‘It’s Mind-Boggling’: State Trooper Called In K-9 Units, Helicopters, Officers with Rifles Just Because He Thought a Teenager Played ‘Ding-Dong Ditch’ at His Home, Families’ Lawsuit Says

A Delaware state trooper who was fired and jailed for violently assaulting two teenagers after learning one of them played a game of “ding-dong ditch” at his house is now facing a lawsuit from the boys’ families.

The lawsuit comes one year after Dempsey Walters pleaded guilty to assault and deprivation of civil rights, both felony charges. He also pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of assault in the third degree and two misdemeanor counts of official misconduct in connection with the incident in August 2023.

According to a grand jury indictment, Walters spotted one teenage boy in his neighborhood on Aug. 17, 2023, and launched a verbal altercation after believing the boy was engaging in misconduct. He and local police took the boy home. The teen was not arrested or charged.

After that incident, officials say that Walters searched the teen’s background in a law enforcement database.

Three days after the altercation, a different teenage boy was walking in Walters’ neighborhood with three of his friends and decided to play “ding-dong ditch.” Ring doorbell footage shows the 15-year-old boy running up to the front door of Walters’ home, kicking it, and running away.

Walters’ girlfriend, who was at home at the time, called Walters and told him about the prank.

Walters, who was on duty, immediately headed home and called state troopers and officers from other law enforcement agencies for help.

Believing that the first teen he encountered in his neighborhood on Aug. 17 may have been involved, he looked up the boy’s address and went to his home, according to the indictment.

When the teen came to the front door, Walters “forcibly pulled” him out of the home and “forced him to the ground, causing injuries,” the indictment states. Walters cuffed the teen and detained him in the back of a police vehicle. The teen was later released without charges.

After detaining the first teen, Walters was contacted by a state trooper who located and detained the 15-year-old who kicked Walters’ door. Walters immediately headed to the scene.

Dashcam video shows the moments a trooper caught up with the teen and his friends. He’s seen ordering the boys to the ground, then pushing the 15-year-old to the ground as the boy screams, and swearing at him repeatedly.

When Walters arrived at the scene, he saw the teen “face-down on the ground” and the trooper struggling to cuff his hands behind his back, the indictment states.

Almost immediately after arriving, Walters is seen running over and placing his knee on the back of the teen’s head and neck, causing him to cry out in distress.

After the boy was cuffed and placed in the back of a trooper’s cruiser, Walters “turned off his body-worn camera and walked to the police vehicle,” the indictment states.

While the teen was seated in the vehicle with his hands cuffed behind his back, Walters struck the boy “in the right side of his face, causing an orbital fracture,” which broke his eye socket.

However, the punch had been recorded since Delaware law enforcement body-worn cameras capture 30 seconds of buffer video, without audio, when they are deactivated.

After reviewing the bodycam footage, state police contacted the state attorney general’s office.

Walters was immediately suspended from his job. A month later, he was indicted. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to one year in jail and four years of probation.

“The Defendant’s rampage against two kids, and his subsequent attempt to conceal his misconduct, was brutal, dishonest, and unacceptable. It was a flagrant and felonious violation of his oath and an insult to his fellow officers,” Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings said in a statement.

Keep reading

When Smart Meters Turn Into Spy Tools

California’s robust privacy protections are facing a critical test as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and community advocates press forward with a lawsuit to dismantle what they describe as an illegal and biased surveillance operation run by Sacramento’s public electric utility.

In a legal filing submitted last week, the EFF laid out evidence that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), which serves more than 650,000 customers, has spent over a decade monitoring detailed home electricity data and funneling it to police without a warrant. The organization calls this an unconstitutional “dragnet surveillance” program that unlawfully invades household privacy on a massive scale.

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

“This case is about Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s…dragnet surveillance of SMUD customers’ homes using sensitive and confidential energy usage information,” the brief begins. “The decade-long surveillance violates the California Constitution and a state privacy statute.”

