ReportWire

Tag: lawsuits and claims

  • Two victims of Apple store crash file lawsuits claiming negligence | CNN Business

    Two victims of Apple store crash file lawsuits claiming negligence | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN Business
     — 

    Two victims injured when a car drove into an Apple store filed lawsuits Tuesday morning claiming various development companies failed to protect people by not installing barriers near the store.

    One person died and at least 19 others were injured after an SUV drove through an Apple store in Hingham, Massachusetts, on November 21, according to the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office.

    “For just a few dollars, a couple of barriers could’ve easily prevented this entire tragedy,” Doug Sheff, a lawyer for the two victims, said at a press conference Tuesday afternoon.

    Sheff showed pictures of barriers at different Apple store locations and other areas in the Hingham shopping complex, arguing they should have been at the Hingham Apple store as well. He said barriers had been placed in front of the store following the incident.

    The two lawsuits were filed by victims who sustained injuries in the incident and their families. One of the victims, who was working at Apple, suffered a traumatic brain injury, the complaint says. The other victim sustained rib fractures and other injuries which will require surgery, according to the other complaint.

    The lawsuits accuse several property development entities of negligence, claiming they “failed to reasonably protect occupants” by not installing barricades near the store.

    CNN has attempted to contact the development companies.

    One lawsuit filed by a non-employee accuses Apple of negligence, alleging it failed to reasonably protect the store’s occupants.

    Apple

    (AAPL)
    has not responded to a request for comment regarding the lawsuits. “Our hearts go out to our team members and customers who were injured and all of those who were affected by this terrible incident,” the company said in a statement last week.

    The lawsuits also accuse Bradley Rein, the alleged driver, of negligence when he “carelessly, recklessly, and negligently operated the SUV.”

    CNN has attempted to reach Rein’s attorney. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of reckless homicide by a motor vehicle and reckless operation of a motor vehicle, according to the Plymouth District Attorney’s Office. He is being held on $100,000 bail and his next court appearance is scheduled for December 22.

    CNN previously reported that Rein told police “his right foot became stuck on the accelerator and the vehicle accelerated,” prosecutors said. Prosecutors said Rein’s sobriety test registered at zero.

    Both lawsuits request a jury trial.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rural Arizona county delays certifying midterm results as election disputes persist | CNN Politics

    Rural Arizona county delays certifying midterm results as election disputes persist | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Officials in a rural Arizona county Monday delayed the certification of November’s midterm elections, missing the legal deadline and leading the Arizona secretary of state’s office to sue over the county’s failure to sign off on the results.

    By a 2-1 vote Monday morning, the Republican majority on the Cochise County Board of Supervisors pushed back certification until Friday, citing concerns about voting machines. Because Monday was the deadline for all 15 Arizona counties to certify their results, Cochise’s action could put at risk the votes of some 47,000 county residents and could inject chaos into the election if those votes go uncounted.

    In the lawsuit filed by the office of Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs – a Democrat who will be the state’s next governor – officials said failing to certify the election results violates state law and could “potentially disenfranchise” the county’s voters.

    CNN has reached out to the supervisors for comment.

    The standoff between officials in Cochise County and the Arizona secretary of state’s office illustrates how election misinformation is continuing to stoke controversy about the 2022 results in some corners of the country even though many of the candidates who echoed former President Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election were defeated in November.

    A crowd of grassroots activists turned up at a special meeting of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to loudly protest that county’s election administration procedures during a public comment portion of the meeting after problems with printers at voting locations on Election Day led to long lines at about a third of the county’s voting locations. In a new letter to the state attorney general’s office – which had demanded an explanation of the problems – the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office said that “no voter was disenfranchised because of the difficulty the county experienced with some of its printers.”

    Disputes over the results have erupted elsewhere.

    In Pennsylvania, where counties also faced a Monday deadline to certify their general election balloting, local officials have faced an onslaught of petitions demanding recounts. And officials in Luzerne County, in northeastern Pennsylvania, deadlocked Monday on whether to certify the results, according to multiple media reports. Election officials there did not respond to inquiries from CNN on Monday afternoon.

    In a statement to CNN, officials with the Pennsylvania Department of State said they have reached out to Luzerne officials “to inquire about the board’s decision and their intended next steps.”

    On Election Day, a paper shortage in Luzerne County prompted a court-ordered extension of in-person voting.

    Arizona, another key battleground state, has long been a cauldron of election conspiracies. GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and GOP secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem, both of whom pushed Trump’s lies about 2020, have refused to concede their races, as they continue to sow doubts about this year’s election results.

    Lake’s campaign filed a lawsuit last week demanding more information from Maricopa County’s elections department about the number of voters who checked in to polling places compared to the ballots cast. And Arizona’s GOP attorney general candidate Abe Hamadeh – who, like Lake and Finchem, was backed by Trump – filed a lawsuit in the state superior court in Maricopa County last week challenging the election results based on what the suit describes as errors in the management of the election.

    Hamadeh is trailing his opponent Democrat Kris Mayes by 510 votes as their race heads toward a recount. But the lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction prohibiting the Arizona secretary of state from certifying Mayes as the winner and asks the court to declare Hamadeh as the winner. A recount cannot begin until the state’s votes are certified.

    Alex Gulotta, Arizona state director of All Voting is Local, said the drama over certification of the votes and the refusal by losing candidates to back down is part of an “infrastructure of election denial” that has been building since the 2020 election in Arizona.

    “Those folks are going to continue to try and find fertile ground for their efforts to undermine our elections. They are not going to give up,” Gulotta said. “We had a whole slate of election deniers, many of whom were not elected.”

    But their refusal to concede “was inevitable in Arizona, at least in this cycle, given the candidates. These aren’t good losers,” he added. “They said from the beginning that they would be bad losers.”

    In Cochise County, the Republican officials on the county Board of Supervisors advocated for the delay, citing concerns about voting machines.

    Ann English, the Democratic chairwoman, argued that there was “no reason for us to delay.”

    But Republican commissioners Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd, who have cited claims that the machines were not properly certified, voted to delay signing off on the results. Monday’s action marked the second time the Republican-controlled board has delayed certification. And it marked the latest effort by Republicans on the board to register their disapproval of vote-tallying machines. Earlier this month, they attempted to mount an expansive hand count audit of the midterm results, pitting them against Cochise’s election director and the county attorney, who warned that the gambit might break the law.

    State election officials said the concerns cited by the Republican majority about the vote-tallying machines are rooted in debunked conspiracy theories.

    The state’s election director Kori Lorick has confirmed in writing that the voting machines had been tested and certified – a point Hobbs reiterated in Monday’s lawsuit. She is asking the court to force the board to certify the results by Thursday.

    An initial deadline of December 5 had been set for statewide certification. In the lawsuit, Hobbs’ lawyers said state law does allow for a slight delay if her office has not received a county’s results, but not past December 8 – or 30 days after the election.

    “Absent this Court’s intervention, the Secretary will have no choice but to complete statewide canvass by December 8 without Cochise County’s votes included,” her lawyers added.

    If votes from this Republican stronghold somehow went uncounted, it could flip two races to Democrats: the contest for state superintendent and a congressional race in which Republican Juan Ciscomani already has been projected as the winner by CNN and other outlets.

    In a recent opinion piece published in The Arizona Republic, two former election officials in Maricopa County – said the courts were likely to step in and force Cochise to certify the results.

    But Republican Helen Purcell, a former Maricopa County recorder, and Tammy Patrick, a Democrat and the county’s former federal compliance officer, warned that “a Republican-controlled board of supervisors could end up disenfranchising their own voters and hand Democrats even more victories in the midterms.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Election deniers faced defeat but election denialism is still swirling in Arizona | CNN Politics

    Election deniers faced defeat but election denialism is still swirling in Arizona | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Many of the candidates who promoted former President Donald Trump’s lies that the 2020 election was “rigged” and “stolen” were defeated in November, a pattern heralded by Democrats that is already reshaping the contours of the 2024 election – leading the former president to modulate his tone when he recently launched another bid for the White House.

    But the efforts to cast doubts about the management and operation of the 2022 election are still festering in Arizona, long a hotbed of election conspiracies that spawned the sham audit of the 2020 Maricopa County results by the now-defunct firm Cyber Ninjas after Trump questioned Joe Biden’s victory there. The continuing election denialism underscores that although the highest profile promoters of Trump’s election lies were defeated, the efforts to undermine democracy will carry on.

    Several Trump-backed Republican candidates at the top of Arizona’s ticket, including defeated GOP gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake, defeated Secretary of State candidate Mark Finchem, as well as GOP Attorney General candidate Abe Hamadeh – who is trailing his opponent Democrat Kris Mayes by 510 votes as their race heads toward a recount – have seized on a problem with Maricopa County’s printers on Election Day to make exaggerated claims about the election.

    Maricopa officials have said that printer problems affected about 70 vote centers, preventing some ballots from being read by tabulator machines on Election Day, but that the problems were fixed and that those ballots were set aside in a secure ballot box and counted separately. Bill Gates, the Republican Chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, called the inconvenience and the long lines that resulted “unfortunate” in one Twitter video but said “every voter had an opportunity to cast a vote on Election Day.”

    But that has not stopped the issue from spiraling into a swirl of misinformation and conspiracy theories about the overall management of the election within the hard-right faction of Arizona’s Republican Party, despite the best efforts by other Republican election officials to squelch conspiracy theories and fact-check them in real time.

    Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican who rebuffed Trump’s efforts to overturn Arizona’s 2020 election results, is once again among the officials signaling that it is time to move on.

    Though Lake has not conceded in her race against Democrat Katie Hobbs, who is the current secretary of state, Ducey posted pictures Wednesday of his meeting with Hobbs on Twitter, noting that he had congratulated the governor-elect on “her victory in a hard-fought race and offered my full cooperation as she prepares to assume the leadership of the State of Arizona.”

    The issues could come to a head next week. Monday is the deadline for counties in the Grand Canyon State to certify their general election results – with statewide certification slated to follow on December 5. Any recounts cannot begin until after certification. In the leadup to those events, Lake has posted videos and missives on Twitter insisting that she is “still in the fight.”

    Because some voters were forced to stand in long lines – a unremarkable occurrence on Election Day in many states – Lake charged during a recent appearance on Steve Bannon’s program “War Room” that her opponents “discriminated against people who chose to vote on Election Day.”

    Rather than using Trump’s 2020 buzzwords like ‘rigged,’ Lake has generally used more narrow language, describing the management of the election as “botched” and “the shoddiest ever” while accusing Maricopa County of “dragging its feet” in providing information about the election to her campaign.

