Duda was removed from all subcommittee assignments because of several documents she posted on social media.
The documents were related to a purported overpayment of retirement benefits to Andrew Graham, who worked for the School Department as a post-retirement employee.
Notice of Stone’s suit was delivered to Hodges and Taylor on Thursday night. The first public hint of the superintendent’s action came Friday morning when Shannon Rowe, executive assistant to the Board of Selectmen, posted the agenda for a selectmen’s meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 7.
The email announced an executive session, rather than a regular session, “to discuss strategy with respect to threatened litigation in the matter of the School Superintendent vs. the Chair of the Selectmen and Town Manager as an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the public body’s litigating position.”
The School Committee held its own special, but public, meeting on Friday afternoon to review the department’s payroll process, committee roles and the School Department, the board’s code of ethics and governance norms, and the committee response to criticism and claims.
The meeting was called after nearly six weeks of arguments conducted primarily over Facebook, beginning in August with a description of the Parker Avenue School lease to Community Teamwork Inc.
During that six-week interval, some school board members, a selectman and others posted a daily blizzard of criticism of each other in less-than-respectful terms. In one post, School Committee Chair Renee Young called on selectmen to remove Taylor as chairman of that board.
Neither the town manager nor the superintendent directly participated in the Facebook fight, although their names came up frequently.
School Committee member Linda Trouville may have spoken for many who have witnessed the social media exchanges when she said, “I’ve been taken aback by the slander I’ve seen.”
In the course of the school board meeting, School Committee member Allison Volpe made the motion to remove Duda from all her committee assignments because she posted several public records documents on Facebook regarding Graham.
“I respect you but I can’t trust you,” Volpe told Duda.
In a long introductory section, Duda said, “For approximately the past month and a half, I have been researching post retiree earnings with the Dracut Public Schools and our internal processes as it relates to these employees.”
That and similar statements may be what led to allegations of violations of School Committee norms. One of those norms reads, “The School Committee will lead by example and work to build trust. We agree to avoid words and actions that create a negative impression of an individual, the School Committee, or the district. While we encourage debate and differing points of view, we will speak with care and respect.”
If a Superior Court judge has a conflict of interest that potentially benefits Gov. Kelly Ayotte, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office doesn’t want anyone to know about it, according to a notice filed this week in a lawsuit brought by survivors of sexual abuse committed by state employees.
At issue is Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Daniel St. Hilaire’s recent ruling against 1,500 survivors of the Sununu Youth Services Center, formerly called YDC, sex abuse scandal, a ruling that favors Ayotte who is a named defendant.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
(Right-Left) NASCAR team owner Rick Hendrick smiles at driver Jeff Gordon in 2012 during the NASCAR media tour. Gordon won four of Hendrick Motorsports’ 14 NASCAR Cup series championships.
JEFF SINER
jsiner@charlotteobserver.com
Some of the most powerful names in stock car racing have voiced their support for NASCAR’s charter system — the same system that is at the center of the antitrust lawsuit that has been consuming the sport.
Rick Hendrick, Richard Childress, Joe Gibbs and Roger Penske are among the many high-profile people who have released declarations in support of the current charter system. The statements were released as part of NASCAR’s motion for summary judgment Friday evening.
All of the statements said essentially the same thing: The lawsuit between NASCAR and plaintiffs 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports must be resolved in a way that keeps the charter system in place — even if the teams mostly agree that the charter agreement is imperfect.
“The Charter system has delivered on the teams’ goal of creating long-term equity value, as evidenced by the increasing sales prices of Charters in recent years,” said Hendrick, who is the majority owner of Hendrick Motorsports, the all-time winningest Cup Series team in NASCAR. “I believe the potential loss of Charters (i.e., reverting to the system that was in place prior to 2016, as opposed to improving upon the current Charter system) represents an existential threat to Hendrick Motorsports and other Cup Series race teams. It would jeopardize our business and risk the jobs of thousands of people who rely on our industry.”
Hendrick went on to write that as the 2016 charter agreement was set to expire in 2024, negotiations for a new charter agreement “had reached a stalemate.”
“While by no means does the 2025 Charter Agreement reflect what we hoped to achieve, the teams were able to secure a reasonable revenue increase,” Hendrick continued. “The Charter agreement is critical to the stability of the NASCAR ecosystem — the teams, the businesses that support us and NASCAR itself.
