ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuits

  • Murdaugh Family Murders Explained, What You Need to Know

    Murdaugh Family Murders Explained, What You Need to Know

    [ad_1]

    The story of the Murdaugh murders stems from a 100-year-old family legal dynasty in Hampton, South Carolina, that was put in the hands of fourth-generation lawyer Alex Murdaugh.

    But what took a century to build came crashing down in June 2021, when Alex called authorities after finding his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and his youngest son, Paul Murdaugh, shot dead in their 1,770-acre hunting lodge at 4147 Moselle Road in Islandton, South Carolina.

    These crimes led to a series of revelations about the family, which HBO Max is set to unpack in the new true crime documentary, Low Country: The Murdaugh Dynasty, airing on November 3.

    Image credit: Courtesy of Maggie Murdaugh via Facebook.

    Who Are the Murdaugh Family?

    The Murdaugh family began in South Carolina at the turn of the century and have been prominent lawyers in the state for decades. Beginning with Alex Murdaugh’s great-grandfather Randolph Murdaugh Sr., who started Peters Murdaugh Parker Eltzroth & Detrick in 1910, generations of his family have continued to work at the firm, including his son, Randolph “Buster” Murdaugh II, grandson, Randolph Murdaugh III, and his great-great-grandsons Randolph “Randy” Murdaugh IV and Alex Murdaugh.

    The firm was successful with personal injury cases by taking advantage of a South Carolina law that allows people to sue in any county and not where an incident may have occurred — which can often result in favoritism and landed Hampton County on the 2004 list of “Judicial Hellholes“. However, this made the Murdaugh group the “go-to” lawyers in the county.

    Randolph Sr. also became the first elected solicitor, (or district attorney), of the 14th judicial circuit (district) in 1920. Randolph Sr. held the role for 20 years until his death. His son, Randolph “Buster” Murdaugh II, was elected to the position next. He worked from 1940 to 1986, until his son Randolph Murdaugh III took over, working from 1986 to 2006. Alex volunteered and worked part-time in the solicitor’s office after graduating from USC Law School in 1994 until 2021.

    The Murdaugh family were solicitors in South Carolina for 86 years straight; leading criminal prosecutions for their district, and playing a key role in deciding which cases get prosecuted (and when) from 1920 to 2006.

    What Happened to Paul and Maggie Murdaugh?

    Maggie and Paul Murdaugh were shot dead on June 7, 2021. Alex Murdaugh called 911 at around 10 p.m., claiming he had discovered the bodies. However, the coroner found that the two had died between 9 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., per NPR, and they had been shot with different weapons — Maggie with an assault-style rifle and Paul with a shotgun.

    In October 2021, Alex was named as a person of interest in the case, although his lawyer denied the allegations and said he had no motive for the crimes, according to People.

    According to NBC News, sources close to the investigation said authorities found cellphone video evidence that places Alex at the scene of the crime.

    On July 14, 2022, he was indicted by a grand jury in connection to Paul and Maggie’s murders. He was charged with two counts of murder and two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.

    Alex Murdaugh’s lawyers maintain his innocence.

    Image credit: Courtesy of Maggie Murdaugh via Facebook.

    What Other Crimes Were Uncovered After the Murdaugh Family Murders?

    As investigators looked into the deaths of the mother and son, other unsolved crimes relating to the Murdaugh family were discovered.

    Two years before his death, in February 2019, youngest son Paul, 22, had been involved in a boat crash that left his friend, Mallory Beach, dead after being thrown from the boat. Though various witnesses said Paul had been driving the boat while intoxicated, according to a previous NBC documentary on Peacock, key evidence had gone missing in the case.

    Paul was charged with one count of boating while intoxicated and two counts of causing bodily injury, though people suggested he received special treatment thanks to his family’s legacy. He was released on bond and a date for his trial was never set, per People.

    Additionally, two weeks following the double murders that took place in June 2021, the state reopened an investigation into a 2015 case of a man, Stephen Smith, who had been found dead on the side of the road.

    While South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has not revealed what evidence caused them to reopen the case, per NPR, the Murdaugh name kept coming up in relation to the case. Sources speculated that Buster Murdaugh, Alex Murdaugh’s eldest son who also worked at the family law firm, had a relationship with Smith, according to the Daily Mail.

    Furthermore, although Smith’s death was ruled a hit-and-run, he had a gunshot wound above his right eye and his injuries were not consistent with those sustained from vehicle trauma, according to the Daily Mail.

    Buster has not been named a person of interest in Smith’s death.

    What Happened to Gloria Satterfield?

    In addition to Smith’s death, SLED began investigating another case involving the Murdaugh family. In 2018, the family’s longtime housekeeper, Gloria Satterfield, died after Maggie Murdaugh called 911, claiming Satterfield had fallen down the stairs. It was noted that Paul was present during the call.

    Satterfield was a longtime caretaker of the family, and according to sources featured in Discovery + documentary Murdaugh Murders: Deadly Dynasty, she had told several people that Paul would kill small animals and often disregarded authority.

    Her cause of death remains unclear.

    At the funeral, Alex approached Satterfield’s sons and said since the accident happened on his property, he was going to sue himself for wrongful death so the boys can get some insurance money, according to The New York Times.

    With all legalities handled by Alex, the sons were told to wait for a settlement.

    Alex and his insurers did reach a $4.3 million settlement in the months after Satterfield’s death, but the Satterfield family didn’t see a dime.

    The Satterfield sons filed a lawsuit against Alex Murdaugh in September 2021, and SLED decided to exhume the body for an autopsy in June 2022, according to South Carolina’s WCSC. That same month, Alex agreed to pay the Satterfield family $4.3 million.

    Where Is the Murdaugh Law Firm Now?

    The alleged misappropriated funds in the wrongful death suit uncovered various other financial crimes including Alex stealing millions from clients and his family law firm, according to The New York Times.

    He was then forced out by his partners in September 2021, just three months after the double murders. The firm changed its name to the Parker Law Group, LLP in January 2021, according to WOTC South Carolina.

    Alex was also stripped from being a lawyer in the state of South Carolina indefinitely, and his name was removed from the firm that was once known as the “Murdaugh Law Firm.”

    What Happened to Alex Murdaugh?

    The following day, after Alex was forced out of the firm, he was shot in the head while changing a tire on the side of the road. The shot only caused minor damage and he was able to call for help.

    Days after he was shot, he checked into rehab for opioid addiction. It was there that he admitted to lawyers that he had hired Curtis Eddie Smith to kill him so his son Buster could collect $10 million in insurance money.

    On Sept. 16, 2021, he turned himself in to Hampton County Law Enforcement in connection to the suicide-for-hire scam, per People.

    Later, on Oct. 14, 2021, Alex was arrested on felony charges for misusing millions from the Satterfield estate and obtaining property under false pretenses, per NPR, and was hit with tens of charges in the months that followed concerning numerous financial crimes and deaths.

    He was indicted on murder charges for the deaths of his wife and son in July 2022.

    Image credit: Tracy Glantz/The Island Packet/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

    Where Are the Murdaughs Now?

    Alex Murdaugh is currently in jail and is set to go on trial for the June 2021 murders of his son Paul and his wife Maggie in January. If convicted, he could face 30 years to life in prison without parole and could be eligible for the death penalty, according to USA Today.

    Murdaugh faces a total of 90 charges, many of which include financial crimes such as stealing from the family law firm, money laundering through a drug ring, and committing insurance fraud.

    As for the rest of the surviving Murdaugh family, eldest son Buster was last reported to be “not doing well at all” since his father was arrested for the double murders, sources told People in July 2022.

    Despite previously working at his family’s law firm, Buster appears to have no involvement in the rebranded Parker Law Group.