    Marc Elias, an attorney specializing in election litigation who has taken a central role in pushing back against GOP efforts to restrict ballot access, noted in a post on his Democracy Docket website that Lake’s complaints about “voter suppression” were ironic given Republican’s efforts to limit voting access in recent years. He noted that there are videos on Lake’s Twitter feed of voters who “claimed that they waited in long lines to vote, were sent from one polling place to another by overworked election officials and had their provisional ballots rejected because they failed to register in time for the election.”

    “If you didn’t know better, you might think Lake was a champion of access to voting, supporter of funding for election officials and advocate for same day voter registration. She is none of those,” Elias wrote.

    Elias pointed out that the circumstance of voters being forced to wait in long lines due to equipment failures is not out of the ordinary.

    “Long lines caused by insufficient or broken voting equipment is a tax usually paid by Black, brown and young voters. At the same time that voters in Maricopa County were waiting in two-hour lines, students at the University of Michigan were enduring near freezing temperatures during their six-hour long wait to cast their ballots,” Elias said.

    But Lake’s arguments about problems with the election were bolstered by a letter from Arizona’s Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Wright last week to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office seeking information about what Wright described as “myriad problems that occurred in relation to Maricopa County’s administration of the 2022 General Election.” (Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is a Republican).

    The letter requested information about ballot-on-demand printer configuration settings that contributed to problems getting ballots read by on-site ballot tabulators; as well as the procedures for handling ballots that were supposed to be segregated and placed in the secure ballot box; and information about the handling of voters who checked in at one polling place but wanted to check out to vote in a second voting location, either because of wait times or other issues.

    Gates said the county would respond to the questions from the attorney general’s office “with transparency as we have done throughout this election” before it holds its public meeting on Monday to canvass the election. The canvass, Gates said, is “meant to provide a record of the votes counted and those that were not legally cast.”

    “There will be no delays or games; we will canvass in accordance with state law,” he said in the statement.

    But in Cochise County, a community of roughly 125,000 people in southeastern Arizona, the two Republicans on the three-person Board of Supervisors recently opted to delay a vote on certification until Monday’s deadline, citing their concerns about vote-tallying machines.

    That prompted the Secretary of State’s office to threaten legal action if county did not complete certification by the deadline. Peggy Judd, one of the Republican supervisors who initially voted to delay action, told The Arizona Republic this week that she has decided to certify the results when the board meets.

    CNN has reached out to Judd for comment.

    Still, the 11th-hour drama in the Republican stronghold underscores the mistrust of standard election procedures that has taken hold in parts of this battleground state ever since Biden won the state in 2020, the first Democrat presidential nominee to do so in nearly a quarter century.

    Officials in a second county – Mohave, in the northwest corner of the state – also voted to delay their certification until Monday’s deadline. But officials there described their move as a political statement to register displeasure with issues that arose on Election Day in Maricopa County.

    Like Lake, Finchem has refused to concede his race to Democrat Adrian Fontes while he has sent out fundraising solicitations to his supporters claiming that he is trying to get to the bottom of “myriad issues” with the election. He has repeatedly called for a new election.

    Hamadeh, the GOP attorney general candidate, filed a lawsuit in state superior court in Maricopa County this week challenging the election results based on what the suit describes as errors in the management of the election. Hamadeh’s lawsuit notes that plaintiffs are not “alleging any fraud, manipulation or other intentional wrongdoing that would impugn the outcomes of the November 8, 2022 general election.”

    But the lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction prohibiting the Arizona secretary of state from certifying Mayes as the winner and asking the court to declare Hamadeh as the winner – while alleging that there was an “erroneous count of votes,” “wrongful disqualification of provisional and early ballots” and “wrongful exclusion of provisional voters.” The Republican National Committee has joined the lawsuit.

    Hamadeh trails Mayes by just 510 votes and the race is heading toward an automatic recount.

    “Legal counsel for the Secretary of State’s Office is reviewing the election contest and preparing a response but believes the lawsuit is legally baseless and factually speculative,” a spokesperson for the office said Friday, adding that “none of the claims raised warrant the extraordinary remedy of changing the election results and overturning the will of Arizona voters.”

    Lake has promised that her campaign’s attempt to get more information from election officials this week is only the beginning of her efforts. It remains to be seen whether she will have any more success than Trump did in his many failed lawsuits – and whether following a course that has now been resoundingly rejected by voters will be politically prudent as she lays the groundwork for her next act.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • E. Jean Carroll sues Trump for battery and defamation as lookback window for adult sex abuse survivors’ suits opens in New York | CNN Politics

    E. Jean Carroll sues Trump for battery and defamation as lookback window for adult sex abuse survivors’ suits opens in New York | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Ex-magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll sued former President Donald Trump for battery and defamation under a new New York law that allows adults alleging sexual assault to bring claims years after the attack.

    Carroll filed the lawsuit Thursday, the first day that civil lawsuits can be brought under the new law, the Adult Survivors Act, which gives adults a one-year window to file a claim.

    The lawsuit is the second Carroll has brought against Trump, but the first to seek to hold him accountable for battery for allegedly raping Carroll in the dressing room of a New York department store in the mid-1990s. The lawsuit also alleges a new defamation claim based on statements Trump made last month.

    Carroll is asking a judge to order Trump to retract his defamatory statements and award compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

    “Trump’s underlying sexual assault severely injured Carroll, causing significant pain and suffering, lasting psychological harms, loss of dignity, and invasion of her privacy. His recent defamatory statement has only added to the harm that Carroll had already suffered,” the lawsuit alleges.

    At a court hearing Tuesday for the earlier lawsuit, Trump attorney Alina Habba told Judge Lewis Kaplan she had not yet been retained to represent Trump in the Adult Survivors Act lawsuit.

    Kaplan noted that Trump has known this lawsuit was “coming for months and he would be well advised to decide who is representing him in it.”

    In 2019, Carroll sued Trump for defamation after he denied her sexual assault allegation, said he never met Carroll, that she wasn’t his type, and that she made up the story to boost sales of her new book.

    In Thursday’s lawsuit Carroll re-upped those previous statements and added a new one, from October 2022, when Trump said similar things about her as he was set to sit for a deposition related to the 2019 lawsuit.

    “I don’t know this woman, have no idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event. She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her,” Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social.

    “It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years. And, while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type!” the post said.

    Habba responding to the filing Thursday, saying, “While I respect and admire individuals that come forward, this case is unfortunately an abuse of the purpose of this Act which creates a terrible precedent running the risk of delegitimizing credibility of actual victims.”

    Carroll’s 2019 defamation lawsuit against Trump has been hanging in the balance. Trump’s attorneys challenged the lawsuit saying the Justice Department should be substituted as the defendants since Trump, as president, was answering reporters’ questions about Carroll’s allegations. The Justice Department agreed.

    Kaplan ruled in favor of Carroll, but Trump and the Justice Department appealed. A federal appeals court in New York ruled that Trump was a federal employee at the time but asked a Washington, DC, appeals court to determine whether the statements fell within the scope of his employment.

    The DC appeals court has expedited the case and could decide early next year. If the court rules against Carroll, the case will likely be dismissed because the federal government cannot be sued for defamation.

    If the 2019 case is dismissed, the defamation claims from 2022 would not be impacted since Trump was not a federal employee last month when he made the new statements.

    Carroll’s lawyers previously asked Kaplan to combine the 2019 and 2022 action into one trial early next year. The judge said he would weigh in next week.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes: A timeline | CNN Business

    The rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes: A timeline | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    More than three years after Elizabeth Holmes was first indicted and nearly four months after her trial kicked off, the founder and former CEO of failed blood testing startup Theranos was found guilty on four out of 11 federal fraud and conspiracy charges.

    The verdict comes after a stunning downfall that saw Holmes, once hailed as the next Steve Jobs, go from being a tech industry icon to being a rare Silicon Valley entrepreneur on trial for fraud.

    A Stanford University dropout, Holmes – inspired by her own fear of needles – started the company at the age of 19, with a mission of creating a cheaper, more efficient alternative to a traditional blood test. Theranos promised patients the ability to test for conditions like cancer and diabetes with just a few drops of blood. She attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, a board of well-known political figures, and key retail partners.

    But a Wall Street Journal investigation poked holes into Theranos’ testing and technology, and the dominoes fell from there. Holmes and her former business partner, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, were charged in 2018 by the US government with multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. (Both pleaded not guilty.)

    Here are the highlights of the rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos.

    Holmes, a Stanford University sophomore studying chemical engineering, drops out of school to pursue her startup, Theranos, which she founded in 2003 at age 19. The name is a combination of the words “therapy” and “diagnosis.”

    Balwani joins as chief operating officer and president of the startup. Balwani, nearly 20 years her senior, met Holmes in 2002 on a trip to Beijing through Stanford University. The two are later revealed to be romantically involved.

    A decade after first starting the company, Holmes takes the lid off Theranos and courts media attention the same month that Theranos and Walgreens announce they’ve struck up a long-term partnership. The first Theranos Wellness Center location opens in a Walgreens in Palo Alto where consumers can access Theranos’ blood test.

    The original plan had been to make Theranos’ testing available at Walgreens locations nationwide.

    Holmes is named to the magazine’s American billionaire list with the outlet reporting she owns a 50% stake in the startup, pinning her personal wealth at $4.5 billion.

    Theranos has raised more than $400 million, according to a profile of the company and Holmes by The New Yorker. It counts Oracle’s Larry Ellison among its investors.

    The FDA clears Theranos to use of its proprietary tiny blood-collection vials to finger stick blood test for herpes simplex 1 virus – its first and only approval for a diagnostic test.

    The Wall Street Journal reports Theranos is using its proprietary technique on only a small number of the 240 tests it performs, and that the vast majority of its tests are done with traditional vials of blood drawn from the arm, not the “few drops” taken by a finger prick. In response, Theranos defends its testing practices, calling the Journal’s reporting “factually and scientifically erroneous.”

    A day later, Theranos halts the use of its blood-collection vials for all but the herpes test due to pressures from the FDA. (Later that month, the FDA released two heavily redacted reports citing 14 concerns, including calling the company’s proprietary vial an “uncleared medical device.”)

    One week after the Journal report, Holmes is interviewed on-stage at the outlet’s conference in Laguna Beach. “We know what we’re doing and we’re very proud of it,” she says.

    Holmes speaking at a Wall Street Journal technology conference in Laguna Beach, California on October 21, 2015.

    Amid the criticism, Theranos reportedly shakes up its board of directors, eliminating Henry Kissinger and George Shultz as directors while moving them to a new board of counselors; the company also forms a separate medical board.

    Safeway, which invested $350 million into building out clinics in hundreds of its supermarkets to eventually offer Theranos blood tests, reportedly looks to dissolve its relationship with the company before it ever offered its services.