“Undoing what we have collectively negotiated will not only result in immeasurable damage to our sport and our respective businesses, it will, most importantly, hurt the people and families that depend on us for their livelihoods.”
NASCAR team owner Rick Hendrick, right, smiles at driver Jeff Gordon in 2012 during the NASCAR media tour. Gordon won four of Hendrick Motorsports’ 14 NASCAR Cup series championships. JEFF SINER jsiner@charlotteobserver.com
23XI Racing, co-owned by sports icon Michael Jordan and Cup driver Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports sued NASCAR in October 2024 in a Charlotte court on the grounds that NASCAR is a monopoly. 23XI and FRM did so after they declined to sign the new charter agreement NASCAR presented to teams in September 2024; they were the only two of the 15 Cup Series teams that did not sign the deal.
NASCAR contends that 23XI and FRM were hoping to use this litigation as a negotiation tactic, to better the terms of the charter deal. The plaintiff teams, meanwhile, have said they are fighting for the betterment of NASCAR Cup teams after NASCAR pressured the teams to sign the current charter agreement — a sign of their monopsonistic power, they claim. The Cup teams “have more to gain in the long run by growing the sport for everyone,” the plaintiffs’ legal representation wrote in a statement they shared exclusively with The Charlotte Observer for a September story.
“Today’s filing demonstrates that NASCAR’s charter system has the support of race teams throughout the garage, and that the 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports lawsuit is not in the best interests of the sport,” reads a statement released by NASCAR. “This lawsuit is not about antitrust; it is merely an attempt to renegotiate an agreement that was signed and is being honored by all other race teams.
“Together with our race team partners, we remain committed to delivering the best of stock car racing to our fans every weekend through our championship on Nov. 2, including this Sunday on the ROVAL at Charlotte Motor Speedway.”
In a statement, lead attorney for 23XI and FRM Jeffrey Kessler wrote Friday that “the declarations submitted by the various teams are supportive of my clients’ position,” and that “my clients are not, and never have been, seeking to eliminate the charter system.”
“They have supported charters because teams cannot survive without them,” Kessler’s statement continued. “The declarations from team owners and executives acknowledge this same economic reality. Nor do they excuse NASCAR’s anticompetitive conduct or its unlawful monopoly, points 23XI and Front Row have maintained from the start. Many teams have expressed a desire to resolve this matter, a goal my clients share, but NASCAR has yet to demonstrate a similar willingness to engage in meaningful resolution.”
Kessler concluded his remarks stating that “NASCAR’S new motion changes nothing and we look forward to presenting our case at trial on December 1.”
More support from NASCAR team owners
Roger Penske, who owns Team Penske and has five Cup Series championships to his name, released a statement saying that “the charter system has been beneficial because it delivered on the race teams’ goal of creating long-term equity value.”
“My belief in the value of the NASCAR Charter system is confirmed by the fact that, based on my experience with NASCAR’s Charter system since 2016, I decided to create a Charter-type system in IndyCar,” Penske wrote in a statement. Penske owns and operates the IndyCar racing series. “In 2024, the NTT INDYCAR SERIES and all teams racing full time in IndyCar entered into a charter agreement effective for the 2025 season. The IndyCar Charter has some similarities to the NASCAR Charter, and I believe has brought value to our series.”
Joe Gibbs, owner of Joe Gibbs Racing, wrote that the “most important thing to me is that this lawsuit is resolved amicably, quickly and in a manner that perserves the charter system and the long-term viability of our incredible sport.”
NEXTEL Cup team owner Richard Childress watches NEXTEL Cup practice from atop his transporter at Lowe’s Motor Speedway. JEFF SINER Charlotte Observer
Said Richard Childress, owner of RCR: “As a team owner for many decades, I believe in the concept of NASCAR’s Charter system. Given the challenging business model and economics that Cup Series team owners face, Charters are essential to creating enterprise value for teams. The Charter system has helped create long-term equity value and has allowed for team equity value to grow.”
The lawsuit’s trial is set for December, though the two sides will meet for a hearing in front of Judge Kenneth Bell on Oct. 21. That hearing will take place in Charlotte and will litigate a separate summary judgment brought forth by the plaintiffs regarding NASCAR’s counterclaims.
