Tag: lawsuits

Homeless Repeat Criminal Who Broke into Portland Business Files $10 Million Lawsuit After Getting Shot by Owner 

A career criminal with a lengthy record of burglaries and thefts who broke into a Portland countertop fabrication business and was shot three times by the owner while attempting to flee is now seeking $10 million in a civil lawsuit, arguing the property owner used excessive force against him.

The incident took place on March 6, 2023, around 5:30 a.m.

The criminal, 43-year-old Kenneth Voyles, who was homeless and had methamphetamine in his system, entered Touchstone Granite & Marble Inc. by pulling plywood off a damaged garage door and cutting through metal bars.

Voyles later claimed he was looking for food and to get out of the cold but also admitted he intended to rob the place.

Inside the building, he ran into the 70-year-old owner, James Grant, an Army veteran with a concealed weapons permit who had been living in a back room of the business.

Grant, who was not wearing his hearing aids, confronted Voyles, threw a cup of urine and tiles at him, and ordered him to leave.

“I go, ‘Stop!’ Like, ‘Please stop!’” Voyles claimed in court, according to a report from the Post Millennial. “He’s assaulting me. He was pretty angry.”

Keep reading

Pro-Amnesty Groups Fund Wall of 20,000 Lawsuits to Block Migrant Deportations

Pro-migration activists have funded some 20,000 lawsuits to release roughly 17,300 illegal migrants — including many criminals — mostly with the aid of judges nominated by President Joe Biden.

The massive resistance to President Donald Trump’s 2024 deportation mandate has been outlined by Politico:

POLITICO is tracking the surge in litigation triggered by the administration’s novel policy that began in July, and releasing our database, below, of the 20,000-plus cases in which federal district courts reached a ruling on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention practices.

“Millions and millions of dollars are wrapped up in that lobby,” Michael Howell, president of the  Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, told Breitbart News. He added:

Some of it’s government money. Some of it is obviously the [universities’] legal clinics. Some of it is large donors — [such as the] ACLU, everyone else. We’re talking about a multi-billion-dollar industry in support of the invasion of the United States.

Trump’s Department of Justice is pushing back on the campaign, partly because it reduces the rising number of monthly deportations. The administration has also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the rules for “habeas corpus” lawsuits that ask ICE to release migrants.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Allows Thousands of Social Media Addiction Lawsuits Against Meta, TikTok, Google to Continue

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that more than 3,000 lawsuits accusing Meta, TikTok, Google, Snap and other tech companies of deliberately designing addictive platforms for young users can proceed.

Time reports that the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the thousands of lawsuits, filed by states, municipalities, school districts and individuals, can move forward in district court. The plaintiffs allege that addictive algorithms and insufficient safeguards against harmful content have contributed to rising rates of depression, anxiety and body image issues among young people.

The cases had been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, who ruled in 2023 and 2024 that most of the litigation could proceed. Meta and TikTok appealed those orders, arguing they were shielded from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, a federal law that generally protects companies from being sued over content posted by users.

In a 24-page opinion, Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote that Section 230 provides a “defense to liability,” not blanket immunity from lawsuits. During oral arguments in January, Nguyen had signaled skepticism toward the companies’ position, saying, “When Congress wants to give immunity from suit, it knows how to say that.” Plaintiffs have argued that the law does not shield claims focused on how companies intentionally designed and operated their products.

The appeals court did not decide whether Section 230 bars those product-design claims, ruling instead that the appeal was premature because the trial court’s decision was not final. That question, which could shape other litigation against tech companies, remains unresolved. The lawsuits will continue in district court, where plaintiffs are seeking damages, civil penalties and restitution.

Separately, roughly 3,300 similar cases are being coordinated in California state court. In the first bellwether trial in March, a Los Angeles jury awarded $6 million to a 20-year-old woman who said she developed depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia after becoming addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child. The jury found Meta and Google negligent in designing their platforms and failing to warn of the risks. TikTok and Snap had settled with the plaintiff before trial. All companies have denied the allegations and filed appeals.

Keep reading

UK government launches legal action to stop the release of data showing crimes committed by migrants

The Labour government is heading to court to block the publication of migrant crime statistics.

Following a year-long battle at the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), it was ruled that the Ministry of Justice must provide the Centre for Migration Control with the most comprehensive dataset on migrant crime in British history.

The Labour government is now trying to stop the public from learning the truth.

