ReportWire

Tag: lawsuits and claims

  • As hundreds remain missing in Maui, electric company admits evidence to determine how wildfires started may have been compromised | CNN

    As hundreds remain missing in Maui, electric company admits evidence to determine how wildfires started may have been compromised | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Hundreds of people are still listed as unaccounted for after this month’s devastating wildfires on Maui – a number that’s expected to change as the FBI continues vetting names.

    The “validated list” curated by the FBI currently includes 388 names, Maui County said Thursday, as cell phone data is now being used to try to pinpoint where victims may have been when the deadliest US wildfire disaster in more than 100 years tore through the Hawaiian island. At least 115 people are confirmed dead, though authorities say that number is likely to change.

    The FBI on Friday acknowledged the list of names was “a subset of a larger list” of people who are believed to be missing. Steven Merrill, the bureau’s special agent in charge in Hawaii, said those currently on the list are people who authorities had more complete information about. Since the list was released, they’ve gotten “at least 100 people that have notified us that a certain person shouldn’t be on the list,” Merrill said – so the number of those still unaccounted for is expected to change.

    As the race to identify the lost continues, the state’s main electrical utility stands accused of compromising evidence in the fire investigation, and Maui County officials have followed others in suing the company over responsibility for the fire. First responders also are pressing for answers about why they weren’t better prepared after a similar ruinous fire five years ago.

    The updated list of the missing was released with hopes of confirming anyone who’s not truly still lost, officials said.

    “We’re releasing this list of names today because we know that it will help with the investigation,” Police Chief John Pelletier said in the release. “We also know that once those names come out, it can and will cause pain for folks whose loved ones are listed. This is not an easy thing to do, but we want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to make this investigation as complete and thorough as possible.”

    Pelletier said Friday that since the names were released, authorities have received hundreds of calls. Authorities would like to do a weekly update on the list of missing people to help notify the public, he said.

    The FBI has worked with agencies “to unduplicate people that have been reported missing,” Hawaii Gov. Josh Green said earlier Thursday in a social media post. Some 800 to 1,200 people have been listed as unaccounted for since the fires, he said.

    The grim search for those believed missing began shortly after wind-whipped flames tore through the island on August 8. Much of the western Maui community of Lahaina – once a lively economic and cultural hub – was left in ruins, with entire neighborhoods and businesses reduced to ash. Some residents were forced to jump into the ocean to survive as flames overtook the town.

    Search crews and cadaver dogs have searched 100% of single-story homes in the disaster area, Maui County officials said Tuesday. They are now going through multistory homes and commercial properties.

    And an FBI team that specializes in using cell phone data has launched in Maui to help identify potential fire victims, a law enforcement source told CNN. The Cellular Analysis Survey Team was on the island working with local law enforcement, the official said.

    The team can get and analyze cell phone company subscriber records and cellular tower registration data, which could prove useful to the search efforts by geolocating the last known area where a victim’s cell phone was operating.

    The team in the past has used information obtained through court orders to help with terrorism, kidnapping and criminal investigations.

    “Cellular telephone analysis” is among the resources being provided by the bureau, Steven Merrill, special agent in charge of the FBI’s office in Hawaii, said during news conference Tuesday without giving specifics.

    Additionally, Maui County has named a new interim administrator of the Maui Emergency Management Agency after its prior chief resigned from the post August 17.

    In announcing Darryl Oliveira’s hiring Friday, Maui County Mayor Richard Bissen said he has a track record of “invaluable experience and skill during challenging times.”

    Oliveira, who previously served as the administrator of the Hawaii County Civil Defense Agency, is expected to begin leading the county’s emergency agency Monday.

    In pictures: The deadly Maui wildfires

    As the human toll of the fire comes into focus, investigators also are trying to determine what sparked the flames, and while no official cause has been announced, the Hawaiian Electric Company is facing scrutiny over its actions before and after the fires broke out.

    Some evidence potentially vital in determining the cause of the deadly fire in Lahaina may have been compromised, Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) acknowledged in an exchange with attorneys included in court documents obtained by CNN.

    The company said fallen power poles, power lines and other equipment were moved during firefighting efforts and as officials worked to make the area safe for residents, according to letters part of a class action lawsuit. The company told attorneys, who are representing Lahaina residents in the class action suit, that it was “possible, even likely” that evidence that “relate(s) to the cause of the fire” might be lost, correspondence obtained by CNN shows.

    The equipment was removed from the area around the Lahaina substation – which is thought to be where the blaze started – before federal investigators arrived.

    Those actions could have violated national guidelines, which say the fire scenes should be heavily preserved for investigators and any and all evidence should be secured and not removed from the site without documentation, court documents filed by attorneys say.

    The ATF said on August 17 that its National Response Team was being deployed to Hawaii to help determine the cause and origin of the deadly fire – days after the utility company acknowledged equipment and evidence had likely been moved or lost.

    On August 10 – two days after the wildfire devastated the town of Lahaina, a group of attorneys notified the utility of anticipated litigation and requested that all electrical equipment that may relate to the origin of the fire – including power poles, lines and conductors – be preserved.

    An attorney for Hawaiian Electric responded on August 11 that some potential evidence may have already been compromised during the firefight, not by the utility itself, but by others.

    John Moore, an attorney for the utility wrote to attorneys for the families on August 11 that the company’s main focus was the safety of first responders and displaced residents and restoring power.

    The company also noted it was taking steps to preserve property but local, state and federal agencies were on the ground and it was possible “that the actions of these third parties, whose actions Hawaiian Electric does not control, may result in the loss of property or other items that relate to the cause of the fire.”

    The families’ attorneys then submitted a request for a temporary restraining order to stop Hawaiian Electric from altering the scene where it’s believed the Lahaina fire started, court documents show.

    A judge signed an interim discovery order on August 18, detailing how the company should handle evidence around the scene, including preserving and protecting all physical evidence within a defined area and refraining from destructive testing.

    The order also specified that it was not making any findings of any wrongdoing at this time.

    The class action lawsuit was filed several days after the fires ignited alleging Hawaiian Electric failed to deenergize power lines ahead of the fire despite high wind and red flag warnings. The cause of the fire has not yet been determined. It is believed to have ignited near a power substation where “where authorities reported a downed power line early on August 8, 2023,” the complaint says.

    Hawaiian Electric vice president Jim Kelly previously told CNN that, “as has always been our policy, we don’t comment on pending litigation.”

    “At this early stage, the cause of the fire has not been determined and we will work with the state and county as they conduct their review,” he said.

    Hawaiian Electric has been “in regular communication with ATF and local authorities and are cooperating to provide them, as well as attorneys representing people affected by the wildfires, with inventories and access to the removed equipment, which we have carefully photographed, documented and stored,” spokesman Darren Pai told The Washington Post.

    CNN has requested further comment on the potentially compromised evidence.

    The ATF’s National Response Team, which is investigating the cause of the fire, declined to comment.

    While the investigation continues, Maui County officials made their position clear in a lawsuit filed Thursday, claiming “the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness, and/or unlawfulness” of Hawaiian Electric Company and its subsidiaries is directly responsible for the fires.

    The utility, known as HECO, “inexcusably kept their power lines energized” in early August, despite the National Weather Service issuing a High Wind Watch and a Fire Warning, the lawsuit alleges. The warnings cautioned that strong winds could knock down power lines and ignite a fire that would spread quickly due to dry conditions, the lawsuit indicated.

    Maui County is seeking damages from HECO that may total tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, said John Fiske, an attorney representing the county in the suit.

    “Our primary focus in the wake of this unimaginable tragedy has been to do everything we can to support not just the people of Maui, but also Maui County. We are very disappointed that Maui County chose this litigious path while the investigation is still unfolding,” a spokesperson from Hawaiian Electric told CNN in a statement.

    Hawaiian Electric Company serves 95% of the state’s customer base.

    As of Thursday, officials still were tracking at least three active fires on Maui, including the Lahaina fire, which was 90% contained after burning more than 2,170 acres. The Olinda fire, which has burned an estimated 1,081 acres, was 85% contained, and the Kula fire was also 85% contained, with just over 200 acres burned, county officials said.

    And even as fire crews work to find and contain hot spots, a Hawaii police union official said firefighters “were set up for failure” ahead of the outbreak.

    Following a destructive wildfire that broke out in 2018 under similar conditions in the same area, no wildfire management or other preventative methods were taken to mitigate future disasters, Nicholas Krau, the Maui Chapter Chair for the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers, told CNN.

    “We all knew this was going to happen again. While no one could have predicted this much destruction or loss of life, we all knew there would be another destructive fire that would threaten these same businesses and homes again,” Krau said. “I don’t know who’s responsible for preventing wildland fires and managing the private owned land where the fire started, but they should definitely answer for it.”

    More than 2,000 acres burned and 20 homes were damaged in the 2018 fire, county officials have said.

    Many police officers who helped with evacuations this month suffered smoke inhalation because they didn’t have proper respiratory protection, even after it was requested following previous fires, Krau said.

    “If someone needs help, (the police) are going to rush in and do everything they can to help. But the department and county of Maui have the obligation to properly equip them,” he said.

    CNN has reached out to Maui County and the Maui Police Department for comment on Krau’s claims.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US government and 17 states sue Amazon in landmark monopoly case | CNN Business

    US government and 17 states sue Amazon in landmark monopoly case | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The US government and 17 states are suing Amazon in a landmark monopoly case reflecting years of allegations that the e-commerce giant abused its economic dominance and harmed fair competition.

    The groundbreaking lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission and 17 attorneys general marks the US government’s sharpest attack yet against Amazon, a company that started off selling books on the internet but has since become known as “the everything store,” expanding into selling a vast range of consumer products, creating a globe-spanning logistics network and becoming a powerhouse in other technologies such as cloud computing.

    The complaint alleges Amazon unfairly promotes its own platform and services at the expense of third-party sellers who rely on the company’s e-commerce marketplace for distribution.

    For example, according to the FTC, Amazon has harmed competition by requiring sellers on its platform to purchase Amazon’s in-house logistics services in order to secure the best seller benefits, referred to as “Prime” eligibility. It also claims the company anticompetitively forces sellers to list their products on Amazon at the lowest prices anywhere on the web, instead of allowing sellers to offer their products at competing marketplaces for a lower price.