Alex Zietlow writes about the Carolina Panthers and the ways in which sports intersect with life for The Charlotte Observer, where he has been a reporter since August 2022. Zietlow’s work has been honored by the N.C. and S.C. Press Associations, as well as the Associated Press Sports Editors (APSE) group. He’s earned five APSE Top 10 distinctions, most recently in the Long Features category in 2024. Zietlow previously wrote for The Herald in Rock Hill (S.C.) from 2019-22. Support my work with a digital subscription
The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has filed a class-action lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s administration’s policy of detaining immigrant children.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has filed a class-action lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s administration’s policy of detaining immigrant children without bond hearings, stating the practice violates decades of federal law intended to protect vulnerable youth.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the Eastern District of Virginia, names four plaintiffs who came to the U.S. after being abused, neglected or abandoned by their parents. All have obtained or applied for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, a legal designation Congress created nearly 40 years ago to provide a pathway to citizenship for children who cannot safely return to their home countries.
“These children have every right to pursue SIJS,” said Sophia Gregg, ACLU senior immigrants’ rights attorney. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement is “recategorizing and reconsidering the entire federal regulations … and their justification really doesn’t hold any water.”
The four plaintiffs are currently being held at the Farmville and Caroline detention facilities in Virginia. According to the ACLU, their detention is part of a broader Trump administration strategy to classify immigrant youth with SIJS as “arriving noncitizens,” subject to mandatory detention and ineligible for bond hearings.
“We’re seeing this across the country for all individuals. Millions of people, potentially, are in immigration detention who would otherwise not have been a few months ago,” Gregg told WTOP. “Those unaccompanied minors are protected under the many federal laws and anti-trafficking laws that are specifically intended to protect children.”
Under the SIJS process, immigrant children must first be released to a sponsor, placed under custody orders from a state judge, and then they can apply for status. Visa availability can take years, but the protections Congress established were designed to prevent children from being detained while they wait.
Instead, the ACLU lawsuit argues, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is keeping children locked up and cutting them off from the ability to pursue their cases and effectively pressuring them to abandon their rights.
Gregg called the policy part of “a mass deportation agenda,” adding these are kids “Congress intended to protect … and identified as being the most vulnerable and in need of protection.”
“The immigration courts are now taking the position, as is the rest of the Trump administration, that nobody, including this specifically vulnerable group, is entitled to hearings for the release under bond pending their immigration cases,” Gregg said.
The case, Sarmiento v. Crawford, was filed with co-counsel Tanishka Cruz of Cruz Law, and Patrice Kopistansky. The ACLU is seeking the immediate release of the named plaintiffs, as well as a ruling that would guarantee bond hearings for similarly situated minors nationwide.
Violation of the Hatch Act
On Friday, the watchdog group Public Citizen filed 11 complaints against major agencies, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Treasury, Department of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration and the White House.
The complaints accuse the federal agencies of tampering with webpages and automatic out-of-office emails to blame Democrats for the government shutdown.
As of Friday afternoon, HUD’s website featured a banner and a pop-up message blaming the “Radical Left” for the current federal government shutdown.
A banner on the Department of Housing and Urban Development website currently reads, “The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government. HUD will use available resources to help Americans in need.” (Screenshot via WTOP Staff)
Ethics experts argue the edits violate the Hatch Act, which bars political activity in federal workplaces and protects employees from partisan pressure. They warn the coordinated changes not only misrepresent federal workers but also use government resources to sway voters.
“This is unique. … These agencies are the biggest agencies in the federal government. You’ve got a coordinated effort coming from the White House to get the entire federal government and all the different agencies working together to try to influence the electoral mood of the American public to support Donald Trump and oppose Democrats. I’ve never seen this type of scope of violation of the Hatch Act before in my life,” government affairs lobbyist Craig Holman said.
Holman, who filed the complaints with Public Citizen, added, “This ought to be enough to actually make the Office of Special Counsel do something, or if they don’t do something, it gives me grounds for litigation.”
WTOP’s Michelle Murillo contributed to this report.
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
Tesla vehicles line a parking area at the company’s Fremont, Calif., factory, Aug. 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)
(AP) – The parents of two college students killed in a Tesla crash say they were trapped in the car as it burst into flames because of a design flaw that made it nearly impossible for them to open the doors, according to lawsuits filed Thursday.
The parents of Krysta Tsukahara and her friend, Jack Nelson, allege that the company that helped Elon Musk become the world’s richest man knew about the flaw for years and could have moved faster to fix the problem but did not, leaving the two trapped amid flames and smoke that eventually killed them.
Tesla did not reply to a request for comment.
