Tag: lawsuits

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

82-Year-Old Woman Banned from YMCA for Objecting to Male in Ladies’ Locker Room Wins Her Fight

In July 2022, Port Townsend, Washington, resident Julie Jaman, then 80-years-old, was banned for life from her local YMCA pool. Her crime?  Objecting to the presence of a biological male in the women’s locker room.

Several days after the incident, she shared her story in an interview on KIRO Newsradio’s The Dori Monson Show.

Jaman had been a regular at the pool for 35 years when she encountered a man dressed in a women’s bathing suit in the shower and changing area of the facility.

“I saw a man in a woman’s bathing suit watching maybe four or five little girls pulling down their suits in order to use the toilet,” Jaman recalled. “I asked if he had a penis and he said it was none of my business. I told that man to ‘get out right now.’”

She told a pool staff member what had happened. Jaman said she was “stunned” when the staff member accused her of “being discriminatory,” informed her that she was “permanently banned from the pool,” and said they were contacting the police.

“She didn’t ask me what the problem was, if I was okay, nothing about me. It’s as if she was just waiting to pounce on me. It was just stunning.”

As she was leaving, another staff member approached Jaman. “She told me that I was being discriminatory and not following the YMCA principles and values. I told her I respect all human beings and I’m not following any ideology.”

Jaman told Monson about a conversation she’d had with Olympic Peninsula YMCA CEO Wendy Bart:

I told her there were no signs posted to give women warning. She said there were Pride posters posted all over and she assumed that was adequate to inform women what to expect.

That’s fine with me, except that they do not provide alternatives for women who choose not to be undressing in front of men. Our pool is a very old pool. We just have two shower rooms, dressing rooms, one for men, one for women.

Jaman’s experience came to the attention of the Center for American Liberty, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit group dedicated to protecting the civil liberties of American citizens. CAL filed a lawsuit against the Olympic Peninsula YMCA and the City of Port Townsend in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to defend Jaman’s First Amendment right to free speech.

According to a CAL news release, “the lawsuit asserted that city officials and YMCA staff violated Jaman’s constitutional rights when they banned her for speaking out about safety concerns involving young girls.”

Keep reading

DOJ Joins Lawsuit Against Media-Tech Collusion Over Censorship

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is stepping into a legal battle that challenges the powerful alliance between major media outlets and tech corporations accused of stifling independent journalism.

The case, brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and a collection of independent publishers and reporters, targets the “Trusted News Initiative” (TNI), an international consortium that includes the likes of the BBC, Reuters, The Associated Press, and The Washington Post.

Central to the lawsuit is the charge that TNI and its tech partners unlawfully coordinated efforts to silence smaller media competitors by branding their work as “misinformation” or “disinformation” and throttling their reach online.

We obtained a copy of the notice of intent for you here.

The plaintiffs contend that this alleged scheme violates the Sherman Antitrust Act by effectively shutting independent voices out of the marketplace of ideas.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2023, had seen little movement until recently. The DOJ last week filed a formal notice in federal court indicating it will submit a statement of interest by mid-July. The agency cited the case’s focus on “anticompetitive collusion among competitors over product features” as a matter of federal concern.

For those fighting the case, the DOJ’s involvement signals a hopeful shift. Mary Holland, CHD’s CEO, called the announcement “welcome” and pointed to what she described as years of weak federal antitrust enforcement.

Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD’s general counsel, added that the DOJ’s interest could help break the logjam that has slowed the case, stating that she is “awaiting the statement of interest here with great interest.”

The plaintiffs represent a broad swath of independent media and public figures, including Creative Destruction Media, TrialSite News, The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, Health Nut News publisher Erin Elizabeth Finn, Dr. Joseph Mercola, journalist Ben Swann, and Ty and Charlene Bollinger, known for their platforms The Truth About Cancer and The Truth About Vaccines.

Keep reading

’60 Minutes’ Kamala Harris Interviewer Bill Whitaker Reportedly ‘Teary-Eyed’ After News of Lawsuit Settlement

On Tuesday, The Gateway Pundit reported that Paramount and CBS agreed to a settlement which will pay millions of dollars to President Trump as well as alter its editorial policy.

