Tag: lawsuits

Garland Favorito and VoterGA Appeal Inexplicable Dismissal of Curling vs. Raffensperger Election Ruling

The 8-year-long federal lawsuit seeking to ban voting systems in the State of Georgia that store a voter’s intent on a QR code rather than human-verifiable text ended in April.

Judge Amy Totenberg issued her ruling over a year after the trial concluded, determining that “the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.”

The Gateway Pundit covered this trial from Day 1 in court, witnessing several egregious manipulations of the voting system demonstrated live and on the record in the courtroom.

University of Michigan computer science professor Dr. J. Alex Halderman successfully hacked the Dominion ICX system in court using a BIC pen in one hack and tools you can purchase on Amazon for several other hacks.

Keep reading

Harvard ethics professor fired for dishonesty maintains her innocence

A Harvard University professor who lost her tenure due to data fraud maintains she is innocent and said she plans to fight for her reputation in court.

Francesca Gino became the first person since the 1940s to lose tenure at Harvard University after the school investigated allegations she tampered with data. The investigation followed accusations made by a trio of behavioral scientists with the blog Data Colada.

Gino (pictured), a business ethics professor, consistently denied the allegations and is fighting back with a lawsuit against Harvard. A judge previously ruled against her lawsuit against the Data Colada authors. However, the judge ruled Gino’s breach of contract claims can continue. She filed a further response on June 23, while Harvard has filed other motions in the past week.

In an unsigned email to The College Fix, Gino’s team noted several major concerns about the integrity of Harvard’s investigation.

According to Gino’s team, Harvard’s investigation report did not include the underlying data needed to independently verify Harvard’s claims. That is, the school denied the professor a proper forensic evaluation and access to raw datasets.

The response also said the burden of proof was reversed. Harvard’s own policy requires that the university proves misconduct occurred and not place the burden on the accused, but Gino was forced to prove her innocence without the backing of resources. Harvard was also supposed to prove the misconduct was committed “recklessly,” “knowingly,” or “intentionally.”

For example, Gino was reportedly not allowed to question witnesses, including her own co-authors and research assistants. She was also unable to obtain documentation that could potentially show who accessed or edited the data, Gino’s team said.

Gino’s team also noted four of five papers under scrutiny were published more than six years before the investigation, which falls outside the statute of limitations for misconduct investigations set by both Harvard and federal standards.

“The available evidence simply did not allow a thorough audit of the relevant data sets,” the email read.

Keep reading

Court case against Bill Gates in the Netherlands goes ahead despite the jailing of the lead lawyer

Two Dutch lawyers, Arno van Kessel and Peter Stassen, filed a case representing 7 claimants who alleged harm from covid injections. The case against Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and 15 others was facilitated by the Stichting Recht Oprecht Foundation.

Proceedings officially began on 14 July 2023 when bailiffs travelled across the Netherlands to serve summons to the 17 defendants.  The case was due to be first heard on 22 November 2023.

By 22 November 2023, the attorneys for all the defendants, except Gates, had entered their submissions.  Gates arrogantly claimed that the court in the Netherlands had no jurisdiction over him.  However, the court disagreed and said that all parties, including Gates, must appear in person at the court for an oral hearing on 18 September 2024.

Read more: Bill Gates tries to squirm out of court case but the Dutch aren’t having it

Gates did not appear in court as ordered. “Gates, who did not appear before the Leeuwarden District Court on 18 September, but was represented by a lawyer from PelsRijcken, stated that he believes that a Dutch judge is not competent to judge him because Gates is an American citizen,” independent researcher and reported Penny Maries said.

On 16 October 2024, the judge gave his ruling.  “The Judge announced on 16 October that Gates was in the wrong. The Dutch Judge does have jurisdiction,” Maries said.

“The court ruled that Gates, who attempted to have the case dismissed or contest the court’s jurisdiction, was in the wrong. His legal challenge was dismissed, and as a result, he has been ordered to pay the legal fees of the plaintiffs,” The Gateway Pundit said. “A new hearing [is] set for 27 November 2024.”

At the beginning of June 2025, the North Netherlands District Court in Leeuwarden finally announced that the first substantive hearing of the case was scheduled for 9 July 2025.

On the morning of Wednesday, 11 June, there was a completely unexpected turn of events. Arno van Kessel was taken from his bed early in the morning with a massive show of force by a special intervention team. The lawyer, his daughter, and wife were even held at gunpoint for a moment. A day later, the police issued a statement via the website politie.nl linking van Kessel to “a criminal network.” According to a press release prepared by the prosecution, eight people were arrested that morning who “adhere to anti-institutional ideology and may have the intention to use violence.”Remember a case brought against Bill Gates and the Dutch head of NATO in the Netherlands? The lawyer (Arno van Kessel) was arrested without charges and will be unable to present the case in court, Public Health Policy Journal, 1 July 2025

Dutch outlet De Andere Krant reported on 27 June that van Kessel is being kept in prison for another 90 days and so will not be able to present at the lawsuit against Gates, Mark Rutte and their co-defendants.  “The Public Prosecution Service will continue to regard him as a ‘suspect in an investigation into a criminal network’, for the time being, without providing any evidence.”