The new legal threats to Tesla filed in Alameda County Superior Court come just weeks after federal regulators opened an investigation into complaints by Tesla drivers of problems with stuck doors. The probe and suit come at a delicate time for the company as it seeks to convince Americans that its cars will soon be safe enough to ride in without anyone in the driver’s seat.
Tsukahara, 19, and Nelson, 20, were in the back of a Cybertruck in November 2024 when the driver, drunk and on drugs, smashed into a tree in the San Francisco suburb of Piedmont, California, according to the suits. The driver also died. A fourth passenger was pulled from the car after a rescuer broke a window and reached in.
The Tsukahara lawsuit was first reported by The New York Times.
Tesla doors have been at the center of several crash cases because the battery powering the unlocking mechanism can be destroyed in a fire and the manual releases that override that system are difficult to find.
The lawsuit follows several others that have claimed various safety problems with Tesla cars. In August, a Florida jury decided that the family of another dead college student, this one killed by a runaway Tesla years ago, should be awarded more than $240 million in damages.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which opened its stuck-door investigation last month, is looking into complaints by drivers that after exiting their cars, they couldn’t open back doors to get their children out and, in some cases, had to break the window to reach them.
The high-profile legal battle between Evolution and Light & Wonder has reached a potential turning point after a Nevada federal court ruled that certain aspects of the dispute must be arbitrated while allowing other claims to proceed. With neither party willing to back down, this legal showdown shows no signs of subsiding.
Evolution Recently Reignited the Dispute
On September 30, US District Judge Cristina Silva granted Light & Wonder’s motion to compel arbitration of Evolution’s trade secret claims. The court held that the claims were subject to an arbitration provision contained in a 2021 licensing agreement between the gaming giants. The Judge further ruled that Evolution’s patent infringement claims would remain in court.
The dispute centers on a licensing deal that granted Light & Wonder exclusive rights to develop a physical version of Evolution’s hit title Lightning Roulette for land-based casinos. Evolution claims that Light & Wonder has gone beyond the scope of the agreement, using confidential information and proprietary technology to develop competing products.
Evolution’s revised complaint includes allegations tied to the so-called “Haushalter patents,” covering live-streamed gaming systems with randomized multipliers, and the “Merati patents,” acquired through Evolution’s 2024 acquisition of hybrid gaming developer Uplay1. Along with its patent claims, Evolution accuses Light & Wonder of trade secret misappropriation in violation of federal laws and Nevada state law.
A Final Resolution Remains a Long Way Away
According to a recent Next.io report, Judge Silva found that the trade secrets claims fell squarely within the arbitration clause of the 2021 Agreement between the two companies. The provision states that disputes unresolved by negotiation must be settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by three arbitrators, with London specified as the seat of arbitration.
Evolution argued that the contract carved out disputes relating to licensed property, which it contended should include trade secrets. The court disagreed, noting that the carve-out provided that only intellectual property matters should be governed by the laws of the territory where the IP infringement allegedly took place, and not that such disputes were exempt from arbitration.
The outcome creates a split process: arbitration will handle the trade secrets allegations, while the Nevada court proceeds with its review of Evolution’s patent infringement claims. A status conference set for October 30 will determine how the arbitration order affects the court proceedings. However, while significant, this development does not change the fact that a final resolution remains nowhere in sight.
The parents of a college student killed in a Tesla crash say she was trapped in the car as it burst into flames because of a design flaw that made it nearly impossible for her to open the door, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday.
The parents of Krysta Tsukahara allege that the company that helped Elon Musk become the world’s richest man knew about the flaw for years and could have moved fast to fix the problem but did not, leaving the 19-year-old arts student trapped amid flames and smoke that eventually killed her.
Tesla did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
The new legal threat to Tesla filed in Alameda County Superior Court comes just weeks after federal regulators opened an investigation into complaints by Tesla drivers of stuck-door problems. The probe and suit come at a delicate time for the company as it seeks to convince Americans that its cars will soon be safe enough to ride in without anyone in the driver’s seat.
An Inc.com Featured Presentation
Tsukahara was in the back of a Cybertruck when the driver who was drunk and had taken drugs smashed into a tree in a suburb of San Francisco, according to the suit. Three of the four people in the car, including the driver, died. A fourth was pulled from the car after a rescuer smashed a window and reached in.
The lawsuit was first reported by The New York Times.
Tesla doors have been at the center of several crash cases because the battery powering the unlocking mechanism can be destroyed in a fire and the manual releases that override that system are difficult to find.