    Meanwhile, Alex’s brother Randy still works as a practicing lawyer at the now-renamed Parker Law Firm. He denounced Alex’s actions and claimed he had no involvement in his mishandling of company funds in a statement to People in September 2021.

    Randy is also suing Alex for thousands in unpaid loans.

    How Much Are the Murdaughs Worth?

    It’s unclear exactly how much wealth the Murdaugh family once had, but several accounts and properties were found to be worth millions.

    When Murdaugh was held on a $7 million bond for 51 criminal charges, the court detailed Murdaugh’s assets, which included numerous real estate properties and even small islands, according to Greenville News.

    Additionally, the court found a retirement account worth between $2.1 and $2.2 million, and an IRA retirement fund valued at $350,000 to $400,000.

    He was also supposed to receive a trust for an undisclosed amount after his father Randolph Murdaugh III’s death in June 2021, plus probate assets after his wife’s death that same month.

    Furthermore, the family hunting lodge where Paul and Maggie were killed was listed in February 2022 for $3.9 million.

    [ad_2]

    Sam Silverman

    Source link

  • Ex-housekeeper sues Jeff Bezos, claims discrimination

    Ex-housekeeper sues Jeff Bezos, claims discrimination

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE — A former housekeeper for Amazon founder Jeff Bezos says she and other employees suffered unsafe working conditions that included being forced to climb out a laundry room window to get to a bathroom anytime the Bezos family was home.

    In a lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court in Seattle this week, Mercedes Wedaa, a longtime housekeeper for wealthy Seattle-area residents including the late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, claims she was discriminated and retaliated against when she complained about a lack of rest breaks or an area where staff could eat.

    Harry Korrell, an attorney for Bezos, called the claims absurd and said Wedaa filed the lawsuit against Bezos and two companies that manage his properties and personal investments, Zefram LLC and Northwestern LLC, only after her demand for a $9 million payout was rejected.

    “Ms. Wedaa made over six figures annually and was the lead housekeeper,” Korrell said in an emailed statement. “She was responsible for her own break and meal times, and there were several bathrooms and breakrooms available to her and other staff. The evidence will show that Ms. Wedaa was terminated for performance reasons.”

    According to the lawsuit, Zefram hired Wedaa in September 2019 as “house coordinator” and she was initially the only housekeeper on staff, though contract employees were brought in occasionally. Another housekeeper was added about a year later, and by late last year, Wedaa was the lead housekeeper, supervising a handful of others.

    Wedaa contends in the lawsuit that she sometimes worked up to 14 hours a day but was never told she was entitled to rest breaks. She also says there was no room designated for the housekeepers to rest in and that they sometimes ate meals in a laundry room.

    When the Bezos family was home, the housekeepers were allowed to enter the house only to perform cleaning functions. According to the complaint, that created situations in which housekeepers could not exit the laundry room because its only door led into the residence. Instead of going out that door, housekeepers for a period of 18 months would sometimes have to climb out the laundry room window onto a path that led to a mechanical room, enter through the mechanical room, and go downstairs to a bathroom.

    “Because there was no readily accessible bathroom, Plaintiff and other housekeepers spend large parts of their day unable to use the toilet even though they needed to,” the complaint says. “As a result of this, the housekeepers frequently developed Urinary Tract Infections.”

    It isn’t clear in the complaint how the housekeepers entered the laundry room to begin with, how long they were expected to remain in there if the family was home or whether they could use a restroom when they entered the house to perform cleaning tasks. Wedaa’s Seattle-based attorney, Patrick Leo McGuigin, said he didn’t have further details at this early stage of the lawsuit.

    “I did not question my client ad nauseum,” he said. “She had to climb out a window. That’s the key fact. … I can’t explain every circumstance and every piece of evidence there is. There’s a lot of discovery to take place.”

    Wedaa “has worked hard all her life, she is a very credible person and compelling evidence supports her claims,” he said.

    According to the complaint, Wedaa, who is Hispanic, reported to house managers who were white. She said she complained about undocumented workers being brought in on a contract basis, a lack of rest breaks and unsafe working conditions. She also complained that an assistant house manager treated the Hispanic housekeepers differently from white staff on the property and retaliated against her by demoting her and installing a white housekeeper as the lead housekeeper.

    Though Wedaa was never disciplined over her job performance, she was eventually fired over the complaints, the lawsuit says.

    “Defendants cited the ridiculously concocted reason that she appeared ‘unhappy’ and that this was having a negative effect on the housekeeping team,” it states.

    The lawsuit against Bezos, who is one of the world’s wealthiest people, seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Filmmaker Haggis says he never forced himself on publicist

    Filmmaker Haggis says he never forced himself on publicist

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Disputing allegations in a rape lawsuit, Oscar-winning filmmaker Paul Haggis testified Thursday that his accuser sometimes seemed “conflicted” during their initial kisses but then started taking initiative.

    Taking the witness stand for a second day in a civil trial, Haggis portrayed the woman, Haleigh Breest, as a willing partner in their lone sexual interaction.

    Breest, 36, testified earlier in the civil trial that she repeatedly and clearly told Haggis, 69, that she wasn’t interested in sex with him. She said the “Crash” and “Million Dollar Baby” screenwriter forced her to perform oral sex and then raped her as she implored him to stop.

    In Haggis’ telling, Breest — a publicist who worked at movie premieres — flirted with him at a January 2013 screening afterparty before accompanying him to his Manhattan apartment for a drink. He agrees that she told him upfront that she wouldn’t spend the night, but he said it seemed a “playful” remark.

    Once they arrived, he made a pass within minutes.

    In hours of testimony, Haggis acknowledged that Breest was sometimes reluctant about what he said were five different episodes of kissing.

    He said he told her at one point: “If you want to do something, do it. If you don’t want to do it, don’t do it.”

    “She seemed conflicted in some way,” Haggis said.

    But with each kiss, he said, Breest seemed to gain confidence and reassured him by initiating the kissing when he expressed the ambivalence he was started to feel.

    By the time they reached a guest bedroom, Breest seemed “confident” as they began kissing and eventually poured onto a guestroom bed, Haggis said. He recalled that she “giggled” as their physical activity became more heated and they shed some clothing.

    He said that eventually, she moved him in position to receive oral sex, saying: “I’m good at this.”

    “The way she said it was kind of adorable,” Haggis said.

    He said he had “no knowledge” and “no memory” of vaginally penetrating her.

    “I didn’t know if it occurred or not,” he said.

    He said he fell asleep and eventually went to his bedroom while she was sleeping. When he discovered in the morning that she was gone, he was disappointed she hadn’t left a note with her phone number, he said.

    In Breest’s account, she didn’t reciprocate Haggis’ two attempts to kiss her, once while pinning her against a refrigerator, but didn’t leave because she didn’t want to offend a frequent premiere guest. She testified that he later pushed her on a bed, pulled her clothes off, aggressively demanded oral sex and — after she took a shower — raped her.

    Haggis emailed her the next day about photos from the prior night’s premiere. He said he hoped the reply would include her number. It didn’t.

    When they met at another event 10 days later, she was smiling and friendly, Haggis recalled, adding that their encounter was “a little awkward,” as sometimes happens after an initial sexual experience with someone.

    He said he decided two days later that she was “too emotionally immature” and stopped responding to her emails.

    Afterward, Haggis said, Breest would be “noticeably absent” from her usual red-carpet post whenever he brought a girlfriend to events where she worked. But he said she was friendly and behaved normally when he didn’t have a woman on his arm during the 4 1/2 years between their sexual encounter and the filing of her lawsuit.