    That practice is already the subject of a separate lawsuit targeting Amazon filed by California’s attorney general last year.

    Because of Amazon’s dominance in e-commerce, sellers have little option but to accept Amazon’s terms, the FTC alleges, resulting in higher prices for consumers and a worse consumer experience. Amazon also ranks its own products in marketplace search results higher than those sold by third parties, the FTC said.

    Amazon is “squarely focused on preventing anyone else from gaining that same critical mass of customers,” FTC Chair Lina Khan told reporters Tuesday. “This complaint reflects the cutting edge and best thinking on how competition occurs in digital markets and, similarly, the tactics that Amazon has used to suffocate rivals, deprive them of oxygen, and really leave a stunted landscape in its wake.”

    The states involved in the case are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

    The complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, and seeks a court order blocking Amazon from engaging in the allegedly anticompetitive behavior. Khan declined to say Tuesday whether the agency will be seeking a breakup of the company, saying the case is currently focused on proving Amazon’s liability under federal antitrust law.

    The suit makes Amazon the third tech giant after Google and Meta to be hit with sweeping US government allegations that the company spent years violating federal antitrust laws, reflecting policymakers’ growing worldwide hostility toward Big Tech that intensified after 2016. The litigation could take years to play out. But just as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his spectacular wealth have inspired critics to draw comparisons to America’s Gilded Age, so may the FTC lawsuit come to symbolize a modern repeat of the antitrust crackdown of the early 20th century.

    In a release, Khan accused Amazon of using “punitive and coercive tactics” to preserve an illegal monopoly.

    “Amazon is now exploiting its monopoly power to enrich itself while raising prices and degrading service for the tens of millions of American families who shop on its platform and the hundreds of thousands of businesses that rely on Amazon to reach them,” Khan said. “Today’s lawsuit seeks to hold Amazon to account for these monopolistic practices and restore the lost promise of free and fair competition.”

    “Today’s suit makes clear the FTC’s focus has radically departed from its mission of protecting consumers and competition. The practices the FTC is challenging have helped to spur competition and innovation across the retail industry, and have produced greater selection, lower prices, and faster delivery speeds for Amazon customers and greater opportunity for the many businesses that sell in Amazon’s store,”said David Zapolsky, Amazon’s Senior Vice President of Global Public policy and General Counsel. “If the FTC gets its way, the result would be fewer products to choose from, higher prices, slower deliveries for consumers, and reduced options for small businesses—the opposite of what antitrust law is designed to do. The lawsuit filed by the FTC today is wrong on the facts and the law, and we look forward to making that case in court.”

    For years, Amazon’s critics including US lawmakers, European regulators, third-party sellers, consumer advocacy groups and more have accused the company of everything from mistreating its workers to forcing its third-party sellers to accept anticompetitive terms. Amazon has unfairly used sellers’ own commercial data against them, opponents have said, so it can figure out what products Amazon should sell itself. And the fact that Amazon competes with sellers on the very same marketplace it controls represents a conflict of interest that should be considered illegal, many of Amazon’s critics have said.

    The lawsuit represents a watershed moment in Khan’s career. She is widely credited with kickstarting antitrust scrutiny of Amazon in the United States with a seminal law paper in 2017. She later helped lead a congressional investigation into the tech industry’s alleged competition abuses, detailing in a 450-page report how Amazon — as well as Apple, Google and Meta — enjoy “monopoly power” and that there is “significant evidence” to show that the companies’ anticompetitive conduct has hindered innovation, reduced consumer choice and weakened democracy.

    The investigation led to a raft of legislative proposals aimed at reining in the companies, but the most significant ones have stalled under a barrage of industry lobbying and decisions by congressional leaders not to bring the bills up for a final vote.

    Lawmakers’ inaction has left it to antitrust enforcers to police the tech industry’s alleged harms to competition. In 2021, President Joe Biden stunned many in Washington when he tapped Khan not only to serve on the FTC but to lead the agency, sending a signal that he supported tough antitrust oversight.

    Since then Khan has taken an aggressive enforcement posture, particularly toward the tech industry. Under her watch, the FTC has sued to block numerous tech acquisitions, most notably Microsoft’s $69 billion deal to acquire video game publisher Activision Blizzard. It has moved to restrict how companies may collect and use consumers’ personal information, and warned them of the risks of generative artificial intelligence.

    Throughout, the FTC has scrutinized Amazon — suing the company in June for allegedly tricking millions of consumers into signing up for Amazon Prime and reaching multimillion-dollar settlements in May with the company over alleged privacy violations linked to Amazon’s smart home devices.

    But the latest suit against Amazon may rank as the most significant of all, because it drives at the heart of Amazon’s e-commerce business and focuses on some of the most persistent criticisms of the company. In a sign of how threatening Amazon perceived Khan’s ascent to be, the company in 2021 called for her recusal from all cases involving the tech giant.

    Khan has resisted those calls. On Tuesday, the FTC said it held a unanimous 3-0 vote authorizing the lawsuit; Khan was among those voting to proceed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rand Paul Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Rand Paul Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of Rand Paul, US senator from Kentucky.

    Birth date: January 7, 1963

    Birth place: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    Birth name: Randal Howard Paul

    Father: Ron Paul, former presidential candidate and retired US representative from Texas

    Mother: Carol (Wells) Paul

    Marriage: Kelley (Ashby) Paul

    Children: Robert, Duncan and William

    Education: Attended Baylor University, 1981-1984; Duke University School of Medicine, M.D., 1988

    Religion: Christian

    Practiced as an ophthalmologist for 18 years.

    Former president and longtime member of the Lions Club International.

    Was active in the congressional and presidential campaigns of his father, Ron Paul.

    1993 – Completes his ophthalmology residency at Duke University Medical Center.

    1994 – Founds grassroots organization Kentucky Taxpayers United, which monitors state taxation and spending. It is legally dissolved in 2000.

    1995 – Founds the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic, a non-profit providing eye exams and surgeries to those in need.

    August 5, 2009 – Announces on Fox News that he is running as a Republican for the US Senate to represent Kentucky.

    May 18, 2010 – Defeats Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the Kentucky GOP Senate primary.

    May 19, 2010 – In interviews with NPR and MSNBC, while answering questions about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Paul expresses strong abhorrence for racism, but says that it is the job of communities, not the government, to address discrimination. Paul later releases a statement saying that he supports the Civil Rights Act and would not support its repeal.

    November 2, 2010 – Paul is elected to the Senate, defeating Jack Conway.

    January 5, 2011 – Sworn in for the 112th Congress. It is the first time a son joins the Senate while his father concurrently serves in the House. Ron Paul retires from the House in 2013.

    January 27, 2011 – Participates in the inaugural meeting of the Senate Tea Party Caucus with Senators Mike Lee and Jim DeMint.

    February 22, 2011 – Paul’s book “The Tea Party Goes to Washington” is published.

    September 11, 2012 – Paul’s book “Government Bullies: How Everyday Americans Are Being Harassed, Abused, and Imprisoned by the Feds” is published. He is later accused of plagiarism in some of his speeches and writings, including in “Government Bullies.” Paul ultimately takes responsibility, saying his office had been “sloppy” and pledging to add footnotes to all of his future material.

    February 12, 2013 – Delivers the Tea Party response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.

    March 6-7, 2013 – Paul speaks for almost 13 hours, filibustering to stall a confirmation vote on CIA Director nominee John Brennan.

    February 12, 2014 – Paul and the conservative group FreedomWorks file a class-action lawsuit against Obama and top national security officials over the government’s electronic surveillance program made public by intelligence leaker Edward Snowden. The lawsuit is later dismissed.

    December 2, 2014 – Paul announces his bid for a second term in the Senate.

    April 7, 2015 – Paul announces his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination during an event in Louisville, Kentucky.

    May 20, 2015 – After 10 hours and 30 minutes, Paul ends his “filibuster” over National Security Agency surveillance programs authorized under the Patriot Act. Paul’s speech wasn’t technically a filibuster because of intricate Senate rules, but his office insists it was a filibuster.

    August 5, 2015 – The Justice Department indicts two officials from a Rand Paul Super PAC for conspiracy and falsifying campaign records. During the 2012 presidential primary season, Jesse Benton and John Tate allegedly bribed an Iowa state senator to get him to endorse Ron Paul. Benton and Tate go on to help run one of the Super PACs supporting Rand Paul, America’s Liberty PAC. Both men are later convicted.

    February 3, 2016 – Announces that he is suspending his campaign for the presidency.

    November 8, 2016 – Wins a second term in the Senate, defeating Democrat Jim Gray.

    November 3, 2017 – A neighbor assaults Paul at his home in Bowling Green, Kentucky, which results in six broken ribs and a pleural effusion – a build-up of fluid around the lungs. The attorney representing Paul’s neighbor, Rene Boucher, later says that the occurrence had “absolutely nothing” to do with politics and was “a very regrettable dispute between two neighbors over a matter that most people would regard as trivial.” Boucher, who pleaded guilty to the assault, is sentenced in June 2018 to 30 days in prison with a year of supervised release.

    August 2018 – Goes to Moscow and meets with Russian lawmakers, extending an invitation to visit the United States. While abroad, Paul tweets that he delivered a letter to Russian leader Vladimir Putin from US President Donald Trump. A White House spokesman later says that Paul asked Trump to provide a letter of introduction. After he returns, Paul says that he plans to ask Trump to lift sanctions on members of the Russian legislature so they can come to Washington for meetings with their American counterparts.

    January 29, 2019 – A jury awards him more than $580,000 in his lawsuit against the neighbor who attacked him in 2017. The amount includes punitive damages and payment for pain and suffering as well as medical damages.

    August 5, 2019 – Paul says part of his lung had to be removed by surgery following the 2017 attack by Boucher.

    March 22, 2020 – Paul announces that he has tested positive for the novel coronavirus, becoming the first US senator to test positive for coronavirus.

    August 10, 2021 – Paul is suspended from YouTube for seven days over a video claiming that masks are ineffective in fighting Covid-19, according to a YouTube spokesperson.