The lawsuit follows several others that have claimed various safety problems with Tesla cars. In August, a Florida jury decided that the family of another dead college student, this one killed by a runaway Tesla years ago, should be awarded more than $240 million in damages.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which opened its stuck-door investigation last month, is looking into complaints by drivers that after exiting their cars, they couldn’t open back doors to get their children out and, in some cases, had to break the window to reach them.
The ACLU of Michigan has filed a federal lawsuit demanding the release of eight longtime Michigan residents who remain in immigration custody without bond hearings under a new Trump administration directive that attorneys say violates the U.S. Constitution and decades of immigration law.
The lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court in Detroit, argues that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is unlawfully detaining immigrants who were apprehended “in the interior” of the country and denying them the bond hearings they are entitled to under federal law. Some of the immigrants were detained after routine traffic stops.
Among those held is Jose Daniel Contreras-Cervantes, a 33-year-old father of three American citizen children. He has lived in Michigan since he was a teenager.
Contreras-Cervantes was diagnosed last year with chronic myeloid leukemia, a rare and life-threatening cancer, and requires daily chemotherapy and specialized care. After he was pulled over by a Macomb County sheriff’s deputy in August for allegedly driving a few miles over the speed limit, federal immigration officers took him into custody.
His detention has cut him off from his medical team and caused severe lapses in treatment, according to the lawsuit. Court filings say he received no chemotherapy from Aug. 5 to Aug. 27, and he has since been given different medication than the one prescribed by his doctor. His wife, Lupita Contreras, said his absence has devastated their family.
“It is hard enough knowing that my husband’s life will be cut short given his prognosis,” she said. “But it is torture for me and my children to lose precious time with him because ICE locked him up away from us. I agonize over whether he’s getting the care he needs to stay alive. My sons witnessed their father being taken away and were not even allowed to say goodbye.”
Another petitioner, Fredy De Los Angeles-Flores, 46, of Pontiac, has lived in the U.S. for 15 years and is the sole caregiver to his 13-year-old U.S. citizen son. He was arrested at a gas station in June while immigration agents were searching for someone else. He has no criminal history beyond minor traffic infractions. His detention, attorneys said, has been traumatic for his son, who relied on him for daily stability.
The ACLU lawsuit argues that ICE is using a policy meant for people just arriving at the border to detain immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for years. For decades, those who were detained were entitled to bond hearings, where a judge could decide whether they should stay locked up or return home to their families while their case moved forward.
Federal courts around the country, including multiple judges in Michigan, have already rejected the government’s directive. In August, U.S. District Judge Brandy McMillion ruled in a similar case that ICE had unlawfully detained another Michigan resident, Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos, and ordered his release or a bond hearing within seven days. The government quickly released him from custody.
Miriam Aukerman, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan, said the new ICE directive is part of a broader attempt by the Trump administration to pressure immigrants into abandoning their cases.
“This new ICE directive is one of the most dangerous and far-reaching abuses of power that we’ve seen in this Administration’s mass deportation campaign,” Aukerman said in a statement. “The Administration’s goal is to break people’s spirits—to lock people up and make them so desperate that they agree to leave their loved ones. The cruelty of this new directive is not an accident. Cruelty is the point.”
Attorneys note that none of the petitioners has a criminal record beyond traffic violations. Several are parents of American citizen children. Others have lived in Michigan for decades, some since they were babies. All are being detained in facilities in Michigan and Ohio.
The lawsuit asks the court to order their immediate release or at least require bond hearings within seven days.
For Lupita Contreras, the case is about more than her husband’s health.
“I will not give up on my husband until he is back home with his children and in his community, where he belongs.” she said. “Kids need their dads and moms. Families belong together. And that’s true no matter which family members have a U.S. passport.”
Detroit Medical Center’s Sinai-Grace Hospital is accused of exposing vulnerable patients to a “known predator” with a history of sexual assault and violence and failing to protect a bedridden woman whom the nurse is accused of coercing into sexual acts.
Attorney Todd Flood filed a lawsuit against DMC and its parent company, Tenet Healthcare, in Wayne County Circuit Court on Tuesday, alleging the for-profit hospital chain and its Detroit affiliate engaged in negligent hiring and supervision and created a culture of putting profits ahead of patient safety.