    He said he never told anyone about his night with Breest. When his lawyer asked him how often he thought about it, he responded: “Honest to God, never.”

    Haggis was also asked why he opposed providing DNA in connection with the lawsuit.

    He said his only concern was that it would fall into the hands of Scientologists because he had a “growing suspicion” that they had a role in the lawsuit. His defense has suggested the case is payback for Haggis’ public criticism of the Church of Scientology, which he left in 2009.

    The church and Breest’s lawyers have called that argument a bogus conspiracy theory.

    Haggis’ lawyers have agreed that Breest has no ties to Scientology. No witnesses have testified that they have specific proof linking the church to her lawyers or to four women other than Breest who testified that Haggis also sexually assaulted them.

    Haggis denied the other women’s allegations in emotional testimony, adding that he felt “humiliated” while testifying about the accusations as his adult daughters watched from the courtroom audience. At one point, he asked for a brief break, heading out of court with one daughter’s arm around him.

    “I’m scared,” he later told the jury, “because I don’t know why women, why anyone, would lie about things like this.”

    Cross examination that began Thursday was to continue Friday. One early score for Breest’s lawyers came when Haggis was confronted with the fact that DNA helped show that seminal fluid found on the interior crotch area of the tights that Breest kept from the night with Haggis belonged to him.

    Haggis testified that he had no memory of ejaculating that night.

    The Associated Press generally does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Breest has done.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gabby Petito’s family files wrongful death suit against Moab

    Gabby Petito’s family files wrongful death suit against Moab

    [ad_1]

    SALT LAKE CITY — Family members of a 22-year-old woman whose boyfriend admitted to killing her last year have filed a wrongful death suit against the Moab Police Department, claiming their negligence led to her death weeks later.

    The lawsuit filed on Thursday is the latest development in the high-profile case around Gabby Petito’s death. What began as a missing person’s case last summer rode a wave of true crime obsession to become a social media sensation, drawing amateur online sleuths and the kind of worldwide attention that can help authorities locate missing people.

    Petito and her boyfriend, 23-year-old Brian Laundrie, were stopped by police officers in Moab, Utah last summer but were ultimately not cited for domestic violence amid signs of distress and their own statements about physical conflict. Petito’s body was later found on the edge of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming after being strangled. Laundrie was the only person ever identified by law enforcement as a person of interest and was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound after returning alone to his parents’ home in Florida.

    The contrast between the cheerful façade on display on Petito’s widely followed Instagram account — where she chronicled her cross-country trip in a van to tens of thousands of followers — and the darker reality of domestic violence she was experiencing in the lead-up to her death captivated millions and sparked unprecedented national conversation about dating violence. It also brought criticism of authorities and the news media for focusing more attention on missing white women like Petito than on missing and murdered indigenous women and women of color.

    Petito’s mother, father and other family members have sought to keep her name in the news, hoping to honor her legacy and help make sure signs of abuse are recognized by authorities in a position to intervene, they said.

    “There are laws put in place to protect victims. And those laws were not followed. And we don’t want this to happen to anybody else,” said Nicole Schmidt, Petito’s mother, her voice quivering.

    Schmidt, other family members and their team of lawyers stood in front of a picture of Petito smiling in a slot canyon at a Thursday press conference in Salt Lake City.

    The wrongful death lawsuit seeks $50 million in damages from the police department in Moab, a rural Utah city known for being an entryway to national parks full of red rock canyons and mesas.

    It lays blame for Petito’s death on the city’s police officers, who did not issue a domestic violence citation after a bystander called to report conflict between Petito and Laundrie. In doing so, the lawsuit claims officers disregarded signs of violence they should have been trained to notice.

    The suit also claims police officers “coached Gabby to provide answers that the officers used to justify their decision not to enforce Utah law,” which requires action be taken in response to domestic violence incidents.

    Moab Police Officer Eric Pratt “was fundamentally biased in his approach to the investigation, choosing to believe Gabby’s abuser, ignoring evidence that Gabby was the victim and intentionally looking for loopholes to get around the requirements of Utah law and his duty to protect Gabby.”

    The complaint bases that bias claim off of an unnamed woman referred to as “Witness 1,” who alleges Pratt threatened to kill her after their relationship ended while he was serving as police chief in Salina, Utah, another rural town.

    After the lawsuit was filed, the city of Moab said the death was tragic yet not the fault of their police department. Pratt did not respond to a phone call requesting comment and the city of Moab said no employee of the city or police department would be commenting further at this time.

    “Our officers acted with kindness, respect, and empathy toward Ms. Petito,” city spokesperson Lisa Adams said in a statement. “No one could have predicted the tragedy that would occur weeks later and hundreds of miles away, and the City of Moab will ardently defend against this lawsuit.”

    The lawsuit follows a notice of claim filed in August, notifying Moab that Petito’s family intended to file for damages due to wrongful death. An independent investigation in January faulted police for making “several unintentional mistakes” including not issuing a domestic violence citation after Petito told police she had hit her boyfriend.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kansas City to pay $5M after police killing of Black man

    Kansas City to pay $5M after police killing of Black man

    [ad_1]

    KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Kansas City will pay $5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the family of an unarmed Black man who was fatally shot by a police officer in 2019.

    The Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners approved the settlement with the family of Terrance Bridges Jr. in a closed meeting earlier this week, The Kansas City Star reported.

    Bridges, 30, was shot and killed after officers responded to a reported carjacking.

    Police had contended he was resisting arrest and was shot during a struggle with the officer, identified in police records as Dylan Pifer. The officer told investigators he feared for his life because he thought Bridges was pulling a gun from a sweatshirt.

    Bridges’ family and civil rights activists said he was not armed, not resisting, did not pose a threat to the officer and was not involved in the carjacking.

    Tom Porto, an attorney representing the family, said in a statement the settlement represents the police department’s acknowledgement of the tragic and significant loss to Bridges’ family.

    “Despite this tragedy, we recognize that police officers have difficult jobs and are frequently faced with making split-second life or death decisions,” Porto said. “The family is grateful that they are now able to put this matter behind them.”

    Pifer, who is still on the police force, was not charged in the killing.

    A year after Bridges’ death, Pifer was with Sgt. Matthew T. Neal as Neal injured a 15-year-old boy by slamming his face into the pavement after stopping a car the teenager was in.

    Neal left the department after pleading guilty last week to third-degree assault. He was placed on four years’ probation. Pifer was not charged.

    The Kansas City police commissioners agreed in January 2021 to pay $725,000 to settle an excessive use of force lawsuit in that case.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Family of bullied Utah girl who died by suicide files claim

    Family of bullied Utah girl who died by suicide files claim

    [ad_1]

    SALT LAKE CITY — The family of a Black fifth grader in Utah who died by suicide last year plans to file a $14 million lawsuit against her school, arguing that an inadequate response to reports of her being bullied over her race and disabilities led to her death by suicide.

    Attorneys representing Brittany Tichenor-Cox on Wednesday said they would seek damages for the 2021 death of her daughter, Isabella “Izzy” Tichenor. In a notice of claim, they said the school had violated state and federal laws, including those that require schools ensure equal treatment, provide educational opportunity and protect students experiencing homelessness.

    Notices of claim are required before people can sue government entities and the family’s claim said that the lawsuit will seek $14 million in damages. The notice of claim from Tichenor-Cox names Foxboro Elementary School in North Salt Lake City as a defendant, as well as its director and principal. It also names as defendants the Davis County School District, school board and superintendent. They have 60 days to respond before the family can file a lawsuit based on the claim.

    The school district did not immediately respond to request for comment.