    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sends Theranos a letter saying its California lab has failed to comply with federal standards and that patients are in “immediate jeopardy.” It gives the company 10 days to address the issues.

    In response, Walgreens says it will not send any lab tests to Theranos’ California lab for analysis and suspends Theranos services at its Palo Alto Walgreens location.

    CMS threatens to ban Holmes and Balwani from the laboratory business for two years after the company allegedly failed to fix problems at its California lab. Theranos says that’s a “worst case scenario.

    Balwani departs. The company also adds three new board members as part of the restructuring: Fabrizio Bonanni, a former executive vice president of biotech firm Amgen, former CDC director William Foege, and former Wells Fargo CEO Richard Kovacevich.

    Theranos voids two years of blood test results from its proprietary testing devices, correcting tens of thousands of blood-test reports, the Journal reports.

    Forbes revises its estimate of Holmes’ net worth from $4.5 billion to $0. The magazine also lowers its valuation for the company from $9 billion to $800 million.

    Walgreens, once Theranos’ largest retail partner, ends its partnership with the company and says it will close all 40 Theranos Wellness Centers.

    CMS revokes Theranos’ license to operate its California lab and bans Holmes from running a blood-testing lab for two years.

    Holmes tries to move past recent setbacks by unveiling a mini testing laboratory, called miniLab, at a conference for the American Association for Clinical Chemistry. In selling the device, versus operating its own clinics, Theranos seeks to effectively side-step CMS sanctions, which don’t prohibit research and development.

    Theranos investor Partner Fund Management sues the company for $96.1 million, the amount it sunk into the company in February 2014, plus damages. It accuses the company of securities fraud. Theranos and Partner Fund Management settled in May, 2017, for an undisclosed amount.

    The company also lays off 340 employees as it closes clinical labs and wellness centers as it attempts to pivot and focus on the miniLab.

    Walgreens sues the blood testing startup for breach of contract. Walgreens sought to recover the $140 million it poured into the company. The lawsuit was settled August, 2017.

    Theranos downsizes its workforce yet again following the increased scrutiny into its operations, laying off approximately 155 employees or about 41% of staffers.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that Theranos failed a second regulatory lab inspection in September, and that the company was closing its last blood testing location as a result.

    Theranos settles with the CMS, agreeing to pay $30,000 and to not to own or operate any clinical labs for two years.

    Theranos also settles with the Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich over allegations that its advertisements misrepresented the method, accuracy, and reliability of its blood testing and that the company was out of compliance with federal regulations governing clinical lab testing. Theranos agrees to pay $4.65 million back to its Arizona customers as part of a settlement deal.

    The SEC charges Holmes and Balwani with a “massive fraud” involving more than $700 million from investors through an “elaborate, years-long fraud in which they exaggerated or made false statements about the company’s technology, business, and financial performance.”

    The SEC alleges Holmes and Balwani knew that Theranos’ proprietary analyzer could perform only 12 of the 200 tests it published on its patient testing menu.

    Theranos and Holmes agree to resolve the claims against them, and Holmes gives up control of the company and much of her stake in it. Balwani, however, is fighting the charges, with his attorney saying he “accurately represented Theranos to investors to the best of his ability.”

    Reporter John Carreyrou, who first broke open the story of Theranos for the Wall Street Journal, publishes “Bad Blood,” a definitive look at what happened inside the disgraced company. Director Adam McKay (who directed “The Big Short”) secures the rights to make the film, starring Jennifer Lawrence as Holmes, by the same name.

    Holmes and Balwani are indicted on federal wire fraud charges over allegedly engaging in a multi-million dollar scheme to defraud investors, as well as a scheme to defraud doctors and patients. Both have pleaded not guilty.

    Minutes before the charges were made public, Theranos announced that Holmes has stepped down as CEO. The company’s general counsel, David Taylor, takes over as CEO. Holmes remains chair of the company’s board.

    Former Theranos COO Ramesh

    Taylor emails shareholders that Theranos will dissolve, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. Taylor said more than 80 potential buyers were not interested in a sale. “We are now out of time,” Taylor wrote.

    Alex Gibney, the prolific documentary filmmaker behind “Dirty Money,” “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room,” and “The Armstrong Lie,” debuts “The Inventor” on HBO, following the rise and fall of Theranos.

    A new court document reveals Holmes may seek a “mental disease” defense in her criminal fraud trial. Later, in August 2021, unsealed court documents reveal Holmes is likely to claim she was the victim of a decade-long abusive relationship with Balwani. The allegations led to the severing of their trials. His trial is slated to begin in 2022.

    Initially set to begin in July 2020, Holmes’ criminal trial is further delayed til July 2021 due to the coronavirus pandemic.

    News surfaces that Holmes’ is expecting her first child, once more further delaying her criminal trial. Holmes’ counsel advised the US government that Holmes is due in July 2021, a court document revealed. She gave birth in July.

    Holmes collects her belongings after going through security at the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building with her defense team on August 31, 2021 in San Jose, California.

    More than 80 potential jurors are brought into a San Jose courtroom for questioning over the course of two days to determine if they are fit to serve as impartial, fair jurors for the criminal trial of Holmes. A jury of seven men and five women is selected, with five alternatives.

    After three months of testimony from 32 witnesses, the criminal fraud case of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes makes its way to the jury of eight men and four women who will decide her fate. The jury would go on to deliberate for more than 50 hours before returning a verdict.

    Holmes is found guilty of one count of conspiracy to defraud investors as well as three wire fraud counts tied to specific investors. She is found not guilty on three additional charges concerning defrauding patients and one charge of conspiracy to defraud patients. The jury returns no verdict on three of the charges concerning defrauding investors. Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison as well as a fine of $250,000 plus restitution for each count.

    “The Dropout,” a scripted miniseries about Theranos produced by ABC, debuts on Hulu. Amanda Seyfried stars as Holmes and Naveen Andrews plays Balwani. Their romantic and professional relationship features prominently in the show.

    Following delays due to Holmes’ prolonged trial then a surge of Covid-19, jury selection for Balwani’s trial gets underway. On March 22, opening arguments are held and the government’s first witness, a former Theranos employee turned whistleblower, is called to the stand.

    After four full days of deliberations, a jury finds Balwani guilty of ten counts of federal wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Like Holmes, Balwani faces up to 20 years in prison as well as a fine of $250,000 plus restitution for each count of wire fraud and each conspiracy count.

    Holmes asks for a new trial after claiming that a key witness visited her house unannounced and allegedly said he “feels guilty” about his testimony.

    In a court filing with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Holmes’ attorneys said Adam Rosendorff, a former Theranos lab director who was one of the government’s main witnesses, arrived at her home on August 8 asking to speak with her. According to the filing, Rosendorff did not interact with Holmes but did speak to her partner Billy Evans, who recounted the exchange in an email to Holmes’ lawyers shortly after.

    “His shirt was untucked, his hair was messy, his voice slightly trembled,” Evans wrote about Rosendorff. According to Evans’ email, Rosendorff “said when he was called as a witness he tried to answer the questions honestly but that the prosecutors tried to make everybody look bad.”

    The former Theranos lab director also “said he felt like he had done something wrong,” Evans wrote.

    Rosendorff takes the stand again to address concerns from Holmes’ defense team and their claims he had shown up at her home after the trial concluded asking to speak with her and expressed regrets about his testimony.

    At the hearing, Rosendorff reaffirmed the truthfulness of his testimony at Holmes’ trial and said that the government did not influence what he said.

    A federal judge denies Elizabeth Holmes’ request for a new trial, according to court filings, paving the way for the founder of failed blood testing startup Theranos to be sentenced later in the month.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Everything you need to know about Biden’s student loan forgiveness program | CNN Politics

    Everything you need to know about Biden’s student loan forgiveness program | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden’s federal student loan forgiveness program, which promises to deliver up to $20,000 of debt relief for millions of borrowers, is on hold indefinitely as legal challenges work their way through the courts.

    About 26 million people had already applied by the time a federal district court judge struck down the program on November 10 – prompting the government to stop taking applications. No debt has been canceled thus far.

    The administration officially launched the application on October 17, following a brief “beta period” during which its team assessed whether tweaks were needed.

    If the courts ultimately allow the program to move forward, not every student loan borrower is eligible for the debt relief. First, only federally held student loans qualify. Private student loans are excluded.

    Second, high-income borrowers are generally excluded from receiving debt forgiveness. Individual borrowers who make less than $125,000 a year and married couples or heads of households who make less than $250,000 annually will see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven.

    If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual is eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness. Pell grants are awarded to millions of low-income students each year, based on factors including their family’s size and income and the cost charged by their college. These borrowers are also more likely to struggle to repay their student debt and end up in default.

    Here’s what else borrowers need to know about the new student loan forgiveness plan:

    It’s unclear when, or if, borrowers will see debt relief under Biden’s program.

    Administration officials expected to be able to grant relief before federal student loan payments are set to resume in January, when the pandemic-related pause expires. But now that timeline is in jeopardy.

    The White House has said that it has already approved 16 million applications for debt relief. The Department of Education will hold on to that information so it can quickly process those borrowers’ relief if the government prevails in court.

    If and when the program moves forward, an estimated 8 million borrowers may receive debt relief automatically because the Department of Education already has their income on file.

    If the government restarts taking applications, borrowers can apply online here: https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief/application.

    Applicants can expect to receive an email confirmation once their application is successfully submitted. Then, borrowers will be notified by their loan servicer when the debt cancellation has been applied to their account.

    Borrowers were expected to have until December 31, 2023, to submit an application.

    There are a variety of federal student loans and not all are eligible for relief. Federal Direct Loans, including subsidized loans, unsubsidized loans, parent PLUS loans and graduate PLUS loans, are eligible.

    But federal student loans that are guaranteed by the government but held by private lenders are not eligible unless the borrower applied to consolidate those loans into a Direct Loan by September 29.

    The Department of Education initially said these privately held loans, many of which were made under the former Federal Family Education Loan program and Federal Perkins Loan program, would be eligible for the one-time forgiveness action – but reversed course in September when six Republican-led states sued the Biden administration, arguing that forgiving the privately held loans would financially hurt states and student loan servicers.

    Defaulted Federal Family Education Loans and defaulted Perkins Loans are still eligible for the debt relief even if they are privately held.

    If Biden’s program is allowed to move forward, eligibility is based on a borrower’s adjusted gross income for either tax year 2020 or 2021. Adjusted gross income can be lower than your total wages because it considers tax deductions and adjustments, like contributions made to a 401(k) retirement plan.

    A taxpayer’s adjusted gross income can be found on line 11 of IRS Form 1040.