At the center of the case is Wilfredo Figueroa-Berrios, a 43-year-old nurse licensed in Michigan since 2012. Prosecutors say he sexually harassed and groped the patient and coerced her into repeated sex acts at Sinai-Grace in August. The woman was severely intoxicated and incapacitated when she was admitted, according to the complaint.
Surveillance video captured Berrios entering her hospital room multiple times during overnight hours without documenting a medical reason. Police investigated the allegations and arrested Berrios, who was charged in August with three counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct.
The lawsuit alleges Sinai-Grace and Tenet knowingly hired Berrios despite his record of arrests, troubling behavior at previous jobs, and ongoing police investigations into sexual assaults at another medical facility where he worked.
Among the warnings outlined in the complaint:
In 2019, Berrios was arrested on an assault charge in Wayne.
From 2020 to 2021, he worked at a Livonia medical facility, where multiple patients accused him of sexual assault. He was later terminated for “disturbing and assaultive conduct.”
In May 2025, while employed at Sinai-Grace, he allegedly assaulted a woman in Grand Circus Park. That case remains under investigation.
A state inspection in October 2024 found Sinai-Grace failed to comply with fingerprint-based background check requirements for six employees
Despite his history, hospital leaders placed Berrios in high-risk emergency and inpatient settings, the lawsuit says.
“This case is about corporate greed, negligence, and the betrayal of patients who trusted these institutions with their lives,” Flood said.
The plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, said Sinai-Grace staff retaliated against her after she reported the assault. According to the lawsuit, hospital staff denied her a patient advocate, threatened to withhold food, and discharged her without her belongings.
Flood alleges the misconduct is also the result of systemic failures that Tenet has long been warned about. State regulators, including the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, have repeatedly cited Sinai-Grace for inadequate staff training, poor investigations into abuse complaints, and lapses in required safety checks, the lawsuit contends.
The plaintiff is seeking compensation for severe psychological trauma, humiliation, and ongoing medical and therapy costs. The lawsuit cites negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, premises liability, assault and battery, sexual harassment and discrimination under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress
A jury trial has been requested.
The case raises serious questions about oversight at one of Detroit’s largest hospitals, which has faced repeated scrutiny for staffing shortages and patient neglect. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Sinai-Grace drew national attention when overwhelmed conditions left patients dying in hallways.
Flood argues the hospital’s chronic understaffing and profit-driven model created “the very conditions where a serial rapist could operate inside their hospitals.”
Tenet Healthcare is a Texas-based corporation that operates more than 60 hospitals nationwide.
“Sex acts became my full-time job, used as the only way to stay in [Combs’s] good graces,” Ventura wrote. “I regularly worried that displeasing him meant putting my family and friends’ safety at risk…. The horrors I endured drove me to have thoughts of suicide—ones I almost followed through on, if not for my family’s intervention and urging that I seek professional care.”
If Combs does not serve time in prison, Ventura wrote, she fears that “his first actions will be swift retribution towards me and others who spoke up about his abuse at trial.… I remain very much afraid of what he is capable of and the malice he undoubtedly harbors towards me for having the bravery to tell the truth.”
A hotel security video of Combs violently beating Ventura was one of the many key pieces of evidence against the rapper at his trial; even Combs’s lead attorney, Marc Agnifilo, said during the closing remarks that there was no debate as to whether Combs physically abused Ventura. “We own the domestic violence,” Agnifilo said.
While Combs’s defense team argued that Combs has changed since assaulting and abusing Ventura and additional alleged victims, Ventura is determined to remind Judge Subramanian what Combs is capable of.
“He will always be the same cruel, power-hungry, manipulative man that he is,” she wrote in the letter. “I hope that your sentencing decision reflects the strength it took for victims of Sean Combs to come forward. I hope that your decision considers the many lives that Sean Combs has upended with his abuse and control.” Vanity Fair has reached out to a representative for Combs for comment on the letter.
Rumors have swirled that President Donald Trump might waive Combs’s jail time entirely if he is sentenced to additional incarceration, although Combs’s legal team has offered differing statements on the path to a pardon. (Combs attorney Nicole Westmoreland recently told CNN that the team has “reached out and had conversations in reference to a pardon,” while Agnifilo told CBS News that he has “nothing to do with a possible pardon.”)
During her closing remarks, Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Maurene Comey claimed that Combs “never thought that the women he abused would have the courage to speak out loud what he had done to them.” Ventura has now made herself heard—as have prosecutors who say they want Combs to serve 11 years in prison.
