ReportWire

Tag: Lawsuits

  • GOP-led states appealing dismissal of suit over loan relief

    GOP-led states appealing dismissal of suit over loan relief

    [ad_1]

    ST. LOUIS — Attorneys for six Republican-led states are asking a federal appeals court to reconsider their effort to block the Biden administration’s program to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loan debt.

    A notice of appeal to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was filed late Thursday, hours after U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey in St. Louis ruled that since the states of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina failed to establish standing, “the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.”

    Separately, the six states also asked the district court for an injunction prohibiting the administration from implementing the debt cancellation plan until the appeals process plays out.

    President Joe Biden on Monday officially launched the application process for the debt cancellation program and announced that 8 million borrowers had already applied for loan relief during the federal government’s soft launch period last weekend. Biden was scheduled to discuss the program Friday in a speech at Delaware State University.

    The plan, announced in August, would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, will get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.

    The Congressional Budget Office has said the program will cost about $400 billion over the next three decades. James Campbell, an attorney for the Nebraska attorney general’s office, told Autrey at an Oct. 12 hearing that the administration is acting outside its authorities in a way that will cost states millions of dollars.

    The cancellation applies to federal student loans used to attend undergraduate and graduate school, along with Parent Plus loans. Current college students qualify if their loans were disbursed before July 1. The plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could get their debt erased entirely, according to the administration.

    The announcement immediately became a major political issue ahead of the November midterm elections.

    Conservative attorneys, Republican lawmakers and business-oriented groups have asserted that Biden overstepped his authority in taking such sweeping action without the assent of Congress. They called it an unfair government giveaway for relatively affluent people at the expense of taxpayers who didn’t pursue higher education.

    Many Democratic lawmakers facing tough reelection contests have distanced themselves from the plan.

    The six states sued in September. Lawyers for the administration countered that the Department of Education has “broad authority to manage the federal student financial aid programs.” A court filing stated that the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, allows the secretary of education to waive or modify terms of federal student loans in times of war or national emergency.

    “COVID-19 is such an emergency,” the filing stated.

    The HEROES Act was enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to help members of the military. The Justice Department says the law allows Biden to reduce or erase student loan debt during a national emergency. Republicans argue the administration is misinterpreting the law, in part because the pandemic no longer qualifies as a national emergency.

    Justice Department attorney Brian Netter told Autrey at the Oct. 12 hearing that fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is still rippling. He said student loan defaults have skyrocketed over the past 2 1/2 years.

    Other lawsuits also have sought to stop the program. Earlier Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected an appeal from a Wisconsin taxpayers group seeking to stop the debt cancellation program.

    Barrett, who oversees emergency appeals from Wisconsin and neighboring states, did not comment in turning away the appeal from the Brown County Taxpayers Association. The group wrote in its Supreme Court filing that it needed an emergency order because the administration could begin canceling outstanding student debt as soon as Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Steve Bannon set to be sentenced for contempt of Congress

    Steve Bannon set to be sentenced for contempt of Congress

    [ad_1]

    Former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon speaks to the media after the opening day of his trial on contempt of Congress charges stemming from his refusal to cooperate with the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, at U.S. District Court in Washington, July 18, 2022.

    Joshua Roberts | Reuters

    Former top Trump White House advisor Steve Bannon is set to be sentenced Friday for defying a subpoena from the congressional probe of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

    The proceeding, set for 9 a.m. ET in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., could make Bannon one of the highest-profile figures to be locked up on charges related to the insurrection. He is expected to appeal his conviction.

    Federal prosecutors want the court to sentence Bannon to six months in jail — the top end of the federal sentencing guidelines range — and the maximum fine of $200,000.

    A right-wing media figure and onetime close ally of former President Donald Trump, Bannon “consistently acted in bad faith” as he tried to impede the House select committee’s investigation, prosecutors argued.

    Bannon has asked federal Judge Carl Nichols for a sentence of probation. His lawyers also argued that the court should delay any sentence imposed until an appeals court could hear the case.

    Bannon’s sentence came one year to the day since the House voted to hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a House select committee’s subpoena for documents and testimony. Bannon was indicted in November on two criminal counts and convicted after a federal trial in July.

    Bannon’s lawyer had argued that the subpoena would violate Trump’s executive privilege, the presidential power to withhold certain information from the public.

    But Bannon reversed course days before his trial, saying he was willing to testify because Trump had agreed to waive his executive privilege claim.

    Prosecutors called that a stunt. In a court filing Monday, they wrote that after Bannon’s gambit failed to delay the trial, “he never made any further attempt to comply with the subpoena—continuing up to this day.”

    Attorneys for Bannon argued in part that Bannon should receive a light sentence because he was merely following his lawyer’s advice when he defied the select committee’s subpoena.

    “The facts of this case show that Mr. Bannon’s conduct was based on his good-faith reliance on his lawyer’s advice,” the defendant’s attorneys wrote in a court filing this week.

    But the Justice Department prosecutors said that Bannon “pursued a bad-faith strategy of defiance and contempt” from “the moment” he was served the subpoena.

    “A person could have shown no greater contempt than the Defendant did in his defiance of the Committee’s subpoena,” they told the court.

    “The rioters who overran the Capitol on January 6 did not just attack a building—they assaulted the rule of law upon which this country was built and through which it endures. By flouting the Select Committee’s subpoena and its authority, the Defendant exacerbated that assault,” their memo said.

    This is developing news. Please check back for updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-UCLA gynecologist found guilty in LA sex abuse case

    Ex-UCLA gynecologist found guilty in LA sex abuse case

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — A former gynecologist at the University of California, Los Angeles was found guilty Thursday of five counts of sexually abusing female patients, in a criminal case that came after the university system made nearly $700 million in lawsuit payouts.

    The Los Angeles jury found Dr. James Heaps, a longtime UCLA campus gynecologist, not guilty of seven of the 21 counts and were deadlocked on the remaining charges.

    In the wake of the scandal that erupted in 2019 following the doctor’s arrest, UCLA agreed to pay nearly $700 million in lawsuit settlements to hundreds of Heaps’ patients — a record amount by a public university amid a wave of sexual misconduct scandals by campus doctors in recent years.

    Heaps, 65, had pleaded not guilty to 21 felony counts in the sexual assaults of seven women between 2009 and 2018. He has denied wrongdoing.

    Heaps was indicted last year on multiple counts each of sexual battery by fraud, sexual exploitation of a patient and sexual penetration of an unconscious person by fraudulent representation.

    The jury delivered a guilty verdict on three counts of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration of an unconscious person. He was found not guilty of seven other counts of sexual battery and penetration, as well as one count of sexual exploitation. The jury was hung on the nine remaining counts, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial for those charges.

    It was not immediately clear whether the district attorney’s office plans to refile the case on the deadlocked counts.

    Heaps’ attorney and the district attorney’s office did not immediately return requests for comment Thursday.

    “The horrible abuse he perpetrated on cancer patients and others who trusted him as their doctor has been exposed and justice was done,” attorney John Manly, who represented more than 200 women in civil cases against Heaps and UCLA, said in a statement after the verdict.

    Sex abuse by doctors on college campuses has led to massive settlements at Ohio State University, Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University.

    UCLA’s payouts exceed a $500 million settlement by Michigan State University in 2018 that was considered the largest by a public university. The University of Southern California, a private institution, has agreed to pay more than $1 billion to settle thousands of cases against the school’s longtime gynecologist, who still faces a criminal trial in Los Angeles.

    UCLA patients said Heaps groped them, made suggestive comments or conducted unnecessarily invasive exams during his 35-year career. Women who brought the lawsuits said the university ignored their complaints and deliberately concealed abuse that happened for decades during examinations at the UCLA student health center, the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center or in Heaps’ campus office.

    UCLA acknowledged it received a sex abuse complaint against Heaps from a patient in December 2017 and it launched an investigation the following month that concluded she was sexually assaulted and harassed, attorneys said.

    Heaps, however, continued to practice until his retirement in June 2018. The university did not release its finding in the investigation until November 2019 — months after Heaps was arrested.

    “UCLA Health is grateful for the patients who came forward,” the university said in a statement after the verdict. “Sexual misconduct of any kind is reprehensible and intolerable. Our overriding priority is providing the highest quality care while ensuring that patients feel safe, protected and respected.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump deposed in defamation suit filed by E. Jean Carroll

    Trump deposed in defamation suit filed by E. Jean Carroll

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump answered questions under oath Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll, a magazine columnist who says he raped her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room.

    The deposition gave Carroll’s lawyers a chance to interrogate Trump about the assault allegations, as well as statements he made in 2019 when she told her story publicly for the first time.

    Details on how the deposition went weren’t immediately disclosed.

    “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,” the law firm representing her, Kaplan Hecker & Fink, said in a statement.

    Trump has said Carroll’s rape allegation is “a hoax and a lie.”