    Tichenor’s death in November 2021 sparked massive outcry and a groundswell of anger over youth suicide, bullying and the treatment of children with autism. In Utah, a predominantly white state where incidents of racism in schools frequently make headlines, it prompted state legislators to pass a new law requiring districts to track reported bullying and racism in schools.

    The notice of claim recounts how Tichenor, who was autistic and the only Black student in her class, was bullied by students who said she smelled, made fun of her skin color, eyebrows and used racist slurs against her. It provides a timeline of Tichenor’s parents repeatedly alerting the school of bullying in the months leading up to their daughter’s death and alleges administrators did not take action to stop it.

    “As a result of this unchecked bullying and the school’s overall ‘deliberate indifference’ to minority students, Izzy failed nearly all her classes. At the time of her death, she could barely read or do math on a first-grade level,” it says.

    The Davis School District teaches roughly 73,000 students in Salt Lake City’s north suburbs. Only about 1% are Black. It was reprimanded last year by the U.S. Department of Justice for failing to address widespread racial discrimination and forced to as part of a settlement agreement change its policies, offer more training and establish a new department to handle complaints.

    The district defended its actions last year after Tichenor’s death, arguing it had responded to Tichenor’s family appropriately and “worked extensively” with them over their complaints.

    ——

    Brady McCombs contributed reporting from Salt Lake City.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jury: Officer must pay man’s family $4.4M in fatal shooting

    Jury: Officer must pay man’s family $4.4M in fatal shooting

    [ad_1]

    EUCLID, Ohio — A white police officer who fatally shot a Black driver during a struggle inside a car in 2017 must pay his family $4.4 million.

    An Ohio jury made the award Tuesday, finding that Euclid officer Matthew Rhodes acted recklessly when he climbed into 23-year-old Luke Stewart’s car and shot him as Stewart drove away. The shooting had inflamed racial tensions in Euclid, a Cleveland suburb, and a grand jury declined to indict Rhodes after hearing evidence from prosecutors.

    The jury’s finding stemmed from a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Stewart’s mother. The panel said Rhodes must pay Stewart’s family $3.9 million for the loss of his support and companionship and $500,000 for the pain and suffering he went through. But Rhodes will not have to pay punitive damages to the family or attorney’s fees.

    The family’s attorneys told Cleveland.com that the verdict provided long-awaited accountability for what happened to Stewart. A lawyer representing Rhodes did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Stewart’s family had filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city and the officer, but a trial court dismissed the case, and an appeals court agreed, saying there was no clearly established law barring the officer’s conduct. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in a decision made in May 2021.

    Stewart’s family had contended in that lawsuit that police training in the city “encouraged, or at least condoned, excessive force.” The training included the use of a sketch by comedian Chris Rock, in which he gave “tips” on how to avoid being beaten by police, and cartoons allegedly making light of police violence.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • $6 million awarded in asbestos lawsuit against Ford, others

    $6 million awarded in asbestos lawsuit against Ford, others

    [ad_1]

    A St. Louis jury has ruled that Ford Motor Co. and other companies must pay $6 million to a Missouri family over claims that a woman’s death was caused by asbestos exposure, including from dust generated during brake repairs

    ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis jury has ruled that Ford Motor Co. and other companies must pay $6 million to a Missouri family over claims that a woman’s death was caused by exposure to asbestos, including from dust generated during brake repairs.

    Linda Behling of Springfield died of mesothelioma at age 70 in 2019. Late Monday, jurors sided with Behling’s husband, son and daughter after a trial that lasted more than two weeks.

    Behling and her husband worked at manufacturing companies in the Springfield area, and the lawsuit alleged that work was connected to her illness.

    Lawyers for the family said Ford failed to provide warning that asbestos was present in dust created during repairs of vehicle brakes. Ford attorneys said Behling’s exposure to the dust was limited and the family failed to prove it contributed to her illness.

    A statement from Ford offered sympathy to the family but said an appeal is planned.

    In another case heard in St. Louis in March, a jury awarded $20 million to a St. Louis County man who sued Ford. William Trokey claimed exposure to asbestos while fixing Ford brakes as a gas station mechanic in the 1960s led to his mesothelioma. Ford appealed that verdict.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hoopa Valley tribe sues over water contracts in California

    Hoopa Valley tribe sues over water contracts in California

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Hoopa Valley Tribe alleged in a lawsuit Monday that the federal government is violating its sovereignty and failing to collect money from California farms that rely on federally supplied water to pay for damages to tribal fisheries.

    The tribe, which has a reservation in northwest California, says in its lawsuit against the Biden administration that the Trinity River that it relies on for food and cultural purposes has been decimated by decades of the federal government diverting water.

    The suit alleges the U.S. Department of the Interior has failed to follow laws that require the contractors who use that water to pay money for habitat restoration projects. It says those contractors owe $340 million for environmental restoration work along the Trinity River and other places that have been damaged by water diversions.

    “The river has become a place that is no longer a healing place, but a place that is a sick place,” said Jill Sherman-Warne, a member of the Hoopa tribal council.

    The suit also alleges that the federal government has failed to appropriately consult with the tribe on matters related to the river.

    The Interior Department declined to comment through spokesman Tyler Cherry.

    Since the 1950s, the Trinity River has been a major source of water for the Central Valley Project, a system of dams, reservoirs and canals that sends water south to farmers who harvest fruits, nuts and other crops. Fish that swim through the river include the coho salmon, which is listed as an endangered species. Twelve miles of the river flow through the tribe’s reservation.

    Congress updated laws governing the water project’s operation in 1992. It gave the tribe some power to concur over changes to river flows, added requirements for protecting fish in the Trinity River, and stated any renewals of long-term water contracts had to follow existing laws.

    At the end of the Obama administration, Congress passed a law saying that any temporary federal contracts for water could be turned into permanent ones. Previously, the contracts had to be reapproved on a regular basis.

    Westlands Water District, the nation’s largest agricultural water district, was one of the contractors that converted its water contract to a permanent one. The new agreement doesn’t grant Westlands any additional water or promise that it will get everything in dry years, but it effectively gives the district a right to water in perpetuity.

    The deal was controversial because David Bernhardt, a former Westlands lobbyist, was interior secretary when the contract was approved and a judge later declined to validate it. But Westlands and the federal government are still moving forward with it, Westlands spokeswoman Shelley Cartwright said.

    The suit alleges the contract fails to include requirements for habitat restoration payments. As Bernhardt left office, he wrote a memo agreeing with staff recommendations that most environmental mitigation work related to the Central Valley Project was complete.

    Daniel Cordalis, deputy solicitor for water resources in Biden’s Interior Department, later rescinded that decision. But the tribes allege the money has still not been paid. Cherry, the interior spokesman, didn’t respond to an email asking for the department’s current position on whether the work is done.

    Tribal leaders, though, say restoration work is far from complete and that the river is in dire need of help.

    “An integral part of the life here is the Trinity River. That changed dramatically in the 1950s when Congress chose to dam up the river,” said Mike Orcutt, fisheries director for the Hoopa Valley Tribe. “We’ve been fighting for decades to right that wrong.”

    Cartwright, the Westlands’ spokeswoman, said the district pays a set fee to a restoration fund based on how much water it receives. She said the district was reviewing the lawsuit and didn’t have further comment.

    The tribe initially sued during the Trump administration but withdrew the lawsuit and hoped to settle with the Biden administration. The current interior secretary is Deb Haaland, a member of the Pueblo of Laguna Tribe and the first Native American to hold a cabinet position. Tribal officials chose to refile the lawsuit because the Biden administration has not changed course, leaders said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Men exonerated in Malcolm X killing to receive $36 million

    Men exonerated in Malcolm X killing to receive $36 million

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — The city of New York is settling lawsuits filed on behalf of two men who were exonerated last year for the 1965 assassination of Malcolm X, agreeing to pay $26 million for the wrongful convictions which led to both men spending decades behind bars.