The Daily Telegraph has run this story: ‘David Lammy fighting to ‘cover up’ foreigners’ crimes’.

The Centre for Migration Control today announces a campaign to fight back against this cover-up. The public deserves to know the truth; the country requires that this information be published.

Help the Centre for Migration Control fight back against the Labour government by supporting our Crowdfunder: End the Migrant Crime Cover-Up.

Background

For the last year, the Centre for Migration Control (“CMC”) has been locked in a battle at the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) – a non-department government body tasked with upholding public access to government data – with the Ministry of Justice.

In June 2025 the CMC requested via the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FoI”) that the Ministry of Justice produce statistics on the total number of convictions between 2018 and 2024 ( broken down by nationality) for detailed offences within the following headline offence categories: “violence against the person,” “sexual offences,” “drug offences,” “criminal damage and arson,” “possession of weapons,” “theft offences” and “robbery.”

This information would have been the single biggest release of migrant crime statistics in British history and, for the first time, told us how many migrants are convicted every year of murder, rape, arson, the importation and supply of class A drugs, the sale of weapons, along with hundreds of other offences.

Unlike other European nations – including Denmark, Germany, and Sweden – the British government does not publish this information. This is despite the information being readily available on the Police National Computer.

The Ministry of Justice refused this FoI request and, on 10 July 2025, the CMC requested that the ICO make a ruling on whether it was appropriate for the data to be withheld.

On 22 June 2026, over 12 months after the initial FoI request, the ICO ruled unambiguously that the Ministry of Justicemust “disclose the requested information” to the CMC.

Keep reading

Wichita Man Sues City To Rip Out Its 200-Camera Flock Dragnet

A Wichita machinist, Mason Grimmett, sued his own city this week, arguing that the roughly 200 Flock license-plate readers the police department has bolted around town amount to warrantless dragnet surveillance forbidden by the Kansas Constitution. The complaint, filed in Sedgwick County District Court by the Kansas Justice Institute, does not ask for money — rather, it asks a judge to declare the program unconstitutional and shut it down.

The cameras are made by Flock Safety, one of the largest plate-reader vendors in the country, and Wichita started installing them in 2020. The institute now describes the city as saturated with them — close to 200 AI-powered cameras photographing every passing vehicle and logging its make, model, color, plate, and identifying marks into a searchable database. Grimmett, a lifelong Wichita resident who testified against the program at a public meeting in June, argues that the system violates Section 15 of the state constitution, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the city is, in the complaint’s language, tracking and databasing law-abiding Kansans “without a warrant, without probable cause, without reasonable suspicion” and without any judicial oversight at all.

The Cops Who Already Abused It

Grimmett points to several local cases in which Kansas police used Flock cameras to stalk people, including abuse by former Kechi Police Lt. Victor Heiar, who was sentenced to eighteen months of probation for using Flock cameras to track a woman. According to local reports, a former detective was also accused of using plate-reader technology to stalk his wife, and a Sedgwick-area police chief reportedly ran an ex-girlfriend through the cameras 164 times. The institute is not disputing that the cameras help solve crimes. Its point is that they photograph everyone, all the time, and that the same access which cracks a burglary case also lets a jealous cop follow whoever he pleases.

“This is America, and we don’t tolerate warrantless surveillance,” said Sam MacRoberts, the institute’s litigation director, who says that if the government wants to monitor a citizen it ought to go to a judge and explain why. Grimmett says he cannot drive to work, the gym, a doctor’s appointment, a polling place, or a meeting of the local Sunflower Privacy Alliance without being catalogued by the department and by Flock.

Keep reading

Rep. Harriet Hageman Introducing Bill to Stop Climate Change Groups From Filing ‘Shakedown’ Lawsuits

Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming is introducing a new bill called the ‘Stop Climate Shakedowns Act’ which is intended to stop climate change groups from filing frivolous lawsuits blaming corporations for the effects of climate change.

Hageman suggests that these groups do this almost as a form of tax that they would never be able to get passed the proper way, through Congress.

She mentions that she partnered with Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz on this.

Townhall has more details:

Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming is sounding the alarm that these activists are also trying to sue their way into taxing Americans in the name of “fighting climate change.” She’s introduced a Stop Climate Shakedowns Act to prevent this activist grift.

“It is the Stop the Climate Shakedowns Act, and what this has to do with is there are many communities and states around the country that have … filed lawsuits against our energy companies claiming that they are responsible for climate change and the impacts of climate change, and this is an effort to try, really, it’s another way of taxation, is really what these communities are doing,” Hageman said.