    His legal team worked for years to delay his deposition in the lawsuit, which was filed when the Republican was still president. A federal judge last week rejected Trump’s request for another delay, saying he couldn’t “run the clock out on plaintiff’s attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong.”

    Alina Habba, an attorney representing Trump, said Wednesday, “My client was pleased to set the record straight today. This case is nothing more than a political ploy like many others in the long list of witch hunts against Donald Trump.”

    Carroll was to have been questioned by Trump’s lawyers last Friday. Neither her attorneys nor Trump’s have responded to questions about how that deposition went.

    The lawyers also haven’t disclosed whether Trump’s deposition was done in person or remotely, over video. Trump was in Florida on Wednesday. The lawsuit is being handled in a court in New York City.

    Anything Trump said during his deposition could potentially be used as evidence in an upcoming civil trial. He hasn’t faced any criminal charges related to Carroll’s allegations, and any prosecution is unlikely. The deadline for criminal charges over alleged sexual assaults that occurred in the 1990s has long expired.

    Similar legal deadlines also applied to civil lawsuits claiming sexual assault. As a result, Carroll chose to sue Trump for defamation over comments he made in 2019 when he denied any wrongdoing. She maintains that her reputation was damaged by his denials and attacks on her credibility and character.

    However, New York lawmakers recently gave people a one-year window to take old sexual assault claims to civil courts. Carroll’s lawyer has told the court she intends to file such a suit against Trump after that window opens in late November.

    According to Carroll’s account, she bumped into Trump as the two were shopping at the Bergdorf Goodman store across Fifth Avenue from Trump Tower. At the time, Carroll was on television as the host of an advice program, “Ask E. Jean.”

    She said the two engaged in friendly banter as she tried to help him pick out a gift. But when they were briefly alone in a dressing room, she said he pulled down her tights and raped her.

    In a recent statement, Trump called that story “a complete con job.”

    “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,” Trump said.

    ———

    Associated Press writers Jill Colvin and Michael R. Sisak contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice: Hotel sued for denying rooms to Native Americans

    Justice: Hotel sued for denying rooms to Native Americans

    [ad_1]

    SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — The U.S. Department of Justice sued the owners of a Rapid City, South Dakota hotel on Wednesday, alleging that they violated the civil rights of Native Americans by trying to ban them from the property.

    The Justice Department alleges that on at least two occasions in March, Connie Uhre and her son Nicholas Uhre committed racial discrimination by turning away Native Americans who sought to book a room at the Grand Gateway Hotel.

    Connie Uhre had also told other Rapid City hotel owners and managers that she did not want Native American customers there or in the hotel’s bar, the Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino. A post on her Facebook account said she cannot “allow a Native American to enter our business including Cheers.”

    Uhre’s comments and actions, which followed a fatal shooting involving two teenagers at the hotel, sparked large protests in Rapid City and condemnation from the city’s mayor, Steve Allender.

    Rapid City, known to many as the gateway to Mount Rushmore, is home to more than 77,000 people. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, at least 11% of its residents identify as American Indian or Alaska Native. The city has long seen racial tensions.

    Nicholas Uhre said he and his mother had been under pressure from the Justice Department to enter a consent decree settling the matter, but there were “sticking points” in the negotiation. “I guess they are going to do what they are going to do,” he said.

    The Justice Department sued under a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that permits a judge to order changes to policies and practices at hotels and other venues, but does not allow the department to obtain monetary damages for customers who are victims of discrimination.

    “Restricting access to a hotel based on a person’s race is prohibited by federal law,” U.S. Attorney for South Dakota Alison J. Ramsdell said in a statement.

    The hotel owners have also been embroiled in separate lawsuits from the NDN Collective seeking monetary damages for the hotel’s policy, a counter-suit against the Indigenous activist organization, and another lawsuit from Connie’s son Judson Uhre, who said she harmed the family business when she “made a racially charged rant which was posted on a website with wide coverage and this led to financial loss of clients for the hotel as well as the damage to the hotel’s reputation.”

    Nick Tilsen, the president of NDN Collective, credited the protests for prompting the federal civil rights suit, and said Rapid City’s problems with racism persist beyond the hotel.

    “Let this be a warning to the city of Rapid City,” Tilsen said. “If they want to go after Indigenous people’s rights, we’re going to force institutions like the Department of Justice to hold people accountable.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Case vs. Paul Haggis joins month of Hollywood #MeToo trials

    Case vs. Paul Haggis joins month of Hollywood #MeToo trials

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Jurors got their first look Wednesday at a lawsuit that pits Oscar-winning moviemaker Paul Haggis against a publicist who alleges that he raped her, the latest in a lineup of #MeToo-era trials involving Hollywood figures this fall.

    Opening statements in the civil case against Haggis began Wednesday in a New York state court. The federal court next door is housing a trial in a lawsuit accusing Oscar-winning actor Kevin Spacey of sexual assault. In Los Angeles, former film mogul Harvey Weinstein and “That ’70s Show” actor Danny Masterson are fighting criminal rape charges at separate trials down the hall from each other (Weinstein is already serving a 23-year sentence on a New York conviction). All of the men deny the allegations.

    The confluence of trials is a coincidence, but it makes for something of a #MeToo moment five years after allegations against Weinstein triggered a dam break of sexual misconduct accusations in Hollywood and beyond and catalyzed an ongoing movement to demand accountability.

    “We’re still very early on in this time of reckoning,” said Debra Katz, a Washington-based lawyer who has represented many sexual assault accusers. She isn’t involved in any of the four trials.

    In an unusual turn, both Haggis’ case and Masterson’s also have become forums for scrutinizing the Church of Scientology, though from different perspectives.

    In the case against Haggis, publicist Haleigh Breest claims that the “Crash” and “Million Dollar Baby” screenwriter forced her to perform oral sex and raped her after she reluctantly agreed to a drink in his apartment after a 2013 movie premiere. Haggis maintains that the encounter was consensual.

    Breest never went to police, but soon after the encounter, she gave friends an account of what happened, sending text messages that both her lawyers and Haggis’ attorneys say bolster their case.

    “He was so rough and aggressive. Never, ever again … And I kept saying no,” read one text that her lawyer Zoe Salzman highlighted in her opening statement. She said the encounter shattered Breest emotionally, but that she didn’t go public until after the allegations against Weinstein burst into view in 2017 and Haggis condemned him.

    “The hypocrisy of it made her blood boil,” Salzman said.

    Haggis attorney Priya Chaudhry pointed jurors to other parts of the same text exchange, saying that Breest added “lol” — for “laughing out loud” — when she mentioned performing oral sex, and that she said she wanted to be alone with Haggis again to “see what happens.”

    “I don’t care too much. I just hope I don’t now have enemies” professionally, she wrote, according to Chaudhry. She argued that Breest falsely accused the filmmaker of rape to get a payout.

    “Paul Haggis is relieved that he finally gets his day in court,” Chaudhry said.

    Only Breest is suing Haggis, but jurors will also hear from four other women who told her lawyers that Haggis sexually assaulted them, or attempted to do so, in separate encounters between 1996 and 2015. The jury won’t hear, however, that Italian authorities this summer investigated a sexual assault allegation against him, which he denied.

    “Mr. Haggis used his storytelling skills and his fame to prey on, to manipulate and to attack vulnerable young women in the film industry,” Salzman told jurors. “He doesn’t stop when women say no.”

    Haggis’ attorney argued there’s another explanation for the allegations.

    Promising “circumstantial evidence,” she suggested that Scientologists ginned up Breest’s lawsuit to discredit him after he split with the church and became a prominent detractor.

    The church denies any involvement, and Breest’s lawyers have called the notion a baseless conspiracy theory that lacks proof of any connection between the religion and Haggis’ accusers.

    “Scientology has nothing to do with this case,” Salzman told jurors. The church has said the same.

    Scientology is a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals focused on spiritual betterment. Science fiction and fantasy author L. Ron Hubbard’s 1950 book “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” is a foundational text.

    The religion has gained a following among such celebrities as Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Kirstie Alley. But some high-profile members have broken with it, including Haggis, singer Lisa Marie Presley and actor Leah Remini. In a memoir and documentary series, Remini said the church uses manipulative and abusive tactics to indoctrinate followers into putting its goals above all else, and she maintained that it worked to discredit critics who spoke out.

    The church has vociferously disputed the claims.

    Haggis says he was Scientologist for three decades before leaving the church in 2009. He slammed it as “a cult” in a 2011 New Yorker article that later informed a book and an HBO documentary, and he foreshadowed that retribution would come in the form of “a scandal that looks like it has nothing to do with the church.”

    The church has repeatedly said that Haggis lied about its practices to grab the spotlight for himself and his career. The church didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    Masterson’s lawyer, meanwhile, is asking jurors to disregard the actor’s affiliation with Scientology, though prosecutors say the church discouraged two of his three accusers from going to authorities. All three are former members.