    November 8, 2022 – Wins reelection to the Senate for a third term.

    October 10, 2023 – Paul’s book “Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up” is published.

    Rand Paul’s political life

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Looking at an upcoming Supreme Court term from the vantage point of the first Monday in October rarely tells the full story of what lies ahead, but the docket already includes major cases concerning the intersection between the First Amendment and social media, gun rights, racial gerrymandering and the power of the executive branch when it comes to regulation.

    The court will still determine if it will hear oral arguments on issues such as medication abortion and transgender rights, not to mention the possibility of a flurry of emergency requests related to the 2024 election.

    Here are some of the key cases on which the court will hear oral arguments this term:

    After the Supreme Court issued a major decision last year expanding gun rights nationwide, lower courts began reconsidering hundreds of firearms regulations across the country under the new standard crafted by Justice Clarence Thomas that a gun law passes legal muster only if it is rooted in history and tradition.

    On the heels of that decision, a federal appeals court invalidated a federal law that bars an individual who is subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. That law, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “is an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

    The Biden administration has appealed, saying the ruling “threatens grave harms for victims of domestic violence.”

    In 2019, nearly two-thirds of domestic homicides in the United States were committed with a gun, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

    Lawyers for Zackey Rahimi, a man who was prosecuted under the law in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend, have urged the justices to let the lower court opinion stand, arguing in part that there is no law from the founding era comparable to the statute at hand.

    Racial gerrymandering: South Carolina congressional maps

    Justices will consider a congressional redistricting plan drawn by South Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature in the wake of the 2020 census. Critics say it was designed with discriminatory purpose and amounts to an illegal racial gerrymander.

    The case focuses the court’s attention once again on the issue of race and map drawing and comes after the court ordered Alabama to redraw the state’s congressional map last term to account for the fact that the state is 27% black. The decision, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, surprised liberals who feared the court was going to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

    In the latest case, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a Black voter named Taiwan Scott, are challenging the state’s congressional District 1 that is located along the southeastern coast and is anchored in Charleston County. Although the district consistently elected Republicans from 1980 to 2016, in 2018 a Democrat was elected in a political upset, though a Republican recaptured the seat in 2020.

    The person who devised the map has testified that he was instructed to make the district “more Republican leaning,” but that he did not consider race. He did, however, acknowledge that he examined racial data after drafting each version and that the Black voting age population of the district was likely viewed during the drafting process.

    A three-judge district court panel struck down the plan in January, saying that race had been the predominant motivating factor. “To achieve a target of 17% African American population,” the court said, “Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district.”

    Expert explains why Justice Thomas’ gifts from wealthy friends are problematic

    In the latest attack against the so-called administrative state, the justices are considering whether to overturn decades old precedent to scale back the power of federal agencies, impacting how the government tackles issues such as climate change, immigration, labor conditions and public health.

    At issue is an appeal from herring fishermen in the Atlantic who say the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to require them to pay the salaries of government monitors who ride aboard the fishing vessels.

    In agreeing to hear the case, the justices signaled they will reconsider a 1984 decision – Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – that sets forward factors to determine when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of the law. First, they examine a statute to see if Congress’ intent is clear. It if is – then the matter is settled. But if there is ambiguity – the court defers to the agency’s expertise.

    Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that the agency was acting within the scope of its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and said the fishermen are not responsible for all the costs. The regulation was put in place to combat overfishing of the fisheries off the coasts of the US.

    Representing the fishermen, former Solicitor General Paul Clement argues that the government exceeded its authority and needs direct and clear congressional authorization to make such a demand. “The ‘net effect’ of Chevron,” Clement said, is that it “incentives a dynamic where Congress does far less than the Framers anticipated, and the executive branch is left to do far more by deciding controversial issues via regulatory fiat”

    For the second time in recent years, the court is taking aim at a watchdog agency created to combat unfair and deceptive practices against consumers, in a case that could deal a fatal blow to the future of the agency and send reverberations throughout the financial services industry.

    At the center of the case at hand is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an independent agency set up in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown that works to monitor the practices of lenders, debt collectors and credit rating agencies.

    Congress chose to fund the CFPB from outside the annual appropriations process to ensure its independence. As such, the agency receives its funding each year from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System. But the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals held last year that the funding scheme violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, that, the court said “ensures Congress’ “exclusive power over the federal purse.”

    According to the CFPB, the agency has obtained more than $18.9 billion in ordered relief, including restitution and canceled debts, for more than 195 million consumers, and more than $4.1 billion in penalties, in actions brought by the agency against financial institutions and individuals that have broken federal consumer financial protection laws.

    A handful of other agencies have similar funding schemes including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Three years ago, the Supreme Court limited the independence of the CFPB by invalidating its leadership structure. A 5-4 court held that the structure violated the separation of powers because the president was restricted from removing the director, even if they had policy disagreements.

    Agency regulatory authority: Securities and Exchange Commission

    The justices are looking at the in-house enforcement proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission in another case that invites the conservative majority to pare back the regulatory authority of federal agencies.

    The court’s decision could impact whether the SEC and other agencies can conduct enforcement proceedings in-house, using administrative courts staffed with agency employees, or whether such actions must be brought in federal court.

    On one side are critics of such agency courts who argue that they allow federal employees to serve as prosecutors, judges and jury, issuing rulings that could particularly hurt small businesses. On the other side are those who point out that several agencies, including the Social Security Administration, have such internal proceedings because the topics are often complex and the agency has more expertise than a federal judge.

    The case arose in 2013 after the SEC brought an enforcement action against George Jarkesy, who had established two hedge funds with his advisory firm, Patriot28, for securities fraud.

    The 5th Circuit ruled that the SEC’s proceedings deprive individuals of their Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury. In addition, the court said that Congress had improperly delegated legislative power to the SEC, which gave the agency unconstrained authority at times to choose the in-house administrative proceeding rather than filing suit in district court.

    In December, the court will examine the historic multibillion-dollar Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement with several states that would ultimately offer the Sackler family broad protection from OxyContin-related civil claims.

    Until recently, Purdue was controlled by the Sackler family, who withdrew billions of dollars from the company before it filed for bankruptcy. The family has now agreed to contribute up to $6 billion to Purdue’s reorganization fund on the condition that the Sacklers receive a release from civil liability.

    The Biden administration, representing the US Trustee, the executive branch agency that monitors the administration of bankruptcy cases, has called the plan “exceptional and unprecedented” in court papers, noting that lower courts have divided on when parties can be released from liability for actions that caused societal harm.

    “The plan’s release ‘absolutely, unconditionally, irrevocably, fully, finally, forever and permanently releases’ the Sacklers from every conceivable type of opioid-related civil claim – even claims based on fraud and other forms of willful misconduct that could not be discharged if the Sacklers filed for bankruptcy in their individual capacities,” Prelogar argued in court papers.

    For the second year running, the justices will leap into the online moderation debate and decide whether states can essentially control how social media companies operate.

    If upheld, laws from Florida and Texas could open the door to more state legislation requiring platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok to treat content in specific ways within certain jurisdictions – and potentially expose the companies to more content moderation lawsuits.

    It could also make it harder for platforms to remove what they determine is misinformation, hate speech or other offensive material.

    “These cases could completely reshape the digital public sphere. The question of what limits the First Amendment imposes on legislatures’ ability to regulate social media is immensely important – for speech, and for democracy as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, in a statement.

    “It’s difficult to think of any other recent First Amendment cases in which the stakes were so high,” Jaffer added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump loses first of several bids to toss suit seeking to block him from Colorado ballot | CNN Politics

    Trump loses first of several bids to toss suit seeking to block him from Colorado ballot | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump has lost the first of several attempts to throw out a lawsuit that seeks to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot in Colorado, based on the 14th Amendment’s prohibition against insurrectionists holding public office.

    Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace this week rejected Trump’s bid to get the lawsuit dismissed on free-speech grounds.

    The former president still has several pending challenges against the case, which was initiated by a liberal government watchdog group.

    A trial to determine Trump’s eligibility is set for October 30, if the case reaches that stage. Colorado election officials say there’s a “hard deadline” to resolve the dispute before January 5, when the ballot printing process begins for the March 5 Republican primary.

    A post-Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment says American officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from future office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or if they have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. But the Constitution does not spell out how to enforce this ban, and it has been applied only twice since the late 1800s, when it was used against former Confederates.

    In a 22-page ruling, Wallace said she wasn’t swayed by Trump’s argument that the lawsuit seeks to improperly restrict his rights to participate in the political process.

    “The Court has no difficulty concluding that it is to the benefit of the general public that, regardless of political affiliation, only constitutionally qualified candidates are placed on the ballot,” Wallace wrote.

    She added that resolving the question of Trump’s eligibility is particularly important because he is seeking “the highest office in the country” and “the disqualification sought is based on allegations of insurrection against the very government over which the candidate seeks to preside.”

    Trump denies wrongdoing and says the candidacy challenges are meritless. The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed the Colorado lawsuit on behalf of a group of Republican and unaffiliated voters in the state. This is one of three major challenges against Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 ballot – similar cases are pending in Minnesota and Michigan, where a different group filed lawsuits.

    CREW’s chief counsel Donald Sherman said in a statement that the group is “pleased with the Court’s well-reasoned and very detailed order, leading to a thorough decision, and look forward to presenting our clients’ case at trial.”

    The group sued Trump and Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who oversees elections in the state. Griswold, a Democrat, previously told the judge that she doesn’t have a position on Trump’s eligibility and would comply with the judge’s final decision.

    However, Griswold has said in court filings that she “believes that Mr. Trump incited the insurrection” and therefore wants the judge to determine if the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban can be applied through Colorado state law, because she has “sworn a solemn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to effectuate its requirements.”

    In recent months, a growing and bipartisan array of constitutional scholars and former jurists have thrown their support behind the theory. But experts on both sides have also expressed concern that blocking Trump from the ballot could lead to a backlash and would deprive voters the chance to decide for themselves who should be president.