“So they’ve either adopted superfund laws claiming that producing energy has caused climate change and so those energy producers should be responsible for paying billions upon billions upon billions of dollars in fines,” she continued, “and then on the other hand, they’re just flat-out suing.”

“The city of Boulder, Colorado, has a lawsuit pending in front of the United States Supreme Court right now against Suncorp. So the purpose of my legislation, and I filed this in conjunction with Senator Ted Cruz, is to stop these lawsuits in their tracks,” Hageman said.

Keep reading

Christian Physician Assistant Fired for Resisting Transgender Dogma Gets $410,000 Lawsuit Settlement

A Michigan physician assistant (PA) who alleged she was fired after refusing to comply with hospital transgender policies because of her religious beliefs is receiving a $410,000 settlement in her wrongful termination lawsuit.

Valerie Kloosterman sued University of Michigan Health-West (UMHW) filed suit in 2022 after she was fired in August 2021, alleging the 200-bed suburban Grand Rapids teaching hospital was requiring her to go against her conscience as a Christian.

“All I wanted to do was provide the best care possible to my patients without being forced to violate my Christian beliefs,” Kloosterman said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

She was represented in the lawsuit by First Liberty Institute, which documented that Kloosterman had “received positive performance reviews throughout her employment before raising faith-based objections to mandatory gender identity training,” the news outlet reported.

The legal advocacy nonprofit reported she was terminated after requesting a religious accommodation from finishing training that “required her to affirm statements about gender identity that were in violation of her Christian faith.”

No effort was made to accommodate her, according to the institute which takes on civil rights cases to “reclaim religious freedom in America.”

According to Fox Digital’s report:

The lawsuit says University of Michigan Health-West officials called her to a meeting, where they disparaged her religious beliefs, called her “evil” and a “liar,” told her she could not bring her Christian beliefs into the workplace, and accused her of contributing to suicides among individuals with gender dysphoria.

The settlement also calls on the hospital to prevent such punitive behavior from happening again.

Under its terms, UMHW has agreed to formulate a religious accommodation policy that complies with the law, inform and train all employees, and give reasonable religious accommodations without retribution to those who request it, the institute said.

“This new policy ensures that providers of faith and employees at UMHW will receive religious accommodations so that they can provide excellent care consistent with their medical judgment, because all patients are created in the image of God,” Kloosterman said in her statement to Fox News Digital.

The PA’s lawsuit was not a frivolous pursuit, her attorney said, but based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on several characteristics, including race and religion.

“Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against and punishing employees for their faith,” Kayla Toney, counsel at First Liberty, said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital.

She continued, “Valerie is an exceptional physician assistant who cares for each of her patients. Employers cannot drive out people like Valerie just because of their sincere religious beliefs. We are grateful to have resolved this matter with University of Michigan Health-West.”

Keep reading

Federal Court Rules For Woman Fired For Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine

Kaiser Permanente wrongly fired an employee who declined to receive a COVID-19 vaccine because she gave proper notice to the company of her religious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, a federal appeals court has ruled.

Mimi Weiss, who worked for Kaiser Permanente’s The Permanente Medical Group for 20 years before being fired, “plausibly alleged that she provided notice of her religious conflict with the mandate in her initial request for a religious exemption,” Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest wrote on July 24 for a unanimous panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Weiss was working fully remotely, or off-site, in August 2021 as a senior managerial consultant when Kaiser Permanente imposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Weiss, a Christian Jew, within weeks filed for a religious exemption, and Kaiser Permanente initially approved the request.

In September 2021, though, Kaiser Permanente said employees had submitted religious accommodation requests with identical language. Expressing concern that some of the requests were not legitimate, the company asked employees to file fresh requests using their own words. Officials then asked Weiss new questions, including, “What else besides the COVID-19 vaccine do you refuse to put in your body as a result of your religious belief?”

Weiss said she would not provide private information. Kaiser Permanente placed her on unpaid leave. Then it fired her for not complying with the mandate, prompting a lawsuit by Weiss.

A federal judge in 2024 ruled against her, concluding that Weiss had not provided Kaiser Permanente with sufficient notice of the conflict between receiving a vaccine and her beliefs.