    The Department of Education says it already had income information for nearly 8 million borrowers, likely because of financial aid forms or previously submitted income-driven repayment plan applications. If the program is allowed to move forward, those borrowers will automatically receive the debt relief if they meet the income requirement, unless they choose to opt out. The department has said it will email borrowers who will be considered for debt relief but don’t need to apply.

    Millions of other borrowers will need to apply for student loan forgiveness if the Department of Education doesn’t have their income information on file. When they submit the application, borrowers are required to self-attest that their income is under the eligibility threshold. They are required to certify that the information provided is accurate upon penalty of perjury.

    The Biden administration has said that applicants who are “more likely to exceed the income cutoff” will be required to submit additional information, like a tax transcript. Officials expect that just 5% of borrowers with eligible federal student loans would not qualify due to the income threshold.

    Borrowers will not have to pay federal income tax on the student loan debt forgiven, thanks to a provision in the American Rescue Plan Act that Congress passed last year.

    But it’s possible that some borrowers may have to pay state income tax on the amount of debt forgiven. There are a handful of states that may tax discharged debt if state legislative or administrative changes are not made beforehand, according to the Tax Policy Center. The tax liability could be hundreds of dollars, depending on the state.

    Yes, some current students are eligible. Eligibility for borrowers who filed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, known as the FAFSA, as an independent will be based on the individual’s own household income.

    Eligibility for borrowers who are enrolled as dependent students, generally those under the age of 24, will be based on parental income for either 2020 or 2021.

    Yes, if your income meets the eligibility threshold.

    Yes, if your income meets the eligibility threshold. A parent borrower with federal Parent PLUS loans for multiple children is still only eligible for up to $20,000 of loan forgiveness.

    But a parent is only eligible for up to $20,000 in debt relief if he or she received a Pell grant for his or her own education. If only the child received a Pell grant, the parent is eligible for up to $10,000 in forgiveness.

    Most borrowers can log in to Studentaid.gov to see if they received a Pell grant while enrolled in college. Information about Pell grants received is displayed on the account dashboard and on the My Aid page. This is also where borrowers can find out how much they owe and what kind of loans they have.

    Borrowers who received a Pell grant before 1994 won’t see their Pell grant information online, but they are still eligible for the $20,000 in student loan forgiveness.

    As long as borrowers received at least one Pell grant, they are eligible.

    The Biden administration has said that eligible borrowers who have received Pell grants will automatically receive the additional debt relief.

    Yes, defaulted federal student loans are eligible for debt relief.

    For borrowers who have a remaining balance on their defaulted student loans after the cancellation is applied, there will be an opportunity to get out of default once payments resume in January 2023 as part of what the Department of Education is calling its “Fresh Start” initiative.

    The Biden administration is facing several lawsuits over the student loan forgiveness program. Many of the plaintiffs argue that the Department of Education is overstepping its authority.

    In one case, a federal judge in Texas struck down the program on November 10, declaring it illegal. The Department of Justice has appealed the ruling to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, but debt relief is on hold while that case plays out.

    Previously, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals put a temporary, administrative hold on the program on October 21, barring the administration from canceling loans covered under the policy while the court considers a challenge brought by six Republican-led states. The appeals court then granted an injunction on the program on November 14, which will remain in place until the appeals court, or the Supreme Court, issues a further order in the case.

    A lower court judge dismissed the lawsuit on October 20, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to bring the challenge.

    On the same day as the lower court dismissal, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected a separate challenge to Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, declining to take up an appeal brought by a Wisconsin taxpayers group.

    The Biden administration is also facing lawsuits from Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

    Lawyers for the government say that Congress gave the secretary of education “expansive authority to alleviate the hardship that federal student loan recipients may suffer as a result of national emergencies,” like the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a memo from the Department of Justice.

    Borrowers who have debt remaining after either $10,000 or $20,000 is wiped away could see their monthly payment amounts recalculated if they are enrolled in a standard repayment plan. Under a standard repayment plan, borrowers pay a fixed amount that ensures loans are paid off within 10 years.

    Borrowers who are already enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan are not likely to see their monthly payment amounts change due to the forgiveness, because their payments are based on household income and family size.

    Borrowers have not been required to make payments on their federal student loans since March 2020 because of the government’s pandemic-related pause. Biden has extended the pause through the end of this year, and payments will resume in January 2023.

    Along with Biden’s August announcement about canceling some federal student loan debt, he also said he would create a new plan that would make repayment more manageable for borrowers.

    There are currently several repayment plans available for federal student loan borrowers that lower monthly payments by capping them at a portion of their income.

    The new income-driven repayment plan that Biden is expected to propose would cap payments at 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income, down from 10% that is offered in most current plans, as well as reduce the amount of income that is considered discretionary. It would also forgive remaining balances after 10 years of repayment, instead of 20 years.

    Biden is also proposing that the new plan cover the borrower’s unpaid monthly interest. This could be very helpful for people whose monthly payments are so low that they don’t cover their monthly interest charge and end up seeing their balances explode, growing larger than what was originally borrowed.

    But we don’t know when these changes will take effect. The Department of Education has not provided any sense of timing, but has said it will propose a new rule to create the repayment plan. The department’s formal rule-making process usually includes soliciting public comments and can take months, if not more than a year.

    Yes. Borrowers have not been required to make payments on their federal student loans since March 13, 2020, because of the pandemic-related pause. But if borrowers did make payments, they are allowed to contact their loan servicer to request a refund.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump sues January 6 committee seeking to block subpoena for his testimony and documents | CNN Politics

    Trump sues January 6 committee seeking to block subpoena for his testimony and documents | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump has sued the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, as a way to challenge its subpoena for documents and his testimony, according to filings in a federal court in Florida.

    Trump is challenging both the legitimacy of the committee – which multiple courts have upheld – and is claiming he should be immune from testimony about the time he was president.

    Trump’s lawyers say they’ve communicated with the House over the past week and a half as the subpoena deadlines neared, offering to consider answering written questions while expressing “concerns and objections” about the bulk of the document requests.

    “The Subpoena’s request for testimony and documents from President Trump is an unwarranted intrusion upon the institution of the Presidency because there are other sources of the requested information, including the thousand-plus witnesses the Committee has contacted and one million documents that the Committee has collected,” his attorneys argue in the suit. “The Committee also may obtain abundant government records relevant to its inquiry. Because of this obvious availability to obtain testimony and documents from other readily available sources, the Subpoena is invalid.”

    A spokesperson for the January 6 committee declined to comment.

    Trump said the House’s demands, if he met them, would violate privilege protections around the executive branch, including revealing conversations he had with Justice Department officials and members of Congress about the 2020 election and “pending governmental business.”

    He also argued to the court that he shouldn’t have to reveal inner workings about his 2020 presidential campaign, “including his political beliefs, strategy, and fundraising. President Trump did not check his constitutional rights at the Oval Office door. Because the Committee’s Subpoena to President Trump infringes upon his First Amendment rights it is invalid.”

    Trump’s attorney, David Warrington, said in a statement in part that “long-held precedent and practice maintain that separation of powers prohibits Congress from compelling a President to testify before it.”

    The lawsuit veers the Trump subpoena fight toward a likely dead-end for the House select committee.

    Trump’s back-and-forth with the House followed by the lawsuit will make it much harder for the committee to enforce the subpoena – and the dispute essentially will be unresolvable before the current Congress expires in January.

    The lawsuit also raises some protections around the presidency that have never fully been tested by appeals courts, and Trump brought the lawsuit in a court that, unlike DC, hasn’t weighed in on his standoffs with House Democrats over the past several years.

    Trump provided to the court his team’s recent letters with the committee, which show that the House panel tried to zero in last week on obtaining records of his electronic communication on personal phones, via text or on other apps from January 6, 2021. The House also said it sought to identify every telephone and other communication device Trump used from Election Day until he left the presidency, according to the letters.

    In one letter on November 4, the original date of the document-turnover deadline, the House committee accused Trump’s team of trying to delay.

    “Given the timing and nature of your letter – without any acknowledgment that Mr. Trump will ultimately comply with the subpoena – your approach on his behalf appears to be a delay tactic,” wrote Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who chairs the committee.

    Since Trump’s team replied on November 9 that he wouldn’t testify and found no records to turn over related to personal communications, the House hasn’t respond substantively, the court papers said.

    But Trump’s legal team responded to the House this week that Trump “voluntarily directed a reasonable search for documents in his possession” that could fit those two categories. The search found nothing, his lawyers said.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sports psychologist files civil suit accusing former San Antonio Spurs player of exposing himself during therapy sessions | CNN

    Sports psychologist files civil suit accusing former San Antonio Spurs player of exposing himself during therapy sessions | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A sports psychologist, who was under contract with the NBA’s San Antonio Spurs, has filed a civil lawsuit against the organization and 19-year-old former Spurs player Joshua Primo.

    The psychologist alleges the player exposed himself to her during therapy sessions and claimed the organization’s leadership failed to act despite her “numerous complaints about Primo’s improper sexual conduct,” according to a court filing.

    Primo has denied the allegations.

    The lawsuit claims that Primo first exposed his genitals to Dr. Hillary Cauthen during an individual private session in December 2021, that the exposures continued to happened, growing “progressively more extreme,” and that Primo’s behavior “went unchecked by the organization’s leadership for many months,” even after Cauthen reported it.

    The Spurs legal team then told Cauthen, a licensed, credentialed clinical psychologist, that the team “had lost trust in her,” Cauthen’s attorney, Tony Buzbee, said during a press conference Thursday.

    When her contract came up for renewal in August, they chose not to renew it, according to the petition filed in Bexar County District Court on Thursday.

    “Primo’s conduct is obviously well outside the bounds of what is normal or is acceptable. His conduct shocks the conscience,” Buzbee said.

    “I would also say that the Spurs conduct and the way they handled this matter was egregious and absolutely unreasonable.”

    Primo was recently released from the team on October 28. Spurs Sports & Entertainment CEO RC Buford said the roster move would “serve the best interest of both the organization and Joshua” in a statement while not providing any specific details on the decision.

    Attorneys for the player have released a statement, saying “Josh Primo is at the beginning of a promising career and has been devastated by these false allegations and release by the Spurs.”

    His attorneys call Cauthen’s accusations “either a complete fabrication, a gross embellishment or utter fantasy.”

    “Josh Primo is a 19-year-old NBA player who has suffered a lifetime of trauma and challenges.

    “He is now being victimized by his former team appointed sports psychologist, who is playing to ugly stereotypes and racially charged fears for her own financial benefit,” their statement said.

    Buzbee said his office has been in contact with Bexar County officials and he plans to also file a criminal complaint for multiple counts of indecent exposure against Primo.