    Haggis got his Hollywood start as as TV writer and moved on to movies including “Million Dollar Baby” and “Crash,” which won back-to-back Academy Awards for best picture in the mid-2000s. The Canada-born filmmaker also directed and was a producer of “Crash,” which garnered him and Bobby Moresco the best original screenplay Oscar in 2006.

    In a sworn statement last year, Haggis said his career nosedived and his finances cratered after Breest sued him in 2017.

    The Associated Press does not usually name people alleging sexual assault unless they come forward publicly, as Breest has done. She is seeking unspecified damages.

    ———

    Associated Press writer Deepa Bharath contributed from Los Angeles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawyer: Cardi B ‘humiliated’ man with racy image on mixtape

    Lawyer: Cardi B ‘humiliated’ man with racy image on mixtape

    [ad_1]

    SANTA ANA, Calif. — A self-described family man with a distinctive back tattoo felt humiliated after Cardi B allegedly misused his likeness for her sexually suggestive mixtape cover art, his lawyer said during opening arguments Tuesday.

    Kevin Michael Brophy is suing the Grammy-winning musician in a $5 million copyright-infringement lawsuit in federal court in Southern California. His attorneys say Brophy’s life was disrupted and he suffered distress because of the 2016 artwork.

    Brophy’s lawyer A. Barry Cappello said photo-editing software was use to put the back tattoo, which has appeared in tattoo magazines, onto the male model used in the mixtape cover. The image shows a tattooed man from behind with his head between the rapper’s legs. The man’s face cannot be seen.

    Cardi B, who is expected to testify during the trial, is fighting the allegations and 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.

    “Their life has been disrupted,” Cappello told the jury as Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Almanzar, watched from the defense table. He said the image disturbed Brophy along with his wife, Lindsay Michelle Brophy, who he says initially questioned her husband if it was him in the cover art. The couple has two young children.

    Brody has said he once considered his back tattoo featuring a tiger battling a serpent to be a “Michelangelo piece” that has since become “raunchy and disgusting.”

    Defense filings have pointed out that the model who posed for the photos was Black, while Brophy is white.

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

    “Brophy’s face wasn’t on the mixtape,” Anderson said during his opening statement. “She was already popular. It has nothing to do with Brophy.”

    But Brophy contested in court that everyone who knows him believed he was on the mixtape cover. He said the offensive image was something he would never approve.

    Brophy said he sent a cease-and-desist letter to Cardi B’s representatives to remove the tattoo, but he never received a response.

    “For me, it was something I took a lot of pride in,” Brophy said about his tattoo. “Now, that image feels devalued. I feel robbed. I feel completely disregarded. There’s a lot of things I would like to be spending time on. But the only way to get this removed was to come here to this courtroom.”

    Cappello said Gooden was paid $50 to create a design but was then 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.

    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

  • Suit over rape claim against filmmaker Haggis heads to trial

    Suit over rape claim against filmmaker Haggis heads to trial

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Opening statements are expected Wednesday in a civil case brought by a publicist who accused Oscar-winning filmmaker Paul Haggis of raping her almost a decade ago.

    Jury selection began Monday in a Manhattan courtroom.

    The lawsuit was filed in 2017 as a wave of sexual misconduct accusations against prominent men was propelling the #MeToo movement to new visibility. At least four other women subsequently alleged that Haggis, a screenwriter known for “Crash” and “Million Dollar Baby,” sexually assaulted them or tried to do so.

    The New York lawsuit centers on publicist Haleigh Breest’s allegation that Haggis offered her a ride home from a movie premiere, invited her to his Manhattan apartment for a drink, rebuffed her suggestion that they go to a public bar instead, and then raped her at the apartment.

    The filmmaker, who declined to comment as he left court Monday, maintains that the encounter was consensual.

    His defense may also feature an allegation of sinister intrigue: His lawyers have suggested that the Church of Scientology engineered false accusations of sexual misdeeds to ruin Haggis, a former longtime member who became an outspoken critic.

    The church has said it had no involvement in the allegations against Haggis, and his accuser’s lawyers have called it “a shameful and unsupported conspiracy theory unworthy of any trial proceeding.”

    But Judge Sabrina Kraus ruled last month that Haggis’ lawyers can bring up Scientology, saying that “the jury is entitled to be informed of any possible motive (the) plaintiff may have and about the church’s efforts to discredit Haggis.”

    No criminal charges were filed in connection with Breest’s accusation. Her lawsuit could mean a financial penalty, but not prison or probation for Haggis if she prevails. She is seeking unspecified damages.

    After the suit was filed in late 2017, three other women told her attorneys and The Associated Press that Haggis had sexually assaulted them or attempted to do so. One said he had raped her. In response, his lawyer said Haggis “didn’t rape anybody.”

    Kraus ruled last month that those three women can also testify as part of Breest’s effort to demonstrate Haggis’ “intent and lack of consent.”

    Jurors won’t be allowed to hear that Haggis was detained for about two weeks at an Italian hotel in June while authorities investigated allegations that he sexually assaulted a woman there. Haggis was in Italy for an arts festival.

    Haggis’ Italian attorney said the filmmaker was innocent, and in early July, a judge released him while prosecutors considered whether to pursue their inquiry. The judge concluded that Haggis hadn’t engaged in “constrictive violent behavior,” according to the newspaper Corriere della Sera.

    The Associated Press does not usually name people alleging sexual assault unless they come forward publicly, as Breest has done.

    The Canadian-born Haggis wrote “Million Dollar Baby” and “Crash,” which won back-to-back Academy Awards for best picture in the mid-2000s. He also directed and was a producer of “Crash,” which garnered him and Bobby Moresco the best original screenplay Oscar in 2006. The next year, Haggis was nominated in the same category for “Letters from Iwo Jima.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge dismisses lawsuit over upcoming lethal injection

    Judge dismisses lawsuit over upcoming lethal injection

    [ad_1]

    MONTGOMERY, Ala — A federal judge dismissed an inmate’s claim seeking to block his upcoming execution in Alabama because of reported problems at a recent lethal injection.

    The judge on Sunday granted Alabama’s request to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Kenneth Eugene Smith, agreeing that Smith waited too long to file the challenge. But U.S. District Judge R. Austin Huffaker Jr. also warned Alabama’s prison commissioner to strictly follow established protocol when officials attempt to put Smith to death next month.

    “Sanctions will be swift and serious if counsel and the Commissioner do not honor or abide by their representations and stipulations,” Huffaker wrote.

    Smith is set to be executed by lethal injection Nov. 17 after being convicted in the murder-for-hire killing of Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett, 45.

    Smith’s attorneys pointed to a July execution, which an anti-death penalty group claims was botched, to argue that Alabama’s lethal injection process creates a risk of cruel and unusual punishment.

    The July 28 execution of Joe Nathan James Jr. was carried out more than three hours after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for a stay. State officials later acknowledged the execution was delayed because of difficulties in establishing an intravenous line, but did not specify how long it took.

    A doctor who witnessed a private autopsy paid for by an anti-death penalty group said it appeared officials might have attempted to perform a “cutdown,” a procedure in which the skin is opened to allow a visual search for a vein.

    Huffaker noted that Corrections Commissioner John Hamm “represents in his brief and during oral argument that the ADOC did not employ a cutdown procedure or intramuscular sedation during the James execution and denies any present intent to employ any such procedure in the future.”

    Huffaker ruled that Smith missed the time frame to challenge Alabama’s lethal injection process.

    Smith missed the 2018 deadline to request execution by nitrogen hypoxia, an execution method that Alabama has authorized but not developed a process to use. Smith’s attorneys argued that the state violated his due process rights by not providing him information necessary to make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his nitrogen hypoxia election right in 2018.

    His attorneys argue that Smith did not know nitrogen hypoxia “would not be implemented for years, if ever.” Huffaker said that complaint also could not overcome a “clear statute-of-limitations hurdle.”

    Prosecutors said Smith was one of two men paid $1,000 to kill Sennett on behalf of her husband, the Rev. Charles Sennett, who was deeply in debt and wanted to collect on insurance. Smith maintained it was the other man who killed Sennett, according to court documents.

    Smith was initially convicted in 1989, and a jury voted 10-2 to recommend a death sentence, which a judge imposed. His conviction was overturned on appeal in 1992.

    He was retried and convicted again in 1996. This time, the jury recommended a life sentence by a vote of 11-1, but a judge overrode the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Smith to death. Alabama no longer allows a judge to override a jury’s recommendation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Credit Suisse pays $495M tied to mortgage-backed securities

    Credit Suisse pays $495M tied to mortgage-backed securities

    [ad_1]

    Credit Suisse has agreed to pay $495 million as part of a settlement with the U.S. over a yearslong dispute tied to mortgage-backed securities, an investment vehicle that played a central role in the 2008 financial crisis

    Credit Suisse has agreed to pay $495 million as part of a settlement with the U.S. over a yearslong dispute tied to mortgage-backed securities, an investment vehicle that played a central role in the 2008 financial crisis.