    Legal scholars are also split on how the 14th Amendment could be applied to Trump and how the ban would be implemented – whether by state officials, Congress or a court – given the existing ambiguities in the law. Many expect the Supreme Court will ultimately weigh in on the matter in some fashion, with the 2024 election approaching.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New York AG accuses crypto firms of deceiving investors in $1 billion fraud | CNN Business

    New York AG accuses crypto firms of deceiving investors in $1 billion fraud | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The fallout from the colossal implosion of Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto business is still rippling through the digital asset industry nearly a year later.

    On Thursday, New York’s attorney general filed a lawsuit against three digital asset firms that were caught up in the collapse of Bankman-Fried’s empire last fall — Gemini Trust, Genesis Global Capital and Digital Currency Group, parent company of Genesis. The lawsuit accused the companies of lying to investors and covering up more than $1 billion in losses.

    The AG’s office said that an investigation found Gemini, the crypto firm founded by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, deceived investors about significant risks associated with a lending service it ran jointly with Genesis. The program, called Gemini Earn, marketed itself as a low-risk investment in which customers could lend crypto assets to Genesis while earning interest payments as high as 8%.

    “These cryptocurrency companies lied to investors,” Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “And it was middle-class investors who suffered as a result.” At least 29,000 New Yorkers were among the 230,000 investors whose money was lost, James said.

    James’ lawsuit is the latest effort among US officials to crack down on the trillion-dollar crypto industry, which for years has operated in the shadows of traditional financial regulation. Crypto advocates argue that regulators have dragged their feet in establishing guidelines for digital assets, which they believe are distinct from traditional securities like stocks or bonds.

    In the immediate aftermath of the FTX crash, Genesis froze customer redemptions in its lending unit, citing market turmoil. The lending unit later filed for bankruptcy.

    According to the latest lawsuit, Gemini knew that Genesis’ loans were risky and, at one point, “highly concentrated” with Bankman-Fried’s crypto trading house Alameda Research. Bankman-Fried is currently on trial in federal court in New York, where he has pleaded not guilty to seven counts of fraud and conspiracy.

    “Gemini hid the risks of investing with Genesis, and Genesis lied to the public about its losses,” James said.

    The lawsuit also names former Genesis CEO Soichiro “Michael” Moro and Digital Currency Group CEO Barry Silbert.

    Gemini’s owners, the Winklevoss twins, have said Genesis owed more than $900 million to some 340,000 customers using the Earn program.

    The AG’s lawsuit follows another civil action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which in January sued Genesis and Gemini for offering unregistered securities through the Earn product.

    Gemini responded to the latest suit Thursday with a statement on X (formerly Twitter), claiming that Gemini itself was the victim of a “massive fraud.”

    “The NY AG’s lawsuit confirms what we’ve been saying all along” — that Gemini, its customers and other creditors were lied to about Genesis’ finances. But the company said it “wholly” disagrees with the lawsuit.

    “Blaming a victim for being defrauded and lied to makes no sense and we look forward to defending ourselves against this inconsistent position.”

    A Genesis spokesperson said that “while there is no basis for the NYAG’s claims against Genesis, we have been cooperating with all authorities and intend to continue doing so.”

    “Genesis has not violated the law and continues to focus on maximizing recoveries for creditors in its Chapter 11 cases,” the spokesperson added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who are the Trump co-conspirators in the 2020 election interference indictment? | CNN Politics

    Who are the Trump co-conspirators in the 2020 election interference indictment? | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The historic indictment against Donald Trump in the special counsel’s probe into January 6, 2021, and efforts to overturn the 2020 election says that he “enlisted co-conspirators to assist him in his criminal efforts.”

    The charging documents repeatedly reference six of these co-conspirators, but as is common practice, their identities are withheld because they have not been charged with any crimes.

    CNN, however, can identify five of the six co-conspirators based on quotes in the indictment and other context.

    They include:

    Among other things, the indictment quotes from a voicemail that Co-Conspirator 1 left “for a United States Senator” on January 6, 2021. The quotes in the indictment match quotes from Giuliani’s call intended for GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville, as reported by CNN and other outlets.

    Ted Goodman, a political adviser to Giuliani, said in a statement that “every fact Mayor Rudy Giuliani possesses about this case establishes the good faith basis President Donald Trump had for the actions he took during the two-month period charged in the indictment,” adding that the indictment “eviscerates the First Amendment.”

    Among other things, the indictment says Co-Conspirator 2 “circulated a two-page memorandum” with a plan for Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election while presiding over the Electoral College certification on January 6, 2021. The indictment quotes from the memo, and those quotes match a two-page memo that Eastman wrote, as reported and published by CNN.

    Charles Burnham, an attorney for Eastman, said the indictment “relies on a misleading presentation of the record,” and that his client would decline a plea deal if offered one.

    “The fact is, if Dr. Eastman is indicted, he will go to trial. If convicted, he will appeal. The Eastman legal team is confident of its legal position in this matter,” Burnham said in a statement.

    The indictment says Co-Conspirator 3 “filed a lawsuit against the Governor of Georgia” on November 25, 2020, alleging “massive election fraud” and that the lawsuit was “dismissed” on December 7, 2020. These dates and quotations match the federal lawsuit that Powell filed against Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

    An attorney for Powell declined to comment.

    The indictment identifies Co-Conspirator 4 as “a Justice Department official.” The indictment also quotes an email that a top Justice Department official sent to Clark, rebutting Clark’s attempts to use the department to overturn the election. The quotes in that email directly match quotes in an email sent to Clark, according to a Senate report about how Trump tried to weaponize the Justice Department in 2020.

    CNN has reached out to an attorney for Clark.

    Among other things, the indictment references an “email memorandum” that Co-Conspirator 5 “sent” to Giuliani on December 13, 2020, about the fake electors plot. The email sender, recipient, date, and content are a direct match for an email that Chesebro sent to Giuliani, according to a copy of the email made public by the House select committee that investigated January 6.

    CNN has reached out to an attorney for Chesebro.

    The indictment says they are “a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.” The indictment also further ties this person to the fake elector slate in Pennsylvania.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden’s student loan policies continue to face legal challenges | CNN Politics

    Biden’s student loan policies continue to face legal challenges | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Legal challenges are continuing to target some of President Joe Biden’s student loan policies.

    While the president’s major student loan forgiveness program was blocked by the Supreme Court in late June, the Biden administration is also facing lawsuits over some of its other policy changes aimed at making it easier for borrowers to pay back their loans.

    On Monday, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked new provisions that were meant to be implemented in July, which would make it easier for borrowers to get their debts erased when they’re misled or defrauded by their college under a rule known as borrower defense to repayment.

    The rule has been in place for decades. But the lawsuit targets new provisions – including one allowing for automatic debt discharges a year after a college’s closure date and another that bans colleges from requiring borrowers to agree to mandatory arbitration – which are now blocked.

    The emergency injunction request was made by Career Colleges and Schools of Texas, a group of for-profit universities. The appeals court order did not explain the reasoning for the decision but said that the case will be heard on November 6.

    Student loan borrowers may still submit applications for debt relief under the borrower defense rule during this time, but the Department of Education “will not adjudicate or process affected applications under the new regulations while the court’s order is in place,” according to the agency’s website.

    Aaron Ament, president of the nonprofit National Student Legal Defense Network, warned that “countless students are at risk of being taken advantage of by higher ed profiteers” until the protections are restored.

    Meanwhile, in a separate lawsuit filed last week, two conservative groups sued to stop the Biden administration from carrying out a one-time adjustment to some borrowers’ accounts, which was aimed at more accurately counting certain payments made previously under an income-driven repayment plan.

    These plans calculate payments based on a borrower’s income and family size – regardless of the person’s total outstanding debt. Generally, they lower monthly payments to help borrowers avoid defaulting on their loans and wipe away remaining balances after qualifying payments are made for 20 to 25 years.

    What the administration has referred to as “fixes” are expected to result in the cancellation of $39 billion worth of federal student loan debt for 804,000 borrowers, according to the Department of Education.

    The lawsuit, which was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of the conservative groups Cato Institute and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, argues that one-time adjustment “is substantively and procedurally unlawful” – similar, it says, to the broader student loan forgiveness program struck down by the Supreme Court.

    The Department of Education announced in July – weeks after the other forgiveness program was blocked – that it would begin to notify the 804,000 borrowers of their forthcoming debt cancellation.

    But the one-time adjustment had been planned for more than a year. First announced in April 2022, the move was meant to help borrowers whose payments were miscounted and were already eligible for debt relief under an income-driven repayment plan.

    The changes followed a Government Accountability Office report that found that the Department of Education had trouble tracking borrowers’ payments and hadn’t done enough to ensure that all eligible borrowers receive the forgiveness to which they are entitled. In fact, 7,700 loans in repayment, or about 11% of loans analyzed, could have potentially already been eligible for forgiveness.

    In a statement sent to CNN, the Department of Education said the lawsuit “is nothing but a desperate attempt from right wing special interests to keep hundreds of thousands of borrowers in debt, even though these borrowers have earned the forgiveness that is promised through income-driven repayment plans.”

    This latest legal challenge does not appear to immediately impact the Biden administration’s new income-driven repayment plan known as SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education), which launched last week.

    Once the SAVE plan is fully phased in, which is expected to happen next year, some borrowers could see their monthly bills cut in half and remaining debt canceled after making at least 10 years of payments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawsuit seeks to halt Medicaid terminations in Florida | CNN Politics

    Lawsuit seeks to halt Medicaid terminations in Florida | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Two consumer advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in a Florida federal court Tuesday seeking to halt the state’s termination of residents’ Medicaid benefits.

    The suit is the first in the nation to challenge states’ resumption of reviewing Medicaid enrollees’ eligibility and dropping those deemed no longer qualified. The process, which Congress had suspended for three years during the Covid-19 pandemic, restarted as early as April, depending on the state.

    The Florida Health Justice Project and the National Health Law Program filed the lawsuit on behalf of three Floridians in US District Court in Jacksonville against the state’s Agency for Health Care Administration and the Department of Children and Families. The residents are a 25-year-old woman and her 2-year-old daughter, who has cystic fibrosis, as well as a 1-year-old girl.

    The plaintiffs argue that the notices the agencies are sending to inform enrollees that they are no longer eligible are confusing and don’t provide sufficient explanation as to why they are losing coverage.