SMUD’s so-called “smart meters,” installed in nearly every home it serves, transmit power usage in 15-minute intervals to the utility multiple times per day. This data, the lawsuit argues, offers a detailed portrait of home life, including sleep patterns, occupancy, and even personal routines. “SMUD analysts can, in effect, use the data to digitally peer into a person’s home,” the brief explains.

EFF alleges that SMUD has routinely handed over customer information to local police departments, including names, addresses, and usage history, without any individualized suspicion or judicial oversight. In many cases, these disclosures were based solely on arbitrary consumption thresholds. “SMUD has turned over…the names, addresses, and electrical consumption information of more than 33,000 customers through a zip code list,” the brief states.

Keep reading

VICTORY FOR VOTER INTEGRITY: Federal Judge Tosses Leftist Lawsuit — Delivers Knockout Win in Wyoming’s on Proof of Citizenship Requirement

In a crushing blow to radical left-wing lawyer Marc Elias and his progressive allies, a federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit that sought to gut Wyoming’s new election integrity law.

United States District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled in favor of Secretary of State Chuck Gray and dismissed outright the lawsuit filed by the Equality State Policy Center, which had enlisted notorious Democrat operative Marc Elias in a blatant attempt to strike down House Bill 156—Wyoming’s common-sense requirement that all voter registrants provide proof of U.S. citizenship and state residency.

In his 17-page ruling, Judge Skavdahl SLAMMED the plaintiffs for lacking any standing whatsoever, exposing the entire case as a baseless political attack dressed up as a legal complaint.

“Plaintiff has not adequately demonstrated its standing to sue on its own behalf or on behalf of others in this action,” Skavdahl wrote. “The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit, and consequently it must be dismissed.”

The court wrote:

To establish Article III standing to sue, the law requires the plaintiff to show three requirements:
(1) it has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Assuming Plaintiffs assertions to be true, they do not establish its standing to bring this lawsuit in its own capacity. Plaintiff has not shown a concrete injury in fact that is fairly traceable to HB 156.

Plaintiffs alleged diversion-of-resources injury is the same type of injury claimed in AllianceforHippocraticMedicine,but the U.S. Supreme Court determined this type of alleged injury was not a concrete injury in fact traceable to the challenged governmental conduct sufficient to satisfy Article III standing.

Keep reading

Blake Lively Wants Names and IP Addresses

Blake Lively has decided that the best way to respond to online gossip and criticism is with subpoenas, lots of them. With a move that suggests her legal team spent a weekend watching “Enemy of the State,” Lively is now targeting 36 content creators, from high-profile commentators to pseudonymous hobbyists, all over rumors she says were part of a smear effort.

Some of the targets have large followings. Others barely register on the algorithm. One runs a YouTube astrology channel with fewer than 300 subscribers at the time of the subpoena. All are now being asked to turn over a wide array of personal and financial data, as if they were co-conspirators in a criminal probe instead of people who post opinions from their bedrooms.

The case, Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, is already a headache in itself, but this new front seems designed less to resolve the actual lawsuit and more to comb through the internet for anything unflattering.

We obtained a copy of the Google subpoena for you here.

We obtained a copy of the TikTok subpoena for you here.

We obtained a copy of the X subpoena for you here.

If you’re out of the loop, Blake Lively is suing Wayfarer Studios, its co-founder Justin Baldoni, and several others, alleging sexual harassment, workplace misconduct, breach of contract, and a coordinated retaliation campaign designed to destroy her reputation.

According to the complaint, Lively raised concerns about repeated inappropriate behavior by Baldoni and Wayfarer executives during production of It Ends With Us. After the film was completed, she claims Baldoni and his team launched a covert “social manipulation” campaign to discredit her using fake grassroots content, crisis PR firms, and anonymous online posts, which she describes as a well-funded digital smear effort.

Keep reading

Thomas Massie’s New Bill Would Let People Sue Pharma for COVID Vaccine Injuries

Several years after the COVID-19 vaccine’s rollout, the only federal program that provides compensation for COVID vaccine injuries continues to process claims at a snail’s pace while rejecting most of those claims that it does decide.

As of June 1, only 39 people have received compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for a COVID-19 vaccine injury. It has rejected another 4,338 claims. Some 9,423 people are still waiting for the federal government to even review their case.