    “We expect the proper authorities to prosecute,” he said during Thursday’s press conference.

    CNN has reached out to the Spurs organization and the NBA for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Iran says it will sue US, alleging ‘direct involvement’ in protests | CNN

    Iran says it will sue US, alleging ‘direct involvement’ in protests | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Iran said Saturday it would take legal action against the United States, accusing it of “direct involvement” in the protests sweeping the country.

    Tehran also warned the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia would “not be ignored by the Islamic Republic’s judiciary system” for their role in hosting and supporting TV networks such as BBC Persian and Iran International – which it claimed had urged protesters “to destroy public and private properties.”

    Anti-government protests have gripped Iran since the September 16 death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who died after being pulled off the streets of Tehran by morality police and taken to a “re-education center” for lessons in modesty.

    Strikes and protests have become a common sight in cities and towns across the country and in the capital chants of “death to the dictator” – in reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei – often ring out at night from the rooftops.

    US President Joe Biden has thrown his support behind the demonstrators, promising costs “on perpetrators of violence against peaceful protesters” and saying the US stands with the “brave women of Iran who right now are demonstrating to secure their basic rights.”

    The US has also announced sanctions on Iran’s morality police “for abuse and violence against Iranian women and the violation of the rights of peaceful Iranian protesters” and is working to making it easier for Iranians to access the internet.

    This is not the first time Iran has accused the US of meddling in anti-government protests – it made similar claims in 2018.

    The state news agency IRNA reported on Saturday that the Justice Department “has been tasked to file a lawsuit in order to investigate the damages and meddling inflicted by the US’s direct involvement in the unrest.” It also reported the claims against the BBC and Iran International, made by the deputy head of the Iranian Judiciary and secretary of the country’s High Council for Human Rights Kazem Gharibabadi.

    The report did not make clear what court would hear such a case.

    Meanwhile protests are continuing both within Iran and in solidarity movements across the world, with large demonstrations in both Berlin and Tokyo on Saturday.

    Within Iran, business owners and factory workers from the Kurdistan region went on strike and students from universities across the country joined in on the demonstrations.

    Video shared with CNN by pro-reform activist outlet IranWire, show Sanandaj, the capital of the Kurdish region, eerily quiet at the beginning of the work week as stores remain shuttered.

    The Norway-based Iranian rights group Hengaw said shopkeepers were also on strike in Bukan, Sanandaj and Marivan, though CNN can’t independently verify these reports.

    On Saturday, videos of protests against the Iranian regime from IranWire showed a crowd at Tehran’s Shahid Behasti University chanting “Freedom, freedom, death to the dictator, death to Khamenei.”

    Workers at Aidin Chocolate Factory in Tabriz have started a strike in solidarity with nationwide protests. (IranWire)

    Students at Tabriz University in East Azerbaijan province also took to the streets chanting in unison that regime change was on the horizon, according to IranWire, and at Yazd University in Yazd province, students sang a century-old pre-revolutionary anthem.

    An eyewitness told CNN that young girls from local schools who joined in the protests calling for “freedom” and “death to the dictator” were rounded up by police moments later and loaded into black vans.

    Outside Iran, video published by Radio Free Liberty showed protesters on a boardwalk in Sydney, Australia, chanting “freedom” on Saturday.

    Germany’s state broadcaster RBB reported solidarity protests with close to 80,000 people in Berlin.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas sues Google over alleged ‘indiscriminate’ biometric data collection | CNN Business

    Texas sues Google over alleged ‘indiscriminate’ biometric data collection | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN Business
     — 

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Google on Thursday, alleging the tech giant had violated the state’s biometric privacy law by “indiscriminately” collecting voiceprints and facial recognition data from users and non-users of the company’s products without their consent.

    The lawsuit, filed in Texas’ Midland County District Court, claims the company’s broad application of facial recognition technology in Google Photos, as well as its use of voice recognition technology in its line of smart speakers and other home products, is a violation of the state’s Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act.

    Google

    (GOOG)
    didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    In Google Photos, Google scans uploaded images to identify and categorize pictured subjects, including people who may not have been aware their faces would be analyzed or stored, the complaint said. The company has also allegedly listened in on Texans “without regard to whether a speaker has consented to Google’s indiscriminate voice printing,” according to the complaint.

    Adobe Stock

    The complaint describes Google’s Nest Hub Max, a smart home display with a built-in camera, as “a modern Eye of Sauron—constantly watching and waiting to identify a face it knows.”

    “All across the state, everyday Texans have become unwitting cash cows being milked by Google for profits,” the complaint said.

    Texas is one of just a few states with a law governing the use of biometric data, and this marks the second time that Texas has invoked the 2009 law to file a suit against a company. In February, the state claimed a now-shuttered Facebook photo-tagging tool — which was the subject of a $650 million biometric privacy settlement in Illinois last year — had also been a violation of the Texas biometric law.

    Texas has multiple lawsuits ongoing against Google, including two other consumer protection cases and an antitrust case targeting Google’s dominance in digital advertising.

    – CNN’s Rachel Metz contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Online creators hit with IP and copyright lawsuits | CNN Business

    Online creators hit with IP and copyright lawsuits | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    Business
     — 

    It’s weird when wrestling superstar Randy Orton, Netflix’s romance “Bridgerton,” TikTok, a tattoo artist, Instagram, NFTs and Andy Warhol’s portrait of Prince all show up in the same law school textbook.

    A series of hot-button lawsuits have linked all those unlikely creators and platforms in litigation that goes as high as the US Supreme Court. The litigation deals with issues of intellectual property, copyright infringement and fair use in a rapidly changing new-media landscape.

    For decades, so-called “copycat” lawsuits boiled down to ‘you stole my song/book/idea.’ Now, as the number of platforms to showcase artistic content have multiplied, these court cases are testing the rights of fans, creators and rivals to reinterpret other people’s intellectual property.

    At issue, particularly in social media or new technology, is exactly how much you have to transform something to profit and get credit for it, literally, to make it your business.

    Three weeks ago, in a first-of-its-kind case, a jury in an Illinois federal court ruled that tattoo artist Catherine Alexander’s copyright was violated when the likeness of her client, World Wrestling Entertainment star Randy Orton, was depicted in a video game. Alexander has tattooed Orton’s arms from his shoulders to his wrists.

    She won, but not much: $3,750, because the court ruled that, though her copyright had been violated, her tattoos didn’t impact game profits. Nonetheless, it set a precedent.

    The ruling calls into question the abilities of people with tattoos “to control the right to make or license realistic depictions of their own likenesses,” said Aaron J. Moss, a Hollywood litigation attorney specializing in copyright matters.

    Blame the rise of remix culture. For most of the twentieth century, mass content was created and distributed by professionals,” said Moss. “Individuals were consumers. Legal issues were pretty straightforward. But, now, most of the time, the content is being repurposed, remixed or repackaged.”

    “It’s all new and it’s all a mess,” said Victor Wiener, a fine-art appraiser who’s consulted for Lloyd’s of London and serves as an expert witness in art-valuation court cases. Over the past several decades, the distinctions between professionals and amateurs, artists and copycats and between production and consumption have blurred. In such gray areas, said Wiener, “it can come down to who the judge, or the tryer of fact, believes.”

    Streaming service Netflix late last month settled a copyright lawsuit against fans of their Regency romance “Bridgerton” who wrote and workshopped an “Unofficial Bridgerton Musical” on TikTok.

    In January 2021, a month after the Netflix show premiered, singer Abigail Barlow teamed up with musician Emily Bear to create their own interpretation of the hit series. In a souped-up version of fan fiction, the two women began to write and to perform songs they had written, often using exact dialogue from the series.

    It was a huge hit on TikTok, in part because the duo invited feedback and participation, making it a crowd-sourced artwork.

    At first Netflix applauded the effort and even okayed the recording of an album of songs. But when the creators took their show on the road and sold tickets, Netflix sued.

    Producer and series creator Shondra Rhimes, in a statement released when the suit was filed in July, said “what started as a fun celebration by [fans] on social media has turned into the blatant taking of intellectual property.”

    Cases like this turn on “fair use,” matters such as how much of another work someone appropriates. Or whether it dents the original creator’s ability to profit. In the case of “Bridgerton,” neither side has commented on the resolution of the suit, but a planned performance of the musical at Royal Albert Hall scheduled for last month was cancelled.

    Uncontrolled misappropriation is particularly common in the relatively new NFT art field.

    “Today, a 15-year-old can copy your work and spread it across the Internet like feral cat pee at no cost and with little effort. The intellectual capital of an artist can be appropriated on a massive, global scale unimaginable by the people who wrote copyright laws,” said John Wolpert, co-founder of the IBM blockchain and of several blockchain projects.

    And the relatively new phenomenon of trading art NFTs with cryptocurrency “has created a perverse new incentive to misappropriate an artist’s work and to claim it as your own and charge people to purchase it,” he added.

    In one of several NFT suits finding their way to the courts, fashion giant Hermes sued L.A. artist Mason Rothschild after he created 100 NFT’s that depicted Hermes Birkin bags wrapped in fake fur.

    Hermes filed a lawsuit in January in the court of the Southern District in New York charging trademark infringement and injury to business reputation, not to mention “rip off,” with Hermes requesting a quick summary judgment.

    But in the past, courts have often bent over backward to give an artist leeway in critique and parody. Rebecca Tushnet, a Harvard Law professor and expert on copyright and trademark law who represents the artist, has argued his “MetaBirkins” art project is essentially protected as it comments on the relationship between consumerism and the value of art.

    Last month, the Central District court of California ruled on a doozy of a copyright lawsuit that arose via Instagram: Carlos Vila v. Deadly Doll.

    In 2020, the photographer had taken an image of model Irina Shayk. She was wearing sweatpants from fashion company Deadly Doll that featured a large illustration of a woman carrying a skull. The photographer subsequently licensed his image of the model for reproduction. Deadly Doll posted Vila’s photo on their Instagram account and he sued. They counter-sued, arguing he was the infringer. The suit, detailed by litigator Moss in his Copyright Lately blog, is moving forward in California.

    Perhaps the most important case has nothing to do with new media – it concerns Andy Warhol’s altered photograph of the late artist Prince that ran in Vanity Fair magazine years ago. But it is expected to set a precedent.

    Right now, the US Supreme Court is hearing this landmark case regarding Warhol’s alleged misappropriation of photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s work in his silkscreens of Prince. The court is set to determine how, and how much, an artist or creator must transform a work to make it their own – guidelines that will surely create as much of a buzz as the intellectual property itself.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump appears for deposition in E. Jean Carroll lawsuit | CNN Politics

    Trump appears for deposition in E. Jean Carroll lawsuit | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump appeared Wednesday for a deposition as part of the defamation lawsuit brought by former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll.