    The state of New York will pay an additional $10 million. David Shanies, an attorney representing the men, confirmed the settlements on Sunday.

    “Muhammad Aziz, Khalil Islam, and their families suffered because of these unjust convictions for more than 50 years,” said Shanies said in an email. “The City recognized the grave injustices done here, and I commend the sincerity and speed with which the Comptroller’s Office and the Corporation Counsel moved to resolve the lawsuits.”

    Shanies said the settlements send a message that “police and prosecutorial misconduct cause tremendous damage, and we must remain vigilant to identify and correct injustices.”

    Last year, a Manhattan judge dismissed the convictions of Aziz, now 84, and Islam, who died in 2009, after prosecutors said new evidence of witness intimidation and suppression of exculpatory evidence had undermined the case against the men. Then-District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. apologized for law enforcement’s “serious, unacceptable violations of law and the public trust.”

    The New York City Law Department, through a spokesperson, said Sunday it “stands by” Vance’s opinion that the men were wrongfully convicted and the financial agreement “brings some measure of justice to individuals who spent decades in prison and bore the stigma of being falsely accused of murdering an iconic figure.”

    Shanies said over the next few weeks the settlement documents will be signed and the New York court that handles probate matters will have to approve the settlement for Islam’s estate. The total $36 million will be divided equally between Aziz and the estate of Islam.

    Aziz and Islam, who maintained their innocence from the start in the 1965 killing at Upper Manhattan’s Audubon Ballroom, were paroled in the 1980s.

    Malcolm X gained national prominence as the voice of the Nation of Islam, exhorting Black people to claim their civil rights “by any means necessary.” His autobiography, written with Alex Haley, remains a classic work of modern American literature.

    Near the end of Malcolm X’s life, he split with the Black Muslim organization and, after a trip to Mecca, started speaking about the potential for racial unity. It earned him the ire of some in the Nation of Islam, who saw him as a traitor.

    He was shot to death while beginning a speech Feb. 21, 1965. He was 39.

    Aziz and Islam, then known as Norman 3X Butler and Thomas 15X Johnson, and a third man were convicted of murder in March 1966. They were sentenced to life in prison.

    The third man, Mujahid Abdul Halim — also known as Talmadge Hayer and Thomas Hagan — admitted to shooting Malcolm X but said neither Aziz nor Islam was involved. The two offered alibis, and no physical evidence linked them to the crime. The case hinged on eyewitnesses, although there were inconsistencies in their testimony.

    Attorneys for Aziz and Islam said in complaints that both Aziz and Islam were at their homes in the Bronx when Malcolm X was killed. They said Aziz spent 20 years in prison and more than 55 years living with the hardship and indignity attendant to being unjustly branded as a convicted murderer of one of the most important civil rights leaders in history.

    Islam spent 22 years in prison and died still hoping to clear his name.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge dismisses part of assault suit against U of Michigan

    Judge dismisses part of assault suit against U of Michigan

    [ad_1]

    LANSING, Mich. — A judge has dismissed part of a lawsuit filed by eight women alleging sexual harassment and assault by a former University of Michigan lecturer.

    Judge Thomas Cameron of the Michigan Court of Claims ruled Friday that the plaintiffs failed to file timely notices of intent to sue the University of Michigan, its board of regents and Bruce Conforth as required by law, The Detroit News reported.

    “This is a final order that resolves the last pending claim and closes the case,” Cameron wrote.

    Attorney Daniel Barnett, whose firm represents the women, said the decision only dismisses the case against the university and its regents.

    A portion of the lawsuit filed in Washtenaw County Circuit Court against Conforth remains, Barnett said, as does a state civil rights claim against the university and its board by the women.

    Barnett said he plans to appeal the ruling.

    The Associated Press left phone messages and sent emails Saturday requesting comment from a university spokeswoman and an attorney representing Conforth.

    Conforth taught American culture at the university. He resigned in 2017, university officials said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Georgia man sues over false ballot fraud claim in film

    Georgia man sues over false ballot fraud claim in film

    [ad_1]

    ATLANTA — A Georgia man and his family “have faced threats of violence and live in fear” since the movie “2000 Mules” falsely accused him of ballot fraud during the 2020 election, according to a federal lawsuit.

    The widely debunked film includes surveillance video showing Mark Andrews, his face blurred, depositing five ballots in a drop box in downtown Lawrenceville, a suburb northeast of Atlanta. A voiceover by conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza says: “What you are seeing is a crime. These are fraudulent votes.”

    In fact, a state investigation found, Andrews was dropping off ballots for himself, his wife and their three adult children, who all live at the same address. That is legal in Georgia and a state investigator said there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Andrews.

    D’Souza’s film uses research from the Texas-based nonprofit True the Vote and suggests that ballot “mules” aligned with Democrats were paid to illegally collect and deliver ballots in Georgia and four other closely watched states. An Associated Press analysis found that it is based on faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data.

    State and federal officials have repeatedly confirmed that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud during the 2020 election that could have changed the outcome of the presidential race.

    The lawsuit names D’Souza and True the Vote, as well as the organization’s executive director Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips, who has served on its board. Both Engelbrecht and Phillips appear throughout the film and served as executive producers and producers, the lawsuit says.

    D’Souza did not immediately respond Friday to a request for comment submitted through his website. Engelbrecht and True the Vote have not responded to emails seeking comment, and contact information for Phillips could not be immediately located.

    “At all times, Defendants knew that their portrayals of Mr. Andrews were lies, as was the entire narrative of 2000 Mules,” the lawsuit says. “But they have continued to peddle these lies in order to enrich themselves.”

    Their social media accounts and website continue to promote the film using Andrews “as an example of a criminal ‘mule,’” the lawsuit says. While Andrews’ face was blurred in the film, video shown when the defendants were interviewed sometimes clearly showed his face and the license plate on his SUV, the lawsuit says.

    The false accusations have caused distress for Andrews and his family, the lawsuit says.

    “They feel intimidated to vote and have changed how they vote because of that fear,” it says. “They worry that again they will be baselessly accused of election crimes, and that believers in the ‘mules’ theory may recognize and seek reprisal against them, and that they may face physical harm.”

    Andrews, who is Black, grew up in Jacksonville, Florida, before federal voting rights laws were passed and his “family taught him that his community and ancestors had fought, marched, and died for the right to vote,” the lawsuit says. Because of the “conspiracy to defame and intimidate him,” the suit says, “he will never again be able to vote without looking over his shoulder.”

    Among other things, the lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount in damages and asks that false and defamatory statements about Andrews be removed from any website or social media accounts that the defendants control.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court asked to review Mississippi voting rights case

    Supreme Court asked to review Mississippi voting rights case

    [ad_1]

    JACKSON, Miss — A Mississippi legal organization is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state’s provision permanently banning people convicted of certain felonies from voting.

    The Mississippi Center for Justice is petitioning the Supreme Court two months after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down its lawsuit challenging voting restrictions set forth in Mississippi’s 1890 state constitution. If successful, the lawsuit could grant voting rights to thousands of people permanently banned from casting ballots as a result of felony convictions.

    “At a time when our state and nation are struggling with the vestiges of a history of racism, it is important that the United States Supreme Court step in to address this remaining vestige of the malicious 1890 plan to prevent an entire race of people from voting in Mississippi,” said Rob McDuff, the attorney who brought the lawsuit for the Mississippi Center for Justice.

    Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution strips voting rights from people convicted of 10 felonies, including forgery, arson and bigamy. The state attorney general issued an opinion in 2009 that expanded the list to 22 crimes, including timber larceny, carjacking, felony-level shoplifting and felony-level bad check writing.