    “As a result, Plaintiffs and class members are losing Medicaid coverage without meaningful and adequate notice, leaving them unable to understand the agency’s decision, properly decide whether and how to contest their loss of Medicaid coverage, or plan for a smooth transition of coverage that minimizes disruptions in necessary care,” the complaint reads. “Without Medicaid coverage, Plaintiffs are unable to obtain care they need, including prescription drugs, children’s vaccinations, and post-partum care.”

    The advocates are asking the court to require the state to stop terminating enrollees until the agencies provide adequate notice and an opportunity for a pre-termination fair hearing.

    Mallory McManus, deputy chief of staff for the Department of Children and Families, called the lawsuit “baseless.” While she said the state cannot comment on pending litigation, she said the letters to recipients are “legally sufficient.”

    The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “approved the Department’s redetermination plan based on their regulations. There are multiple steps in the eligibility determination process and the final letter is just one of multiple communications from the Department,” said McManus, adding that the agency “continues to lead on Medicaid determinations and being fiscally responsible.”

    The Agency for Health Care Administration did not immediately return a request for comment.

    Nearly 183,000 Floridians have been issued notices saying they no longer qualify for Medicaid, according to the lawsuit. Hundreds of thousands more will have their coverage reviewed in the coming year.

    In addition to those determined ineligible, nearly 226,000 were dropped for so-called procedural reasons, typically because enrollees did not complete the renewal application, according to KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation. This often happens because it may have been sent to an old address, it was difficult to understand or it wasn’t returned by the deadline.

    Nearly 898,000 Florida residents have had their coverage renewed, according to KFF.

    Nationwide, more than 5.2 million people have been disenrolled since the so-called Medicaid unwinding began in the spring, according to KFF. Nearly three-quarters of those who have lost coverage were dropped for procedural reasons.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dozens of states sue Instagram-parent Meta over ‘addictive’ features and youth mental health harms | CNN Business

    Dozens of states sue Instagram-parent Meta over ‘addictive’ features and youth mental health harms | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Dozens of states sued Instagram-parent Meta on Tuesday, accusing the social media giant of harming young users’ mental health through allegedly addictive features such as infinite news feeds and frequent notifications that demand users’ constant attention.

    In a federal lawsuit filed in California by 33 attorneys general, the states allege that Meta’s products have harmed minors and contributed to a mental health crisis in the United States.

    “Meta has profited from children’s pain by intentionally designing its platforms with manipulative features that make children addicted to their platforms while lowering their self-esteem,” said Letitia James, the attorney general for New York, one of the states involved in the federal suit. “Social media companies, including Meta, have contributed to a national youth mental health crisis and they must be held accountable.”

    Eight additional attorneys general sued Meta on Tuesday in various state courts around the country, making similar claims as the massive multi-state federal lawsuit.

    And the state of Florida sued Meta in its own separate federal lawsuit, alleging that Meta misled users about potential health risks of its products.

    Tuesday’s multistate federal suit — filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California — accuses Meta of violating a range of state-based consumer protection statutes, as well as a federal children’s privacy law known as COPPA that prohibits companies from collecting the personal information of children under 13 without a parent’s consent.

    “Meta’s design choices and practices take advantage of and contribute to young users’ susceptibility to addiction,” the complaint reads. “They exploit psychological vulnerabilities of young users through the false promise that meaningful social connection lies in the next story, image, or video and that ignoring the next piece of social content could lead to social isolation.”

    The federal complaint calls for court orders prohibiting Meta from violating the law and, in the case of many states, unspecified financial penalties.

    “We share the attorneys generals’ commitment to providing teens with safe, positive experiences online, and have already introduced over 30 tools to support teens and their families,” Meta said in a statement. “We’re disappointed that instead of working productively with companies across the industry to create clear, age-appropriate standards for the many apps teens use, the attorneys general have chosen this path.”

    The wave of lawsuits is the result of a bipartisan, multistate investigation dating back to 2021, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said at a press conference Tuesday, after Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen came forward with tens of thousands of internal company documents that she said showed how the company knew its products could have negative impacts on young people’s mental health.

    “We know that there were decisions made, a series of decisions to make the product more and more addictive,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told reporters. “And what we want is for the company to undo that, to make sure that they are not exploiting these vulnerabilities in children, that they are not doing all the little, sophisticated, tricky things that we might not pick up on that drive engagement higher and higher and higher that allowed them to keep taking more and more time and data from our young people.”

    Tuesday’s multipronged legal assault also marks the newest attempt by states to rein in large tech platforms over fears that social media companies are fueling a spike in youth depression and suicidal ideation.

    “There’s a mountain of growing evidence that social media has a negative impact on our children,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, “evidence that more time on social media tends to be correlated with depression with anxiety, body image issues, susceptibility to addiction and interference with daily life, including learning.”

    The suits follow a raft of legislation in states ranging from Arkansas to Louisiana that clamp down on social media by establishing new requirements for online platforms that wish to serve teens and children, such as mandating that they obtain a parent’s consent before creating an account for a minor, or that they verify users’ ages.

    In some cases, the tech industry has challenged those laws in court — for example, by claiming that Arkansas’ social media law violates residents’ First Amendment rights to access information.

    New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella said the states expect Meta to mount a similar defense but that the company will not succeed because the multistate suit targets Meta’s conduct, not speech.

    Formella added that in addition to consumer protection claims, New Hampshire is also bringing negligence and product liability claims as part of the federal suit.

    The complaints filed in state courts allege violations of various state-specific laws. For example, the complaint from District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb accuses Meta of violating the district’s consumer protection statute by misleading the public about the safety of company platforms.

    Tuesday’s lawsuits come days before a federal judge in California is set to consider a slew of similar allegations against the wider tech industry. In a hearing Friday morning, District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is expected to hear arguments by Google, Meta, Snap and TikTok urging her to dismiss nearly 200 complaints involving private plaintiffs that have accused the companies of addicting or harming their users.

    It is possible that Tuesday’s multistate suit could be merged with the consumers’ cases, said Weiser, adding that the main difference of the multistate case is that it could lead to nationwide relief.

    “The coordination that we bring across the AG community, we believe is invaluable to this,” Weiser said.

    Participating in Tuesday’s multistate federal suit are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

    The additional suits filed in state courts were brought by the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US judge set to decertify Google Play class action | CNN Business

    US judge set to decertify Google Play class action | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A US judge plans to free Google from having to defend against a class action by 21 million consumers who claimed it violated federal antitrust law by overcharging them in its Google Play app store.

    Monday’s decision by US District Judge James Donato in San Francisco could significantly reduce damages that Google, a unit of Alphabet, might owe over the distribution of Android mobile applications.

    Consumers claimed they would have paid less for apps and enjoyed expanded choice but for Google’s alleged monopoly. Google has denied wrongdoing.

    Donato said his Nov. 2022 class certification order should be thrown out because his decision, also announced Monday, not to let an economist testify as an expert witness for the consumers eliminated an “essential element” of their argument for certification.

    The judge said he couldn’t decertify the class immediately because Google had been appealing his November order. He directed lawyers for Google and the consumers to try resolving that issue before a Sept. 7 hearing.

    The class action included consumers from 12 US states and five territories, who were not part of a similar case against Google brought by various state attorneys general.

    Class actions let plaintiffs sue as a group, and potentially obtain larger recoveries at lower cost than if they were forced to sue individually.

    Lawyers for the consumers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Google and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

    The case is part of wide-ranging antitrust litigation that includes 38 states and the District of Columbia, and companies including Epic Games and Match Group.

    The case is In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, US District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-md-02981.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s X Corp. sues California AG over content moderation law | CNN Business

    Elon Musk’s X Corp. sues California AG over content moderation law | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Elon Musk’s X Corp., the parent company of the platform formerly known as Twitter, on Friday sued California’s attorney general over the state’s new content moderation law.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed bill AB 587 into law last September. The law requires social media companies to post their terms of service online and submit a semiannual report to the state attorney general outlining their content moderation policies and practices. Platforms must, among other things, disclose how their automated content moderation systems work, how they define controversial content categories such as “hate speech” and “disinformation,” and the number of pieces of content flagged or removed in such categories.

    Newsom’s office touted the bill as a way to improve transparency from social networks. But in a complaint filed in California’s Eastern District Court against California Attorney General Robert Bonta, X alleged that the law violates the First Amendment and California’s constitution by potentially compelling the company to moderate users’ politically charged speech.

    The law “compels companies like X Corp. to engage in speech against their will, impermissibly interferes with the constitutionally-protected editorial judgments of companies such as X Corp., has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech,” the company alleged in the complaint. It added that the law could place an “undue burden” on social media companies such as Musk’s X, which is headquartered in California.

    Attorney General Bonta’s press office said in an email to CNN: “While we have not yet been served with the complaint, we will review it and respond in court.”

    A spokesperson for Newsom sent CNN a statement from last September in which the governor remarked on the bill.

    “California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country,” Newsom said in the statement. “Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day.”

    The lawsuit comes as Musk has escalated his rhetoric over what kinds of speech should be permitted on his platform, as the company’s core advertising business has taken a major revenue hit over concerns, among other things, about the approach to content moderation. Under Musk’s leadership, the platform has made several changes to its content policies, including ceasing enforcement of its Covid-19 misinformation policy and reinstating many previously banned users.

    Just last month, at least two brands paused their ad spending on X after their advertisements ran alongside an account promoting Nazism. (X suspended the account after the issue was flagged and said ad impressions on the page were minimal.)

    The billionaire this week threatened a lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League for defamation, claiming that the nonprofit organization’s statements about rising hate speech on the social media platform have torpedoed X’s advertising revenue. (The ADL says it does not comment on legal threats, but CEO Jonathan Greenblatt spoke out against the #BanTheADL campaign on X.)

    In Friday’s lawsuit, X Corp. alleged that requiring social media companies to report their moderation practices could pressure the platforms into “limiting or censoring constitutionally-protected content that the State finds objectionable.” It also claimed that the law could force social platforms “to take public positions on controversial and politically charged issues” and thus tailor those positions in a way it otherwise wouldn’t to avoid public scrutiny.