A Virginia family is suing the Eating Recovery Center over what they allege was a failure to prevent patients from harming themselves during their daughter’s treatment at a facility in Denver.
Jerry and Rebecca Music and their now-adult daughter, Allison Music, sued the Eating Recovery Center and 29 executives, physicians and other staff members in Denver District Court on Sunday.
They alleged the providers didn’t respond appropriately when Allison voiced thoughts of suicide or nonfatal self-harm, and forced her to witness other patients hurting themselves or attempting suicide.
Eating Recovery Center representatives didn’t immediately respond to questions about the lawsuit on Monday afternoon.
Allison, then 16, entered the partial hospitalization program at the center’s Spruce Street location in April 2023, according to the lawsuit. That location has stopped treating patients with eating disorders and now takes children and teens with anxiety and mood disorders.
ERC owns one other location in the Denver area that treat minors and two that treat adults, which have helped make Colorado a destination for eating disorder care.
About a month after she started treatment, Allison voiced a desire to die by suicide, leading her mother to conclude Allison wouldn’t be safe in the rented home where they were staying. She transitioned into the full residential program, but ERC didn’t include any enhanced monitoring in her care plan, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit alleged Allison received only seven individual therapy sessions over five months, because the facility treated therapy as a privilege, and received no treatment for traumatic events in her history. The family also alleged other practices they considered degrading, including requiring Allison to eat food off the floor, denying bathroom visits and making patients get weighed while naked.
Other ex-patients reported similar practices to The Denver Post that they said worsened their trauma. Representatives for ERC previously told The Post that patients with eating disorders face a high risk of death, making unpleasant practices like force-feeding or monitoring in the bathroom necessary in some cases.
Allison repeatedly reported thoughts about dying or harming herself in a nonfatal way in the weeks after starting residential treatment. According to the lawsuit, her suicidal thoughts escalated in June 2023 after another patient attempted to strangle herself and staff failed to intervene, even as the unnamed patient turned blue. Staff also allegedly told patients not to intervene when others were harming themselves on the unit.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment conducted an inspection of the Spruce Street facility in mid-August 2023, investigating allegations that staff hadn’t responded appropriately to suicide attempts.
The agency found two patients repeatedly tried to die by suicide in June 2023 and that facility leadership opted not to send them elsewhere for mental health treatment, despite staff concerns that they couldn’t keep the patients safe. Leadership said they thought the patients were trying to get out of eating disorder treatment and recommended staff “therapeutically ignore” patients’ self-harming behavior, even if they lost consciousness after wrapping something around their necks.
In an interview in 2023, Dr. Anne Marie O’Melia, ERC’s chief medical officer, told The Post that ignoring the patients violated the facility’s policies, and ERC made changes after the state brought the matter to leaders’ attention.
While ignoring mild misconduct, such as tantrums, can eventually be effective in children’s behavior, experts don’t recommend it for self-harm, because kids will escalate their behavior to try to get the reaction they want before giving up.
Allison continued to express suicidal ideation out loud and in her journal in August and September 2023. Her parents became concerned when they found out later that she had stockpiled socks and underwear, which she could have wrapped around her neck.
ERC discharged her in late September 2023 because she had “disengaged” from treatment. She later attempted suicide, but survived, and has post-traumatic stress disorder from her time in treatment, the lawsuit said.
“Rather than receiving the specialized, compassionate care that was promised, Allison was subjected to punitive treatment approaches, denied appropriate therapy and placed in danger through ERC’s dangerous ‘therapeutic ignoring’ protocol that instructed staff to ignore suicide attempts,” the complaint said.
Dr. Steven Hotze, a Republican megadonor who was briefly jailed for engaging in criminal activity only to have the charges dismissed, is suing former Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg and asking that she — or the DA’s office — pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars he claimed he wasted on a legal defense.
First Assistant DA Vivian King and real estate broker Gerald Womack are also named as defendants in the 30-page complaint, filed September 23 by his attorney Jared Woodfill.
Right-wing African American blogger Aubrey Taylor is listed as a plaintiff alongside Hotze. Taylor claims he, too, was targeted for publishing content that was critical of Ogg and her political allies. The plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and asking for compensation for legal fees, the amount to be determined at trial.
Woodfill alleges that Hotze and Taylor were deprived of their constitutional right to free speech, suffered economic damages, and were wrongfully jailed.