Keep reading

Judge Allows Don Lemon’s Lawsuit Against Elon Musk and X to Move Forward in California

A California judge has ruled that former CNN anchor Don Lemon’s lawsuit against Elon Musk and the social media platform X can proceed to trial.

The decision was handed down Tuesday by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold E. Kahn, who rejected Musk’s attempt to transfer the case to Texas.

The ruling stems from a legal complaint Lemon filed in August 2024.

In the lawsuit, Lemon alleges that Musk and X violated their agreement by canceling a planned show on the platform and failing to compensate him as agreed.

The complaint includes claims of breach of contract, misrepresentation, and fraud.

Lemon’s legal counsel, Carney Shegerian, issued a statement following the judge’s ruling: “The ruling means Don can hold X and Musk accountable in open court. Musk is subject to the legal process, just like everyone else, and that’s important.”

Keep reading

Soros Network Linked to Lawsuit Trying to Stop Trump from Ending ‘Temporary’ Amnesty Program

George and Alex Soros’s left-wing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) network is linked to a lawsuit that seeks to stop President Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from ending a temporary quasi-amnesty program for tens of thousands of migrants in the United States.

This week, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants in the U.S. from Honduras and Nicaragua. Last month, Noem similarly announced an end to TPS for migrants from Nepal.

Though meant to be temporary, since the Clinton administration, TPS has been transformed into a de facto amnesty program as nearly every president has routinely extended it and designated new countries for TPS status — allowing hundreds of thousands of migrants to stay in the U.S. and hold American jobs despite otherwise having no legal status.

As Breitbart News reported, migrants are now suing to block DHS from ending TPS for Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal. The migrants are represented by lawyers from the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the Haitian Bridge Alliance, among other NGOs.

The National Day Laborer Organizing Network has received millions from Soros’s Open Society Foundations from 2016 through 2022. In 2019, alone, the Open Society Foundations gave the NGO about $460,000 in funding while in 2022, the NGO got $675,000 from the Open Society Foundations.

Likewise, the Open Society Foundations has showered the Haitian Bridge Alliance with $550,000 to date, with those funds coming in 2020 and 2021.

In the migrants’ lawsuit, they accuse Trump and Noem of racism — arguing that they are being targeted because they are non-white, non-Europeans.

“Although it has become increasingly normalized, the fact remains that Secretary Noem, President Trump, and members of the Trump campaign and administration have consistently used racist invective to describe their TPS decisions involving immigrants from non-white, non-European countries, including those involving the countries at issue here,” the lawsuit claims.

Keep reading

LA seeks to join lawsuit against ‘unconstitutional reckless raids’ by ICE

The city of Los Angeles and nearby cities filed a request to intervene in a class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security that claims detained individuals are targeted based on race and denied due process.

If granted, the request would allow Los Angeles and its partners to become direct participants in the lawsuit, which would allow the city to use its resources to present arguments, provide evidence and advocate for a temporary restraining order.

The petitioners in the case in question, Perdomo v. Noem, claim federal agents are making “suspicionless stops based on racial profiling” and “warrantless arrests without an individualized determination of flight risk.” They also claim detainees are subject to poor conditions, and that the right to counsel was denied by not allowing the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles access to detainees.

CHRLA is a pro-immigration advocacy group that received $35 million in taxpayer funding. CHRLA helped organize events surrounding the recent and ongoing immigration-related Los Angeles protests.

Keep reading

Medical orgs sue RFK Jr. and HHS following move to retract COVID-19 vaccine from recommended immunization schedule

Several medical organizations have filed a lawsuit against Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that recent actions committed by the secretary and the agency constitute a “public health emergency requiring urgent legal intervention and remediation.”

The lawsuit was filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The legal challenge comes in response to the new vaccine measures enacted by Secretary Kennedy, including the dismissal of the former vaccine advisory panel and the withdrawal of official recommendations endorsing mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations for children and pregnant women.

“He’s doing everything he possibly can to undermine vaccine confidence,” stated Dr. Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association, one organization joining the lawsuit. “Quite frankly, we’ve had enough.”

Richard Hughes, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, admitted that it was Kennedy’s late-May post on X—where he rejected the CDC’s vaccine recommendation that children and pregnant women receive the COVID-19 shot and boosters—as the “final straw” prompting legal action.

The suing parties are now “asking the court to order the secretary to announce on X that those immunization recommendations are now reinstated to the CDC immunization schedules,” Hughes noted in a briefing on Monday.

During the briefing, American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Susan Kressly chimed in to argue that “our immunization system has long been a cornerstone of U.S. public health, but actions by the current administration are jeopardizing its success.”