    The law “‘compel[s]’ X Corp. to ‘speak a particular message,’ which necessarily ‘alters the content of’ its speech,’” in violation of its First Amendment rights, the company alleges in the complaint.

    The lawsuit seeks a jury trial on the constitutionality and legal validity of the California law.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google’s antitrust showdown: What’s at stake for the internet search titan | CNN Business

    Google’s antitrust showdown: What’s at stake for the internet search titan | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Google will face off in court Tuesday against government officials who have accused the company of antitrust violations in its massive search business, kicking off a long-anticipated legal showdown that could reshape one of the internet’s most dominant platforms.

    The trial beginning this week in Washington before a federal judge marks the culmination of two ongoing lawsuits against Google that started during the Trump administration. Legal experts describe the actions as the country’s biggest monopolization case since the US government took on Microsoft in the 1990s.

    In separate complaints, the Justice Department and dozens of states accused Google in 2020 of abusing its dominance in online search by allegedly harming competition through deals with wireless carriers and smartphone makers that made Google Search the default or exclusive option on products used by millions of consumers. The complaints eventually consolidated into a single case.

    Google has maintained that it competes on the merits and that consumers prefer its tools because they are the best, not because it has moved to illegally restrict competition. Google’s search business provides more than half of the $283 billion in revenue and $76 billion in net income Google’s parent company, Alphabet, recorded in 2022. Search has fueled the company’s growth to a more than $1.7 trillion market capitalization.

    Now, the company is set to defend itself in a multiweek trial that could upend the way Google distributes its search engine to users. The case is expected to feature testimony from high-profile witnesses including former employees of Google and Samsung, along with executives from Apple, including senior vice president Eddy Cue. It is the first case to go to trial in a series of court challenges targeting Google’s far-reaching economic power, testing the willingness of courts to clamp down on large tech platforms.

    “This is a backwards-looking case at a time of unprecedented innovation,” said Google President of Global Affairs Kent Walker, “including breakthroughs in AI, new apps and new services, all of which are creating more competition and more options for people than ever before. People don’t use Google because they have to — they use it because they want to. It’s easy to switch your default search engine — we’re long past the era of dial-up internet and CD-ROMs.”

    The trial may also be a bellwether for the more assertive antitrust agenda of the Biden administration.

    In its initial complaint, the US government alleged in part that Google pays billions of dollars a year to device manufacturers including Apple, LG, Motorola and Samsung — and browser developers like Mozilla and Opera — to be their default search engine and in many cases to prohibit them from dealing with Google’s competitors.

    As a result, the complaint alleges, “Google effectively owns or controls search distribution channels accounting for roughly 80 percent of the general search queries in the United States.”

    The lawsuit also alleges that Google’s Android operating system deals with device makers are anticompetitive, because they require smartphone companies to pre-install other Google-owned apps, such as Gmail, Chrome or Maps.

    At the time the lawsuit was first filed, US antitrust officials did not rule out the possibility of a Google breakup, warning that Google’s behavior could threaten future innovation or the rise of a Google successor.

    Separately, a group of states, led by Colorado, made additional allegations against Google, claiming that the way Google structures its search results page harms competition by prioritizing the company’s own apps and services over web pages, links, reviews and content from other third-party sites.

    But the judge overseeing the case, Judge Amit Mehta in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, tossed out those claims in a ruling last month, narrowing the scope of allegations Google must defend and saying the states had not done enough to show a trial was necessary to determine whether Google’s search results rankings were anticompetitive.

    Despite that ruling, the trial represents the US government’s furthest progress in challenging Google to date. Mehta has said Google’s pole position among search engines on browsers and smartphones “is a hotly disputed issue” and that the trial will determine “whether, as a matter of actual market reality, Google’s position as the default search engine across multiple browsers is a form of exclusionary Conduct.”

    In January, meanwhile, the Biden administration launched another antitrust suit against Google in opposition to the company’s advertising technology business, accusing it of maintaining an illegal monopoly. That case remains in its early stages at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gun rights organizations sue New Mexico governor over gun violence order | CNN Politics

    Gun rights organizations sue New Mexico governor over gun violence order | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The National Association for Gun Rights filed a lawsuit against New Mexico’s Democratic governor and health secretary Saturday over orders declaring gun violence a public health emergency and suspending open and concealed carry laws in cities and counties based on crime statistics.

    Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham issued the emergency order after the shooting deaths of three children from July through September, as well as a pair of mass shootings in the state.

    The lawsuit, filed in the US district court for New Mexico on Saturday, lists Lujan Grisham and New Mexico Department of Health Secretary Patrick Allen as defendants.

    The National Association for Gun Rights argues in the lawsuit that the orders violate the Second Amendment.

    “The State must justify the Carry Prohibition by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. But it is impossible for the State to meet this burden, because there is no such historical tradition of firearms regulation in this Nation,” the lawsuit reads.

    Throughout the suit, the plaintiffs cite a 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down a New York gun law that restricted the right to concealed carry outside the home.

    The lawsuit also lists Albuquerque resident Foster Allen Haines as a plaintiff. Haines intended to partake in the state’s open carry law, according to the complaint.

    “Haines is precluded from doing so by the Carry Prohibition, which deprives him of his fundamental right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment,” the lawsuit reads.

    The plaintiffs ask the court to grant an injunction prohibiting the emergency order from being enforced, the lawsuit states.

    A second lawsuit was also filed Saturday against Lujan Grisham; Allen; Department of Public Safety Secretary Jason Bowie; and State Police Chief W. Troy Weisler by Bernalillo County resident Randy Donk and the Gun Owners of America. The suit likens the executive order and public health emergency declaration to “martial law” and argues that it is a suspension of constitutional rights.

    This lawsuit also asks the court for an immediate temporary restraining order and later a preliminary and permanent injunction to be granted.

    Caroline Sweeney, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham, said in a statement Sunday that the governor “is prepared to fight challenges to her decision.”

    “Gun violence is a public health emergency in the state and extraordinary measures are required to prevent more innocent New Mexicans from being killed by guns,” the statement said.

    CNN has reached out to the Department of Health for comment on the lawsuits.

    Lujan Grisham last week also issued a statewide enforcement plan that includes a 30-day suspension of open and concealed carry laws in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County, CNN previously reported.

    The order, which went into immediate effect, temporarily bans the carrying of guns on public property in those counties with certain exceptions, according to the governor’s office. Citizens with carry permits will still be allowed to possess their weapons on private property such as gun ranges and gun stores if the firearm is transported in a locked box, or if a trigger lock or other mechanism is used to render the gun incapable of being fired.

    The order also prohibits firearms on state property, including state buildings and schools, as well as at parks and other places where children gather. Under the order, licensed firearm dealers will be inspected monthly by New Mexico’s Regulation and Licensing Division to ensure compliance with sales and storage laws.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • George R. R. Martin, Jodi Picoult and other famous writers join Authors Guild in class action lawsuit against OpenAI | CNN Business

    George R. R. Martin, Jodi Picoult and other famous writers join Authors Guild in class action lawsuit against OpenAI | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    A group of famous fiction writers joined the Authors Guild in filing a class action suit against OpenAI on Wednesday, alleging the company’s technology is illegally using their copyrighted work.

    The complaint claims that OpenAI, the company behind viral chatbot ChatGPT, is copying famous works in acts of “flagrant and harmful” copyright infringement and feeding manuscripts into algorithms to help train systems on how to create more human-like text responses.

    George R.R. Martin, Jodi Picoult, John Grisham and Jonathan Franzen are among the 17 prominent authors who joined the suit led by the Authors Guild, a professional organization that protects writers’ rights. Filed in the Southern District of New York, the suit alleges that OpenAI’s models directly harm writers’ abilities to make a living wage, as the technology generates texts that writers could be paid to pen, as well as uses copyrighted material to create copycat work.

    “Generative AI threatens to decimate the author profession,” the Authors Guild wrote in a press release Wednesday.

    The suit alleges that books created by the authors that were illegally downloaded and fed into GPT systems could turn a profit for OpenAI by “writing” new works in the authors’ styles, while the original creators would get nothing. The press release lists AI efforts to create two new volumes in Martin’s Game of Thrones series and AI-generated books available on Amazon.

    “It is imperative that we stop this theft in its tracks or we will destroy our incredible literary culture, which feeds many other creative industries in the US,” Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger stated in the release. “Great books are generally written by those who spend their careers and, indeed, their lives, learning and perfecting their crafts. To preserve our literature, authors must have the ability to control if and how their works are used by generative AI.”

    The class-action lawsuit joins other legal actions, organizations and individuals raising alarms over how OpenAI and other generative AI systems are impacting creative works. An author told CNN in August that she found new books being sold on Amazon under her name — only she didn’t write them; they appear to have been generated by artificial intelligence. Two other authors sued OpenAI in June over the company’s alleged misuse of their works to train ChatGPT. Comedian Sarah Silverman and two authors also sued Meta and ChatGPT-maker OpenAI in July, alleging the companies’ AI language models were trained on copyrighted materials from their books without their knowledge or consent.

    But OpenAI has pushed back. Last month, the company asked a San Francisco federal court to narrow two separate lawsuits from authors – including Silverman – alleging that the bulk of the claims should be dismissed.

    OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

    “We think that creators deserve control over how their creations are used and what happens sort of beyond the point of, of them releasing it into the world,” Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, told Congress in May. “I think that we need to figure out new ways with this new technology that creators can win, succeed, have a vibrant life.”

    US lawmakers met with members of creative industries in July, including the Authors Guild, to discuss the implications of artificial intelligence. In a Senate subcommittee hearing, Rasenberger called for the creation of legislation to protect writers from AI, including rules that would require AI companies to be transparent about how they train their models.

    More than 10,000 authors — including James Patterson, Roxane Gay and Margaret Atwood — also signed an open letter calling on AI industry leaders like Microsoft and ChatGPT-maker OpenAI to obtain consent from authors when using their work to train AI models, and to compensate them fairly when they do.

    But the AI issues facing creative professions doesn’t seem to be going away.