    The Swiss bank said that some of the transactions were prior to 2008.

    The New Jersey Attorney General, which announced the settlement Monday, filed a lawsuit in 2013 alleging more than $3 billion in damages citing the involvement of Credit Suisse.

    “This agreement in principle holds Credit Suisse accountable for the loss of billions of dollars that helped put the nation in financial crisis,” said First Assistant Attorney General Lyndsay Ruotolo. “It has taken more than a decade of investigation and litigation to reach this historic result, but we never wavered in our resolve to get here. The recovery Credit Suisse has agreed to pay reflects the magnitude of harm it inflicted on the public and underscores New Jersey’s commitment to vigorously pursue cases, no matter the challenges, to protect the financial interests of the investing public.”

    Credit Suisse said Monday that the settlement allows the bank to resolve its only remaining mortgage-backed securities matter involving claims by a regulator, the largest it faced.

    Credit Suisse has run into a series of troubles in recent years, including bad bets on hedge funds and a spying scandal involving UBS. Also, a Swiss court fined the bank more than $2 million in June for failing to prevent money laundering linked to a Bulgarian criminal gang more than 15 years ago.

    In July Credit Suisse CEO Thomas Gottstein announced that he was resigning after 2-1/2 years in the job.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta hits back in fight with FTC over VR company acquisition

    Meta hits back in fight with FTC over VR company acquisition

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal regulators and Facebook parent Meta are battling over Meta’s proposed acquisition of virtual-reality company Within Unlimited and its fitness app Supernatural.

    In a landmark legal challenge to a Big Tech merger, the Federal Trade Commission is suing to block the deal, asserting it would hurt competition and violate antitrust laws.

    Meta struck back Thursday, asking a federal court in San Jose, California, to dismiss the FTC’s July request for an injunction against the acquisition.

    The tech giant said in its court filing that the government failed to establish that the virtual-reality market is concentrated with high barriers to entry. The claims in the agency’s lawsuit “are nothing more than the FTC’s speculation about what Meta might have done,” the company says. It asserts that the FTC failed to meet two key legal standards set in previous cases.

    In a statement Thursday, the FTC noted that it revised its complaint last week in a way that narrowed the focus of its allegations. In its new form, the statement said, “We are confident that the District Court complaint will not be dismissed and this case will be heard.”

    Meta, in its own statement, said “The FTC’s attempt to fix its ill-conceived complaint still ignores the facts and the law, and relies on pure speculation of a hypothetical future state.”

    It added that it believes the complaint should be dismissed because there is “vibrant competition in the fitness space and across (virtual reality), and our acquisition of Within will be good for people, developers and the VR space.”

    The FTC’s vote last summer to seek to block the Within acquisition was 3-2, with Chair Lina Khan and the other two Democratic commissioners approving it and the two Republicans opposed.

    The FTC’s original suit named CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a defendant as well as Meta, but he was dropped in August.

    Under Zuckerberg’s leadership, Meta began a campaign to conquer virtual reality in 2014 with its acquisition of headset maker Oculus VR. Since then, Meta’s VR headsets have become the cornerstone of its growth in the virtual reality space, the FTC noted in its suit. Fueled by the popularity of its top-selling Quest headsets, Meta’s Quest Store has become a leading U.S. app platform with more than 400 apps available to download, according to the agency.

    Meta bought seven of the most successful virtual-reality development studios, and now has one of the largest virtual-reality content catalogs in the world, the FTC says. Its acquisition of the Beat Games studio gave Meta control of the popular app Beat Saber.

    In its suit against the Within acquisition, the FTC cited a 2015 email from Zuckerberg to key Facebook executives saying that his vision for “the next wave of computing” was control of apps as well as the platform on which those apps are distributed. The email says a key part of this strategy is for the company to be “completely ubiquitous in killer apps,” which are apps that prove the value of the technology.

    Zuckerberg announced ambitious plans a year ago to build the “metaverse” — a virtual-reality construct intended to supplant the internet, merge virtual life with real life and create endless new playgrounds for everyone.

    On Tuesday, the company based in Menlo Park, California, unveiled a $1,500 virtual reality headset in the hope that people will soon be using it to work and play in the metaverse.

    The action marked a new FTC salvo against Meta — the owner of Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp in addition to Facebook — in the agency’s drive against what it views as anticompetitive conduct in the tech industry.

    The FTC filed an antitrust lawsuit against Facebook in late 2020. With that action, the agency is seeking remedies that could include a forced spinoff of Instagram and WhatsApp, or a restructuring of the company.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meet the judge who tamed the Musk-Twitter trial

    Meet the judge who tamed the Musk-Twitter trial

    [ad_1]

    This Jan. 4, 2019 photo shows Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick. Refereeing a $44 billion court fight that pits the world’s richest man against one of its most influential social networking sites is surely a daunting task, but McCormick, presiding over the case has never backed away from a challenge. Billionaire Elon Musk has been battling Twitter Inc. in Delaware’s Court of Chancery since Musk announced in July 2022, that he wanted to scuttle an agreement to acquire the social media giant for $54.20 a share. (Eric Crossan via AP)
    This Jan. 4, 2019 photo shows Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick. Refereeing a $44 billion court fight that pits the world’s richest man against one of its most influential social networking sites is surely a daunting task, but McCormick, presiding over the case has never backed away from a challenge. Billionaire Elon Musk has been battling Twitter Inc. in Delaware’s Court of Chancery since Musk announced in July 2022, that he wanted to scuttle an agreement to acquire the social media giant for $54.20 a share. (Eric Crossan via AP)
    This Jan. 4, 2019 photo shows Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick. Refereeing a $44 billion court fight that pits the world’s richest man against one of its most influential social networking sites is surely a daunting task, but McCormick, presiding over the case has never backed away from a challenge. Billionaire Elon Musk has been battling Twitter Inc. in Delaware’s Court of Chancery since Musk announced in July 2022, that he wanted to scuttle an agreement to acquire the social media giant for $54.20 a share. (Eric Crossan via AP)

    This Jan. 4, 2019 photo shows Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick. Refereeing a $44 billion court fight that pits the world’s richest man against one of its most influential social networking sites is surely a daunting task, but McCormick, presiding over the case has never backed away from a challenge. Billionaire Elon Musk has been battling Twitter Inc. in Delaware’s Court of Chancery since Musk announced in July 2022, that he wanted to scuttle an agreement to acquire the social media giant for $54.20 a share. (Eric Crossan via AP)

    This Jan. 4, 2019 photo shows Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick. Refereeing a $44 billion court fight that pits the world’s richest man against one of its most influential social networking sites is surely a daunting task, but McCormick, presiding over the case has never backed away from a challenge. Billionaire Elon Musk has been battling Twitter Inc. in Delaware’s Court of Chancery since Musk announced in July 2022, that he wanted to scuttle an agreement to acquire the social media giant for $54.20 a share. (Eric Crossan via AP)

    DOVER, Del. (AP) — A lawyer for billionaire Elon Musk had barely begun speaking during a recent hearing when the Delaware judge presiding over Twitter’s lawsuit against Musk abruptly cut her off.

    “Skip the rhetoric and go to the meat,” Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick said bluntly.

    The judge’s tone that day illuminates the no-nonsense approach she brings as the first woman to lead Delaware’s 230-year-old Court of Chancery. The court is America’s go-to venue for high-stakes disputes involving some of the world’s biggest companies, many of which call Delaware their legal home.

    This court fight between the world’s richest man and the influential social platform could easily have become a circus, particularly given Musk’s penchant for chaos. That hasn’t happened largely thanks to McCormick, who’s been a judge for only four years. She has set firm deadlines, reined in over-the-top attorney requests and kept the case moving briskly.

    Musk has been battling Twitter since he announced in July that he wanted to scuttle an agreement to acquire the social media giant for $44 billion. Twitter sued Musk, seeking a court order of “specific performance” directing him to consummate the deal.

    McCormick recently ordered a temporary halt in the case after Musk indicated that he would go ahead with the transaction, but she also warned that she will schedule a November trial if Musk doesn’t close the deal by Oct. 28.

    The judge, whose humble demeanor belies her professional confidence, does not like the spotlight. After joining the court, McCormick admitted that she didn’t fully appreciate how everything she wrote or said would receive intense scrutiny.

    McCormick now seems unfazed that court observers and legal pundits are not only watching her every move, but sometimes pretending to know what she is going to do and why.

    “The world will have to wait for the post-trial decision,” she wrote in a September ruling, indirectly acknowledging the public spotlight on the case.

    From an early age, McCormick, 43, has demonstrated that she can adapt and persevere when faced with challenges.