The long wait times and high rejection rates have prompted some lawmakers to propose repealing the liability protections created by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which prevents people from suing COVID vaccine makers in state courts and leaves them dependent on the CICP as the only possible source of compensation.

That includes Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), who introduced a bill last week to repeal the liability shields in the PREP Act.

“The PREP Act is medical malpractice martial law,” said Massie in a press release. “Americans deserve the right to seek justice when injured by government-mandated products.”

Passed as part of a defense spending bill in 2005, the PREP Act was intended to shore up companies’ willingness to produce novel “countermeasures” in the wake of a public health emergency like a pandemic or bioterror attack by shielding them from civil suits.

The law allows the Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) to issue blanket liability waivers to countermeasures produced in response to a public health emergency. People injured from a covered countermeasure can pursue compensation through the CICP, but they can’t sue in state court.

In February 2020, then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act’s liability shield for COVID-19 countermeasures, which covered then-yet-to-be-invented vaccines, masks, tests, and more.

Massie’s PREP Repeal Act would end those liability protections, thus opening up vaccine makers to personal injury lawsuits in state courts.

Advocates for the vaccine injured say any attention to their plight is welcome.

Keep reading

The Department of Justice Just Sided with RFK Jr. Group’s Claim That News Orgs Can’t Boycott Misinformation

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to end “childhood health epidemics by eliminating toxic exposure,” submitted an antitrust complaint against The Washington Post, the BBC, the Associated Press, and Reuters in January 2023. On Friday, the Justice Department published a statement of interest in favor of the CHD, which implores the federal court hearing the case to recognize that harm to viewpoint competition is grounds for antitrust prosecution. 

In the case, Children’s Health Defense v. Washington Post, the CHD alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust law through their establishment of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint claims that the TNI formed a “group boycott” to exclude publishers of “misinformation” partially or entirely from popular internet platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

The complaint cites a March 2022 statement by Jamie Angus, senior news controller at BBC, who said “the real rivalry now is…between all trusted news providers and a tidal wave of unchecked [reporting] that’s being piped out mainly through digital platforms,” as evidence of “the economic self-interest behind the TNI’s group boycott [and] the anti-competitive purpose and effect of that boycott.” CHD misconstrues the meaning of Angus’ words in an attempt to persuade the court that the TNI is a “horizontal agreement among competitor firms to cut off from the market upstart rivals threatening their business model.”

CHD alleges that TNI’s restrictions are unreasonable not only because they “collusively reduce output” and “lower product quality”—conventional indicators of illegal collusive behavior—but because “they suppress competition in the marketplace of ideas.” Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division is running with CHD’s argument.

Slater said that the “Antitrust Division will always defend the principle that the antitrust laws protect free markets, including the marketplace of ideas,” in a press release. In the department’s statement of interest, Slater references the majority opinion from U.S. v. Associated Press (1945) to argue that “right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection.”

Joseph Coniglio, director of antitrust and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, agrees with Slater that “collusive viewpoint restrictions can be antitrust violations.” However, he emphasizes that, “if the platforms allegedly taking down content are not defendants and don’t have vertical agreements with…TNI to do so, it’s hard to see how the latter could be illegal.” (CHD alleges that censorship “by Facebook, Google and Twitter, [caused] damages to date of over $1,000,000,” but does not name these platforms as defendants in its suit.)

Slater’s statement was submitted amid ongoing litigation between Media Matters and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the other federal antitrust enforcement agency. The FTC opened an investigation into Media Matters in May for facilitating an alleged advertising boycott against the social media platform X. Advertising holding companies Omnicom Group and Interpublic Group of Companies agreed not to enter into “any agreement or practice that would steer advertising dollars away from publishers based on their political or ideological viewpoints” as a condition of their merger settlement with the FTC in June. Media Matters has challenged the FTC’s probe into its operations on First Amendment grounds.

Keep reading

3 New Plaintiffs Ask to Join COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit Against Bill Gates

Three COVID-19 vaccine injury victims are asking to join a Dutch lawsuit against Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and 15 other defendants, alleging they misled the public about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The lawsuit was filed last year by seven COVID-19 vaccine injury victims, one of whom has since died.