    “Generative AI is a vast new field for Silicon Valley’s longstanding exploitation of content providers. Authors should have the right to decide when their works are used to ‘train’ AI,” author Jonathan Franzen said in the release on Wednesday. “If they choose to opt in, they should be appropriately compensated.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dennis Hastert Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Dennis Hastert Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here is a look at the life of Dennis Hastert, former Republican speaker of the House. Hastert was sentenced to 15 months in prison in a hush money case that revealed he was being accused of sexually abusing young boys while he was a teacher in Illinois.

    Birth date: January 2, 1942

    Birth place: Aurora, Illinois

    Birth name: John Dennis Hastert

    Father: Jack Hastert, former restaurant owner

    Mother: Naomi (Nussle) Hastert

    Marriage: Jean (Kahl) Hastert (1973-present)

    Children: Ethan and Joshua

    Education: Wheaton College, B.A., 1964; Northern Illinois University, M.S., 1967

    Religion: Protestant

    Goes by the nickname “Denny.”

    Hastert is diabetic.

    Was named Illinois Coach of the Year after leading the Yorkville High School wrestling team to the state championship.

    Instituted the so-called “Hastert Rule,” an informal guideline where only legislation supported by “the majority of the majority” party is brought to a vote on the House floor.

    1964-1980 – Wrestling and football coach and government/history teacher at Yorkville High School.

    1980-1986 – Member of the Illinois House of Representatives.

    January 3, 1987-November 26, 2007 – US representative from Illinois’ 14th congressional district.

    1995-1999 – House chief deputy minority whip.

    January 6, 1999 – Is elected speaker of the House, replacing Newt Gingrich.

    November 22, 2003 – Hastert fights hard to secure passage of a Medicare bill in the House. The vote takes three hours and lasts well into the night. It is signed into law by US President George W. Bush on December 8 after also being passed by the Senate.

    January 3, 2006 – Donates $70,000 of campaign contributions from companies associated with lobbyist Jack Abramoff to charity after Abramoff pleads guilty to corruption charges.

    June 1, 2006 – Surpasses Joe Cannon to become the longest-serving Republican speaker of the House in US history.

    October 3, 2006 – Appears on “The Rush Limbaugh Show” and says he has no intention of resigning due to the controversy over Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-FL) sexually explicit emails to underage pages.

    November 7, 2006 – Is reelected to his eleventh term in Congress. Republicans lose their majority in the House, so Hastert loses his position as speaker of the House when the new Congress begins on January 4, 2007.

    August 17, 2007 – Announces that he will not run for reelection in 2008.

    November 15, 2007 – Announces his resignation on the House floor. He formally resigns on November 26 after 20 years in office.

    June 2008 – Joins the Washington lobbying firm of Dickstein Shapiro as a senior adviser.

    June 8, 2009 – Hastert’s son, Ethan, announces he will run for his father’s former congressional seat but later loses in the GOP primary.

    May 7, 2010 – Hastert is conferred the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun by Emperor Akihito of Japan.

    May 28, 2015 – Federal officials indict Hastert for lying to the FBI about $3.5 million he agreed to pay to an undisclosed subject to “cover up past misconduct.” The Justice Department alleges that Hastert paid the subject a total of about $1.7 million over a period of years beginning in 2010 and ending in 2014. Hastert resigns from the lobbying firm Dickstein Shapiro.

    May 29, 2015 – Sources with knowledge of the federal investigation tell CNN Hastert was paying a former student to keep quiet about allegations of sexual misconduct from the time when Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach in Illinois.

    June 9, 2015 – Pleads not guilty to all charges related to lying to the FBI about $3.5 million he agreed to pay to an undisclosed subject.

    October 28, 2015 – Hastert pleads guilty to structuring money transactions in a way to evade requirements to report where the money was going.

    December 17, 2015 – A statement is released announcing that Hastert was admitted to the hospital in the first week of November 2015. He was treated for a stroke and sepsis. This was followed by two back surgeries.

    April 8, 2016 – Documents released by prosecutors allege Hastert sexually abused at least four boys when he coached high school wrestling in Illinois.

    April 25, 2016 – Hastert is sued by a former student in Illinois Circuit Court. The former student seeks to collect $1.8 million. This is the remainder of the $3.5 million promised him for covering up Hastert’s past misconduct.

    April 27, 2016 – Hastert is sentenced to 15 months in prison. He is ordered to pay $250,000 to a victims’ fund, must serve two years of supervised release once he finishes his prison term, and enter a sex offender treatment program.

    June 22, 2016 – Hastert begins serving his 15-month sentence at a federal medical prison in Rochester, Minnesota.

    July 18, 2017 – Is released from prison and is placed under the supervision of a residential reentry management field office in Chicago.

    November 20, 2017 – A judge in Kendall County, Illinois, throws out a lawsuit brought by a man who claims Hastert abused him when he was a child, saying the statute of limitations had passed.

    December 12, 2017 – New court-ordered restrictions ban Hastert from having contact with anyone under 18 unless an adult is present who’s aware that he pleaded guilty in the hush money case.

    September 10, 2019 – A judge in Kendall County, Illinois, rules that a lawsuit over the terms of a $3.5 million hush money deal can go to trial. One of Hastert’s former students filed the lawsuit in April 2016.

    September 29, 2021 – A Kendall County judge finalizes an out-of-court settlement between Hastert and a former student who alleged that Hastert sexually abused him, ending the lawsuit filed in April 2016 that was set to go to trial.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Giuliani and election fraud promoters didn’t vet claims, new court documents show | CNN Politics

    Giuliani and election fraud promoters didn’t vet claims, new court documents show | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    New court filings in a defamation lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani show the promoters of the election fraud narrative after Donald Trump lost the presidency failed to do basic vetting of the claims they were touting – and didn’t see such vetting as necessary.

    For instance, in a December 2020 text cited in Tuesday’s filing, Trump lawyer Boris Epshteyn said that the president wanted simple examples of election fraud, which didn’t need to be proven.

    “Urgent POTUS request need best examples of ‘election fraud’ that we’ve alleged that’s super easy to explain,” Epshteyn wrote, according to evidence attached to the filing. “Doesn’t necessarily have to be proven, but does need to be easy to understand. Is there any sort of ‘greatest hits’ clearinghouse that anyone has for best examples?”

    The documents were among a trove of evidence presented by two Georgia election workers suing Giuliani, a former Trump lawyer, for allegedly smearing them after the 2020 election. They are now asking a federal court to hold Giuliani liable for possibly losing crucial evidence after he pulled out of settlement talks.

    Giuliani is feeling legal pressure related to his work for Trump to contest the election in 2020, after he sat for interviews with the special counsel’s criminal investigation in June and faces possible disbarment as an attorney. The evidence in the lawsuit from Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss of Georgia, who were at the center of Giuliani’s claims that vote-counting was fraudulent in the state, includes documents that could be pursued by criminal investigators as well.

    Freeman and Moss’s attorneys allege Giuliani never took necessary steps to preserve his electronic data after the election. They say Giuliani testified in a deposition that he had used multiple cell phones, email addresses and other communications applications after the election, but hadn’t looked thoroughly through those records in the course of the lawsuit. Instead, he said his phones had been “wiped out” after the FBI seized them in April 2021 as part of a separate criminal investigation.

    “Sanctions exist to remedy the precise situation here—a sophisticated party’s abuse of judicial process designed to avoid accountability, at enormous expense to the parties and this Court. Defendant Giuliani should know better. His conduct warrants severe sanctions,” Moss and Freeman’s attorneys wrote to the federal court on Tuesday night.

    Giuliani already was fined $90,000 to reimburse the Georgia workers’ attorneys for a previous dispute they had over evidence gathering.

    In recent days, Giuliani’s attorney approached Freeman and Moss’ lawyers to discuss an “agreement,” or at least a partial settlement, according to court filings. On Monday, however, Giuliani told them he couldn’t agree to “key principles” both sides had negotiated, keeping the lawsuit alive, according to the latest filing.

    In a statement, Giuliani adviser Ted Goodman said the plaintiffs are attempting to “embarrass” the former mayor.

    “The requests by these lawyers were deliberately overly burdensome, and sought information well beyond the scope of this case—including divorce records—in an effort to harass, intimidate and embarrass Mayor Rudy Giuliani,” Goodman said. “It’s part of a larger effort to smear and silence Mayor Giuliani for daring to ask questions, and for challenging the accepted narrative. They can’t take away the fact that Giuliani is objectively one of the most effective prosecutors in American history who took down the Mafia, cleaned up New York City and comforted the nation following 9/11.”

    The plaintiffs’ lawyers have deposed key players like Bernie Kerik, who was tasked with helping Giuliani to collect supposed fraud evidence; Christina Bobb, the then-OANN correspondent who moonlighted as a legal adviser to the Trump team; and Giuliani himself.

    In excerpts of a deposition Giuliani gave in the case, the former New York mayor says that he cannot recall running a criminal background check to firm up a claim he made that Freeman had an arrest record and a history of voter fraud.

    “You didn’t think it was important to do that before you accused them of having a criminal background?” the plaintiffs’ lawyer asked Giuliani, referring to his clients.

    “I just repeated what I was told,” Giuliani said.

    In the litigation, his attorneys have acknowledged that she had no such criminal record, but Giuliani said in the March 1 deposition that he had only in recent days asked Kerik to run a criminal background check on her.

    Giuliani was also questioned about a strategic plan – partially tweeted out by Kerik in late December 2020 – that laid out several claims of voter fraud across the country. According to evidence obtained by the plaintiffs described in the Giuliani deposition, Giuliani had noted that the communications plan needed “confirmation of arrest and evidence.”

    Giuliani testified that he believed that, before the allegations were handed to the White House, they should be confirmed. But Giuliani could not say for sure whether the uncorroborated version of the claims was ultimately shared with the White House.

    “This is so confusing, I don’t know what they told the White House,” Giuliani said in the deposition, adding that “I was not at the meeting, by design.”

    In the deposition excerpts, Giuliani goes to great lengths to distance himself from the so-called “Strategic Communications Plan of the Giuliani Presidential Legal Defense Team.” Kerik, meanwhile, testified in his deposition for the lawsuit that Giuliani was aware of the strategic communications plan, which was focused on getting allegations of election fraud in front of state legislators. According to Kerik, the plan and allegations were continually discussed over six weeks.