    Last week, a federal judge cleared the way for Trump’s testimony saying the former President had already taken steps to delay the case and he “should not be able to run out the clock.”

    “We’re pleased that on behalf of our client, E. Jean Carroll, we were able to take Donald Trump’s deposition today. We are not able to comment further,” said a spokesperson for Kaplan Hecker & Fink, the law firm representing Carroll.

    Lawyers for Trump have not responded to a request for comment.

    It is not clear what Trump said during the deposition, which was taken at his Mar-a-Lago resort.

    Carroll sued Trump in 2019 for defamation after he denied her claim that he raped her in a New York department store in the mid-1990s. She was scheduled to sit for her deposition last Friday.

    The legal stakes for Trump were recently raised when Carroll said she intends to sue him next month under a new New York State law that allows victims of sexual assault to sue years after the attack. His testimony in the defamation case could be used in a future lawsuit.

    The defamation case has been in legal limbo for over a year.

    Trump and the Justice Department argued Trump was a federal employee and his statements denying Carroll’s allegations were made in response to reporters’ questions while he was at the White House. They argued the Justice Department should be substituted as the defendant, which, because the government cannot be sued for defamation, would end the lawsuit.

    Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled against Trump and DOJ. They appealed. Last month a federal appeals court in New York ruled that Trump was a federal employee when he denied Carroll’s claim of rape and sexual assault.

    However, the federal appeals court asked the Washington, DC, appeals court to determine if Trump was acting within the scope of his employment when he made the allegedly defamatory statements. If the DC court finds in favor of Trump, then the Justice Department would likely be substituted as a defendant and the case dismissed. The DC appeals court has not yet taken up the matter and it is unclear if or when they will.

    This year Trump was ordered by a New York State judge to sit for a deposition with the New York attorney general’s office. Trump refused to answer questions, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

    Last month the New York attorney general’s office filed a $250 million lawsuit against Trump, his eldest children and the Trump Organization for allegedly defrauding lenders and insurers through false financial statements. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and said the lawsuit was politically motivated.

    In civil cases if someone declines to answer questions the jury is allowed to apply an adverse inference against the person when deciding their potential liability.

    Last year Trump sat for a deposition for a civil lawsuit brought by protestors who claimed they were injured outside of Trump Tower during his first presidential campaign. He is also expected to testify in another civil lawsuit relating to a marketing campaign by the end of the month.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawyers for George Floyd’s daughter draft cease-and-desist letter to Kanye West | CNN

    Lawyers for George Floyd’s daughter draft cease-and-desist letter to Kanye West | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Lawyers representing Roxie Washington, the mother of George Floyd’s daughter, have drafted a cease-and-desist letter to Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, over comments he made claiming Floyd was killed by a fentanyl overdose.

    On the podcast “Drink Champs,” West claimed George Floyd was killed by a fentanyl overdose, despite a medical examiner’s testimony that fentanyl not the direct cause of Floyd’s death, only a contributing factor when he died after being knelt on by a police officer.

    Attorneys at Witherspoon Law Group told CNN the comments were especially damaging to Gianna Floyd, George Floyd’s daughter.

    “She’s a little girl that’s been traumatized and is being re-traumatized by Kanye West,” attorney Kay Harper Williams said of George Floyd’s daughter. It’s “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” she added.

    When CNN sat with then-6-year-old Gianna Floyd in June 2020 she didn’t say a word during the interview.

    The attorneys have indicated they intend to also file a lawsuit “for harassment, misappropriation, defamation, and infliction of emotional distress.”

    CNN has reached out to a representative of Ye for comment.

    As of Tuesday, the episode of “Drink Champs” appeared to have been removed from YouTube and Revolt TV. However, “it still exists, that does not remove it from the universe,” said Williams.

    “Too little too late, the harm has been done to our client,” she added.

    A cease-and-desist letter, provided to CNN, was addressed to an attorney they believed was representing Ye, however, they told CNN they were informed this attorney was not actually affiliated with Ye in this matter. They’re actively trying to make sure it’s received, though they added there will be more pressure once the lawsuit is formally filed.

    Regarding a separate legal effort being explored by attorney Lee Merritt, who has represented the Floyd family on matters in the past, Williams told CNN the two legal have not been coordinating efforts up to this point.

    Merritt told CNN on Monday that Floyd’s brother contacted him to pursue a defamation suit against the star.

    While that’s not legally possible because George Floyd is deceased, Merritt said, there are other legal avenues to pursue, including the Floyd family possibly suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    “I have put together a working team to investigate [Ye’s] statements and to investigate the source of those statements,” Merritt said.

    CNN has reached out to Merritt for comment on the cease-and-desist letter.

    “George Floyd, just like Gianna said, changed the world so to have Kanye West come back and speak in a way that’s harmful to that legacy,” Williams said, “I’m offended as a human, as a black woman, as a mother.”

    “Gianna is a child and she’s being harmed,” she added.

    “There’s a really important discussion right now around the country about speech,” said Witherspoon. “But at the end of the day you cannot say these things that are false.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 2 Black comedians file lawsuit over police jet bridge stops at Atlanta airport | CNN

    2 Black comedians file lawsuit over police jet bridge stops at Atlanta airport | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Police officers stopped Eric André as he boarded a flight from Atlanta to Los Angeles in April 2021 and, a few months earlier, the same thing happened to another Black comedian in the same place, a lawsuit alleges.

    André and fellow comedian Clayton English filed the lawsuit claiming the stops were the result of racial profiling.

    “Police officers came out of nowhere in like, almost like an ambush style and started, singled me out. I was the only person of color on the jet bridge at the time,” André said in a news conference Tuesday.

    “They singled me out. They asked me if I was selling drugs, transporting drugs, what kind of drugs I have on me,” he said.

    A lawsuit filed Tuesday by André and English alleges that this stop was part of an anti-drug trafficking program carried out by the Clayton County Police Department in Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport that unfairly targets Black fliers.

    “It was clearly racial profiling. The experience was humiliating and dehumanizing, degrading, I had all the other passengers squeezing by me on this claustrophobic jet bridge gawking at me like I was a perpetrator,” André said.

    Police stopped English on a flight, also to Los Angeles, in October 2020.

    CNN has reached out to both the police department and the Atlanta Department of Aviation for comment.

    “I was almost on the plane when, in the jet bridge two officers popped out, showed their badges and started asking questions whether I had illegal drugs like cocaine, and I feel cornered in a jet bridge and I felt the need to comply,” English said in the news conference.

    After the incident involving André, Clayton County police denied any wrongdoing, CNN affiliate WSB-TV reported.

    The station published this statement released then by the police:

    “On April 21, 2021, the Clayton County Police Department made a consensual encounter with a male traveler, later identified as Eric Andre, as he was preparing to fly to California from the Atlanta Airport. Mr. Andre chose to speak with investigators during the initial encounter. During the encounter, Mr. Andre voluntarily provided the investigators information as to his travel plans.

    “Mr. Andre also voluntarily consented to a search of his luggage but the investigators chose not to do so. Investigators identified that there was no reason to continue a conversation and therefore terminated the encounter. Mr. Andre boarded the plane without being detained and continued on his travels. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Atlanta Police Department did not assist in this consensual encounter.”

    The lawsuit claims that the Clayton County Police Department describes the “jet bridge interdiction program” as “consensual encounters” carried out at “random,” but argues that in a post-9/11 flying atmosphere, encounters with law enforcement in airports are unlikely to be seen as anything but required.

    The two name multiple members of the Clayton County Police Department in their lawsuit and allege that the department carries out these stops and searches in a way that targets Black passengers. The filing cites Clayton County Police Department records showing 56% of passengers (or 378 individuals whose races are listed) stopped in this manner are Black.

    “The Clayton County Police Department, along, sometimes, with the county district attorney’s office has been conducting interdiction of passengers on jet bridges as they’re getting on their airplanes to ask them about whether they have drugs on them,” Barry Friedman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in the news conference.

    “It’s not a very successful interdiction program,” Friedman said. Clayton County Police Department records show that out of 402 jet bridge stops from August 2020 to April 2021, only three seizures were made, according to the lawsuit,.

    “They’ve come up with very little drugs, but they’ve taken a lot of cash off of passengers,” Friedman said. The lawsuit filing calls the jet bridge program “financially lucrative.”

    “Over the 8-month period in question, the program seized $1,036,890.35 in cash and money orders via 25 civil asset forfeitures,” the filing reads.

    Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property they allege is connected to a crime. Organizations like the ACLU have criticized it as a legal way for police to steal from civilians, as obtaining one’s property after it’s been seized is notoriously difficult.

    “Yet, of the 25 passengers who had cash seized, 24 were allowed to continue on their travels, often on the same flight, and only two were ever charged with any related crime.”

    “The Clayton County Police Department has described this program as a drug interdiction program. For what we’re able to see by simply looking at the open records information that we’ve received, it seems to be a distinctly unsuccessful drug interdiction program, if that’s what it is,” Richard Deane, another member of the plaintiff’s legal team, said in the news conference.

    “What appears to be happening is that this is organized largely in order to seize money from people, on the hope that they’re not going to thereafter make the claim for those funds,” he said.

    André called the experience “traumatizing.”

    “When two cops stop you, you don’t feel like you have the right to leave, especially when they start interrogating you about drugs. The whole experience was traumatizing. I felt belittled,” he said. “I want to use my resources and my platform to bring national attention to this incident so that it stops.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump can’t get out of deposition in E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit, judge rules | CNN Politics

    Trump can’t get out of deposition in E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit, judge rules | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge rejected former President Donald Trump’s attempt to pause his deposition in a defamation lawsuit scheduled for later this month saying Trump’s efforts to delay the case are “inexcusable.”

    Trump is scheduled to be deposed on October 19 in the defamation lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll, a former magazine columnist who accused Trump of raping her in a department store in the mid 1990s. Trump has denied the allegations.

    Judge Lewis Kaplan said the lawsuit wasn’t over yet and as they wait for a federal appeals court to rule on a key element of the case, “completing those depositions – which have already been delayed for years – would impose no undue burden on Mr. Trump, let alone any irreparable injury.”

    “The defendant should not be permitted to run the clock out on plaintiff’s attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong,” Kaplan wrote.

    The judge said that Carroll would face “substantial injury” from further delay, citing the lengthy appeal process, which has already taken 20 months and is still not over, and the ages of Carroll and Trump, who are both in their 70s. Carroll’s deposition is scheduled for this Friday.

    Kaplan noted Trump’s efforts to delay the lawsuit and said his production of “virtually” no documents was “inexcusable.”