President Trump filed a $20 billion lawsuit against the network’s parent company Paramount for deceptively editing a ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris conducted by Bill Whitaker.

The suit alleged that CBS News deceptively edited the Harris interview to help the failed candidate boost her chances.

Paramount Global, CBS’s corporate parent, agreed on Wednesday to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit over a “60 Minutes” interview that Whitaker conducted with Harris just before the 2024 presidential election.

News of the settlement was shared at a staff meeting, and, according to The New York Post, Whitaker grew emotional.”

Per The Post:

The veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent who interviewed Kamala Harris for the segment that triggered the just-settled lawsuit filed by President Trump against CBS News and its parent company reportedly grew emotional during a staff meeting held after the deal was announced.

Bill Whitaker, 73, appeared “teary-eyed” and “quite somber” during a tense Zoom meeting Wednesday morning as he addressed his “60 Minutes” colleagues in the wake of Paramount Global’s $16 million settlement with Trump, according to Oliver Darcy’s Status newsletter.

In the fallout from the lawsuit, CBS News president Wendy McMahon abruptly resigned from the network in May.

“It’s become clear that the company and I do not agree on a path forward,” Wendy McMahon said in an email to staff just weeks after a top “60 Minutes” producer resigned.

Keep reading

Lawsuit Aims To Prevent IRS From Targeting Conservative Groups Ever Again

The mechanism that allowed the IRS to deny right-leaning groups legal nonprofit status during Barack Obama’s administration is still on the books, but this week a conservative group is challenging the provision in court to prevent it from being weaponized again.

Back in 2013, when Obama was president and Lois Lerner led the IRS Tax-Exempt Organizations division, Americans learned that conservative groups seeking nonprofit tax-exempt status were being blackballed by the IRS.

A 2014 House Oversight Committee report shows how huge the scandal was when it was discovered: “A May 2013 review of the IRS tax-exempt applications found that not a single group identifying itself as ‘Tea Party’ was approved by the IRS after February 2010, when the new targeting criteria were instated, while dozens of ‘progressive’ groups were approved.”

But 11 years later, the same criteria on the application for a nonprofit 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status remain, leaving the door open to more corruption.

Lex Politica Attorney Chris Gober has been working since then to change the rule on behalf of Freedom Path, a now nearly inactive conservative issue advocacy organization that filed for tax-exempt status in 2011. After the IRS requested a list of Freedom Path’s donors in 2012, and the 2014 Lois Lerner scandal blew over, finally in 2020 — nine years after its application — the IRS denied Freedom Path nonprofit status on the basis of the same “Facts and Circumstances Test” weaponized against conservative groups in the scandal.  

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice is defending the Facts and Circumstances Test as the case returns to court this week for a status report with Washington, D.C., District Judge Jia M. Cobb. Freedom Path is asking the court to declare the Facts and Circumstances Test “unconstitutionally vague.”

The IRS uses the 11-factor Facts and Circumstances Test (seen below) to evaluate whether a group’s advocacy communications, such as advertising campaigns, should be considered “issue advocacy” — which would allow the group to become a tax-exempt nonprofit — or if its communications should be considered a “political campaign intervention,” preventing the group from gaining tax-exempt status.

The test is subjective; results depend on the values of the person evaluating the applicant’s material.

“It has a necessary chilling effect, because conservative groups nationwide will have to self-censor rather than risk IRS retaliation,” Gober told The Federalist.

Keep reading

CBS, Paramount Forced to Pay Trump Massive 8-Figure Settlement for Deceptively Editing ’60 Minutes’ Kamala Harris Interview

Paramount and CBS was forced to pay millions of dollars to President Trump and agreed to change its editorial policy in a settlement.

President Trump filed a $20 billion lawsuit against the network’s parent company Paramount for deceptively editing a ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris.

Trump will be paid $16 million up front, according to Fox News.