    Attorneys who challenged the provision had argued the authors of the state’s Jim Crow-era constitution showed racist intent when they chose which felonies would cause people to lose the right to vote, picking crimes they thought were more likely to be committed by Black people.

    The lawsuit dates back to 2017. In a news release, MCJ said it filed the suit on behalf of two Black men — Roy Harness and Kamal Karriem. Harness is a military veteran who was convicted of forgery in 1986 and Karriem is a former Columbus city council member who was convicted of embezzlement in 2005, the organization said. Both men served their sentences but still cannot vote.

    In their August ruling, a majority of 5th circuit judges said the plaintiffs “failed to meet their burden of showing that the current version of Section 241 was motivated by discriminatory intent.”

    “In addition, Mississippi has conclusively shown that any taint associated with Section 241 has been cured,” the majority wrote.

    Seven judges of the 17-member panel dissented. Judge James Graves — who is Black and from Mississippi — wrote that the majority of the appeals court had upheld “a provision enacted in 1890 that was expressly aimed at preventing Black Mississippians from voting” and that the court had done so “by concluding that a virtually all-white electorate and legislature, otherwise engaged in massive and violent resistance to the Civil Rights Movement, ‘cleansed’ that provision in 1968” by adding crimes that were considered to be race-neutral.

    In 1950, burglary was removed from the list of crimes that would strip people of voting rights. Murder and rape were added to the list in 1968. Attorneys representing Mississippi argued those changes “cured any discriminatory taint on the original provision.”

    Under the state constitution’s original provision, lesser crimes the authors thought were more likely to be committed by Black people stripped people of voting rights, while murder and rape did not.

    To regain voting rights in Mississippi now, a person convicted of a disenfranchising crime must receive a governor’s pardon or must win permission from two-thirds of the state House and Senate. Legislators in recent years have passed a small number of bills to restore voting rights.

    ———

    Michael Goldberg is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/mikergoldberg.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Oklahoma sues federal prisons for inmate it wants to execute

    Oklahoma sues federal prisons for inmate it wants to execute

    [ad_1]

    OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma is suing the Federal Bureau of Prisons for custody of a state death row inmate whom the bureau is refusing to hand over, with the state saying the man’s scheduled execution cannot be carried out in December if he’s not returned soon.

    A federal lawsuit was filed Tuesday by state Attorney General John O’Connor urging that the bureau be ordered to transfer John Hanson back to Oklahoma by Nov. 9 from a federal prison in Pollock, Louisiana. That lawsuit, which also names three federal prison officials, has the support of Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler.

    Hanson, 58, has a clemency hearing set for Nov. 9. Unless clemency is recommended and granted by Gov. Kevin Stitt, the inmate is scheduled to receive a lethal injection on Dec. 15 for his conviction in the 1999 killing of an elderly woman.

    Mary Agnes Bowles, 77, was killed in a carjacking and kidnapping outside a Tulsa mall in 1999.

    The U.S. Justice Department under Democratic President Joe Biden — who has vowed to work to end the death penalty — announced last year that it was halting federal executions. That step came after a historic use of capital punishment under Donald Trump’s presidency, with 13 executions carried out in six months. The Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to turn over Hanson raises questions about whether the agency is using its power to deliver on the president’s political pledge.

    Hanson is serving a life sentence for numerous federal convictions, including being a career criminal, that predate his state death sentence.

    Attorneys listed as representing Hanson did not return phone calls for comment Thursday.

    Kunzweiler said he asked O’Connor’s support for the return of the inmate. The district attorney said he sought the attorney general’s help after his August letter requesting Hanson’s transfer was denied by the warden of the Louisiana facility as being “not in the public’s best interest.”

    The decision was “infuriating,” Kunzweiler said.

    “I’ve never in my 33 years as a prosecutor encountered this level of refusal to transfer an inmate from one jurisdiction to another,” Kunzweiler said.

    After being contacted by Kunzweiler, O’Connor sent a request for Hanson’s transfer to Bureau of Prisons Regional Director Heriberto Tellez in Grand Prairie, Texas, which also was denied.

    “As inmate Hanson is presently subject to a life term imposed in federal court, his transfer to state authorities for a state execution is not in the public interest,” according to the Oct. 17 letter from Tellez.

    Robert Dunham, executive director of the national Death Penalty Information Center, said he is unaware of the bureau previously declining to transfer an inmate to a state for execution. But he noted that such a transfer is not required.

    “The question here is, is this an abuse of discretion (by the bureau),” Dunham said. “It’s hard to make a determination about that because the letter doesn’t explain.”

    Dunham said it was not clear whether the refusal to transfer Hanson is related to the federal government’s halting of executions under the Biden administration.

    “Given Oklahoma’s history of botched executions, that’s an appropriate question,” Dunham said.

    The prisons bureau declined comment, citing the official’s previous responses.

    A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which represents the BOP, also declined to comment and said a response will be filed by the expedited Oct. 30 deadline set by the court.

    The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of Texas because that is where Tellez is based, contends Oklahoma faces “imminent harm” if Hanson is not returned.

    “Oklahoma’s execution policy begins thirty-five days prior to the execution date” of Dec. 15, according to the filing. “The Oklahoma Department of Corrections must be able to initiate the process on Nov. 10, 2022, with Hanson in custody before that date.”

    The filing also argues that the federal government’s refusal to surrender Hanson usurps the state’s authority.

    “Defendants have also, in essence, lawlessly threatened to commute Hanson’s sentence to life imprisonment,” from the death penalty he received.

    Oklahoma has put to death six inmates since resuming executions in October 2021. The state had one of the nation’s busiest death chambers until problems in 2014 and 2015 led to a de facto moratorium. That included prison officials realizing they received the wrong lethal drug just hours away from executing Richard Glossip in September 2015. It was later learned the same wrong drug had been used to execute an inmate in January 2015.

    The drug mix-ups followed a botched execution in April 2014 in which inmate Clayton Lockett struggled on a gurney before dying 43 minutes into his lethal injection — and after the state’s prisons chief ordered executioners to stop.

    The state’s next scheduled execution, that of Richard Stephen Fairchild for the beating death of his girlfriend’s 3-year-old son in 1993, is set for Nov. 17.

    ———

    Read more on AP’s coverage of executions: https://apnews.com/hub/executions

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Woman sues over ban on feeding homeless people in parks

    Woman sues over ban on feeding homeless people in parks

    [ad_1]

    BULLHEAD CITY, Ariz. — A woman who was arrested for feeding homeless people in northwest Arizona is suing over a local ordinance that regulates food-sharing events in public parks.

    Norma Thornton, 78, became the first person arrested under Bullhead City’s ordinance in March for distributing prepared food from a van at Bullhead Community Park. Her lawyer said the lawsuit, filed Tuesday, is part of a nationwide effort to let people feed those in need.

    Criminal charges against Thornton were eventually dropped, but she’s seeking an injunction to stop the city from enforcing the ordinance that took effect in May 2021.

    “Bullhead City has criminalized kindness,” Thornton’s attorney Suranjan San told Phoenix TV station KPHO. “The City Council passed an ordinance that makes it a crime punishable by four months imprisonment to share food in public parks for charitable purposes.”

    Bullhead City Mayor Tom Brady said the ordinance applies only to public parks. He said churches, clubs and private properties are free to serve food to the homeless without a permit.

    Thornton owned a restaurant for many years before retiring in Arizona and said she wanted to use her cooking skills to help the less fortunate.

    “I have always believed that when you have plenty, you should share,” Thornton said.