This isn’t the first time Ogg has been accused of charging her political adversaries with crimes, only to have the charges dismissed by her successor, District Attorney Sean Teare. Reports surfaced earlier this year that Ogg cost taxpayers more than $1.5 million in frivolous lawsuits that she filed before she lost the Democratic primary to Teare in 2024.
Teare commented in May that, “As we review more cases filed under the previous administration, a pattern has become quite clear: The former district attorney abused the authority of this office to overcharge and investigate those she disagreed with and outsourced high-profile criminal investigations to friends who shared her political views.”
Ogg, who now works as a lawyer at the boutique litigation firm Gregor, Wynne & Arney, did not respond to requests for comment.
Felony charges against Hotze were dropped in May. He was accused of being involved in an attack on an air conditioning repairman in 2020. The repairman was held at gunpoint during a search for fraudulent voter mail-in ballots that did not exist. Prosecutors alleged at the time that Hotze was not present during the attack but paid a former Houston police captain to do it.
Hotze was accused of unlawful restraint, two counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and engaging in organized crime. He was jailed for about 10 hours, according to the lawsuit filed last week.
“For the last four years, Kim Ogg has waged warfare against me because of my efforts to ensure voter integrity in Harris County, and I thank God that today I was vindicated,” Hotze said in May. “I have no regrets in my efforts to stop voter fraud in Harris County. I am committed to continue to do that and I am just getting fired up.”
The former Houston police captain, Mark Aguirre, is still under investigation for his involvement, with prosecutors saying in May that they would pursue two of five original charges brought against him.
Taylor is accusing Womack of attacking him with an iron statue while Taylor attempted to deliver a copy of his Houston Business Connections newspaper to Womack’s office in October 2023.
Taylor was charged in the incident and indicted in 2023 for felony injury to the elderly. Authorities said he initiated the assault on Womack, who served as former U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s campaign chair. Charges were dropped in February, with prosecutors saying that probable cause existed but they couldn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Woodfill claims video evidence of the altercation was destroyed.
“As the owner of a newspaper, Mr. Taylor was simply exercising his First Amendment rights to speech, when he opposed King in her election, criticized Gerald Womack and Sheila Jackson Lee, and printed articles and attached evidence which purports to show how Defendants Ogg, King and Womack benefitted from illegal ballot harvesting,” the lawsuit states. “Yet, instead of working through lawful channels, Defendants Ogg and King used their political positions to investigate and jail Mr. Taylor.”
Woodfill said he believes Ogg pursued vendettas against those who opposed her politically. The former district attorney was elected as a Democrat but later admonished by the party for her lack of action on bail reform. Since she lost her bid for re-election, Ogg has appeared at Republican fundraisers and was, earlier this year, rumored to be seeking a Trump appointment in the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
“In the lawsuit, we laid out in great detail the political persecution via the district attorney’s office where our taxpayer funds were actually used or abused in an effort to take out an opponent,” Woodfill said. “When Sean Teare got in there, he reviewed the cases and ultimately dismissed them.”
Unbeknownst to the Teare administration, a notice of intent to seek hate crime enhancements in all cases pending against Aguirre and Hotze was filed by Warren Diepraam, an outside contract prosecutor hired by Ogg, officials said in May.
The enhancements were found to be meritless, and the notices were withdrawn, Teare said at the time.
Woodfill also raised in his legal filing that, as Ogg was leaving office in 2024, she “brought in her buddy,” Warren Diepraam, to take over the prosecution of Hotze and Taylor, even though hundreds of attorneys are employed by the DA’s office. This action cost taxpayers money and provided income for Diepraam, a former Democratic judge candidate and Ogg’s political ally, Woodfill alleges.
“The case has been pending for years, and when [Diepraam] gets the case, he reindicts Hotze for organized crime and conspiracy to commit a crime, years later, in order to continue to harass Dr. Hotze,” Woodfill said. “Dr. Hotze files suit against him and the very next day, Diepraam filed a motion seeking to have Dr. Hotze prosecuted for hate crimes. It’s just outrageous how the office has been abused in order to take out a political opponent.”
Woodfill said his goals are to “expose everything” and have his clients compensated.
“I mean, these gentlemen spent hundreds of thousands of dollars,” he said. “They were put in jail, incarcerated. Their names were paraded on the front page of every newspaper in the community. For years, they were fighting to defend their reputations.”
The attorney added that a jury will determine whether Ogg was operating outside her authority and whether she should be responsible for paying back Hotze and Taylor, or whether the DA’s office has to foot the bill.