    She was born in Dover, Delaware’s capital city, and raised with her two older brothers a few miles north in the town of Smyrna. Her mother taught English; her father taught history and coached Smyrna High School’s football team.

    “Katie” McCormick thought she, too, would become a teacher, even serving as president of the Delaware Future Educators of America, among other student organizations

    McCormick also was a tough athlete who played fastpitch softball and ran track despite having extreme scoliosis, an abnormal curvature of the spine that was apparent from birth and which required her to wear a brace at times. In 1995, when she was 15, McCormick underwent spinal fusion surgery.

    Two years later, as a 17-year-old senior, McCormick was the recipient of a scholarship awarded each year to a downstate athlete who had overcome a physical disability. A photograph from the awards banquet that night shows a smiling McCormick, in a white dress with paisley trim, standing between then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden and former NFL quarterback Joe Theisman.

    “Some days were just a little harder than others, but I had faith it would all work out for the best,” McCormick said at the time, noting that other children she would meet during her hospital trips faced more severe problems.

    McCormick became the first Smyrna High student to attend Harvard University, where she majored in philosophy.

    McCormick, with a deep and eclectic interest in music, played in an Irish folk band while at college. She also became involved in a student-run legal aid program that helps low-income people in the Boston area. That experience helped pique her interest in the law, leading her to the University of Notre Dame law school.

    McCormick, who has long viewed the law as a path to serve others, spent her summers working in Northern Ireland for firms specializing in human rights work and international conflict resolution. After graduation, she looked homeward, taking a job with the Community Legal Aid Society, where she worked on housing issues.

    “Her academic record stood out. She was a Delaware native,” said CLASI executive director Dan Atkins, who recruited McCormick. “That was not typical for us, so that was cool.”

    After two years at CLASI, financial considerations involving the birth of her second child propelled McCormick into private practice. She later admitted that she felt “defeated” by the move because she had wanted to pursue a service-oriented path. Still, she developed a passion for business litigation, as well as for expedited proceedings like the fast-track schedule she ordered in the Twitter lawsuit.

    “Her return to public service with the court makes sense. She’s come full circle,” said Atkins, who noted that, in addition to corporate litigation, the Court of Chancery also handles equally important matters such as trusts and estates, guardianships and real estate disputes.

    “I bet you she gives those cases every bit of her attention that she gives the Twitter case,” he said. “I guarantee it.”

    McCormick is no humorless legal robot, however. In the introduction to her article in a law school journal, she poked fun at the supposed “misspelling” of her first name, Kathaleen, which she shares with her mother and grandmother. She explained that the unusual spelling was attributable to her great-grandmother, not the journal’s staff.

    On the Chancery Court, where judges sometimes cite historic, literary and even pop-culture references in their rulings, McCormick’s opinions tend to be comparatively prosaic and direct. Presented with the opportunity, however, she, too, can turn a phrase. A ruling last year in a lawsuit involving the cannabis industry opened with a reference to a Grateful Dead song.

    In another ruling last year, McCormick noted that, “Julia Child is rumored to have once said: ‘A party without a cake is just a meeting.’” In that case, she ordered a private equity firm to acquire a cake decorating company even though the buyers had “lost their appetite” for the deal after signing it. Such an order of specific performance is the same type of relief sought by Twitter against Musk.

    The icing on that particular cake? One week after that ruling, McCormick, who was appointed a vice chancellor in 2018 when the court expanded from five judges to seven, was promoted to chancellor.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Comedians sue over drug search program at Atlanta airport

    Comedians sue over drug search program at Atlanta airport

    [ad_1]

    ATLANTA (AP) — Comedians Eric André and Clayton English are challenging a police program at the Atlanta airport they say violates the constitutional rights of airline passengers, particularly Black passengers, through racial profiling and coercive searches just as they are about to board their flights.

    Lawyers for the two men filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Atlanta alleging that they were racially profiled and illegally stopped by Clayton County police at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

    The two men, well known comedians and actors, say officers singled them out during separate stops roughly six months apart because they are Black and grilled them about drugs as other passengers watched.

    “People were gawking at me and I looked suspicious when I had done nothing wrong,” André said in an interview, calling the experience “dehumanizing and demoralizing.”

    While the stated purpose of the program is to fight drug trafficking, the lawsuit says, drugs are rarely found, criminal charges seldom result, and seized cash provides a financial windfall for the police department.

    Clayton County police officers and investigators from the county district attorney’s office selectively stop passengers in the narrow jet bridges used to access planes, the lawsuit says. The officers take the passengers’ boarding passes and identification and interrogate them, sometimes searching their bags, before they board their flights, the lawyers say in the lawsuit.

    The police department calls the stops “consensual encounters” and says they are “random,” but in reality the stops “rely on coercion, and targets are selected disproportionately based on their race,” the lawyers argue.

    Clayton County police spokesperson Julia Isaac said the department doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

    Police records show that from Aug. 30, 2020, to April 30, 2021, there were 402 jet bridge stops, and the passenger’s race was listed for 378 of those stops. Of those 378 passengers, 211, or 56%, were Black, and people of color accounted for 258 total stops, or 68%, the lawsuit says.

    Those 402 stops resulted in three reported drug seizures: about 10 grams of drugs from one passenger, 26 grams of “suspected THC gummies” from another, and six prescription pills without a prescription from a third, the lawsuit says. Only the first and third person were charged.

    Those 402 stops also yielded more than $1 million in cash and money orders from a total of 25 passengers. All but one were allowed to continue their travels, and only two — the ones who also had drugs — were charged, the lawsuit says. Eight of the 25 challenged the seizures, and Clayton County police settled each case, returning much of the seized money, the lawsuit says.

    Carrying large quantities of cash doesn’t mean someone is involved in illegal drug activity, the lawyers argue in the lawsuit, noting that people of color are less likely to have bank accounts and are more likely to carry large sums when they travel.

    English was stopped while flying from Atlanta, where he lives, to Los Angeles for work on Oct. 30, 2020, the lawsuit says. André had finished a shoot for HBO’s “The Righteous Gemstones” and was traveling from Charleston, South Carolina, to his home in Los Angeles on April 21, 2020, when he was stopped after a layover in Atlanta.

    Officers blocked them as they entered the jet bridge and asked if they were carrying illegal drugs, the lawsuit says. Both were asked to hand over their boarding passes and identification. An officer said he wanted to search English’s bag, and English agreed, not believing he had a choice.

    “I felt completely powerless. I felt violated. I felt cornered,” English said at a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Atlanta. “I felt like I had to comply if I wanted everything to go smoothly.”

    André complained about his stop right after it happened. Clayton County police said at the time that it was “consensual.”

    “Mr. Andre chose to speak with investigators during the initial encounter,” the department said in a statement posted on Facebook. “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.”

    André said he felt a “moral calling” to bring the lawsuit “so these practices can stop and these cops can be held accountable for this because it’s unethical.”

    “I have the resources to bring national attention and international attention to this incident. It’s not an isolated incident,” he said. “If Black people don’t speak up for each other, who will?”

    One of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit, NYU School of Law Policing Project co-founder Barry Friedman, encouraged anyone else who has had similar experiences to get in touch.

    The lawsuit names Clayton County and the police chief, as well as four police officers and a district attorney’s office investigator. It alleges violations of the constitutional rights that protect against unreasonable searches and seizures and against racial discrimination.

    The comedians seek a jury trial and ask that the Clayton County police jet bridge interdiction program be declared unconstitutional. They also seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as legal costs.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A Connecticut jury’s ruling this week ordering Alex Jones to pay $965 million to parents of Sandy Hook shooting victims he maligned was heartening for people disgusted by the muck of disinformation.

    Just don’t expect it to make conspiracy theories go away.

    The appetite for such hokum and narrowness of the judgments against Jones, who falsely claimed that the 2012 elementary school shootings were a hoax and that grieving parents were actors, virtually ensure a ready supply, experts say.

    “It’s easy to revel in Alex Jones being punished,” said Rebecca Adelman, a communications professor at the University of Maryland. “But there’s a certain shortsightedness in that celebration.”

    There’s a deep tradition of conspiracy theories across American history, from people not believing the official explanation of John F. Kennedy’s assassination to various accusations of extraterrestrial-visit coverups to unfounded allegations of the 2020 presidential election being rigged. With the Salem witch trials in 1692, they even predated the country’s formation.

    What’s different today? The internet allows such stories to spread rapidly and widely — and helps adherents find communities of the likeminded. That in turn can push such untrue theories into mainstream politics. Now the will to spread false narratives skillfully online has spread to governments, and the technology to doctor photos and videos enables purveyors to make disinformation more believable.

    In today’s media world, Jones found that there’s a lot of money to be made — and quickly — in creating a community willing to believe lies, no matter how outlandish.