The Ninth Circuit ruling overturns that decision, pointing to a previous opinion in which the appeals court said that to provide notice, an employee must only give “enough information about [her] religious needs to permit the employer to understand the existence of a conflict,” and that requiring any more details “would permit an employer to delve into the religious practices of an employee in order to determine whether religion mandates the employee’s adherence.”

Applying that framework to the current case means that Weiss did give adequate notice, the panel said, because she identified herself as a Christian Jew, listed specific doctrines that she said barred her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, and outlined her belief that she should not “introduce foreign substances” into her “body temple” that would “change how [her] Creator designed it.”

In a split 2-1 decision, the panel also said that Weiss has shown sufficient evidence to bring forth allegations that Kaiser Permanente violated her right to privacy.

Kaiser Permanente did not return a request for comment by publication time.

“I never imagined my faith would end up costing me my job,” Weiss said in a statement.

“I wasn’t asking Kaiser for special treatment, just the freedom to live according to my conscience. After 20 years of service, I didn’t think that was too much to ask.

“I’m grateful the court recognized that religious employees should not have to give up their beliefs or their privacy to keep their jobs.”

Keep reading

Justice Department sues Colorado over in-state tuition and financial aid for illegal immigrants

The U.S. Department of Justice is suing Colorado over the alleged offering of in-state tuition and financial aid to illegal immigrants attending public colleges and universities, the latest legal challenge over what critics say amounts to discrimination against U.S. citizens.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Colorado federal court, names the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, the state Department of Higher Education and its director, JB Holston, as defendants.

“For three decades, Congress has made clear that Colorado cannot give education benefits to illegal aliens that it does not give to all American citizens,” said Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward.

“By granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, Colorado is not only violating federal law but subsidizing education for illegal aliens at taxpayers’ expense.

“Our litigation efforts will not cease until we have fulfilled President [Donald] Trump’s promise that illegal aliens will not obtain preferential treatment over our nation’s own citizens.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to both agencies named in the lawsuit for comment.

A spokesperson for Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said each state has the right to determine how to grant in-state tuition rates. 

“The federal government seizing control of determining in-state tuition across the country is absurd,” the spokesperson told Fox News. “In Colorado, we are expanding access to education to provide students with the skills to get good-paying jobs and doubling down on strategies to save students money.” 

The complaint argues that the Advancing Students for a Stronger Economy Tomorrow (ASSET) Act and related state policies violate a federal statute that prohibits states from offering higher education benefits to illegal immigrants based on their residency unless the same benefits are available to all U.S. citizens.

Keep reading

Metaphysical Shop Owner’s Lawsuit Over Pennsylvania Fortune Telling Ban Moves Ahead

Following a legal victory earlier this summer, a metaphysical shop owner’s lawsuit over Pennsylvania’s ban on fortune telling could go to trial next year. The compelling case dates back to October of 2023 when the Serpent’s Key Shoppe and Sanctuary in the community of Hanover received an unexpected visit from the borough’s police chief, Chad Martin. Rather than picking up some occult supplies, the lawman instead offered a rather worrisome warning to owner Beck Ravenswood about the possibility of legal trouble should they violate the state’s 165-year-old law against divination. “He informed me basically he is not here to arrest me or press charges,” the shop owner recounted at the time, “however, if he ever gets a report from anyone, he will be back on my doorstep.”

The incident understandably did not sit well with Ravenswood, who filed a civil rights lawsuit against Martin and the town of Hanover in August of 2024. Nearly two years later, the case is still winding its way through the legal system, with the shop owner recently securing a significant legal victory. “The DA’s office had been trying to dismiss my case,” Ravenswood explained to a local media outlet, “saying it wasn’t important enough for the court to rule on.” However, they received word in June that the request had been rejected. “Judge Wilson finally looked at the evidence and said there’s a compelling argument here, and we need to determine what is really at the heart of this lawsuit,” Ravenswood said, “is it about witchcraft, or is it about freedom of speech? That’s really what it is.”

In a conference call between the parties on Wednesday, a discovery deadline was set for November 30th, and what the shop owner has cleverly taken to calling the ‘Hanover Witch Trial’ was added to the court’s calendar for June of 2027. That said, Ravenswood’s attorney reportedly indicated that they intend to request a summary judgment on the constitutionality of the law, which could eliminate the soothsaying ban once and for all without the need for any further court proceedings. Meanwhile, regardless of how the case ultimately unfolds, the antiquated restriction may not be on the books for much longer, as a state legislator introduced a still-in-committee bill that would repeal the restriction last June.

Keep reading