Dr. Tina Tan, the president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), another plaintiff in the lawsuit, also asserted that “the only acceptable number of dead children from COVID is zero.”

Others participating in the suit include the American College of Physicians, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the Massachusetts Public Health Alliance.

An unnamed pregnant woman, who was presumably introduced to the joint legal matter by a doctor involved in the suit, is named as a plaintiff as well. According to NBC News, she had expressed concern that recent changes to the vaccination schedule could “prevent her” from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, despite the numerous times RFK Jr. has stated that those vaccines are here to stay, even if they will no longer be on the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule.

The schedule includes routine vaccines for Hepatitis B, DTaP, Hib, PCV, IPV, MMR, Varicella, Hepatitis A, HPV, meningococcal, and annual influenza.

Keep reading

Pulitzer Follies: Trump lawsuit exposes uncomfortable truths about journalism’s highest award

President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board is forcing into the public eye uncomfortable revelations about how the news industry’s top prize giver handled the unraveling of Russia collusion allegations, exposing conflicts in testimony and an admission that people other than Trump complained about its 2018 awards to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of the now-discredited scandal.

While the litigation in an Okeechobee County, Florida courthouse makes its way to the Florida Supreme Court, new admissions by the intelligence community have undercut the factual basis underlying some of the stories that won the two newspapers the 2018 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting.

One of those stories was a December 2017 report by The Washington Post that accused Trump of ignoring or trying to downplay U.S. intelligence claims that Putin tried to help him win the 2016 election. “Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House,” the Post’s award-winning story declared.

While there remains widespread consensus inside U.S. spy agencies that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee emails that embarrassed Hillary Clinton, the narrative the news stories spawned — namely, that Russia’s intent was to help Trump win the election — is disputed.

The claim that Putin was specifically trying to help Trump was included in a December 2016 Obama administration intelligence community assessment (ICA), but in fact there were concerns about that claim and the way that review was done inside the intelligence community, according to new evidence made public this month.

Keep reading

Judge: Yardley Officials Illegally Deleted Criticism on Facebook

A federal judge has determined that leaders of Yardley Borough, Buck’s County, Pennsylvania, unlawfully silenced a resident when they deleted his comment from the local government’s Facebook page.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The controversy centers on Earl Markey, a corporate trainer and active member of the local Republican committee.

In October 2022, Markey posted a comment on the Yardley Boro Facebook page urging voters to back a referendum that would have trimmed the borough council from seven members to five.

His comment was sharply critical of a sitting councilman.

Markey wrote, “Appointed Councilman Matt Curtin wants to raise property taxes by two mills. Stop unelected, out of touch investment bankers, like Matt Curtin, from volunteering our hard-earned money for higher taxes. Vote YES on the referendum to reduce the size of the Yardley Borough Council.”

Not long after, the comment disappeared.

The borough’s manager, Paula Johnson, labeled the post a personal attack. Council President Caroline Thompson approved its removal.

Markey saw this as a clear act of censorship and took legal action, filing a lawsuit against Thompson, Johnson, and the borough. He also named two other officials who were eventually removed from the case.

“For me that crossed a line,” Markey said. He described the deletion as “censorship by public officials.”

Although borough leaders tried to defuse the matter by letting Markey repost his comment, reimbursing his legal filing fee, and drafting a revised social media policy, Markey pressed forward with the lawsuit.

Keep reading

Taxpayers WHACKED with $66k legal bill for E-Karen’s failure

The eSafety Commissioner’s failed legal battle against Elon Musk’s social media platform X and Canadian activist Chris Elston — better known as Billboard Chris — will cost Australian taxpayers approximately $66,000.

The Administrative Review Tribunal on Tuesday threw out a takedown order issued by Commissioner Julie Inman Grant in response to a controversial post by Elston criticising the World Health Organisation’s inclusion of radical transgender activist Teddy Cook on a policy panel.

In February 2024, Elston shared a post on X stating: “This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people’. People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.”

Inman Grant deemed the post “degrading” and issued a takedown notice to X on March 22, threatening the company with a $782,500 fine if it failed to remove the post. X blocked the content, but subsequently challenged the decision alongside Elston.

On Tuesday, the Tribunal sided with X and Elston, ruling the takedown order invalid. Deputy president Damien O’Donovan stated that there was no evidence Elston intended for Cook to see the post.

“In the absence of any evidence that Mr Elston intended that Mr Cook would receive and read the post, and in light of the broader explanation as to why Mr Elston made the post, I am satisfied that an ordinary reasonable person would not conclude that it is likely that the post was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm to Mr Cook,” the ruling read.

An eSafety spokesperson confirmed the legal challenge had so far cost “approximately $66,000”, and acknowledged the Tribunal’s guidance.

eSafety said it would continue an agenda to “protect Australians from online abuse” while taking the Tribunal’s findings into account.

Keep reading