    In a Texas defamation trial last month, a forensic economist testified that Jones’ Infowars operation made $53.2 million in annual revenue between 2015 and 2018. He has supplemented his media business by selling products like survivalist gear. His company Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy in July.

    To some, disinformation is the price America pays for the right to free speech. And in a society that popularized the term “alternative facts,” one person’s effort to curb disinformation is another person’s attempt to squash the truth.

    Will the Connecticut ruling have a chilling effect on those willing to spread disinformation? “It doesn’t even seem to be chilling him,” said Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor. Jones, he noted, reacted in real time on Infowars on the day of the verdict.

    “This will not impact the flow of stories that are filled with bad faith and extreme opinion,” said Howard Polskin, who publishes The Righting, a newsletter that monitors the content of right-wing websites. He says false stories about the 2020 election and COVID-19 vaccines remain particularly popular.

    “It seems to me that the people who peddle this information for profit may look upon this as the cost of doing business,” Adelman said. “If there’s an audience for it, someone is going to meet the demand if there’s money to be made.”

    Certainly, the people who believe that Jones and those like him are voices of truth being suppressed by society aren’t going to be deterred by the jury verdict, she said. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true.

    The plaintiffs awarded damages in the Sandy Hook case were all private citizens, an important distinction in considering its impact beyond this case, said Nicole Hemmer, a Vanderbilt University professor and author of “Partisans: The Conservative Revolutionaries Who Remade American Politics in the 1990s.”

    The case is reminiscent of Seth Rich, a young Democratic Party aide killed in a Washington robbery in 2016, she said. Rich’s name was dragged — posthumously — into political conspiracy theories, and his parents later sued and reached a settlement with Fox News Channel.

    The message, in other words: Be wary of dragging private citizens into outlandish theories.

    “Spreading conspiracy theories about the Biden administration is not going to get Fox News Channel sued,” Hemmer said. “It is not going to get Tucker Carlson sued.”

    Tracing the history of outlandish theories that sprout and thrive in the web’s murky corners is also difficult. Much of it is anonymous. It’s still not clear who is responsible for what is spread on QAnon or who makes money off it, Fenster says.

    If he was a lawyer, he said, “Who would I go after?”

    Despite any pessimism about what the nearly $1 billion Sandy Hook judgment might ultimately mean for disinformation, the dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania says it still sends an important message.

    “What this says is we can’t just make up truths to fit our own ideological predilections,” John Jackson said. “There is a hard and fast ground to facts that we can’t stray too far from as storytellers.”

    Consider the lawsuit filed against Fox News Channel by Dominion Voting Systems, a company that makes election systems. It claims Fox knowingly spread false stories about Dominion as part of former President Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election had been taken from him. Dominion has sought a staggering $1.6 billion from Fox, and the case has moved through the deposition phase.

    Fox has defended itself vigorously. It says that rather than spreading falsehoods, it was reporting on newsworthy claims being made by the president of the United States.

    A loss in a trial, or a significant settlement, could impose a real financial hardship on Fox, Hemmer said. Yet as it progresses, there’s been no indication that any of its commentators are pulling punches, particularly concerning the Biden administration.

    Distrust of mainstream news sources also fuels the taste among many conservatives for theories that fit their world view — and a vulnerability to disinformation.

    “I don’t think there’s any incentive to move toward well-grounded reporting or to move in the direction of news and information instead of commenting,” Hemmer said. “That’s what they want. They want the wild conspiracy theories.”

    Even if the crushing verdict in Connecticut this week — coupled with the $49 million judgement against him in August by the Texas court — muzzles or minimizes Jones, Adelman says others are likely to take over for him: “It would be wrong to misinterpret this as the death knell of disinformation.”

    ———

    David Bauder is the media writer for The Associated Press. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/dbauder

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A Connecticut jury’s ruling this week ordering Alex Jones to pay $965 million to parents of Sandy Hook shooting victims he maligned was heartening for people disgusted by the muck of disinformation.

    Just don’t expect it to make conspiracy theories go away.

    The appetite for such hokum and narrowness of the judgments against Jones, who falsely claimed that the 2012 elementary school shootings were a hoax and that grieving parents were actors, virtually ensure a ready supply, experts say.

    “It’s easy to revel in Alex Jones being punished,” said Rebecca Adelman, a communications professor at the University of Maryland. “But there’s a certain shortsightedness in that celebration.”

    There’s a deep tradition of conspiracy theories across American history, from people not believing the official explanation of John F. Kennedy’s assassination to various accusations of extraterrestrial-visit coverups to unfounded allegations of the 2020 presidential election being rigged. With the Salem witch trials in 1692, they even predated the country’s formation.

    What’s different today? The internet allows such stories to spread rapidly and widely — and helps adherents find communities of the likeminded. That in turn can push such untrue theories into mainstream politics. Now the will to spread false narratives skillfully online has spread to governments, and the technology to doctor photos and videos enables purveyors to make disinformation more believable.

    In today’s media world, Jones found that there’s a lot of money to be made — and quickly — in creating a community willing to believe lies, no matter how outlandish.

    In a Texas defamation trial last month, a forensic economist testified that Jones’ Infowars operation made $53.2 million in annual revenue between 2015 and 2018. He has supplemented his media business by selling products like survivalist gear. His company Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy in July.

    To some, disinformation is the price America pays for the right to free speech. And in a society that popularized the term “alternative facts,” one person’s effort to curb disinformation is another person’s attempt to squash the truth.

    Will the Connecticut ruling have a chilling effect on those willing to spread disinformation? “It doesn’t even seem to be chilling him,” said Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor. Jones, he noted, reacted in real time on Infowars on the day of the verdict.

    “This will not impact the flow of stories that are filled with bad faith and extreme opinion,” said Howard Polskin, who publishes The Righting, a newsletter that monitors the content of right-wing websites. He says false stories about the 2020 election and COVID-19 vaccines remain particularly popular.

    “It seems to me that the people who peddle this information for profit may look upon this as the cost of doing business,” Adelman said. “If there’s an audience for it, someone is going to meet the demand if there’s money to be made.”

    Certainly, the people who believe that Jones and those like him are voices of truth being suppressed by society aren’t going to be deterred by the jury verdict, she said. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true.

    The plaintiffs awarded damages in the Sandy Hook case were all private citizens, an important distinction in considering its impact beyond this case, said Nicole Hemmer, a Vanderbilt University professor and author of “Partisans: The Conservative Revolutionaries Who Remade American Politics in the 1990s.”

    The case is reminiscent of Seth Rich, a young Democratic Party aide killed in a Washington robbery in 2016, she said. Rich’s name was dragged — posthumously — into political conspiracy theories, and his parents later sued and reached a settlement with Fox News Channel.

    The message, in other words: Be wary of dragging private citizens into outlandish theories.

    “Spreading conspiracy theories about the Biden administration is not going to get Fox News Channel sued,” Hemmer said. “It is not going to get Tucker Carlson sued.”

    Tracing the history of outlandish theories that sprout and thrive in the web’s murky corners is also difficult. Much of it is anonymous. It’s still not clear who is responsible for what is spread on QAnon or who makes money off it, Fenster says.

    If he was a lawyer, he said, “Who would I go after?”

    Despite any pessimism about what the nearly $1 billion Sandy Hook judgment might ultimately mean for disinformation, the dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania says it still sends an important message.

    “What this says is we can’t just make up truths to fit our own ideological predilections,” John Jackson said. “There is a hard and fast ground to facts that we can’t stray too far from as storytellers.”

    Consider the lawsuit filed against Fox News Channel by Dominion Voting Systems, a company that makes election systems. It claims Fox knowingly spread false stories about Dominion as part of former President Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election had been taken from him. Dominion has sought a staggering $1.6 billion from Fox, and the case has moved through the deposition phase.

    Fox has defended itself vigorously. It says that rather than spreading falsehoods, it was reporting on newsworthy claims being made by the president of the United States.

    A loss in a trial, or a significant settlement, could impose a real financial hardship on Fox, Hemmer said. Yet as it progresses, there’s been no indication that any of its commentators are pulling punches, particularly concerning the Biden administration.

    Distrust of mainstream news sources also fuels the taste among many conservatives for theories that fit their world view — and a vulnerability to disinformation.

    “I don’t think there’s any incentive to move toward well-grounded reporting or to move in the direction of news and information instead of commenting,” Hemmer said. “That’s what they want. They want the wild conspiracy theories.”

    Even if the crushing verdict in Connecticut this week — coupled with the $49 million judgement against him in August by the Texas court — muzzles or minimizes Jones, Adelman says others are likely to take over for him: “It would be wrong to misinterpret this as the death knell of disinformation.”

    ———

    David Bauder is the media writer for The Associated Press. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/dbauder

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NFL says Deshaun Watson status unchanged despite new lawsuit

    NFL says Deshaun Watson status unchanged despite new lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    BEREA, Ohio — Suspended Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson’s status with the NFL has not been affected by a new civil lawsuit filed by another woman accusing him of sexual misconduct two years ago, the league said Friday.