Fox News reported:

Paramount Global and CBS agreed on Tuesday to pay President Donald Trump a sum that could reach north of $30 million to settle the president’s election interference lawsuit against the network.

Trump will receive $16 million upfront. This will cover legal fees, costs of the case, and contributions to his library or charitable causes, to be determined at Trump’s discretion. There is an expectation that there will be another allocation in the mid-eight figures set aside for advertisements, public service announcements, or other similar transmissions, in support of conservative causes by the network, Fox News Digital has learned.

Sources close to the situation told Fox News Digital that CBS has agreed to update its editorial standards to install a mandatory new rule. Going forward, the network will promptly release full, unedited transcripts of future presidential candidates’ interviews. People involved in the settlement talks have referred to this as the “Trump Rule.”

In October President Trump sued CBS News for $10 billion (now increased to $20 billion) for deceptively editing its ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris.

“President Trump brings this action to redress the immense harm caused to him, to his campaign, and to tens of millions of citizens in Texas and across America by CBS’s deceptive broadcasting conduct,” the lawsuit stated, according to Fox News.

Fake news 60 Minutes was caught editing Kamala’s answers to make her sound coherent and normal.

Keep reading

Colorado Christian Camp Wins Legal Victory Against State’s Radical Transgender Rules

Colorado officials have reached a settlement in a federal lawsuit with a Christian summer camp, allowing the camp to continue operating according to its religious beliefs on biological sex.

The Colorado Department of Early Childhood (CDEC) announced a new regulation early this year requiring resident camps to provide access to restrooms, showers, dressing areas, and sleeping facilities that align with campers’ gender identities rather than their biological sex. The CDEC said the regulation was based on rules from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission implementing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Federalist recently reported the story of IdRaHaJe, a cherished Christian camp in Colorado that has embraced children of all faiths for 77 years. This camp sought a religious exemption from the CDEC to maintain its biblical beliefs about biological sex. Unfortunately, the CDEC not only denied this request but also directed the camp to seek legal assistance, putting IdRaHaJe at risk of losing its license and facing closure due to its refusal to conform to the state’s leftist gender regulations.

In response, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), serving as IdRaHaJe’s legal counsel, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. ADF aimed to protect IdRaHaJe’s right to religious freedom and its mission to operate according to its core beliefs.

Just a month following the lawsuit, ADF announced a significant victory: IdRaHaJe and the state of Colorado reached a favorable settlement. As part of this agreement, Colorado committed not to take any enforcement action against Camp IdRaHaJe for alleged violations of the gender identity requirements. The CDEC clarified on its website that “churches, synagogues, mosques, or any other place that is principally used for religious purposes, including Camp IdRaHaJe,” are exempt from the requirements. This outcome is crucial. It allows IdRaHaJe and other religious organizations to continue their vital work of ministering in alignment with their faith and understanding of biological sex.

The settlement is welcoming news for Cathy, a Colorado mom who has sent her two kids to Camp IdRaHaJe multiple times over the years. She shared that her kids attending IdRaHaJe was “an experience like no other summer camp, helped build on the foundation of faith we have, and encouraged them to make their own choices in their faith journey!”

The response from the CDEC was noteworthy. On its website, it attempted to spin its loss as a win, highlighting that Camp IdRaHaJe voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit. Yet, the CDEC conveniently ignored the crucial fact that the ADF filed a voluntary notice of dismissal as a direct result of the settlement. Furthermore, the CDEC shifted its narrative, asserting that its gender-identity regulation has never targeted or restricted religious organizations like Camp IdRaHaJe.

Keep reading

Trump administration sues Los Angeles over sanctuary policies that ‘impede’ ICE operations

The Trump administration is suing the city of Los Angeles, alleging that the policies interfere with federal immigration authorities from doing their jobs.

“Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles,” Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News in an exclusive statement.

“Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level – it ends under President Trump,” Bondi added.

The lawsuit says that the city is discriminating against federal authorities by treating ICE differently than other types of law enforcement.

The Department of Justice argues that the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution prohibits this, so they are asking a judge to block the enforcement of the policies.

Keep reading