    According to the Mohave Valley Daily News, Thornton said she has continued to feed people in need from private property not far from Community Park.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Richmond gets court win in lingering Confederate statue case

    Richmond gets court win in lingering Confederate statue case

    [ad_1]

    RICHMOND, Va. — A judge has sided with Richmond officials in a lawsuit over whether the Virginia city can remove a final Confederate monument and the remains of a rebel general interred beneath it.

    Circuit Court Judge David Eugene Cheek Sr. said in a ruling Tuesday that city officials — not the descendants of A.P. Hill — get to decide where the statue goes next, the Richmond Times-Dispatch and TV station WRIC reported. The city plans to give the statue to the Black History Museum and Cultural Center of Virginia, which the plaintiffs found objectionable.

    The plaintiffs, who were indirect descendants of Hill, did not oppose the removal of the general’s remains to a cemetery in Culpeper, near where Hill was born. But they argued that the ownership of the statue should be transferred to them. They hoped to move it to a battlefield, also in Culpeper, according to the news outlets.

    “We’re gratified by Judge Cheek’s ruling,” Mayor Levar Stoney said in a statement.

    The city, which was the capital of the Confederacy for most of the Civil War, began removing its many other Confederate monuments more than two years ago amid the racial justice protests that followed George Floyd’s murder. Richmond conveyed them to the Black History Museum earlier this year. But efforts to remove the A.P. Hill statue, which sits in the middle of a busy intersection near a school where traffic accidents are frequent, were more complicated because the general’s remains were underneath it.

    Scott Braxton Puryear, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Times-Dispatch that he wasn’t sure if his clients would appeal. The statue won’t be removed before the window for an appeal expires, the newspaper reported.

    “We look forward to a successful conclusion of the legal process, which will allow us to relocate Hill’s remains, remove and transfer the statue to the Black History Museum and, importantly, improve traffic safety,” Stoney’s statement said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US sued over lack of protection plan for rare grouse

    US sued over lack of protection plan for rare grouse

    [ad_1]

    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — An environmental group is suing U.S. wildlife managers, saying they have failed to protect a rare grouse found in parts of the Midwest that include one of the country’s most prolific areas for oil and gas development.

    A lawsuit filed Tuesday by the Center for Biological Diversity says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is nearly five months late in releasing a final rule outlining protections for the lesser prairie chicken.

    Once listed as a threatened species, the prarie chicken’s habitat spans parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas — including a portion of the oil-rich Permian Basin that straddles the New Mexico-Texas state line.

    Environmentalists have been pushing to reinstate federal protections for years. They consider the species severely threatened, citing lost and fragmented habitat as the result of oil and gas development, livestock grazing, farming and the building of roads and power lines.

    The Fish and Wildlife Service in 2021 proposed listing the southern population in New Mexico and the southern reaches of the Texas Panhandle as endangered and those birds in the northern part of the species’ range as threatened. The agency had a deadline of June 1.

    “The oil and gas industry has fought for decades against safeguards for the lesser prairie chicken, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is late issuing its final rule,” said Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate with the environment group. “The agency has slow-walked every step, and these imperiled birds keep losing more habitat.”

    The Fish and Wildlife Service on Tuesday cited its policy for not commenting on pending litigation.

    The species was once thought to number in the millions. Now, surveys show, the five-year average population across the entire range hovers around 30,000 individual birds.

    Landowners and the oil and gas industry say they have had success with voluntary conservation programs aimed at protecting habitat and boosting the bird’s numbers. The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which oversees the conservation effort, has yet to report the results of the 2022 survey done earlier this year.

    With a listing under the Endangered Species Act, officials have said that landowners and oil companies already participating in the voluntary conservation programs wouldn’t be affected because they already are taking steps to protect habitat. However, a listing would prevent any activities that result in the loss or degradation of existing habitat.

    The species’ regulatory history dates to an initial petition for protection in 1995.

    A little smaller and lighter in color than the greater prairie chicken, the lesser prairie chicken is known for spring courtship rituals that include flamboyant dances by the males and a cacophony of clucking.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cardi B absolved in racy mixtape artwork lawsuit

    Cardi B absolved in racy mixtape artwork lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    SANTA ANA, Calif. — A jury sided with Cardi B on Friday in a copyright infringement case involving a man who claimed the Grammy-winning rapper misused his back tattoos for her sexually suggestive 2016 mixtape cover art.

    The federal jury in Southern California ruled Kevin Michael Brophy did not prove Cardi B misappropriated his likeness. After the jury forewoman read the verdict, the rapper hugged her attorneys and appeared joyful.

    Cardi B thanked the jurors, admitting she was “pretty nervous” before hearing the verdict.

    “I wasn’t sure if I was going to lose or not,” she said after leaving the courthouse. She was swarmed by several reporters, photographers and more than 40 high schoolers who chanted her name. One fan held up a sign asking if she could take him to his homecoming dance, to which she replied “Yes, I’ll see what I can do.”

    “I told myself if I win, I was going to cuss Mr. Brophy out. But I don’t have it in my heart to cuss him out,” she said. In the courtroom, Cardi B had a brief, cordial conversation with Brophy and shook his hand.

    Brophy filed the lawsuit a year after the rapper’s 2016 mixtape was released. He called himself a “family man with minor children” and said he was caused “ distress and humiliation ” by the artwork – which showed a tattooed man from behind with his head between the rapper’s legs inside a limousine. The man’s face cannot be seen.

    “At the end of the day, I do respect you as an artist,” Brophy said to Cardi B.

    Brophy’s lawyer, A. Barry Cappello, said photo-editing software was used to put the back tattoo, which has appeared in tattoo magazines, onto the male model featured on the mixtape cover.

    But Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Almanzar, disputed the allegations during her testimony earlier in the week — and had such an intense exchange with Cappello that the trial was briefly halted by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney.

    Cardi B said she felt Brophy hadn’t suffered any consequences as a result of the artwork. She said Brophy has harassed her legally for five year – and even at one point said she missed the “first step” of her youngest child because of the trial.

    Cardi B delivered pointed answers to several of Cappello’s questions. The lawyer once asked her to calm down, but she sharply pushed back at his contention that she knew about the altered image.

    Their heated exchange prompted the judge to send jurors out of the Santa Ana, California, courtroom and told both sides that he was considering a mistrial. After a short break, he called the arguing “unprofessional” and “not productive” but allowed questioning to resume, then placed new restrictions for both sides.

    Cardi B said an artist used only a “small portion” of the tattoos without her knowledge. She had previously said the cover art – created by Timm Gooden – was transformative fair use of Brophy’s likeness.

    Cappello said Gooden was paid $50 to create a design, but was told to find another tattoo after he turned in an initial draft. He said Gooden googled “back tattoos” before he found an image and pasted it on the cover.

    Cardi B’s lawyer, Peter Anderson, said Brophy and the mixtape image are unrelated, noting the model did not have neck tattoos – which Brophy does.

    “It’s not your client’s back,” Cardi B said about the image, which featured a Black model. Brophy is white. The rapper pointed out that she posted a photo of the “famous Canadian model” on her social media.

    “It’s not him,” she continued. “To me, it doesn’t look like his back at all. The tattoo was modified, which is protected by the First Amendment.”

    Cardi B said the image hasn’t hindered Brophy’s employment with a popular surf and skate apparel brand or his ability to travel the world for opportunities.

    “He hasn’t gotten fired from his job,” said the rapper, who implied that the mixtape was not a lucrative one for her. “He hasn’t gotten a divorce. How has he suffered? He’s still in a surf shop at this job. Please tell me how he’s suffered.”