    Watson is serving an 11-game suspension for alleged sexual misconduct while he played for the Houston Texans. Two dozen women previously alleged he was sexually inappropriate during massage therapy sessions.

    On Thursday, another woman filed a lawsuit in Texas that alleges Watson pressured her into performing a sex act after a massage in 2020. Watson has settled 23 of 24 previous lawsuits filed against him.

    NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said the latest lawsuit does not impact Watson’s standing. The three-time Pro Bowler returned to the Browns’ training facility this week for the first time since his suspension began on Aug. 30.

    “We will monitor developments in the newly-filed litigation; and any conduct that warrants further investigation or possible additional sanctions would be addressed within the Personal Conduct Policy,” McCarthy said in an email.

    Watson is only permitted to attend meetings with the Browns and work out as he moves toward a possible return. He is not allowed to practice until Nov. 14, and as long as he fulfills conditions of his settlement with the league, he can return fully on Nov. 28 and would be eligible to play on Dec. 4 when the Browns visit the Texans.

    Watson agreed to the 11-game ban, a $5 million fine and to undergo treatment and counseling by an independent group.

    The Browns traded for Watson in March and signed him to a five-year, $240 million contract.

    ———

    More AP NFL coverage: https://apnews.com/hub/NFL and https://twitter.com/AP—NFL

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meet the judge who tamed the Musk-Twitter trial

    Meet the judge who tamed the Musk-Twitter trial

    [ad_1]

    DOVER, Del. — A lawyer for billionaire Elon Musk had barely begun speaking during a recent hearing when the Delaware judge presiding over Twitter’s lawsuit against Musk abruptly cut her off.

    “Skip the rhetoric and go to the meat,” Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick said bluntly.

    The judge’s tone that day illuminates the no-nonsense approach she brings as the first woman to lead Delaware’s 230-year-old Court of Chancery. The court is America’s go-to venue for high-stakes disputes involving some of the world’s biggest companies, many of which call Delaware their legal home.

    This court fight between the world’s richest man and the influential social platform could easily have become a circus, particularly given Musk’s penchant for chaos. That hasn’t happened largely thanks to McCormick, who’s been a judge for only four years. She has set firm deadlines, reined in over-the-top attorney requests and kept the case moving briskly.

    Musk has been battling Twitter since he announced in July that he wanted to scuttle an agreement to acquire the social media giant for $44 billion. Twitter sued Musk, seeking a court order of “specific performance” directing him to consummate the deal.

    McCormick recently ordered a temporary halt in the case after Musk indicated that he would go ahead with the transaction, but she also warned that she will schedule a November trial if Musk doesn’t close the deal by Oct. 28.

    The judge, whose humble demeanor belies her professional confidence, does not like the spotlight. After joining the court, McCormick admitted that she didn’t fully appreciate how everything she wrote or said would receive intense scrutiny.

    McCormick now seems unfazed that court observers and legal pundits are not only watching her every move, but sometimes pretending to know what she is going to do and why.

    “The world will have to wait for the post-trial decision,” she wrote in a September ruling, indirectly acknowledging the public spotlight on the case.

    From an early age, McCormick, 43, has demonstrated that she can adapt and persevere when faced with challenges.

    She was born in Dover, Delaware’s capital city, and raised with her two older brothers a few miles north in the town of Smyrna. Her mother taught English; her father taught history and coached Smyrna High School’s football team.

    “Katie” McCormick thought she, too, would become a teacher, even serving as president of the Delaware Future Educators of America, among other student organizations

    McCormick also was a tough athlete who played fastpitch softball and ran track despite having extreme scoliosis, an abnormal curvature of the spine that was apparent from birth and which required her to wear a brace at times. In 1995, when she was 15, McCormick underwent spinal fusion surgery.

    Two years later, as a 17-year-old senior, McCormick was the recipient of a scholarship awarded each year to a downstate athlete who had overcome a physical disability. A photograph from the awards banquet that night shows a smiling McCormick, in a white dress with paisley trim, standing between then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden and former NFL quarterback Joe Theisman.

    “Some days were just a little harder than others, but I had faith it would all work out for the best,” McCormick said at the time, noting that other children she would meet during her hospital trips faced more severe problems.

    McCormick became the first Smyrna High student to attend Harvard University, where she majored in philosophy.

    McCormick, with a deep and eclectic interest in music, played in an Irish folk band while at college. She also became involved in a student-run legal aid program that helps low-income people in the Boston area. That experience helped pique her interest in the law, leading her to the University of Notre Dame law school.

    McCormick, who has long viewed the law as a path to serve others, spent her summers working in Northern Ireland for firms specializing in human rights work and international conflict resolution. After graduation, she looked homeward, taking a job with the Community Legal Aid Society, where she worked on housing issues.

    “Her academic record stood out. She was a Delaware native,” said CLASI executive director Dan Atkins, who recruited McCormick. “That was not typical for us, so that was cool.”

    After two years at CLASI, financial considerations involving the birth of her second child propelled McCormick into private practice. She later admitted that she felt “defeated” by the move because she had wanted to pursue a service-oriented path. Still, she developed a passion for business litigation, as well as for expedited proceedings like the fast-track schedule she ordered in the Twitter lawsuit.

    “Her return to public service with the court makes sense. She’s come full circle,” said Atkins, who noted that, in addition to corporate litigation, the Court of Chancery also handles equally important matters such as trusts and estates, guardianships and real estate disputes.

    “I bet you she gives those cases every bit of her attention that she gives the Twitter case,” he said. “I guarantee it.”

    McCormick is no humorless legal robot, however. In the introduction to her article in a law school journal, she poked fun at the supposed “misspelling” of her first name, Kathaleen, which she shares with her mother and grandmother. She explained that the unusual spelling was attributable to her great-grandmother, not the journal’s staff.

    On the Chancery Court, where judges sometimes cite historic, literary and even pop-culture references in their rulings, McCormick’s opinions tend to be comparatively prosaic and direct. Presented with the opportunity, however, she, too, can turn a phrase. A ruling last year in a lawsuit involving the cannabis industry opened with a reference to a Grateful Dead song.

    In another ruling last year, McCormick noted that, “Julia Child is rumored to have once said: ‘A party without a cake is just a meeting.’” In that case, she ordered a private equity firm to acquire a cake decorating company even though the buyers had “lost their appetite” for the deal after signing it. Such an order of specific performance is the same type of relief sought by Twitter against Musk.

    The icing on that particular cake? One week after that ruling, McCormick, who was appointed a vice chancellor in 2018 when the court expanded from five judges to seven, was promoted to chancellor.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta hits back in fight with FTC over VR company acquisition

    Meta hits back in fight with FTC over VR company acquisition

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Federal regulators and Facebook parent Meta are battling over Meta’s proposed acquisition of virtual-reality company Within Unlimited and its fitness app Supernatural.

    In a landmark legal challenge to a Big Tech merger, the Federal Trade Commission is suing to block the deal, asserting it would hurt competition and violate antitrust laws.

    Meta struck back Thursday, asking a federal court in San Jose, California, to dismiss the FTC’s July request for an injunction against the acquisition.

    The tech giant said in its court filing that the government failed to establish that the virtual-reality market is concentrated with high barriers to entry. The claims in the agency’s lawsuit “are nothing more than the FTC’s speculation about what Meta might have done,” the company says. It asserts that the FTC failed to meet two key legal standards set in previous cases.

    In a statement Thursday, the FTC noted that it revised its complaint last week in a way that narrowed the focus of its allegations. In its new form, the statement said, “We are confident that the District Court complaint will not be dismissed and this case will be heard.”

    Meta, in its own statement, said “The FTC’s attempt to fix its ill-conceived complaint still ignores the facts and the law, and relies on pure speculation of a hypothetical future state.”

    It added that it believes the complaint should be dismissed because there is “vibrant competition in the fitness space and across (virtual reality), and our acquisition of Within will be good for people, developers and the VR space.”

    The FTC’s vote last summer to seek to block the Within acquisition was 3-2, with Chair Lina Khan and the other two Democratic commissioners approving it and the two Republicans opposed.

    The FTC’s original suit named CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a defendant as well as Meta, but he was dropped in August.

    Under Zuckerberg’s leadership, Meta began a campaign to conquer virtual reality in 2014 with its acquisition of headset maker Oculus VR. Since then, Meta’s VR headsets have become the cornerstone of its growth in the virtual reality space, the FTC noted in its suit. Fueled by the popularity of its top-selling Quest headsets, Meta’s Quest Store has become a leading U.S. app platform with more than 400 apps available to download, according to the agency.

    Meta bought seven of the most successful virtual-reality development studios, and now has one of the largest virtual-reality content catalogs in the world, the FTC says. Its acquisition of the Beat Games studio gave Meta control of the popular app Beat Saber.