According to a filing by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Peter Stassen, the three new victims “were healthy people” who began experiencing health problems after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“The applicants are of the opinion that the serious side effects that occurred after having the Covid-19 (mRNA) injections are the direct result of the content / composition of these Covid-19 (mRNA) injections,” the filing states.

Doctors have repeatedly refused to diagnose a link between vaccination and their injuries, Stassen said.

During a hearing today at the District Court of North Netherlands in Leeuwarden, Stassen also asked the court to approve five expert witnesses who will testify about the risks and dangers of the COVID-19 shots:

  • Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
  • Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical research and development executive.
  • Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who is litigating to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida.
  • Katherine Watt, a researcher and paralegal.
  • Mike Yeadon, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and former vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit.

Another proposed witness, Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., who agreed in January to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs, has since died. Boyle was a professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.

Keep reading

President Claudia Sheinbaum May Sue ICE over Mexican Farmworker Who Died During Immigration Raid

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is considering legal action against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency after a Mexican farmworker fell to his death during an immigration raid in California.

Jaime Alanís Garcia was hospitalized and ultimately passed away after falling off a roof during an ICE raid in Caramillo, California.

ABC7 wrote:

Federal agents clashed with protesters during the immigration raid at the farm in Ventura County, one of at least two large-scale raids in Southern California on July 10.

Garcia’s family said he fell about 30 feet off a building while he was possibly trying to run from federal agents. Garcia suffered a broken neck and skull.

The tragic situation led Sheinbaum to say that they are considering legal options.

“We are supporting the family, we are in contact with them, and we’re also exploring the possibility of filing a complaint (in the U.S.) because this is unacceptable,” Sheinbaum said during a press conference.

She added, “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is currently reviewing the matter. It is very unfortunate that this happened. All our solidarity and support go to the family, and there must not be another case like this one. That’s why the complaint must be filed in the courts over there.”

Keep reading

Booker Launches Bill That Gives Citizens Right to Sue Pesticide Makers as House Pushes Measure to Protect Big Chemical

Federal lawmakers are being asked to consider two dueling pieces of legislation: one that protects the right of Americans to sue a pesticide maker if exposure to the company’s product harms their health, and one that protects chemical companies from those very types of lawsuits.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) today introduced the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act of 2025. The proposed bill would amend the existing Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) law to ensure that agrochemical manufacturers can be held accountable if their products harm human health.

“If passed, the law would turn the tables on efforts by Bayer and a coalition of agricultural organizations as they push for state-by-state legislation blocking individuals from being able to file lawsuits in state courts accusing the companies of failing to warn of the risks of their products,” investigative reporter Carey Gillam wrote in The New Lede.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee approved an appropriations bill with a clause that would make it more difficult for states to regulate pesticides or for people harmed by agrochemicals to sue the companies that make them, according to the Center for Food Safety.

The clause limits the use of federal funds to regulate pesticides by restricting regulators’ ability to create new rules or require warnings stronger than those already approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Keep reading

Trial begins as Meta investors, Zuckerberg square off over alleged privacy violations

An $8 billion trial by Meta Platforms (META.O) shareholders against Mark Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders kicked off on Wednesday over claims they illegally harvested the data of Facebook users in violation of a 2012 agreement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

The trial started with a privacy expert for the plaintiffs, Neil Richards of Washington University Law School, who testified about Facebook’s data policies.

“Facebook’s privacy disclosures were misleading,” he told the court.

Jeffrey Zients, White House chief of staff under President Joe Biden and a Meta (META.O) director for two years starting in May 2018, is expected to take the stand later on Wednesday in the non-jury trial before Kathaleen McCormick, chief judge of the Delaware Chancery Court.

The case will feature testimony from Zuckerberg and other billionaire defendants including former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen as well as former board members Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies (PLTR.O) co-founder, and Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix (NFLX.O).

A lawyer for the defendants, who have denied the allegations, declined to comment.

Keep reading