    Last month, Cardi B pleaded guilty to a criminal case stemming from a pair of brawls at New York City strip clubs that required her to perform 15 days of community service. Earlier this year, the rapper was awarded $1.25 million in a defamation lawsuit against a celebrity news blogger who posted videos falsely stating she used cocaine, had contracted herpes and engaged in prostitution.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cardi B absolved in racy mixtape artwork lawsuit

    Cardi B absolved in racy mixtape artwork lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    SANTA ANA, Calif. — A jury sided with Cardi B on Friday in a copyright infringement case involving a man who claimed the Grammy-winning rapper misused his back tattoos for her sexually suggestive 2016 mixtape cover art.

    The federal jury in Southern California ruled Kevin Michael Brophy did not prove Cardi B misappropriated his likeness. After the jury forewoman read the verdict, the rapper hugged her attorneys and appeared joyful.

    Cardi B thanked the jurors, admitting she was “pretty nervous” before hearing the verdict.

    “I wasn’t sure if I was going to lose or not,” she said after leaving the courthouse. She was swarmed by several reporters, photographers and more than 40 high schoolers who chanted her name. One fan held up a sign asking if she could take him to his homecoming dance, to which she replied “Yes, I’ll see what I can do.”

    “I told myself if I win, I was going to cuss Mr. Brophy out. But I don’t have it in my heart to cuss him out,” she said. In the courtroom, Cardi B had a brief, cordial conversation with Brophy and shook his hand.

    Brophy filed the lawsuit a year after the rapper’s 2016 mixtape was released. He called himself a “family man with minor children” and said he was caused “ distress and humiliation ” by the artwork – which showed a tattooed man from behind with his head between the rapper’s legs inside a limousine. The man’s face cannot be seen.

    “At the end of the day, I do respect you as an artist,” Brophy said to Cardi B.

    Brophy’s lawyer, A. Barry Cappello, said photo-editing software was used to put the back tattoo, which has appeared in tattoo magazines, onto the male model featured on the mixtape cover.

    But Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Almanzar, disputed the allegations during her testimony earlier in the week — and had such an intense exchange with Cappello that the trial was briefly halted by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney.

    Cardi B said she felt Brophy hadn’t suffered any consequences as a result of the artwork. She said Brophy has harassed her legally for five year – and even at one point said she missed the “first step” of her youngest child because of the trial.

    Cardi B delivered pointed answers to several of Cappello’s questions. The lawyer once asked her to calm down, but she sharply pushed back at his contention that she knew about the altered image.

    Their heated exchange prompted the judge to send jurors out of the Santa Ana, California, courtroom and told both sides that he was considering a mistrial. After a short break, he called the arguing “unprofessional” and “not productive” but allowed questioning to resume, then placed new restrictions for both sides.

    Cardi B said an artist used only a “small portion” of the tattoos without her knowledge. She had previously said the cover art – created by Timm Gooden – was transformative fair use of Brophy’s likeness.

    Cappello said Gooden was paid $50 to create a design, but was told to find another tattoo after he turned in an initial draft. He said Gooden googled “back tattoos” before he found an image and pasted it on the cover.

    Cardi B’s lawyer, Peter Anderson, said Brophy and the mixtape image are unrelated, noting the model did not have neck tattoos – which Brophy does.

    “It’s not your client’s back,” Cardi B said about the image, which featured a Black model. Brophy is white. The rapper pointed out that she posted a photo of the “famous Canadian model” on her social media.

    “It’s not him,” she continued. “To me, it doesn’t look like his back at all. The tattoo was modified, which is protected by the First Amendment.”

    Cardi B said the image hasn’t hindered Brophy’s employment with a popular surf and skate apparel brand or his ability to travel the world for opportunities.

    “He hasn’t gotten fired from his job,” said the rapper, who implied that the mixtape was not a lucrative one for her. “He hasn’t gotten a divorce. How has he suffered? He’s still in a surf shop at this job. Please tell me how he’s suffered.”

    Last month, Cardi B pleaded guilty to a criminal case stemming from a pair of brawls at New York City strip clubs that required her to perform 15 days of community service. Earlier this year, the rapper was awarded $1.25 million in a defamation lawsuit against a celebrity news blogger who posted videos falsely stating she used cocaine, had contracted herpes and engaged in prostitution.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chess grandmaster Hans Niemann sues champion Magnus Carlsen, others for $100 million over cheating claim

    Chess grandmaster Hans Niemann sues champion Magnus Carlsen, others for $100 million over cheating claim

    [ad_1]

    Chess grandmaster Hans Niemann filed a $100 million lawsuit against world champion Magnus Carlsen and others for alleged defamatory statements claiming that Niemann cheated in competition.

    The suit claims that the defendants, including Chess.com, inflicted “devastating damages” against Niemann by “egregiously defaming him” and “unlawfully colluding” to bar him from the professional chess world.

    “My lawsuit speaks for itself,” Niemann said Thursday in a Twitter post.

    Niemann, 19, has admitted to cheating on two occasions, once when he was 12 years old and a second time when he was 16. But he denied claims that he cheated in an over-the-board match against Magnus Carlsen this year.

    Carlsen withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup in September after losing to Niemann, and eventually came forward with concerns that Niemann had cheated in the match in which he defeated Carlsen.

    “When Niemann was invited last minute to the 2022 Sinquefield Cup, I strongly considered withdrawing prior to the event. I ultimately chose to play,” Carlsen, 31, said in a statement posted to Twitter in late September. “I had the impression that he wasn’t tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do.”

    The suit claims that Carlsen’s comments were a retaliatory attempt to keep Niemann from damaging his reputation.

    “Enraged that the young Niemann, fully 12 years his junior, dared to disrespect the ‘King of Chess,’ and fearful that the young prodigy would further blemish his multi-million dollar brand by beating him again Carlsen viciously and maliciously retaliated against Niemann,” the suit, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri where the match took place, alleges.

    World chess champion Norway’s Magnus Carlsen poses with the FIDE world chess championship trophy after beating challenger.

    TOLGA AKMEN | AFP | Getty Images

    Chess.com subsequently banned Niemann after reporting that an internal investigation revealed evidence of more cheating than Niemann’s public statements had expressed.

    “We have shared detailed evidence with him concerning our decision, including information that contradicts his statements regarding the amount and seriousness of his cheating on Chess.com,” representatives from the Chess website wrote in the “Hans Niemann Report” published in early October. “We have invited Hans to provide an explanation and response with the hope of finding a resolution where Hans can participate on Chess.com.”

    Niemann’s lawsuit alleges a conspiracy between the defendants, including Chess.com, popular Chess.com streamer Hikaru Nakamura and Carlsen, whose “Play Magnus” platform is set to be bought by Chess.com. In the “Hans Niemann Report,” the website denies that Carlsen asked or influenced the decision to shut down Niemann’s account.

    The report from Chess.com did not find evidence of cheating in Niemann’s over-the-board matches, including the match against Carlsen, though the website notes that its cheating detection is primarily used for online matches.

    The report does, however, allege that Niemann likely cheated in over 100 online chess games, including several prize money events. It also shows that Niemann’s Chess.com “Strength Score” sits in the range of over a dozen anonymous grandmasters who have admitted to cheating. The report also notes that Niemann is by far the fastest-rising player by yearly gain in classical over-the-board chess.

    Niemann’s defamation and collusion suit calls him an “American chess prodigy,” but Chess.com throws doubt on that claim. The report states that, of the 13 grandmasters under the age of 25, Niemann is the only one who became a grandmaster after the age of 16. In general they call him “statistically extraordinary.”

    The report notes Chess.com‘s “best-in-class” cheat detection, which has elicited cheating confessions from four players in the global top 100. The report says that Niemann himself called it “the best cheat detection in the world.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link