    In its suit against the Within acquisition, the FTC cited a 2015 email from Zuckerberg to key Facebook executives saying that his vision for “the next wave of computing” was control of apps as well as the platform on which those apps are distributed. The email says a key part of this strategy is for the company to be “completely ubiquitous in killer apps,” which are apps that prove the value of the technology.

    Zuckerberg announced ambitious plans a year ago to build the “metaverse” — a virtual-reality construct intended to supplant the internet, merge virtual life with real life and create endless new playgrounds for everyone.

    On Tuesday, the company based in Menlo Park, California, unveiled a $1,500 virtual reality headset in the hope that people will soon be using it to work and play in the metaverse.

    The action marked a new FTC salvo against Meta — the owner of Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp in addition to Facebook — in the agency’s drive against what it views as anticompetitive conduct in the tech industry.

    The FTC filed an antitrust lawsuit against Facebook in late 2020. With that action, the agency is seeking remedies that could include a forced spinoff of Instagram and WhatsApp, or a restructuring of the company.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mississippi judge blocks private schools’ tax-funded grants

    Mississippi judge blocks private schools’ tax-funded grants

    [ad_1]

    JACKSON, Miss. — A Mississippi judge on Thursday blocked a state law that put $10 million of federal pandemic relief money into infrastructure grants for private schools.

    The ruling by Hinds County Chancery Judge Crystal Wise Martin is a victory for Parents for Public Schools. The nonprofit group sued to block the program, arguing that the funding gives private schools a competitive advantage over public schools.

    The lawsuit cites Section 208 of the Mississippi Constitution, which prohibits the use of public money for any school that is not “a free school.”

    “Any appropriation of public funds to be received by private schools adversely affects schools and their students,” Martin wrote. “Taxpayer funding for education is finite.”

    During this year’s legislative session, Mississippi’s Republican-controlled House and Senate made plans to spend most of the $1.8 billion the state is receiving from the federal government for pandemic relief.

    Republican Gov. Tate Reeves signed two bills in April. One created a grant program to help private schools pay for water, broadband and other infrastructure projects. The other allocated the $10 million of federal money for the program, starting July 1.

    The program allows grants of up to $100,000 to any in-state school that is a member of the Midsouth Association of Independent Schools and is accredited by a state, regional or national organization. Public schools cannot apply for the infrastructure grants.

    Legislators created a program to provide interest-free loans to public schools to improve buildings and other facilities, with money coming from the state. Those loans must be repaid within 10 years. The grants to private schools do not need to be repaid.

    Attorney General Lynn Fitch’s staff is reviewing the judge’s order and “evaluating next steps” of whether to appeal, chief of staff Michelle Williams said Thursday.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, the Mississippi Center for Justice and Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit June 15 on behalf of Parents for Public Schools, an advocacy group founded more than 30 years ago.

    Democracy Forward attorney Will Bardwell said in a statement that Martin’s ruling is “a victory for the Mississippi Constitution and every person who cares about public education in the state.”

    “When the state legislature violated the constitution by directing public money to private schools, it did more than merely continue Mississippi’s shameful history of undermining its children’s public schools. It broke the law, period,” Bardwell said. “Today’s ruling makes clear: No one, not even the Mississippi legislature, is above the law.”

    The private schools’ infrastructure grant program is overseen by the Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration. A spokeswoman for the agency said Thursday that no applications have been received and none of the money has been distributed.

    Martin noted that Mississippi’s public education system has been “chronically underfunded.” A 1997 state law established a complex funding formula called the Mississippi Adequate Education Program, which was designed to ensure schools receive enough money to meet midlevel academic standards. Legislators have fully funded the formula only two years.

    Martin noted that the same day she heard oral arguments in the case, Aug. 23, Jackson’s public Forest Hill High School had to dismiss early because of low water pressure. By Aug. 30, all of Jackson’s public schools had to go to online-only classes temporarily because problems in the city’s main water treatment plant caused most of Jackson to lose running water for a few days.

    “This court need only sit in Hinds County and take notice of current events to find that exclusive public infrastructure funding for private schools adversely affects public school students differently than the general public,” Martin wrote.

    ————

    Follow Emily Wagster Pettus on Twitter at http://twitter.com/EWagsterPettus.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gooding Jr. avoids jail in touching case, angering accusers

    Gooding Jr. avoids jail in touching case, angering accusers

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — As Cuba Gooding Jr.’s forcible touching case faded to black Thursday with no jail time for the movie star, some of the dozens of women who have accused him of groping, unwanted kissing and other inappropriate behavior criticized the outcome as a slap on the wrist — and a slap in the face.

    The Oscar-winning actor turned #MeToo defendant avoided prison time by complying with the terms of a conditional plea agreement that saw him plead guilty to charges involving just one of what prosecutors have said were allegations from at least 30 women, many at New York City nightspots.

    Assistant Manhattan District Attorney Coleen Balbert told a judge Thursday that since the deal was reached in April, Gooding has stayed out of trouble and completed six months of alcohol and behavioral counseling. That enabled him to withdraw his misdemeanor guilty plea — for forcibly kissing a waitress at a Manhattan nightclub in 2018 — and instead plead guilty to a non-criminal harassment violation.

    That means no additional penalties and no criminal record for Gooding, the star of films such as “Jerry Maguire,” “Boyz N the Hood” and “Radio.”

    “This plea deal feels like a misstep,” said Kelsey Harbert, a neuroscience student whose allegation that Gooding groped her at a nightclub led to his 2019 arrest but wasn’t part of his guilty plea.

    “After three long years of trying to hold Mr. Gooding accountable for touching my breast without my consent, having my day in court taken away from me is more disappointing than words can say,” said Harbert, who was tearful at times as she spoke in court.

    Harbert’s lawyer, Gloria Allred, called the plea deal “an insult” to Gooding’s accusers and a “prosecutorial gift to a celebrity who is undeserving of such an outcome.”

    Balbert told Judge Curtis Farber that she has received “positive reports for the last six months” from Gooding’s therapist. Gooding started counseling in September 2019 and will continue with treatment beyond the time required by his plea agreement, Balbert said.

    If Gooding had failed to comply with the terms of the deal, he would have faced up to one year in jail.

    Arrested in 2019, Gooding was among a profusion of Hollywood heavyweights accused of wrongdoing in the #MeToo movement, which exploded five years ago this month.

    As Gooding was in court Thursday wrapping up his case, another Oscar-winning actor, Kevin Spacey, was on trial down the block in a civil lawsuit alleging that he sexually assaulted actor Anthony Rapp.

    Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, former studio boss Harvey Weinstein and “That 70’s Show” star Danny Masterson are in the midst of separate rape trials. Weinstein was convicted of similar charges in New York in 2020 and is serving a 23-year prison sentence.

    Gooding was arrested in June 2019 after Harbert told police he fondled her without her consent at Magic Hour Rooftop Bar & Lounge near Times Square.

    A few months later, prosecutors charged Gooding with pinching a server’s buttocks after making a sexually suggestive remark to her at TAO Downtown and the allegation to which he pleaded guilty — forcibly kissing a waitress at LAVO New York in midtown Manhattan, both in 2018.

    The LAVO waitress said in a victim impact statement that Gooding was facing “minimal repercussions” while his victims continued to deal with the emotional trauma of his actions.

    The TAO Downtown server asked, to no avail, that he be required to complete another six months of therapy to ensure that he changes his behavior and to send a “special message” to men that sexual assault and misconduct won’t be tolerated.

    Asked about the criticism, the Manhattan district attorney’s office referred to Balbert’s remarks in court in April in which she said prosecutors believed the plea deal to be a “fair and equitable disposition” that spared accusers from having to testify at trial and being subject to cross examination.

    Gooding said little in court Thursday, did not apologize to his accusers — as he did in April — and did not answer shouted questions from reporters as he hustled out of the courtroom.

    Asked to explain what he did, Gooding told Farber: “I kissed a waitress, your honor.”

    The waitress, in her victim impact statement, said Gooding forced his tongue into her mouth unexpectedly while she was serving drinks. In the statement, read into the record by Balbert, the waitress said she was aware of incidents involving Gooding and three other women at the club.

    Gooding had previously pleaded not guilty to six misdemeanor counts and denied all allegations of wrongdoing. His lawyers argued that overzealous prosecutors, caught up in the fervor of #MeToo, were trying to turn “commonplace gestures” or misunderstandings into crimes.

    Along with the criminal case, Gooding is a defendant in civil lawsuits, including one alleging he raped a woman in New York City in 2013. After a judge issued a default judgment in July because Gooding hadn’t responded to the lawsuit, the actor retained a lawyer and is fighting the allegations.

    The Associated Press does not typically identify people who say they are victims of sexual assault unless they grant permission, as Harbert has done.

    [ad_2]

    Source link