    The plaintiffs are also touting examples of when Giuliani, according to what they have collected, was made aware that some of the allegations he was making about supposed election fraud in Georgia were false.

    In one email they obtained that was sent to his assistant in December 2020, a Fox News reporter asked Giuliani for comment on statements by an investigator in the Georgia secretary of state’s office that debunked the claims Trump allies were making about the Georgia election workers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas sued over plan to deploy floating barrier on Rio Grande to curb border crossings | CNN

    Texas sued over plan to deploy floating barrier on Rio Grande to curb border crossings | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The owner of a Texas canoe and kayaking company filed a lawsuit on Friday seeking to stop the installation of a marine floating barrier on the Rio Grande, claiming Gov. Greg Abbott has no right to regulate the border.

    The lawsuit was filed on the same day that Texas started deploying buoys for the barrier in an attempt to deter migrant crossings on the river along the US-Mexico border.

    The suit lists the state of Texas and Abbott, as well as the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas National Guard. CNN has reached out to Abbott’s office for comment.

    “Our lawsuit seeks to protect communities on the Texas-Mexico border from Governor Abbott’s misleading politics,” said attorney Carlos Flores, who represents plaintiff Jessie Fuentes, the owner of Epi’s Canoe & Kayak Team Llc.

    Abbott, a longtime critic of the Biden administration’s border policies, announced the plan to install the 1,000-foot floating barrier last month.

    The lawsuit alleges the buoys will prevent Epi’s and Fuentes, the company’s owner-operator, from conducting tours and canoe and kayak sessions in the border town Eagle Pass, causing “imminent and irreparable harm to EPI.”

    The suit accuses the Republican governor of misapplying the Texas Disaster Act of 1975 to justify the buoy system – which “has no logical connection to the purpose of the Disaster Act, which is to respond to ‘the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property resulting from any natural or man-made cause.’ “

    Abbott, the suit said, cannot “create his own border patrol agency to regulate the border and prevent immigrants from entering Texas.”

    Additionally, the US Constitution and federal statues do not empower Texas with authority to enforce immigration laws, according to the suit.

    The suit said the buoys “represent a hateful policy that intends to create the impression that Mexicans, immigrants, and Mexican Americans … are dangerous.” The floating devices also will prevent Epi’s from conducting tours and canoe and kayak sessions in Eagle Pass, according to the suit.

    Flores said the lawsuit, which seeks a temporary and permanent injunction, was filed on Friday before the buoys were installed in the Rio Grande.

    Abbott posted a 15-second video to Twitter showing buoys being loaded from trailers that would be deployed near Eagle Pass. The Texas Department of Public Safety is overseeing the deployment, the governor said in the tweet Friday.

    During last month’s announcement, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Col. Steven McCraw touted the buoy barrier could be “quickly deployed” and said it’s mobile. He explained the buoy would be anchored to the bottom of the waterway, adding the buoys are roughly 4 to 6 feet in height depending on the water level.

    The new barrier comes after a series of migrant drownings in the Rio Grande River in recent days left four people dead, including an infant, officials said.

    Last weekend, a woman and a baby girl were found unresponsive in the river, said Texas DPS Lt. Christopher Olivarez. A dead man and woman were found on Sunday and Monday, respectively, he added.

    In recent years, migrants have resorted to increasingly risky – and often fatal – paths to evade detection and enter the US. In March, a migrant was found dead among a dozen people stowed away in a train car near Eagle Pass.

    In 2022, a Texas National Guardsman drowned in the Rio Grande attempting to rescue a woman crossing the river. That year was the deadliest for migrants crossing the US-Mexico border, with at least 748 people dying at the border.

    Immigrant rights advocates have attributed the rise in deaths at the border to policies that have made it more difficult for migrants to seek refuge in the US.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lordstown Motors files for bankruptcy and sues former partner Foxconn | CNN Business

    Lordstown Motors files for bankruptcy and sues former partner Foxconn | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Lordstown Motors filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday and announced a lawsuit against Foxconn, accusing its former partner of setting out to “destroy” its business.

    The electric vehicle maker, which specializes in pick-up trucks, made a Chapter 11 filing in a Delaware court while simultaneously starting legal action against Foxconn.

    In a statement, the company said it was left with no choice after a high-profile tie-up with Foxconn, the world’s biggest contract electronics manufacturer, fell apart.

    It accused the Taiwanese tech firm of fraud and failing to follow through on promises to invest in the company.

    “Despite our best efforts and earnest commitment to the partnership, Foxconn willfully and repeatedly failed to execute on the agreed-upon strategy, leaving us with Chapter 11 as the only viable option,” Lordstown CEO Edward Hightower said in the statement.

    “We will vigorously pursue our litigation claims against Foxconn accordingly.”

    Foxconn did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Officially called Hon Hai Technology Group, Foxconn is best known for making iPhones for Apple

    (AAPL)    , but has recently made moves toward building electric vehicles. In 2021, it purchased an Ohio factory that Lordstown Motors had itself bought from General Motors in 2019.

    Foxconn also agreed to handle the manufacturing of Lordstown’s electric pick-ups at the site, and to make further investments provided certain milestones were met.

    But the partnership appeared to break down earlier this year. In May, Lordstown disclosed that Foxconn said it wanted to back out of making further investments over claims that the automaker had not upheld its end of the agreement.

    That impasse left the automaker on shaky financial ground. Lordstown warned last month that it could face bankruptcy.

    — This is a developing story and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3 San Antonio officers charged with murder in fatal shooting of woman at her apartment | CNN

    3 San Antonio officers charged with murder in fatal shooting of woman at her apartment | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Three San Antonio police officers were charged with murder on Friday, less than 24 hours after they fatally shot a woman during a police call, their chief announced.

    Officer Eleazar Alejandro, 28; Sgt. Alfred Flores, 45; and Officer Nathaniel Villalobos, 27, are suspended from the force without pay as the investigation continues. All were released on $100,000 bond, Bexar County jail records show, and none has commented to CNN.

    “The shooting officers’ actions were not consistent with SAPD policies and training, and they placed themselves in a situation where they used deadly force which was not reasonable given all the circumstances as we now understand them,” Chief William McManus said in a news conference Friday night.

    Police were responding to a call that a woman later identified as Melissa Ann Perez, 46, was cutting wires to a fire alarm system at her apartment complex, McManus said.

    “It appeared that Ms. Perez was having a mental health crisis,” said the chief.

    After initially speaking with officers outside, Perez went back inside her apartment and locked the door, according to McManus.

    Officers continued to talk to Perez through a rear patio window, urging her to come out, edited and blurred body camera video released by the police department shows.

    “You ain’t got no warrant!” she says twice, according to the body camera video.

    One officer tried to open the window, and McManus said Perez threw a glass candleholder at him, McManus said. She later swung a hammer at an officer but hit the window instead, breaking it, police said.

    According to McManus, one officer opened fire, but Perez was not hit and could be heard still speaking on the body camera video.

    But seconds later, Perez “advanced toward the window again while still holding the hammer, and all three officers opened fire,” McManus said.

    More than a dozen shots are heard on the body camera video. Perez was struck at least twice, McManus said. Officers “attempted life-saving measures,” the arrest warrant said, but Perez died at the scene.

    Although she was allegedly approaching the officers with a hammer when they opened fire, the arrest warrant said Perez “did not pose an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death when she was shot because the defendants had a wall, a window blocked by a television, and a locked door between them.”

    CNN has requested the unedited body camera videos in the case.

    Perez’s children, who range in age from 9 to 24 years old, are have been struck with “incomprehensible grief” following their mothers’ death, the family’s attorney, Dan Packard, told CNN Monday.

    “There’s no words to explain to a 9-year-old how three police officers all thought it was okay to gun this woman down in unison while she was in her own house behind a wall,” Packard said.

    The San Antonio Police Officers’ Association expressed its condolences for Perez’s family in a statement Monday. Citing the active investigation, the association said it “cannot speak to the matter further until the investigation is complete and judicial process is underway.”

    “Following the tragic incident, Chief McManus followed all necessary protocols. All three officers have been suspended indefinitely,” the police association said.

    The swiftness of the charges against the officers reflects a trend as communities reckon with police accountability in the wake of the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

    Five officers in Memphis, Tennessee, were quickly charged in the death of Tyre Nichols, in contrast to earlier cases, such as the police shooting of Jacob Blake, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in which officials decided not to charge the officer five months later.

    Officer use of force also has been under scrutiny nationwide, especially against people facing mental health crises. The City of Rochester, New York, reached a settlement with the family of Daniel Prude, who died following an encounter with police. In Virginia, Irvo Otieno died after being pinned to the floor by security officers at a state mental health facility. And in California, Miles Hall was shot by police during what his family called a mental health episode.

    Melissa Ann Perez

    Perez’ family is “heartbroken,” it said, and plans to file a lawsuit against the city, according to reports and information from family attorney, Dan Packard.

    “We are not talking about a rogue officer who just lost his mind or got mad,” Packard said in an on-camera interview with CNN affiliate KENS 5. “We’re talking about three officers who thought it was OK to gun this woman down in her own house.”

    “We believe that there are systemic problems in the department that allowed this to happen,” Packard added.

    CNN has reached out to Packard for a copy of the suit, once it’s filed.

    Packard told CNN Perez had schizophrenia and may have had prior interactions with police. The attorney said he’s not sure how easily accessible that information would have been to the officers who responded to her home last week.

    “I think that’s an important component that (Perez’s family) are not angry people who are overly suspicious of the police, but this has shattered their trust in the police force and in the system,” Packard said.

    Perez’s family has requested prayers as they grapple with her sudden death.

    “They do not know how these children are going to cope and deal with this and so they take it one day at a time,” the attorney said. “We’re getting them the professional help that they need. But they’re asking for your prayers.”

    The police department will conduct an internal review and turn it over to prosecutors once it is completed. Court records indicate their preliminary hearing is set for July 25.

    CNN left messages with Alejandro and Villalobos requesting comment Saturday. CNN was unable to find contact information for Flores.

    [ad_2]

    Source link