    An attorney for Trump could not immediately be reached.

    “We are pleased that Judge Kaplan agreed with our position onto to stay discovery in this case. We look forward to filing our case under the Adult Survivors Act and moving forward to trial with all dispatch,” said Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney.

    Carroll’s attorney had suggested that Trump wanted to stop his deposition after learning that she intends to sue him in November under a new New York state law that allows victims of sexual assault to sue years after the encounter.

    The judge said the question of whether Trump raped Carroll is “paramount” to the current case and the future lawsuit and stopping the deposition now because it could be used in the future “would make no sense.”

    Carroll sued Trump for defamation in 2019 after he denied raping her in the mid-1990s and said that she wasn’t his type and accused her of fabricating the claim to boost sales of her book.

    Trump and the Justice Department argued Trump was a federal employee and his statements denying Carroll’s allegations were made in response to reporters’ questions while he was at the White House. They argued the Justice Department should be substituted as the defendant, which, because the government cannot be sued for defamation, would end the lawsuit. Judge Kaplan ruled against Trump and the DOJ. They appealed.

    Last month a federal appeals court ruled that Trump was a federal employee when he denied Carroll’s claim of rape and sexual assault. However, the federal appeals court in New York asked the DC appeals court to determine if Trump was acting in the scope of that employment when he made the allegedly defamatory statements. If the DC court finds that Trump was acting within his role, then the Justice Department would likely be substituted as a defendant.

    The DC appeals court has not yet taken up the matter.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden’s student loan forgiveness application is coming soon. Here’s what you need to know | CNN Politics

    Biden’s student loan forgiveness application is coming soon. Here’s what you need to know | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The application for President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan is expected to go live as soon as this week.

    Announced in late August, the plan will deliver federal student loan forgiveness to millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.

    Individuals who earned less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021 and married couples or heads of households who made less than $250,000 annually in those years will see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven.

    If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual is eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness.

    In addition to federal Direct Loans used to pay for an undergraduate degree, federal PLUS loans borrowed by graduate students and parents may also be eligible if the borrower meets the income requirements.

    Facing mounting legal challenges to the student loan forgiveness policy, the Biden administration announced some last-minute changes to the program last week. Borrowers are still awaiting final details on the policy.

    The Department of Education regularly updates the Federal Student Aid website with information on the forgiveness program.

    Here’s what we know so far:

    The application has not been released yet but the Biden administration has said it will come out sometime in October.

    The online application will be short, according to the Department of Education. Borrowers won’t need to upload any supporting documents or use their Federal Student Aid ID to submit the application.

    “Once you submit your application, we’ll review it, determine your eligibility for debt relief and work with your loan servicer(s) to process your relief. We’ll contact you if we need any additional information from you,” the department said an email to borrowers last week.

    Borrowers will have more than a year to apply. The deadline will be December 2023.

    To be notified when the process has officially opened, sign up at the Department of Education subscription page.

    About 8 million people are expected to receive student loan forgiveness automatically because the Department of Education already knows what their income is, likely due to previously submitted financial aid forms or income-driven repayment plan applications.

    It’s unclear when exactly debts will be discharged. But due to ongoing lawsuits, the government has agreed in court to hold off canceling any federal student loan debt before October 17.

    The Biden administration scaled back eligibility for the program last week, as it faces mounting legal challenges to the policy.

    The program will now exclude borrowers whose federal student loans are guaranteed by the government but held by private lenders. The administration has said the change could affect about 700,000 people.

    The Department of Education initially said these loans, many of which were made under the former Federal Family Education Loan program and Federal Perkins Loan program, would be eligible for the one-time forgiveness action as long as the borrower consolidated his or her debt into the federal Direct Loan program.

    But the agency has reversed course after six Republican-led states sued the Biden administration, arguing that forgiving the privately held loans would financially hurt states and student loan servicers.

    Now, privately held federal student loans must have been consolidated before September 29 in order to be eligible for the debt relief.

    The White House clarified last week that borrowers will be able to opt out if they don’t want to receive the debt forgiveness.

    The Biden administration’s announcement came hours after a borrower sued, arguing that he would be forced to pay state taxes on the amount canceled – an expense he would otherwise avoid.

    There are a handful of states that may tax the debt discharged under Biden’s plan if state legislative or administrative changes are not made beforehand, according to the Tax Foundation.

    There are currently at least three significant lawsuits aiming to block the Biden administration from implementing its student loan forgiveness plan.

    Republican states are leading the charge. In addition to the lawsuit filed by six Republican-led states that say they could be hurt financially by the forgiveness plan, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich also filed a lawsuit last week.

    Brnovich, a Republican, argues that the policy could reduce Arizona’s tax revenue because the state code doesn’t consider the loan forgiveness as taxable income, according to the lawsuit. The complaint also argues that the forgiveness policy will hurt the attorney general office’s ability to recruit employees. Currently its employees may be eligible for the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, but some potential job candidates may not view that as a benefit if their student loan debt is already canceled, the lawsuit argues.

    A federal judge has already denied the request in the third lawsuit – from a borrower who sued arguing that they would incur a bigger state tax bill due to the loan forgiveness. The plaintiff, a public interest lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation, has until October 10 to file a revamped lawsuit.

    The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a report released last week that the student loan cancellation could come at a price of $400 billion but noted that those estimates are still “highly uncertain.”

    The Biden administration argues that the CBO’s cost estimate should be viewed over a 30-year time period and came out with its own analysis two days later. It said the program will cost an average of $30 billion per year over the next decade and $379 billion over the course of the program.

    The Department of Education is warning borrowers of scams related to the student loan forgiveness program that ask for payment in return for help getting debt relief.

    “Make sure you work only with the US Department of Education and our loan servicers, and never reveal your personal information or account password to anyone,” it said in an email to borrowers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The real-life ‘Inventing Anna’ could be released from jail soon. She’s still fighting deportation | CNN

    The real-life ‘Inventing Anna’ could be released from jail soon. She’s still fighting deportation | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A judge has ruled that Anna Sorokin, the fake heiress Netflix’s “Inventing Anna” is based on, can be released from jail on bond while she fights deportation – if certain conditions are met.

    According to court records, Immigration Judge Charles Conroy found this week that Sorokin can be released on $10,000 bond from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. But he also ruled that she must remain confined 24 hours a day at a residential address and refrain from accessing any social media platform either directly or through a surrogate while her case continues.

    “This ruling does not mean that Anna will get a free pass. She will continue to face deportation proceedings and her release will be closely monitored by ICE and the State of New York,” attorney John Sandweg, a former acting director of ICE who’s one of Sorokin’s attorneys, said in a statement Thursday. “As the Court found, however, the evidence clearly demonstrated that any risks can be more than adequately mitigated by appropriate supervision.”

    The judge’s ruling also says ICE may use an ankle monitor to keep tabs on Sorokin once she’s released.

    As of Thursday afternoon, the 31-year-old Sorokin remained in ICE custody, a spokesman for the agency said.

    She’s been in ICE custody for 17 months, according to her attorney – mostly at the Orange County Correctional Facility in upstate New York.

    Sorokin was found guilty of stealing more than $200,000 from banks and friends while scamming her way into New York society, the Manhattan District Attorney said after her 2019 conviction.

    Her case drew widespread attention after a 2018 New York magazine article.

    That article became the basis of Shonda Rhimes’ “Inventing Anna,” a dramatization that released on Netflix in February and quickly became one of the streamer’s most popular shows. Actress Julia Garner, best known for her Emmy-winning role as Ruth on “Ozark,” played Sorokin.

    The show ends with Sorokin’s conviction. But in real life, the drama has continued.

    Sorokin was released from jail in February 2021 after serving nearly four years on theft and larceny charges. But it wasn’t long before she ended up back behind bars.

    ICE took custody of Sorokin on March 25, 2021. In November, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted an emergency stay in her case, according to ICE. She’s been fighting her deportation – and also joined a group of plaintiffs suing the agency earlier this year, alleging they’d requested and been denied Covid booster shots while in custody. They dropped their lawsuit in March after receiving the shots, according to court records.

    While she’s been detained, frequent posts have been made on Sorokin’s social media accounts. Recently they’ve featured Sorokin’s artwork, which was featured in a New York show in May.

    Earlier this year an attorney representing Sorokin told NBC News that he feared her deportation when he couldn’t reach her, but word later emerged that she was still in ICE custody.

    Soon afterward, Sorokin spoke out from behind bars, telling the “Call Her Daddy” podcast that she never claimed to be a German heiress.

    “I was from Germany, which was true, but nobody ever asked me about my job,” Sorokin said. “Nobody asks who are your parents and how much money do they make. It’s just outrageous.”

    She told host Alex Cooper that she never “told any senseless lies.”

    But she admitted – sort of – to lying about her status and background.

    “I guess I did,” she said. “I mean, I cannot tell an exact instance, but I’m sure.”

    Sorokin also said she was surprised by the public’s fascination with her story.

    “It was just really a surprise to me that people would be, like, so interested in the way I went about the things, because it just made so much sense to me,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A big week for Trump’s delay delay delay legal strategy | CNN Politics

    A big week for Trump’s delay delay delay legal strategy | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    While a lot of us have been diverted by weather events (Ian) and world events (Russia) there were multiple developments on multiple fronts where it concerns former President Donald Trump this week.

    Trump rode out the storm in Mar-a-Lago, which enabled him to delay testimony in a class action fraud lawsuit.

    The January 6 committee postponed its planned public hearing due to the storm, but it did interview Ginni Thomas, conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

    A judge Trump appointed in Florida shielded him from the special master he requested and she approved, which means he does not have to justify in court some of his wild claims about the FBI.

    I talked to Katelyn Polantz, CNN’s senior crime and justice reporter, who keeps track of all of this, to get read in on the developments. We conducted this conversation by direct message.

    WHAT MATTERS: What’s the thing this week that most caught your attention and why?

    POLANTZ: What all of these developments have in common is how timing really is everything.

    This week, there was a clear need to shift from the daily grind of investigations and legal battles to focus on the devastation of the hurricane in Florida. But things are really getting down to the wire on some political fronts.

    In the deposition situation, that lawsuit had a deadline of Friday to get Trump under oath, months after he had agreed to do the deposition. It was scheduled for the very last day it was possible, but the hurricane and his insistence on staying in Florida really threw a wrench in that. The new deadline for his deposition now is end of October, which further delays the work being done in that case, which is a class action against his promotions of scam businesses.

    The House too is not being helped by delay. The January 6 committee has an expiration date tied to the end of this Congress in January. As the congressional election draws near, there’s not much more time for public hearings before people vote. That said, the committee is obviously continuing its work and still promises to release a final report before the end of the year. It’s not clear if they will be able to muster the same political impact as their series of hearings over the summer.

    As for the Mar-a-Lago investigation – perhaps the most high-stakes legal situation Trump faces – Judge Aileen Cannon has given the Trump team an extra gift, in that prosecutors won’t be getting clarity on the issues Trump has with what was seized, or the ability to use the non-classified documents in their investigation until after the November election.

    The name of the game right now on every front for Trump is delay, delay, delay. Though there’s still a question of whether he can hold off all the investigations bearing down around him in a way that runs out the clock.

    WHAT MATTERS: You wrote an interesting story last week, along with Evan Perez and Zachary Cohen, about Trump’s “secret” court fight to block information from a federal grand jury. I feel like that is another theme of these inquiries. There is the publicly known information, the reported details, and then the secret things lurking below the water. What else can we assume we don’t know about?

    POLANTZ: There are always parts of investigations, or even entire investigative avenues, we don’t know about. That’s just the nature of how investigations, especially those being done by the Justice Department, work. We can’t assume much more than what we’ve reported, because this fight, like many others, didn’t bubble out of nowhere. It is another step in a painstaking effort from the federal grand jury in DC to gather information from top advisers to Trump in the White House and then-Vice President Mike Pence. We know it regards Trump’s assertions of privilege, and it could impact a very important set of witnesses, and whether they and others can be compelled to share interactions that have so far been kept secret from all investigations. We also know that, because of how Trump tends to push the courts into uncharted legal territory, we may be in for tracking rounds of appeals – even if the past precedent indicates that even sitting presidents lose these types of battles in criminal probes. But how the outcomes will settle, and when, remains a major question.

    WHAT MATTERS: The DOJ is not the only government entity with an investigation that could touch Trump. What’s going on with the Fulton County DA’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election in that state?

    POLANTZ: That grand jury is still at work! They’re bringing in witnesses like Boris Epshteyn this week. Like most grand jury investigations, their work could result in charges against one or many people – several allies of Trump have received target letters. But where the investigation is exactly, and how it is functioning at the local level is a question that may be answered better by others than me.

    POLANTZ: There is an intriguing situation with all these simultaneous investigation I want to mention –

    WHAT MATTERS: Go on…

    POLANTZ: At the end of the day, will the Big Kahuna of January 6 investigations, the one being done by the Justice Department out of Washington, get answers no other investigators have been able to get? With so many investigations simultaneously, this is a very complex game.

    Take for instance, Jeffrey Clark, the ex-DOJ official whose phone was seized by federal investigators as part of their investigation into conspiracy and obstructive acts. He has not been charged with any crime.

    He is facing an attorney discipline case in DC that resulted from months of investigation and was pursued by the House Select Committee. In both of those situations, he took the Fifth and didn’t answer questions. Will the DOJ, which has tools to immunize witnesses and force them to answer questions, be able to get someone like him to talk? Will they even want to try to get him to talk? Lots of people close to Trump are taking the Fifth, based on what we know of their non-answers to the House Select Committee.

    WHAT MATTERS: That’s an interesting side drama – Trump’s legal team. There was a report this week about one of his newer lawyers, Chris Kise, being sidelined. What, if anything, do we know about the size of his legal team, how they are being paid, and how they are dividing up these many, many, many different cases?

    POLANTZ: Zach, you are asking the most complex questions today! From what we know, there are many attorneys working with Trump, and no central person coordinating all his efforts and keeping tabs on all investigative subjects who are close to and aligned with him. Payments to various lawyers have popped up consistently on Trump’s political committee expenditure reports.

    The lawyer who was sidelined – who was brought in to take charge in Florida with the Mar-a-Lago situation and was on track to have a $3 million retainer fee – wasn’t even on the Trump team’s latest filing in the public court record. There are three lawyers still listed. One of whom, Evan Corcoran, is on a separate team of three lawyers who went to court on the January 6 privilege fight, alongside yet another two attorneys. Others that we know of are in the background, including Ephsteyn. I’m not even getting to the various legal teams Trump uses to respond to his myriad ongoing civil suits. That would be a tome. Of course, it’s not unusual for a person with a lot of legal entanglements to need a lot of lawyers.

    That said, lawyers don’t come cheap! On top of all these attorneys, Trump is on the hook for special master costs in the Mar-a-Lago document review. The special master selected, a working judge, isn’t taking payment, but a retired judge he’s brought on to help him will be billing $500 an hour. And in the legal world, that’s a bargain.

    WHAT MATTERS: I think that’s a good place to leave it today. Keep up the good work!

    POLANTZ: You as well!

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Uvalde parents have filed a federal lawsuit against gun manufacturers, the school district and others | CNN

    Uvalde parents have filed a federal lawsuit against gun manufacturers, the school district and others | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Parents of survivors of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, Texas, have filed a federal lawsuit against multiple entities – including the gun manufacturer, school district and city – for a host of allegations, including negligence and recklessness.

    Nineteen children and two teachers were killed in the May 24 shooting after an 18-year-old gunman walked into Robb Elementary and began firing into classrooms.

    The parents brought the lawsuit, filed Wednesday, on behalf of themselves and their children, who include: Corina Camacho’s 10-year-old son, identified as “G.M.” in the court document, who was wounded in the attack; Tanisha Rodriguez’s 9-year-old daughter, “G.R.,” who ran from the playground to a classroom to hide when she heard gunshots; Selena Sanchez’s son, “D.J.,” who was headed to the nurse’s office when he saw the gunman shooting toward classrooms. The 9-year-old hid in a nearby classroom with other students.

    Lawyers for the families say the manufacturer for the gunman’s weapon employs aggressive marketing tactics that recklessly endanger children.

    “Daniel Defense chooses not to do any studies evaluating the effects of their marketing strategies on the health and well-being of Americans and chose not to look at the cost to families and communities like Uvalde, Texas,” said the complaint.

    Days before the shooting, the complaint notes, the Georgia-based company tweeted an image of a toddler holding an assault-style weapon with the caption: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

    The claim also says Firequest International, Inc., which manufactures accessory trigger systems, similar to illegal bump stocks, sells its products to untrained civilians, young adults and minors in Uvalde. These types of devices allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more rapidly, similar to automatic weapons.

    Oasis Outback, LLC, sold the gunman weapons and ammunition allegedly knowing he was a risk, the suit claims.

    “The Uvalde school shooter’s background check was clean, and Oasis Outback sold him the guns and ammunition knowing he was suspicious and likely dangerous,” according to the legal document. “The store owner and his staff did not act on their suspicions and block the purchases or notify law enforcement.”

    The gunman legally purchased two AR platform rifles at a local federal firearms licensee on May 17 and on May 20. He also purchased 375 rounds of ammunition on May 18, according to officials.

    The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, including Pedro “Pete” Arredondo, the district police chief at the time, and Mandy Gutierrez, the school’s former principal, failed to act and created a dangerous environment for the plaintiffs, according to the lawsuit. Gutierrez’s attorney told CNN his client will not be commenting on the pending litigation.

    The claim also says the city’s police department failed to protect the victims by not following state mandated active shooter training.

    “While Uvalde PD did make an early attempt to breach the classroom, they retreated and never tried again. The scene remained ‘active’ and active shooter protocol required Uvalde PD to pursue the primary goal of stopping the killing and gunman no matter how many times it takes,” said the claim.

    The suit also faults Lt. Mariano Pargas, the city’s acting police chief on the day of the massacre, as well as two other companies, claiming defects in their products were factors in the response to the shooting. Motorola Solutions, Inc.’s radio communications devices, which were used by some first responders, “were defective and unreasonably dangerous because they did not contain adequate warnings or instructions concerning failure during normal use,” said the claim.

    Lawyers also say Schneider Electric, the manufacturer of the door locking mechanisms used at the school, “failed to lock as designed after being shut.”

    “What happened in Uvalde was an unspeakable tragedy that we condemn in the strongest terms,” Schneider Electric spokesperson Venancio Figueroa III told CNN. “We are reviewing this recent filing but cannot comment further on pending litigation.”

    The plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages and a jury trial, among other relief.

    Daniel Defense, Oasis Outback, the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, FireQuest International, Motorola Solutions, Inc., Pargas and Arredondo have all not responded to CNN request for comment.

    Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly included an extra plaintiff’s name. That person is not a party in the complaint and the name has been removed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • TikTok sues Montana over new law banning the app | CNN Business

    TikTok sues Montana over new law banning the app | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    TikTok on Monday filed a suit against Montana over a bill that would ban the popular short-form video app in the state starting early next year.

    TikTok alleges that the ban violates the US Constitution, including the First Amendment, as well as other federal laws, according to a complaint filed in Montana District Court. The company also claims concerns that the Chinese government could access the data of US TikTok users – which are a key motivation behind the ban – are “unfounded.”

    The bill was signed by Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte last week, and would impose a fine of $10,000 per day on TikTok or app stores for making the app available to personal devices in the state starting on January 1, 2024.

    “We are challenging Montana’s unconstitutional TikTok ban to protect our business and the hundreds of thousands of TikTok users in Montana,” TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter said in a statement. “We believe our legal challenge will prevail based on an exceedingly strong set of precedents and facts.”

    Emily Flower, a spokesperson for Montana’s Attorney General, told CNN: “We expected a legal challenge and are fully prepared to defend the law.”

    The Montana law stems from growing criticism of TikTok over its ties to China through its parent company, ByteDance. Many US officials have expressed fears that the Chinese government could potentially access US data via TikTok for spying purposes, though there is no evidence that the Chinese government has ever done so. Some federal lawmakers have also called for a ban.

    Montana’s ban went a step beyond other states that have restricted TikTok from government devices. But legal and technology experts say there are challenges for Montana, or any state, to enforce such a ban. Even if the law is allowed to stand, the practicalities of the internet may make it impossible to keep TikTok out of the hands of users.

    TikTok said in the complaint that the app is used by “hundreds of thousands” of people in Montana to “communicate with each other and others around the world on an endless variety of topics, from business to politics to the arts.”

    “This unprecedented and extreme step of banning a major platform for First Amendment speech, based on unfounded speculation about potential foreign government access to user data and the content of the speech, is flatly inconsistent with the constitution,” TikTok said in the complaint.

    TikTok is seeking for the court to invalidate and permanently enjoin Montana from enforcing the ban.

    The legal challenge by TikTok is an indicator of the hurdles that Montana and other lawmakers could face in attempting to restrict the platform in the United States. A group of TikTok creators also sued Montana last week over the state’s ban, saying it violates their First Amendment rights.

    CNN’s Brian Fung contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link